United States Office of Office of Solid Waste EPA/540/S-95/504

Environmental Protection Research and and Emergency April 1996

Agency Development Response

Ground Water Issue

LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN)

GROUND-WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES

by Robert W. Puls1 and Michael J. Barcelona2

Background units were identified and sampled in keeping with that

objective. These were highly productive aquifers that
The Regional Superfund Ground Water Forum is a supplied drinking water via private wells or through public
group of ground-water scientists, representing EPA’s water supply systems. Gradually, with the increasing aware-
Regional Superfund Offices, organized to exchange ness of subsurface pollution of these water resources, the
information related to ground-water remediation at Superfund understanding of complex hydrogeochemical processes
sites. One of the major concerns of the Forum is the which govern the fate and transport of contaminants in the
sampling of ground water to support site assessment and subsurface increased. This increase in understanding was
remedial performance monitoring objectives. This paper is also due to advances in a number of scientific disciplines and
intended to provide background information on the improvements in tools used for site characterization and
development of low-flow sampling procedures and its ground-water sampling. Ground-water quality investigations
application under a variety of hydrogeologic settings. It is where pollution was detected initially borrowed ideas,
hoped that the paper will support the production of standard methods, and materials for site characterization from the
operating procedures for use by EPA Regional personnel and water supply field and water analysis from public health
other environmental professionals engaged in ground-water practices. This included the materials and manner in which
sampling. monitoring wells were installed and the way in which water
was brought to the surface, treated, preserved and analyzed.
For further information contact: Robert Puls, 405-436-8543, The prevailing conceptual ideas included convenient generali-
Subsurface Remediation and Protection Division, NRMRL, zations of ground-water resources in terms of large and
Ada, Oklahoma. relatively homogeneous hydrologic units. With time it became
apparent that conventional water supply generalizations of
homogeneity did not adequately represent field data regard-
I. Introduction ing pollution of these subsurface resources. The important
role of heterogeneity became increasingly clear not only in
The methods and objectives of ground-water geologic terms, but also in terms of complex physical,
sampling to assess water quality have evolved over time.
Initially the emphasis was on the assessment of water quality 1
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA
2
of aquifers as sources of drinking water. Large water-bearing University of Michigan

Superfund Technology Support Center for

Ground Water Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
Ada, Oklahoma

1
chemical and biological subsurface processes. With greater These reactive particles have been shown to be mobile under
appreciation of the role of heterogeneity, it became evident a variety of conditions in both field studies and laboratory
that subsurface pollution was ubiquitous and encompassed column experiments, and as such need to be included in
the unsaturated zone to the deep subsurface and included monitoring programs where identification of the total mobile
unconsolidated sediments, fractured rock, and aquitards or contaminant loading (dissolved + naturally suspended
low-yielding or impermeable formations. Small-scale pro- particles) at a site is an objective. To that end, sampling
cesses and heterogeneities were shown to be important in methodologies must be used which do not artificially bias
identifying contaminant distributions and in controlling water naturally suspended particle concentrations.
and contaminant flow paths.
Currently the most common ground-water purging
It is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize all and sampling methodology is to purge a well using bailers or
the advances in the field of ground-water quality investiga- high speed pumps to remove 3 to 5 casing volumes followed
tions and remediation, but two particular issues have bearing by sample collection. This method can cause adverse impacts
on ground-water sampling today: aquifer heterogeneity and on sample quality through collection of samples with high
colloidal transport. Aquifer heterogeneities affect contaminant levels of turbidity. This results in the inclusion of otherwise
flow paths and include variations in geology, geochemistry, immobile artifactual particles which produce an overestima-
hydrology and microbiology. As methods and the tools tion of certain analytes of interest (e.g., metals or hydrophobic
available for subsurface investigations have become increas- organic compounds). Numerous documented problems
ingly sophisticated and understanding of the subsurface associated with filtration (Danielsson, 1982; Laxen and
environment has advanced, there is an awareness that in Chandler, 1982; Horowitz et al., 1992) make this an undesir-
most cases a primary concern for site investigations is able method of rectifying the turbidity problem, and include
characterization of contaminant flow paths rather than entire the removal of potentially mobile (contaminant-associated)
aquifers. In fact, in many cases, plume thickness can be less particles during filtration, thus artificially biasing contaminant
than well screen lengths (e.g., 3-6 m) typically installed at concentrations low. Sampling-induced turbidity problems can
hazardous waste sites to detect and monitor plume movement often be mitigated by using low-flow purging and sampling
over time. Small-scale differences have increasingly been techniques.
shown to be important and there is a general trend toward
smaller diameter wells and shorter screens. Current subsurface conceptual models have under-
gone considerable refinement due to the recent development
The hydrogeochemical significance of colloidal-size and increased use of field screening tools. So-called
particles in subsurface systems has been realized during the hydraulic push technologies (e.g., cone penetrometer,
past several years (Gschwend and Reynolds, 1987; McCarthy Geoprobe®, QED HydroPunch®) enable relatively fast
and Zachara, 1989; Puls, 1990; Ryan and Gschwend, 1990). screening site characterization which can then be used to
This realization resulted from both field and laboratory studies design and install a monitoring well network. Indeed,
that showed faster contaminant migration over greater alternatives to conventional monitoring wells are now being
distances and at higher concentrations than flow and trans- considered for some hydrogeologic settings. The ultimate
port model predictions would suggest (Buddemeier and Hunt, design of any monitoring system should however be based
1988; Enfield and Bengtsson, 1988; Penrose et al., 1990). upon adequate site characterization and be consistent with
Such models typically account for interaction between the established monitoring objectives.
mobile aqueous and immobile solid phases, but do not allow
for a mobile, reactive solid phase. It is recognition of this third If the sampling program objectives include accurate
phase as a possible means of contaminant transport that has assessment of the magnitude and extent of subsurface
brought increasing attention to the manner in which samples contamination over time and/or accurate assessment of
are collected and processed for analysis (Puls et al., 1990; subsequent remedial performance, then some information
McCarthy and Degueldre, 1993; Backhus et al., 1993; U. S. regarding plume delineation in three-dimensional space is
EPA, 1995). If such a phase is present in sufficient mass, necessary prior to monitoring well network design and
possesses high sorption reactivity, large surface area, and installation. This can be accomplished with a variety of
remains stable in suspension, it can serve as an important different tools and equipment ranging from hand-operated
mechanism to facilitate contaminant transport in many types augers to screening tools mentioned above and large drilling
of subsurface systems. rigs. Detailed information on ground-water flow velocity,
direction, and horizontal and vertical variability are essential
Colloids are particles that are sufficiently small so baseline data requirements. Detailed soil and geologic data
that the surface free energy of the particle dominates the bulk are required prior to and during the installation of sampling
free energy. Typically, in ground water, this includes particles points. This includes historical as well as detailed soil and
with diameters between 1 and 1000 nm. The most commonly geologic logs which accumulate during the site investigation.
observed mobile particles include: secondary clay minerals; The use of borehole geophysical techniques is also recom-
hydrous iron, aluminum, and manganese oxides; dissolved mended. With this information (together with other site
and particulate organic materials, and viruses and bacteria. characterization data) and a clear understanding of sampling

