Laserfiche WebLink
PO <br /> ARCADIS GERAGHTY&MILLER <br /> ' requires an investigator to make a calculation which partitions the <br /> total amount reported in the sample analysis into the amount sorbed <br /> and the amount in the sample which exists in the pore liquids as a <br /> ' dissolved fraction Next a calculation must be made which relates <br /> the constituent amount sorbed to the amount that is desorbed and <br /> the rate at which the desorption (into the dissolved phase) occurs <br /> ' Next, the rate of advection in the moving groundwater must be <br /> identified Next, the rate of migration of a constituent must be <br /> related to the rate of movement of site groundwater by a <br /> ' retardation factor This rate of migration must be further modified <br /> to account for the amount of attenuation of the compound due to <br /> dispersion and biodegradation This series of calculations must be <br /> ' performed for each constituent of interest which is identified and <br /> quantified in the soil analysis <br /> ' At each step of the calculation process, there are inherent and <br /> significant sources of error which ultimately make this <br /> quantification process highly uncertain For example, the above- <br /> described partitioning calculations required the use of a partitioning <br /> coefficient The value of the partitioning coefficient can only be <br /> obtained experimentally and vanes significantly with soil type In <br /> instances where experimentally determined partitioning coefficients <br /> are not available, they can be estimated using regression equations <br /> The partition coefficient has been recognized as a key parameter in <br /> predicting the environmental fate of organic compounds The <br /> ' uncertainty (error) associated with estimation of the partitioning <br /> coefficient, when one is not able to relate the site soil to one <br /> identified under carefully controlled laboratory conditions can be <br /> ' orders of magnitude (ie greater that a factor of 10) A second <br /> example of the uncertainty in predicting the potential impact on <br /> groundwater based on a soil sample is that the hydraulic <br /> conductivity of the medium must be know in order to predict the <br /> advective rate of transport Since the value of hydraulic conductivy <br /> varies significantly with soil type and even spatially within a soil <br /> ' type, the error associated with a calculation dependent upon <br /> assuming a hydraulic conductivity value or spatially extrapolating a <br /> measured hydraulic conductivity value can also be orders of <br /> ' magnitude Theses errors ultimately are multiplicative and can <br /> result a highly misleading assessment of the potential for future <br /> impact to downgradient groundwater. <br /> ' Because the task of hand-calculating predictions of future <br /> downgradient groundwater impact is so onerous, some <br /> investigators have utilized numerical computer models to ease the <br /> calculation work load However, it is important to emphasize that <br /> . while the burden of the onerous work load has been removed, the <br /> uncertainty attendant to the process described above has not been <br /> ' removed To make matters worse, the uncertainty is hidden by the <br /> ' 3 <br />