Molofsky Lisa J, Richardson Stephen D, Gorody Anthony W, Baldassare Fred, Black June A, McHugh Thomas E, Connor John A
GSI Environmental Inc., Austin, TX 78759.
Universal Geoscience Consulting, Inc., Houston, TX 77006.
Ground Water. 2016 Sep;54(5):669-680. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12415. Epub 2016 Mar 24.
Analysis of dissolved light hydrocarbon gas concentrations (primarily methane and ethane) in water supply wells is commonly used to establish conditions before and after drilling in areas of shale gas and oil extraction. Several methods are currently used to collect samples for dissolved gas analysis from water supply wells; however, the reliability of results obtained from these methods has not been quantified. This study compares dissolved methane and ethane concentrations measured in groundwater samples collected using three sampling methods employed in pre- and post-drill sampling programs in the Appalachian Basin. These include an open-system collection method where 40 mL volatile organic analysis (VOA) vials are filled directly while in contact with the atmosphere (Direct-Fill VOA) and two alternative methods: (1) a semi-closed system method whereby 40 mL VOA vials are filled while inverted under a head of water (Inverted VOA) and (2) a relatively new (2013) closed system method in which the sample is collected without direct contact with purge water or the atmosphere (IsoFlask ). This study reveals that, in the absence of effervescence, the difference in methane concentrations between the three sampling methods was relatively small. However, when methane concentrations equaled or exceeded 20 mg/L (the approximate concentration at which effervescence occurs in the study area), IsoFlask (closed system) samples yielded significantly higher methane concentrations than Direct-Fill VOA (open system) samples, and Inverted VOA (semi-closed system) samples yielded lower concentrations. These results suggest that open and semi-closed system sample collection methods are adequate for non-effervescing samples. However, the use of a closed system collection method provides the most accurate means for the measurement of dissolved hydrocarbon gases under all conditions.
分析供水井中溶解的轻质烃类气体浓度(主要是甲烷和乙烷)通常用于确定页岩气和石油开采区域钻探前后的状况。目前有几种方法用于从供水井中采集溶解气体分析样本;然而,这些方法所得结果的可靠性尚未得到量化。本研究比较了在阿巴拉契亚盆地钻探前和钻探后采样计划中使用的三种采样方法采集的地下水样本中测得的溶解甲烷和乙烷浓度。这些方法包括一种开放系统采集方法,即40毫升挥发性有机分析(VOA)小瓶在与大气接触时直接装满(直接填充VOA),以及两种替代方法:(1)一种半封闭系统方法,即40毫升VOA小瓶在水头下倒置时装满(倒置VOA);(2)一种相对较新的(2013年)封闭系统方法,即样本在不与吹扫水或大气直接接触的情况下采集(IsoFlask)。本研究表明,在没有冒泡的情况下,三种采样方法之间的甲烷浓度差异相对较小。然而,当甲烷浓度等于或超过20毫克/升(研究区域中发生冒泡的近似浓度)时,IsoFlask(封闭系统)样本产生的甲烷浓度明显高于直接填充VOA(开放系统)样本,而倒置VOA(半封闭系统)样本产生的浓度较低。这些结果表明,开放和半封闭系统样本采集方法适用于无冒泡的样本。然而,使用封闭系统采集方法为在所有条件下测量溶解的烃类气体提供了最准确的手段。