2
objectives, then appropriate location, screen length, well High quality data collection implies data of sufficient
diameter, slot size, etc. for the monitoring well network can be accuracy, precision, and completeness (i.e., ratio of valid
decided. This is especially critical for new in situ remedial analytical results to the minimum sample number called for by
approaches or natural attenuation assessments at hazardous the program design) to meet the program objectives. Accu-
waste sites. racy depends on the correct choice of monitoring tools and
procedures to minimize sample and subsurface disturbance
In general, the overall goal of any ground-water from collection to analysis. Precision depends on the
sampling program is to collect water samples with no alter- repeatability of sampling and analytical protocols. It can be
ation in water chemistry; analytical data thus obtained may be assured or improved by replication of sample analyses
used for a variety of specific monitoring programs depending including blanks, field/lab standards and reference standards.
on the regulatory requirements. The sampling methodology
described in this paper assumes that the monitoring goal is to
sample monitoring wells for the presence of contaminants and B. Sample Representativeness
it is applicable whether mobile colloids are a concern or not
and whether the analytes of concern are metals (and metal- An important goal of any monitoring program is
loids) or organic compounds. collection of data that is truly representative of conditions at
the site. The term representativeness applies to chemical and
hydrogeologic data collected via wells, borings, piezometers,
II. Monitoring Objectives and Design geophysical and soil gas measurements, lysimeters, and
Considerations temporary sampling points. It involves a recognition of the
statistical variability of individual subsurface physical proper-
The following issues are important to consider prior ties, and contaminant or major ion concentration levels, while
to the design and implementation of any ground-water explaining extreme values. Subsurface temporal and spatial
monitoring program, including those which anticipate using variability are facts. Good professional practice seeks to
low-flow purging and sampling procedures. maximize representativeness by using proven accurate and
reproducible techniques to define limits on the distribution of
A. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) measurements collected at a site. However, measures of
representativeness are dynamic and are controlled by
Monitoring objectives include four main types: evolving site characterization and monitoring objectives. An
detection, assessment, corrective-action evaluation and evolutionary site characterization model, as shown in Fig-
resource evaluation, along with hybrid variations such as site- ure 1, provides a systematic approach to the goal of consis-
assessments for property transfers and water availability tent data collection.
investigations. Monitoring objectives may change as contami-
nation or water quality problems are discovered. However,
there are a number of common components of monitoring
programs which should be recognized as important regard-
less of initial objectives. These components include:

1) Development of a conceptual model that incorporates

elements of the regional geology to the local geologic
framework. The conceptual model development also
includes initial site characterization efforts to identify
hydrostratigraphic units and likely flow-paths using a
minimum number of borings and well completions;

2) Cost-effective and well documented collection of high

quality data utilizing simple, accurate, and reproduc-
ible techniques; and
Figure 1. Evolutionary Site Characterization Model
3) Refinement of the conceptual model based on
supplementary data collection and analysis.

These fundamental components serve many types of monitor-

ing programs and provide a basis for future efforts that evolve The model emphasizes a recognition of the causes of the
in complexity and level of spatial detail as purposes and variability (e.g., use of inappropriate technology such as using
objectives expand. High quality, reproducible data collection bailers to purge wells; imprecise or operator-dependent
is a common goal regardless of program objectives. methods) and the need to control avoidable errors.

