United States
Environmental Protection
^*^1 Agency
Phase I
Laboratory Evaluation Report
Detection of Newly Deposited
Sediments via Frequency Response
Measurements: Dredging Residuals
Density Profiler (DRDP)
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
-------
-------
EPA/600/R-09/120
September 2009
www.epa.gov
Phase I
Laboratory Evaluation Report
Detection of Newly Deposited
Sediments via Frequency Response
Measurements: Dredging Residuals
Density Profiler (DRDP)
Prepared for
Dr. Brian Schumacher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Environmental Sciences Division/Environmental Chemistry Branch
P.O. Box 93478
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Prepared by
Tim Welp, Michael Tubman, and Derek Wilson
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Paul Trapier Puckett
Evans Hamilton Inc.
3319 Maybank Highway
Johns Island, SC 29455
Dr. Norbert Greiser
Sediment Management Consultants
Emden, Germany
Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official
Agency policy. Mention of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
15807ecb09
-------
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under interagency agreement DW-96-92251201 with the United States Army
Corps of Engineers-Waterways Experiment Station. It has been subjected to Agency peer and
administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the
EPA for use.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
PREFACE
The laboratory evaluation of the DRDP summarized in this report was conducted for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dr. Brian Schumacher of the EPA's
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) of the Office of Research and Development's
National Exposure Research Laboratory - Las Vegas (ESD-LV) is the Project Officer
responsible for direction and oversight of the project. George Brilis, ESD-LV, is the
Quality Assurance (QA) Manager responsible for ensuring that the project conforms to
the quality standards set by the EPA.
The evaluation was conducted by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center (ERDC), Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL) from 12 August to
17 September 2009, under the direct supervision of William Martin, Director CHL; Jack
Davis, Acting Chief, Navigation Division; Ed Russo, Chief, Coastal Engineering Branch;
and Tim Welp, ERDC Project Manager, Dredging Group. Derek Wilson, Dredging
Group, was the ERDC Quality Assurance Coordinator. Chris Callegan and Michael
Tubman, Field Data Collection Branch, assisted in the evaluation and Michael Tubman
compiled this report.
Dr. Norbert Greiser of Sediment Management Consultants, Emden, Germany, and
Marcus Uhle, of Synergetik, Illingen, Germany, represented the design team of the
DRDP prototype and assisted in the laboratory evaluation.
ERDC's primary contractor for developing the DRDP is Evan's Hamilton, Incorporated
(EHI). Paul Trapier Puckett of EHI provides contractual coordination and technical
oversight on Sediment Management Consultants and Synergetik and assisted in the
laboratory evaluation.
At the time of the study, COL Gary E. Johnston was Commander and Executive Director
of ERDC. Dr. James R. Houston was Director.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An EPA Interagency Agreement (IAG) was signed between the ERDC and EPA's
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) of the Office of Research and Development's
National Exposure Research Laboratory, the objective of which is to have ERDC modify
the ADMODUS probe (a navigation fluid mud survey system successfully demonstrated
in the Gulfport, MS, navigation channel and in the laboratory) for use in characterizing
dredge residuals for environmental dredge projects. Specifically, the system is to be
optimized to identify the dredging residuals and facilitate sediment sampling efforts in
conjunction with EPA's new Undisturbed Sediment Sampler (USS) designed for
environmental dredging projects.
Evaluation tests included both static testing of water and mud for density measurement
accuracy and precision, and dynamic testing for density measuring accuracy and vertical
resolution. Evaluation tests were performed in rectangular tanks filled with combinations
of Gulfport Navigation Ship Channel sediments, sea water, and/or kaolinite (to act as
denser bottom sediment).
The DRDP is capable of delineating fluid mud layers of 2-cm thickness or greater, when
it profiles these layers at an insertion speed of 1.27 cm/s or less. The average difference
between the DRDP measured thicknesses and those measured with a measuring tape was
-0.34 cm with a standard deviation of 0.69 cm.
In comparison to the densimeter, the average difference between the DRDP density
measurements (for Type A, Type D, and Type E tests at insertion speeds of 1.27 cm/s or
less) and the densimeter readings is 0.0023 g/cm3 with a standard deviation of
0.0063 g/cm3. In comparison to the sediment laboratory sample analyses, the average
difference between the DRDP density measurements (for Type D and Type E tests at
insertion speeds of 1.27 cm/s or less) and the sample analyses is 0.0095 g/cm3 with a
standard deviation is 0.0156 g/cm3. The average precision of the DRDP measurements
during the evaluation was 0.0007 g/cm3.
