Literature DB >> 29508059

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

Christine Rivard1, Geneviève Bordeleau2, Denis Lavoie2, René Lefebvre3, Xavier Malet2.   

Abstract

Methane concentrations and isotopic composition in groundwater are the focus of a growing number of studies. However, concerns are often expressed regarding the integrity of samples, as methane is very volatile and may partially exsolve during sample lifting in the well and transfer to sampling containers. While issues concerning bottle-filling techniques have already been documented, this paper documents a comparison of methane concentration and isotopic composition obtained with three devices commonly used to retrieve water samples from dedicated observation wells. This work lies within the framework of a larger project carried out in the Saint-Édouard area (southern Québec, Canada), whose objective was to assess the risk to shallow groundwater quality related to potential shale gas exploitation. The selected sampling devices, which were tested on ten wells during three sampling campaigns, consist of an impeller pump, a bladder pump, and disposable sampling bags (HydraSleeve). The sampling bags were used both before and after pumping, to verify the appropriateness of a no-purge approach, compared to the low-flow approach involving pumping until stabilization of field physicochemical parameters. Results show that methane concentrations obtained with the selected sampling techniques are usually similar and that there is no systematic bias related to a specific technique. Nonetheless, concentrations can sometimes vary quite significantly (up to 3.5 times) for a given well and sampling event. Methane isotopic composition obtained with all sampling techniques is very similar, except in some cases where sampling bags were used before pumping (no-purge approach), in wells where multiple groundwater sources enter the borehole.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dissolved methane; Groundwater; Monitoring; Sampling techniques; Shale gas

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29508059     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6532-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  7 in total

1.  Gas production and migration in landfills and geological materials.

Authors:  M Nastev; R Therrien; R Lefebvre; P Gélinas
Journal:  J Contam Hydrol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 3.188

2.  Analysis of dissolved methane, ethane, and ethylene in ground water by a standard gas chromatographic technique.

Authors:  D H Kampbell; S A Vandegrift
Journal:  J Chromatogr Sci       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.618

3.  Occurrence and origin of methane in groundwater in Alberta (Canada): Gas geochemical and isotopic approaches.

Authors:  P Humez; B Mayer; J Ing; M Nightingale; V Becker; A Kingston; O Akbilgic; S Taylor
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 7.963

4.  Methane baseline concentrations and sources in shallow aquifers from the shale gas-prone region of the St. Lawrence lowlands (Quebec, Canada).

Authors:  Anja Moritz; Jean-Francois Hélie; Daniele L Pinti; Marie Larocque; Diogo Barnetche; Sophie Retailleau; René Lefebvre; Yves Gélinas
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 9.028

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

Authors:  Lisa J Molofsky; Stephen D Richardson; Anthony W Gorody; Fred Baldassare; June A Black; Thomas E McHugh; John A Connor
Journal:  Ground Water       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 2.671

6.  Methane concentrations in water wells unrelated to proximity to existing oil and gas wells in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Authors:  Donald I Siegel; Nicholas A Azzolina; Bert J Smith; A Elizabeth Perry; Rikka L Bothun
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.