16.08.2013 Views

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

Quantifying Uncontrolled Landfill Gas Emissions from Two Florida ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ecoveries for the total mercury samples were 98.2 percent. Total mercury concentrations in the<br />

landfill gas at Site #2 ranged <strong>from</strong> 36 to 47 ng/m 3 with an average of 43 ng/m 3 for all of the<br />

samples. Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were not performed at Site #2.<br />

During the October 2007 field campaign, total mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site<br />

#1 ranged <strong>from</strong> 21,700 to 25,800 ng/m 3 with an average of 24,500 ng/m 3 for all of the samples.<br />

Spike recoveries for the total mercury samples were 102 percent. Total mercury concentrations<br />

in the landfill gas at Site #2 ranged <strong>from</strong> 109 to 526 ng/m 3 with an average of 352 ng/m 3 for all of<br />

the samples.<br />

There is almost 5 times difference in the total mercury results for Site 1 between the February<br />

and October sampling dates (5,022 in February versus 25,400 ng/m 3 in October). For site 2, the<br />

difference in total mercury results between February and October is about 6 times higher (43<br />

versus 270 ng/m 3 ). The collection technique and equipment were the same during both sampling<br />

campaigns. Spike recoveries for total mercury during both sampling periods were acceptable and<br />

showed no degradation or loss of mercury.<br />

There was a difference in the analytical method that was used to evaluate the samples between<br />

February and the October 2007. The February matrix spike analysis was performed by adding a<br />

known amount of mercury to the sample after sampling and leaching (i.e., Method 1631). This<br />

post-leaching type of spiking does not assess any potential losses of mercury <strong>from</strong> sampling,<br />

matrix interferences, or the wet leaching procedure.<br />

To account for potential mercury losses <strong>from</strong> sampling or matrix interferences, EPA developed<br />

EPA Method 30B, “Determination of Mercury <strong>from</strong> Coal-Fired Combustion Sources using<br />

Carbon Sorbent Traps”. This method requires additional replicates and QA/QC that helps to<br />

account for any potential losses of mercury <strong>from</strong> sampling and matrix interferences. Method<br />

30B is being used for power plants and other mercury sources to demonstrate performance of<br />

mercury continuous emission monitors. Therefore, in the October 2007 field sampling<br />

campaign, the thermal decomposition mercury analysis technique. Sampling included a prespiked<br />

iodated carbon tube traps spiked with elemental mercury and were used to assess matrix<br />

recovery at Site #1. Results for the thermal decomposition mercury analysis matrix spike<br />

recovery were 102%. The results for total mercury analysis <strong>from</strong> the October sampling are<br />

thought to be more reliable because of the additional QA/QC requirements to account for<br />

mercury loss during sampling and analysis.<br />

Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #1 ranged <strong>from</strong> 1.22 to 2.65 ng/m 3<br />

with an average of 1.91 ng/m 3 . Dimethyl mercury concentrations in the landfill gas at Site #2<br />

ranged <strong>from</strong> 0.69 to 9.19 ng/m 3 with an average of 5.66 ng/m 3 . Spike recoveries for the dimethyl<br />

mercury traps were 13.9 percent for Site #1 and 1.9 percent for Site #2. Un-sampled spike traps<br />

had recoveries <strong>from</strong> 87.4 to 89.9 percent with an average of 88.7 percent. Recoveries for the<br />

spiked/sampled traps were significantly lower than the acceptance criteria of 50 to 150 percent<br />

established in the project QAPP. This is possibly due to the presence of an unknown interfering<br />

compound either destroying or masking the detection of the dimethyl mercury. For this reason,<br />

all of the dimethyl mercury results <strong>from</strong> this campaign must be labeled as suspect. Oversampling<br />

was performed by the ARCADIS personnel performing the sampling. Sampling was<br />

performed at approximated 10 times the necessary volume to collect a valid sample.<br />

4-3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!