AGI Universal Sampler - Representative Results For Passive Samplers
|Performance Objective||Data Requirements||Success Criteria||Results|
|1. Equivalent analyte detection limitis||Detection levels for all AGI and low-flow samples.||Detection levels near or below EPA’s MCL values for all contaminants tested.||
APG site: The MDL for AGI sampler was below the MCLs. However, it was ~20x > low-flow MCL.
Pease site: For most analytes, MDLs equivalent to low-flow.
MDLs were 10x < MCLs.
|2. Equivalent analyte concentrations to low-flow sampling||Analyte concentrations for each sampling method for all wells||Lack of statistically significant differences at p <0.05||
APG site: Significant differences for several analytes.
Pease site: Generally no significant differences; poorest agreement for benzene and xylenes
|3. Comparable concentrations across the entire range of analyte concentrations present||Analyte concentrations for each sampling method for all wells||Linear least fit model shows linear relationship with a slope that is not significantly different from 1.0||Both sites: Significant linear relationships between the AGI and low-flow data, with a slope = 1.0, for all analytes except TCA and CF at APG and toluene at Pease.|
|4. Ability to measure vertical profiles within wells||AGI results from all depth intervals tested.||Vertical profile of wells with AGI Sampler||
Vertical profiles revealed.
Pronounced concentration gradients in wells near plume epicenters, even in a well with a 5 ft screen.
|5. Cost savings||
Records of the costs for equipment and supplies
Field record of field crew’s time
|Cost savings of at least 25%||
APG site: Cost savings of 18% to 35%, depending upon the size of field crew.
Pease site: Cost savings of 10% to 25%, depending on size of field crew.
Both sites: Cost savings of 30% to 40% using recent price quote for samplers.