3
1) Questions of Scale feet. Therefore, the spatial frequency of sampling points
should be carefully selected and designed.
A sampling plan designed to collect representative
samples must take into account the potential scale of 2) Flexibility of Sampling Point Design
changes in site conditions through space and time as well as
the chemical associations and behavior of the parameters In most cases well-point diameters in excess of 1 7/8
that are targeted for investigation. In subsurface systems, inches will permit the use of most types of submersible
physical (i.e., aquifer) and chemical properties over time or pumping devices for low-flow (minimal drawdown) sampling.
space are not statistically independent. In fact, samples It is suggested that short (e.g., less than 1.6 m) screens be
taken in close proximity (i.e., within distances of a few meters) incorporated into the monitoring design where possible so
or within short time periods (i.e., more frequently than that comparable results from one device to another might be
monthly) are highly auto-correlated. This means that designs expected. Short, of course, is relative to the degree of vertical
employing high-sampling frequency (e.g., monthly) or dense water quality variability expected at a site.
spatial monitoring designs run the risk of redundant data
collection and misleading inferences regarding trends in 3) Equilibration of Sampling Point
values that aren’t statistically valid. In practice, contaminant
detection and assessment monitoring programs rarely suffer Time should be allowed for equilibration of the well
these over-sampling concerns. In corrective-action evaluation or sampling point with the formation after installation. Place-
programs, it is also possible that too little data may be ment of well or sampling points in the subsurface produces
collected over space or time. In these cases, false interpreta- some disturbance of ambient conditions. Drilling techniques
tion of the spatial extent of contamination or underestimation (e.g., auger, rotary, etc.) are generally considered to cause
of temporal concentration variability may result. more disturbance than direct-push technologies. In either
case, there may be a period (i.e., days to months) during
2) Target Parameters which water quality near the point may be distinctly different
from that in the formation. Proper development of the sam-
Parameter selection in monitoring program design is pling point and adjacent formation to remove fines created
most often dictated by the regulatory status of the site. during emplacement will shorten this water quality recovery
However, background water quality constituents, purging period.
indicator parameters, and contaminants, all represent targets
for data collection programs. The tools and procedures used
in these programs should be equally rigorous and applicable III. Definition of Low-Flow Purging and Sampling
to all categories of data, since all may be needed to deter-
mine or support regulatory action. It is generally accepted that water in the well casing
is non-representative of the formation water and needs to be
C. Sampling Point Design and Construction purged prior to collection of ground-water samples. However,
the water in the screened interval may indeed be representa-
Detailed site characterization is central to all tive of the formation, depending upon well construction and
decision-making purposes and the basis for this characteriza- site hydrogeology. Wells are purged to some extent for the
tion resides in identification of the geologic framework and following reasons: the presence of the air interface at the top
major hydro-stratigraphic units. Fundamental data for sample of the water column resulting in an oxygen concentration
point location include: subsurface lithology, head-differences gradient with depth, loss of volatiles up the water column,
and background geochemical conditions. Each sampling point leaching from or sorption to the casing or filter pack, chemical
has a proper use or uses which should be documented at a changes due to clay seals or backfill, and surface infiltration.
level which is appropriate for the program’s data quality
objectives. Individual sampling points may not always be Low-flow purging, whether using portable or dedi-
able to fulfill multiple monitoring objectives (e.g., detection, cated systems, should be done using pump-intake located in
assessment, corrective action). the middle or slightly above the middle of the screened
interval. Placement of the pump too close to the bottom of the
1) Compatibility with Monitoring Program and Data well will cause increased entrainment of solids which have
Quality Objectives collected in the well over time. These particles are present as
a result of well development, prior purging and sampling
Specifics of sampling point location and design will events, and natural colloidal transport and deposition.
be dictated by the complexity of subsurface lithology and Therefore, placement of the pump in the middle or toward the
variability in contaminant and/or geochemical conditions. It top of the screened interval is suggested. Placement of the
should be noted that, regardless of the ground-water sam- pump at the top of the water column for sampling is only
pling approach, few sampling points (e.g., wells, drive-points, recommended in unconfined aquifers, screened across the
screened augers) have zones of influence in excess of a few water table, where this is the desired sampling point. Low-