The initial prototype of the DRDP was successful in delineating the mud layer thicknesses
and in determining the density of each mud layer. The fastest profiling speed that would
produce reasonable results may be higher when the DRDP operates at a sample output
speed greater than the 8 Hz needed for this laboratory evaluation. The results of this
evaluation will be incorporated into recommendations to modifying the Phase I prototype
during Phase II and in the subsequent delivery of the final DRDP prototype.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler iii
CONTENTS
Preface i
Executive Summary ii
Figures iv
Tables v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
1 Introduction 1
2 Approach 4
Design of laboratory evaluation program 3
DRDP measuring principles 9
Evaluation tests 12
3 Results and discussion 15
4 Summary and Conclusions 31
5 References 32
Appendix A: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) 33
Appendix B: Pycnometer Volume Calibration 51
Appendix C: Sediment Laboratory Total Organic Content and Grain-Size
Analyses Results 55
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
iv
Figures
Figure 1. The Dredging Residuals Density Profiler (DRDP) 3
Figure 2. Static testing of samples in 1-1 buckets 6
Figure 3. Kaolinite substrate in rectangular test tank 7
Figure 4. A layer of seawater and mud over a kaolinite substrate in a
rectangular tank 7
Figure 5. DRDP ready to be lowered into rectangular test tank 8
Figure 6. Custom designed Sensor Insertion Device (SID) 8
Figure 7. DRDP measuring principle 10
Figure 8. Relation of the ultrasound wave signals reflected at the left and
right sides of the sensor 11
Figure 9. Results of Test Al, fresh tap water at room temperature 16
Figure 10. Results of Test A2, fresh, hot tap water 16
Figure 11. Results of Test A3, fresh tap water with melted ice 17
Figure 12. Results of Test A4, Gulfport seawater at room temperature 17
Figure 13. Results of Test Dl, static test of mud from Barrel 1 19
Figure 14. Results of Test D2, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.. 20
Figure 15. Results of Test D3, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.. 20
Figure 16. Results of Test D4, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.. 21
Figure 17. Results of Test D5, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.. 21
Figure 18. Results of Test D6, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.. 22
Figure 19. Results of Test El, profile of 10-cm mud layer with no water on top... 23
Figure 20. Results of Test E2, profile of 2-cm mud layer with no water on top 24
Figure 21. Results of Test E3, profile of 10-cm mud layer with 5.7-cm layer
of water on top 24
Figure 22. Results of Test E4, profile of 3-cm mud layer with 3.5-cm layer of
water on top 25
Figure 23. Results of Test E5, profile of 2-cm mud layer with no water on top 25
Figure 24. Results of Test E6, profile of 5-cm mud layer with no water on top 26
Figure 25. Results of Test E7, profile of 2-cm mud layer with 4.0-cm layer of
water on top 26
Figure 26. Results of Test E8, profile of 5.85-cm mud layer with no water on top 27
Figure 27. Results of Test E9, profile of 3-cm mud layer with no water on top 27
Figure 28. Histogram of the differences between the thicknesses of the mud
layers using the test procedure, and the thicknesses measured with
a measuring tape 29
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler v
Tables
Table 1. TypeAtests 13
Table 2. Type D tests 13
Table 3. Type E tests 14
Table 4. Results of Type A tests 15
Table 5. Comparison of DRDP density measurements, densimeter
measurements and sediment laboratory analyses for the Type D tests.. 22
Table 6. Comparison of DRDP density measurements, densimeter
measurements and sediment laboratory analyses for the Type E tests .. 30
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
vi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials
CHL
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory
CMB
Characterization and Monitoring Branch
CV
Coefficient of Variation
DOER
Dredging Operation and Environmental Research
DRDP
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
EHI
Evan's Hamilton, Incorporated
EPA
United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
ERDC
Engineering Research and Development Center
ESD
Environmental Sciences Division
IAG
Interagency Agreement
LV
Las Vegas, Nevada
NRC
National Research Council
OT
Operations Technology
QA
Quality Assurance
QAPP
Quality Assurance Project Plan
RSD
Relative Standard Deviation
SID
Sensor Insertion Device
USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
uss
Undisturbed Sediment Sampler
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Fluid mud and dredging residuals are found in dredging projects on the Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Pacific coasts. Fluid mud is a high concentration aqueous suspension of fine
grained sediment (i.e., silt and clay size material with grain-sizes less than 0.06 mm) in
which settling is substantially hindered by the proximity of sediment grains and floes, but
which has not formed an interconnected matrix of bonds strong enough to eliminate the
potential for mobility, leading to a persistent suspension (McAnally et al. 2007). Fluid
mud can be characterized as suspensions with density gradations that range from slightly
greater than that of the overlying water in its upper layers, to densities of 1.30 g/cm3 in
the lower layers with total layer thicknesses ranging from several decimeters to
approximately 3 m. As per Bridges et al. (2008) "dredging residuals refer to contaminated
sediment found at the post-dredging surface of the sediment profile, either within or
adjacent to the dredging footprint. After the initial consolidation period (i.e., within a
period of several days to a few weeks, depending on sediment characteristics and site
conditions), generated residuals (excluding sloughed materials) typically occur as a thin
veneer (1 to 10 cm thick) of fine-grained material, with relatively low dry bulk density
(ranging from approximately 0.2 to 0.5 gm/cm3), the typical dry bulk density for fine-
grained sediment is 0.5 to 0.9 gm/cm3."
