Lambert P, Fingas M, Goldthorp M
Emergencies Science Division, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1A 0H3.
J Hazard Mater. 2001 May 7;83(1-2):65-81. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3894(00)00328-9.
An evaluation of several field kits and petroleum hydrocarbon measuring systems was conducted. The field kits were the immunoassay based EnviroGard petroleum fuels in soil test kit (EnviroGard, Millipore Canada, Mississauga, Ont., Canada), the turbidimetric based PetroFlag hydrocarbon test kit for soil (Dexsil, Hamden, CT, USA), a DR/2000 field kit (Hach Company, Loveland CO, USA) employing colorimetric test procedures and a total organic carbon (TOC) analysis instrument (Dohrmann Division, Rosemount Analytical Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) using oxidation principles. These procedures were compared to the traditional technique of extraction of the petroleum hydrocarbons using trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113) as the solvent and subsequent infrared (IR) analysis using a portable fixed wavelength analyzer (Buck Scientific, East Norwalk, CT, USA). The EnviroGard kit was affected by the sample matrix. The soil type and the presence or lack thereof specific chemical components affected the capability to detect the petroleum hydrocarbon concentration. The PetroFlag soil test kit tended to generate results higher than the accepted concentration. The IR method was better capable of producing results similar to the expected concentration values of the prepared samples. Results indicate that the total organic carbon analysis technique evaluated is best suited for samples containing dissolved hydrocarbons in water and is not a preferred procedure for water samples containing dispersed or floating oil. At low concentrations of 10ppm and less, the TOC method and IR method have concentration values within a few parts-per-million (ppm) of each other, however, an examination of the trends in the results for all samples shows no similarity. This would indicate that the traditional extraction and infrared method and the total organic carbon method are not measuring the same parameter.Finally, the colorimetric field kit was capable of quantifying the concentration of oil in water samples within limits. The results from the oil-in-water method built into the unit at the factory were not comparable with analysis carried out by the infrared technique. With specific methods for each oil incorporated into the spectrophotometer, the comparability of data increased significantly. Results generated by the kit are dependent upon the color and amount of the oil in the sample. The kit is best suited for dark colored oils and the water samples with concentrations in the range of 10 to 85ppm by weight.
对几种现场检测试剂盒和石油烃测量系统进行了评估。现场检测试剂盒包括基于免疫分析的土壤中EnviroGard石油燃料检测试剂盒（EnviroGard，加拿大密理博公司，加拿大安大略省密西沙加市）、基于比浊法的土壤PetroFlag烃类检测试剂盒（美国德克斯西尔公司，美国康涅狄格州哈姆登市）、采用比色测试程序的DR/2000现场检测试剂盒（美国哈希公司，美国科罗拉多州洛夫兰市）以及使用氧化原理的总有机碳（TOC）分析仪（美国罗斯蒙特分析公司多赫曼分部，美国加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉市）。将这些程序与使用三氯三氟乙烷（氟利昂113）作为溶剂萃取石油烃以及随后使用便携式固定波长分析仪（美国巴克科学公司，美国康涅狄格州东诺沃克市）进行红外（IR）分析的传统技术进行了比较。EnviroGard试剂盒受样品基质影响。土壤类型以及特定化学成分的存在与否会影响检测石油烃浓度的能力。PetroFlag土壤检测试剂盒得出的结果往往高于公认浓度。红外方法更能得出与制备样品预期浓度值相近的结果。结果表明，所评估的总有机碳分析技术最适用于含有溶解态烃类的水样，对于含有分散或漂浮油类的水样并非首选方法。在10ppm及以下的低浓度时，TOC方法和IR方法的浓度值相差在百万分之几（ppm）以内，然而，对所有样品结果趋势的检查显示没有相似性。这表明传统萃取和红外方法与总有机碳方法测量的不是同一参数。最后，比色现场检测试剂盒能够在一定限度内对水样中的油浓度进行定量。该仪器出厂时内置的水中油类检测方法得出的结果与红外技术分析结果不可比。将每种油的特定方法纳入分光光度计后，数据的可比性显著提高。该试剂盒得出的结果取决于样品中油的颜色和含量。该试剂盒最适用于深色油类以及重量浓度在10至85ppm范围内的水样。