4
flow purging has the advantage of minimizing mixing between tion-reduction potential, temperature and turbidity should be
the overlying stagnant casing water and water within the used to determine when formation water is accessed during
screened interval. purging. In general, the order of stabilization is pH, tempera-
ture, and specific conductance, followed by oxidation-
A. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling reduction potential, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. Tempera-
ture and pH, while commonly used as purging indicators, are
Low-flow refers to the velocity with which water actually quite insensitive in distinguishing between formation
enters the pump intake and that is imparted to the formation water and stagnant casing water; nevertheless, these are
pore water in the immediate vicinity of the well screen. It important parameters for data interpretation purposes and
does not necessarily refer to the flow rate of water discharged should also be measured. Performance criteria for determi-
at the surface which can be affected by flow regulators or nation of stabilization should be based on water-level draw-
restrictions. Water level drawdown provides the best indica- down, pumping rate and equipment specifications for measur-
tion of the stress imparted by a given flow-rate for a given ing indicator parameters. Instruments are available which
hydrological situation. The objective is to pump in a manner utilize in-line flow cells to continuously measure the above
that minimizes stress (drawdown) to the system to the extent parameters.
practical taking into account established site sampling
objectives. Typically, flow rates on the order of 0.1 - 0.5 L/min It is important to establish specific well stabilization
are used, however this is dependent on site-specific criteria and then consistently follow the same methods
hydrogeology. Some extremely coarse-textured formations thereafter, particularly with respect to drawdown, flow rate
have been successfully sampled in this manner at flow rates and sampling device. Generally, the time or purge volume
to 1 L/min. The effectiveness of using low-flow purging is required for parameter stabilization is independent of well
intimately linked with proper screen location, screen length, depth or well volumes. Dependent variables are well diam-
and well construction and development techniques. The eter, sampling device, hydrogeochemistry, pump flow rate,
reestablishment of natural flow paths in both the vertical and and whether the devices are used in a portable or dedicated
horizontal directions is important for correct interpretation of manner. If the sampling device is already in place (i.e.,
the data. For high resolution sampling needs, screens less dedicated sampling systems), then the time and purge
than 1 m should be used. Most of the need for purging has volume needed for stabilization is much shorter. Other
been found to be due to passing the sampling device through advantages of dedicated equipment include less purge water
the overlying casing water which causes mixing of these for waste disposal, much less decontamination of equipment,
stagnant waters and the dynamic waters within the screened less time spent in preparation of sampling as well as time in
interval. Additionally, there is disturbance to suspended the field, and more consistency in the sampling approach
sediment collected in the bottom of the casing and the which probably will translate into less variability in sampling
displacement of water out into the formation immediately results. The use of dedicated equipment is strongly recom-
adjacent to the well screen. These disturbances and impacts mended at wells which will undergo routine sampling over
can be avoided using dedicated sampling equipment, which time.
precludes the need to insert the sampling device prior to
purging and sampling. If parameter stabilization criteria are too stringent,
then minor oscillations in indicator parameters may cause
Isolation of the screened interval water from the purging operations to become unnecessarily protracted. It
overlying stagnant casing water may be accomplished using should also be noted that turbidity is a very conservative
low-flow minimal drawdown techniques. If the pump intake is parameter in terms of stabilization. Turbidity is always the
located within the screened interval, most of the water last parameter to stabilize. Excessive purge times are
pumped will be drawn in directly from the formation with little invariably related to the establishment of too stringent turbidity
mixing of casing water or disturbance to the sampling zone. stabilization criteria. It should be noted that natural turbidity
However, if the wells are not constructed and developed levels in ground water may exceed 10 nephelometric turbidity
properly, zones other than those intended may be sampled. units (NTU).
At some sites where geologic heterogeneities are sufficiently
different within the screened interval, higher conductivity C. Advantages and Disadvantages of Low-Flow
zones may be preferentially sampled. This is another reason (Minimum Drawdown) Purging
to use shorter screened intervals, especially where high
spatial resolution is a sampling objective. In general, the advantages of low-flow purging
include:
B. Water Quality Indicator Parameters • samples which are representative of the mobile load of
contaminants present (dissolved and colloid-associ-
It is recommended that water quality indicator ated);
parameters be used to determine purging needs prior to • minimal disturbance of the sampling point thereby
sample collection in each well. Stabilization of parameters minimizing sampling artifacts;
such as pH, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, oxida- • less operator variability, greater operator control;

