Laserfiche WebLink
Explaining Certain Idiosyncrasies <br /> of the KABIS Sampler <br /> In a comparison study conducted in Pennsylvania at a large KODAK site <br /> (pump and purgelbailer-KABIS Sampler-Micropurge), the following was <br /> noted <br /> That there were some species recovered by the two competitive <br /> methodologies which were not detected by the KABIS Sampler, <br /> in a few of the scores of wells sampled <br /> 1A That the KAKIS Sampler found species in many wells that the <br /> two competitive methodologies failed to recover <br /> This speaks to the common complaint of the KABIS Sampler, specifically, <br /> that there are often no correlative capacities on a site with a sampling <br /> history This was answered by the study cued above by a panel of many <br /> technicians and hydrogeologists, which sat around a conference table <br /> addressing this issue directly <br /> Their answer was simple and evident with regards to the available data <br /> for the site <br /> In those wells where other methodologies (i e, purging and sampling) <br /> found species where the KAKIS Sampler did not, the answer was <br /> - that the act of purging pulled contaminant species into the <br /> well, laterally, which were not otherwise available to the well <br /> under advection and normal plume movement in other <br /> words, the act of purging negated the viability of the <br /> monitoring well as a discrete sampling point, making the <br /> analytical results meaningless for the purposes of <br /> characterization <br /> In those wells where the KAM Sampler captured species that were not <br /> otherwise found by purge and sample methodologies the answer was <br /> - Due to the mature and manner of the capability of the KAKIS <br /> Sampler, A inherently is capable of capturing and holding onto <br /> ti species in concentrations greater than that capable by the <br /> other methods The mere act of purging using a pump <br /> changes both the pressure gradient, and temperature of a <br />