Literature DB >> 27010668

Effect of Different Sampling Methodologies on Measured Methane Concentrations in Groundwater Samples.

Lisa J Molofsky1, Stephen D Richardson2, Anthony W Gorody3, Fred Baldassare4, June A Black5, Thomas E McHugh6, John A Connor7.   

Abstract

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.
© 2016 The Authors. Groundwater published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of National Ground Water Association.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27010668     DOI: 10.1111/gwat.12415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ground Water        ISSN: 0017-467X            Impact factor:   2.671


  5 in total

1.  Association of groundwater constituents with topography and distance to unconventional gas wells in NE Pennsylvania.

Authors:  Beizhan Yan; Martin Stute; Reynold A Panettieri; James Ross; Brian Mailloux; Matthew J Neidell; Lissa Soares; Marilyn Howarth; Xinhua Liu; Pouné Saberi; Steven N Chillrud
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Can groundwater sampling techniques used in monitoring wells influence methane concentrations and isotopes?

Authors:  Christine Rivard; Geneviève Bordeleau; Denis Lavoie; René Lefebvre; Xavier Malet
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Activity-based, genome-resolved metagenomics uncovers key populations and pathways involved in subsurface conversions of coal to methane.

Authors:  Luke J McKay; Heidi J Smith; Elliott P Barnhart; Hannah D Schweitzer; Rex R Malmstrom; Danielle Goudeau; Matthew W Fields
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2021-10-23       Impact factor: 10.302

4.  Detecting and explaining why aquifers occasionally become degraded near hydraulically fractured shale gas wells.

Authors:  Josh Woda; Tao Wen; David Oakley; David Yoxtheimer; Terry Engelder; M Clara Castro; Susan L Brantley
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Geochemical indicators of the origins and evolution of methane in groundwater: Gippsland Basin, Australia.

Authors:  Matthew Currell; Dominic Banfield; Ian Cartwright; Dioni I Cendón
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 4.223

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.