5
 • reduced stress on the formation (minimal drawdown); sampling, it is recommended that an in-line water quality
• less mixing of stagnant casing water with formation measurement device (e.g., flow-through cell) be used to
water; establish the stabilization time for several parameters (e.g. ,
• reduced need for filtration and, therefore, less time pH, specific conductance, redox, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)
required for sampling; on a well-specific basis. Data on pumping rate, drawdown,
• smaller purging volume which decreases waste and volume required for parameter stabilization can be used
disposal costs and sampling time; as a guide for conducting subsequent sampling activities.
• better sample consistency; reduced artificial sample
variability. The following are recommendations to be considered
before, during and after sampling:
Some disadvantages of low-flow purging are: • use low-flow rates (<0.5 L/min), during both purging
• higher initial capital costs, and sampling to maintain minimal drawdown in the
• greater set-up time in the field, well;
• need to transport additional equipment to and from the • maximize tubing wall thickness, minimize tubing
site, length;
• increased training needs, • place the sampling device intake at the desired
• resistance to change on the part of sampling practitio- sampling point;
ners, • minimize disturbances of the stagnant water column
• concern that new data will indicate a change in above the screened interval during water level
conditions and trigger an action. measurement and sampling device insertion;
• make proper adjustments to stabilize the flow rate as
soon as possible;
IV. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Sampling • monitor water quality indicators during purging;
Protocols • collect unfiltered samples to estimate contaminant
loading and transport potential in the subsurface
The following ground-water sampling procedure has system.
evolved over many years of experience in ground-water
sampling for organic and inorganic compound determinations B. Equipment Calibration
and as such summarizes the authors' (and others) experi-
ences to date (Barcelona et al., 1984, 1994; Barcelona and
Prior to sampling, all sampling device and monitoring
Helfrich, 1986; Puls and Barcelona, 1989; Puls et. al. 1990,
equipment should be calibrated according to manufacturer’s
1992; Puls and Powell, 1992; Puls and Paul, 1995). High-
recommendations and the site Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality chemical data collection is essential in ground-water
(QAPP) and Field Sampling Plan (FSP). Calibration of pH
monitoring and site characterization. The primary limitations
should be performed with at least two buffers which bracket
to the collection of representative ground-water samples
the expected range. Dissolved oxygen calibration must be
include: mixing of the stagnant casing and fresh screen
corrected for local barometric pressure readings and eleva-
waters during insertion of the sampling device or ground-
tion.
water level measurement device; disturbance and
resuspension of settled solids at the bottom of the well when
using high pumping rates or raising and lowering a pump or
C. Water Level Measurement and Monitoring
bailer; introduction of atmospheric gases or degassing from
It is recommended that a device be used which will
the water during sample handling and transfer, or inappropri-
least disturb the water surface in the casing. Well depth
ate use of vacuum sampling device, etc.
should be obtained from the well logs. Measuring to the
bottom of the well casing will only cause resuspension of
A. Sampling Recommendations
settled solids from the formation and require longer purging
Water samples should not be taken immediately times for turbidity equilibration. Measure well depth after
following well development. Sufficient time should be allowed sampling is completed. The water level measurement should
for the ground-water flow regime in the vicinity of the monitor- be taken from a permanent reference point which is surveyed
ing well to stabilize and to approach chemical equilibrium with relative to ground elevation.
the well construction materials. This lag time will depend on
site conditions and methods of installation but often exceeds D. Pump Type
one week.
The use of low-flow (e.g., 0.1-0.5 L/min) pumps is
Well purging is nearly always necessary to obtain suggested for purging and sampling all types of analytes. All
samples of water flowing through the geologic formations in pumps have some limitation and these should be investigated
the screened interval. Rather than using a general but with respect to application at a particular site. Bailers are
arbitrary guideline of purging three casing volumes prior to inappropriate devices for low-flow sampling.

6
1) General Considerations F. Filtration

There are no unusual requirements for ground-water Decisions to filter samples should be dictated by
sampling devices when using low-flow, minimal drawdown sampling objectives rather than as a fix for poor sampling
techniques. The major concern is that the device give practices, and field-filtering of certain constituents should not
consistent results and minimal disturbance of the sample be the default. Consideration should be given as to what the
across a range of low flow rates (i.e., < 0.5 L/min). Clearly, application of field-filtration is trying to accomplish. For
pumping rates that cause minimal to no drawdown in one well assessment of truly dissolved (as opposed to operationally
could easily cause significant drawdown in another well dissolved [i.e., samples filtered with 0.45 µm filters]) concen-
finished in a less transmissive formation. In this sense, the trations of major ions and trace metals, 0.1 µm filters are
pump should not cause undue pressure or temperature recommended although 0.45 µm filters are normally used for
changes or physical disturbance on the water sample over a most regulatory programs. Alkalinity samples must also be
reasonable sampling range. Consistency in operation is filtered if significant particulate calcium carbonate is sus-
critical to meet accuracy and precision goals. pected, since this material is likely to impact alkalinity titration
results (although filtration itself may alter the CO2 composition
2) Advantages and Disadvantages of Sampling Devices of the sample and, therefore, affect the results).

A variety of sampling devices are available for low- Although filtration may be appropriate, filtration of a
flow (minimal drawdown) purging and sampling and include sample may cause a number of unintended changes to occur
peristaltic pumps, bladder pumps, electrical submersible (e.g. oxidation, aeration) possibly leading to filtration-induced
pumps, and gas-driven pumps. Devices which lend them- artifacts during sample analysis and uncertainty in the results.
selves to both dedication and consistent operation at defin- Some of these unintended changes may be unavoidable but
able low-flow rates are preferred. It is desirable that the pump the factors leading to them must be recognized. Deleterious
be easily adjustable and operate reliably at these lower flow effects can be minimized by consistent application of certain
rates. The peristaltic pump is limited to shallow applications filtration guidelines. Guidelines should address selection of
and can cause degassing resulting in alteration of pH, filter type, media, pore size, etc. in order to identify and
alkalinity, and some volatiles loss. Gas-driven pumps should minimize potential sources of uncertainty when filtering
be of a type that does not allow the gas to be in direct contact samples.
with the sampled fluid.
In-line filtration is recommended because it provides
Clearly, bailers and other grab type samplers are ill- better consistency through less sample handling, and
suited for low-flow sampling since they will cause repeated minimizes sample exposure to the atmosphere. In-line filters
disturbance and mixing of stagnant water in the casing and are available in both disposable (barrel filters) and non-
the dynamic water in the screened interval. Similarly, the use disposable (in-line filter holder, flat membrane filters) formats
of inertial lift foot-valve type samplers may cause too much and various filter pore sizes (0.1-5.0 µm). Disposable filter
disturbance at the point of sampling. Use of these devices cartridges have the advantage of greater sediment handling
also tends to introduce uncontrolled and unacceptable capacity when compared to traditional membrane filters.
operator variability. Filters must be pre-rinsed following manufacturer’s recom-
mendations. If there are no recommendations for rinsing,
Summaries of advantages and disadvantages of pass through a minimum of 1 L of ground water following
various sampling devices are listed in Herzog et al. (1991), purging and prior to sampling. Once filtration has begun, a
U. S. EPA (1992), Parker (1994) and Thurnblad (1994). filter cake may develop as particles larger than the pore size
accumulate on the filter membrane. The result is that the
effective pore diameter of the membrane is reduced and
E. Pump Installation
particles smaller than the stated pore size are excluded from
Dedicated sampling devices (left in the well) capable the filtrate. Possible corrective measures include prefiltering
of pumping and sampling are preferred over any other type of (with larger pore size filters), minimizing particle loads to
device. Any portable sampling device should be slowly and begin with, and reducing sample volume.
carefully lowered to the middle of the screened interval or
slightly above the middle (e.g., 1-1.5 m below the top of a 3 m G. Monitoring of Water Level and Water Quality
screen). This is to minimize excessive mixing of the stagnant Indicator Parameters
water in the casing above the screen with the screened
interval zone water, and to minimize resuspension of solids Check water level periodically to monitor drawdown
which will have collected at the bottom of the well. These two in the well as a guide to flow rate adjustment. The goal is
disturbance effects have been shown to directly affect the minimal drawdown (<0.1 m) during purging. This goal may be
time required for purging. There also appears to be a direct difficult to achieve under some circumstances due to geologic
correlation between size of portable sampling devices relative heterogeneities within the screened interval, and may require
to the well bore and resulting purge volumes and times. The adjustment based on site-specific conditions and personal
key is to minimize disturbance of water and solids in the well experience. In-line water quality indicator parameters should
casing. be continuously monitored during purging. The water quality

7
indicator parameters monitored can include pH, redox introducing field contaminants into a sample bottle while
potential, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and turbidity. adding the preservatives.
The last three parameters are often most sensitive. Pumping
rate, drawdown, and the time or volume required to obtain The preservatives should be transferred from the
stabilization of parameter readings can be used as a future chemical bottle to the sample container using a disposable
guide to purge the well. Measurements should be taken polyethylene pipet and the disposable pipet should be used
every three to five minutes if the above suggested rates are only once and then discarded.
used. Stabilization is achieved after all parameters have
stabilized for three successive readings. In lieu of measuring After a sample container has been filled with ground
all five parameters, a minimum subset would include pH, water, a Teflon™ (or tin)-lined cap is screwed on tightly to
conductivity, and turbidity or DO. Three successive readings prevent the container from leaking. A sample label is filled
should be within ± 0.1 for pH, ± 3% for conductivity, ± 10 mv out as specified in the FSP. The samples should be stored
for redox potential, and ± 10% for turbidity and DO. Stabilized inverted at 4oC.
purge indicator parameter trends are generally obvious and
follow either an exponential or asymptotic change to stable Specific decontamination protocols for sampling
values during purging. Dissolved oxygen and turbidity usually devices are dependent to some extent on the type of device
require the longest time for stabilization. The above stabiliza- used and the type of contaminants encountered. Refer to the
tion guidelines are provided for rough estimates based on site QAPP and FSP for specific requirements.
experience.
I. Blanks
H. Sampling, Sample Containers, Preservation and
Decontamination The following blanks should be collected:

Upon parameter stabilization, sampling can be (1) field blank: one field blank should be collected from
initiated. If an in-line device is used to monitor water quality each source water (distilled/deionized water) used for
parameters, it should be disconnected or bypassed during sampling equipment decontamination or for assisting
sample collection. Sampling flow rate may remain at estab- well development procedures.
lished purge rate or may be adjusted slightly to minimize
aeration, bubble formation, turbulent filling of sample bottles, (2) equipment blank: one equipment blank should be
or loss of volatiles due to extended residence time in tubing. taken prior to the commencement of field work, from
Typically, flow rates less than 0.5 L/min are appropriate. The each set of sampling equipment to be used for that
same device should be used for sampling as was used for day. Refer to site QAPP or FSP for specific require-
purging. Sampling should occur in a progression from least to ments.
most contaminated well, if this is known. Generally, volatile
(e.g., solvents and fuel constituents) and gas sensitive (e.g., (3) trip blank: a trip blank is required to accompany each
Fe2+, CH4, H2S/HS-, alkalinity) parameters should be sampled volatile sample shipment. These blanks are prepared
first. The sequence in which samples for most inorganic in the laboratory by filling a 40-mL volatile organic
parameters are collected is immaterial unless filtered (dis- analysis (VOA) bottle with distilled/deionized water.
solved) samples are desired. Filtering should be done last
and in-line filters should be used as discussed above. During
both well purging and sampling, proper protective clothing V. Low-Permeability Formations and Fractured
and equipment must be used based upon the type and level Rock
of contaminants present.
The overall sampling program goals or sampling
The appropriate sample container will be prepared in objectives will drive how the sampling points are located,
advance of actual sample collection for the analytes of installed, and choice of sampling device. Likewise, site-
interest and include sample preservative where necessary. specific hydrogeologic factors will affect these decisions.
Water samples should be collected directly into this container Sites with very low permeability formations or fractures
from the pump tubing. causing discrete flow channels may require a unique monitor-
ing approach. Unlike water supply wells, wells installed for
Immediately after a sample bottle has been filled, it ground-water quality assessment and restoration programs
must be preserved as specified in the site (QAPP). Sample are often installed in low water-yielding settings (e.g., clays,
preservation requirements are based on the analyses being silts). Alternative types of sampling points and sampling
performed (use site QAPP, FSP, RCRA guidance document methods are often needed in these types of environments,
[U. S. EPA, 1992] or EPA SW-846 [U. S. EPA, 1982] ). It because low-permeability settings may require extremely low-
may be advisable to add preservatives to sample bottles in a flow purging (<0.1 L/min) and may be technology-limited.
controlled setting prior to entering the field in order to reduce Where devices are not readily available to pump at such low
the chances of improperly preserving sample bottles or flow rates, the primary consideration is to avoid dewatering of

8
the well screen. This may require repeated recovery of the B. Fractured Rock
water during purging while leaving the pump in place within
the well screen. In fractured rock formations, a low-flow to zero
purging approach using pumps in conjunction with packers to
Use of low-flow techniques may be impractical in isolate the sampling zone in the borehole is suggested.
these settings, depending upon the water recharge rates. Passive multi-layer sampling devices may also provide the
The sampler and the end-user of data collected from such most “representative” samples. It is imperative in these
wells need to understand the limitations of the data collected; settings to identify flow paths or water-producing fractures
i.e., a strong potential for underestimation of actual contami- prior to sampling using tools such as borehole flowmeters
nant concentrations for volatile organics, potential false and/or other geophysical tools.
negatives for filtered metals and potential false positives for
unfiltered metals. It is suggested that comparisons be made After identification of water-bearing fractures, install
between samples recovered using low-flow purging tech- packer(s) and pump assembly for sample collection using
niques and samples recovered using passive sampling low-flow sampling in “dedicated mode” or use a passive
techniques (i.e., two sets of samples). Passive sample sampling device which can isolate the identified water-bearing
collection would essentially entail acquisition of the sample fractures.
with no or very little purging using a dedicated sampling
system installed within the screened interval or a passive
sample collection device. VI. Documentation

A. Low-Permeability Formations (<0.1 L/min The usual practices for documenting the sampling
recharge) event should be used for low-flow purging and sampling
techniques. This should include, at a minimum: information
on the conduct of purging operations (flow-rate, drawdown,
1. Low-Flow Purging and Sampling with Pumps
water-quality parameter values, volumes extracted and times
for measurements), field instrument calibration data, water
a. “portable or non-dedicated mode” - Lower the pump
sampling forms and chain of custody forms. See Figures 2
(one capable of pumping at <0.1 L/min) to mid-screen
and 3 and “Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A Workshop
or slightly above and set in place for minimum of 48
Summary” (U. S. EPA, 1995) for example forms and other
hours (to lessen purge volume requirements). After 48
documentation suggestions and information. This information
hours, use procedures listed in Part IV above regard-
coupled with laboratory analytical data and validation data are
ing monitoring water quality parameters for stabiliza-
needed to judge the “useability” of the sampling data.
tion, etc., but do not dewater the screen. If excessive
drawdown and slow recovery is a problem, then
alternate approaches such as those listed below may
VII. Notice
be better.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office
b. “dedicated mode” - Set the pump as above at least a
of Research and Development funded and managed the
week prior to sampling; that is, operate in a dedicated
research described herein as part of its in-house research
pump mode. With this approach significant reductions
program and under Contract No. 68-C4-0031 to Dynamac
in purge volume should be realized. Water quality
Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
parameters should stabilize quite rapidly due to less
administrative review and has been approved for publication
disturbance of the sampling zone.
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommenda-
2. Passive Sample Collection
tion for use.
Passive sampling collection requires insertion of the
device into the screened interval for a sufficient time period to VIII. References
allow flow and sample equilibration before extraction for
analysis. Conceptually, the extraction of water from low Backhus, D,A., J.N. Ryan, D.M. Groher, J.K. McFarlane, and
yielding formations seems more akin to the collection of water P.M. Gschwend. 1993. Sampling Colloids and Colloid-
from the unsaturated zone and passive sampling techniques Associated Contaminants in Ground Water. Ground Water,
may be more appropriate in terms of obtaining “representa- 31(3):466-479.
tive” samples. Satisfying usual sample volume requirements
is typically a problem with this approach and some latitude will Barcelona, M.J., J.A. Helfrich, E.E. Garske, and J.P. Gibb.
be needed on the part of regulatory entities to achieve 1984. A laboratory evaluation of groundwater sampling
sampling objectives. mechanisms. Ground Water Monitoring Review, 4(2):32-41.

9
Barcelona, M.J. and J.A. Helfrich. 1986. Well construction and Puls, R.W., J.H. Eychaner, and R.M. Powell. 1990. Colloidal-
purging effects on ground-water samples. Environ. Sci. Facilitated Transport of Inorganic Contaminants in Ground
Technol., 20(11):1179-1184. Water: Part I. Sampling Considerations. EPA/600/M-90/023,
NTIS PB 91-168419.
Barcelona, M.J., H.A. Wehrmann, and M.D. Varljen. 1994.
Reproducible well purging procedures and VOC stabilization Puls, R.W. 1990. Colloidal Considerations in Groundwater
criteria for ground-water sampling. Ground Water, 32(1):12- Sampling and Contaminant Transport Predictions. Nuclear
22. Safety, 31(1):58-65.

Buddemeier, R.W. and J.R. Hunt. 1988. Transport of Colloidal Puls, R.W. and R.M. Powell. 1992. Acquisition of Representa-
Contaminants in Ground Water: Radionuclide Migration at the tive Ground Water Quality Samples for Metals. Ground Water
Nevada Test Site. Applied Geochemistry, 3: 535-548. Monitoring Review, 12(3):167-176.

Danielsson, L.G. 1982. On the Use of Filters for Distinguish- Puls, R.W., D.A. Clark, B.Bledsoe, R.M. Powell, and C.J.
ing Between Dissolved and Particulate Fractions in Natural Paul. 1992. Metals in Ground Water: Sampling Artifacts and
Waters. Water Research, 16:179. Reproducibility. Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials,
9(2): 149-162.
Enfield, C.G. and G. Bengtsson. 1988. Macromolecular
Transport of Hydrophobic Contaminants in Aqueous Environ- Puls, R.W. and C.J. Paul. 1995. Low-Flow Purging and
ments. Ground Water, 26(1): 64-70. Sampling of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells with Dedicated
Systems. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation,
Gschwend, P.M. and M.D. Reynolds. 1987. Monodisperse 15(1):116-123.
Ferrous Phosphate Colloids in an Anoxic Groundwater
Plume, J. of Contaminant Hydrol., 1: 309-327. Ryan, J.N. and P.M. Gschwend. 1990. Colloid Mobilization in
Two Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 26:
Herzog, B., J. Pennino, and G. Nielsen. 1991. Ground-Water 307-322.
Sampling. In Practical Handbook of Ground-Water Moni-
toring (D.M. Nielsen, ed.). Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI, pp. 449- Thurnblad, T. 1994. Ground Water Sampling Guidance:
499. Development of Sampling Plans, Sampling Protocols, and
Sampling Reports. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Horowitz, A.J., K.A. Elrick, and M.R. Colberg. 1992. The effect
of membrane filtration artifacts on dissolved trace element U. S. EPA. 1992. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring: Draft
concentrations. Water Res., 26(6):753-763. Technical Guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC
EPA/530/R-93/001, NTIS PB 93-139350.
Laxen, D.P.H. and I.M. Chandler. 1982. Comparison of
Filtration Techniques for Size Distribution in Freshwaters. U. S. EPA. 1995. Ground Water Sampling Workshop -- A
Analytical Chemistry, 54(8):1350. Workshop Summary, Dallas, TX, November 30 - December 2,
1993. EPA/600/R-94/205, NTIS PB 95-193249, 126 pp.
McCarthy, J.F. and J.M. Zachara. 1989. Subsurface Transport
of Contaminants, Environ. Sci. Technol., 5(23):496-502. U. S. EPA. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846. Office of Solid
McCarthy, J.F. and C. Degueldre. 1993. Sampling and Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.
Characterization of Colloids and Ground Water for Studying
Their Role in Contaminant Transport. In: Environmental
Particles (J. Buffle and H.P. van Leeuwen, eds.), Lewis Publ.,
Chelsea, MI, pp. 247-315.

Parker, L.V. 1994. The Effects of Ground Water Sampling

Devices on Water Quality: A Literature Review. Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2):130-141.

Penrose, W.R., W.L. Polzer, E.H. Essington, D.M. Nelson,

and K.A. Orlandini. 1990. Mobility of Plutonium and Ameri-
cium through a Shallow Aquifer in a Semiarid Region,
Environ. Sci. Technol., 24:228-234.

Puls, R.W. and M.J. Barcelona. 1989. Filtration of Ground

Water Samples for Metals Analyses. Hazardous Waste and
Hazardous Materials, 6(4):385-393.

10
Figure 2. Ground Water Sampling Log
Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date _________________________
Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ____________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level __________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor ________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel __________________________________________________________________________

Time pH Temp Cond. Dis.O 2 Turb. [ ]Conc Notes

Type of Samples Collected

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3

11
Figure 3. Ground Water Sampling Log (with automatic data logging for most water quality
parameters)

Project _______________ Site _______________ Well No. _____________ Date ________________________

Well Depth ____________ Screen Length __________ Well Diameter _________ Casing Type ___________
Sampling Device _______________ Tubing type _____________________ Water Level _________________
Measuring Point ___________________ Other Infor _______________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Sampling Personnel _________________________________________________________________________

Time Pump Rate Turbidity Alkalinity [ ] Conc Notes

Type of Samples Collected

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Information: 2 in = 617 ml/ft, 4 in = 2470 ml/ft: Volcyl = Br2h, Volsphere = 4/3B r3

12