No standardized method exists in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to survey
fluid mud or dredging residuals. Ambiguous depth measurements resulting from the
presence of fluid mud have resulted in navigation dredging contract payment disputes.
The lack of a method to quantify the presence of dredging residuals has hindered
complete site characterizations of environmental dredging site sediment conditions.
An EPA Interagency Agreement (IAG) was signed between the ERDC and EPA's
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) of the Office of Research and Development's
National Exposure Research Laboratory, the objective of which is to have ERDC modify
the ADMODUS probe (a navigation fluid mud survey system successfully demonstrated
in the Gulfport, MS, navigation channel and in the laboratory) for use in characterizing
dredge residuals for environmental dredge projects. Specifically, the system is to be
optimized to identify dredging residuals and facilitate sediment sampling efforts in
conjunction with EPA's new Undisturbed Sediment Sampler (USS) designed for
environmental dredging projects by the EPA's Characterization and Monitoring Branch
(CMB). In the environmental arena, it would be of great benefit to know a priori the
exact locations and thicknesses of the dredging residual layers without having to actually
sample the sediment and visually examine the collected sediment column. Dredging
residuals (e.g., newly deposited sediments from an upstream dredging event) of
thicknesses as thin as 1 cm are of interest to meet the needs identified in the National
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
2
Research Council (NRC) report (2001). The increased resolution of a modified
ADMODUS probe will allow accurate characterization of fluid mud and thinner layers of
dredging residuals, and enhance environmental dredging site characterization efforts.
This development effort is jointly-funded by the EPA and the USACE's Operations
Technologies (OT) Focus Area of the Dredging Operation and Environmental Research
(DOER) Program.
A requirements analysis questionnaire was sent to various personnel involved in
environmental dredging projects and dredging residuals and the following design goals
for the Dredging Residuals Density Profiler (DRDP) were identified:
• 10 mm or less vertical resolution.
• Density accuracy of less than +/- 0.5 percent of the density (i.e., approximately
+/- 0.005 g/cm3)
• Density range of 0.977 g/cm3 to 1.300 g/cm3'
• No site specific instrument calibration.
• Repeatability of measurements of less than 1 percent.
• Resolution of 0.001 g/cm3'
• Operating depth of up to 100 m.
• Real-time output.
A two phased approach is being used to develop this sensor system with commencement
of Phase II being dependant upon successful completion of Phase I. Under Phase I, the
DRDP prototype (Figure 1) was developed to improve the capability to accurately
characterize environmental dredging projects where fluid mud/residual conditions occur.
The laboratory evaluation of the DRDP described in this report is part of the Phase I
development project, and is designed to evaluate the systems accuracy, precision, and
applicability to USACE surveying practices under controlled conditions.
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP - Appendix A), calls for placing samples of
fluid mud collected from the Gulfport Navigation Ship Channel (Gulfport, MS) in
containers which are then vertically profiled by the DRDP. As specified, the samples are
to be placed in the containers with varying densities and thicknesses to evaluate the
system's performance.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
3
Figure 1. The Dredging Residuals Density Profiler (DRDP).
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
4
2.0 APPROACH
2.1 Design of Laboratory Evaluation Program
The evaluation program was designed to determine system accuracy, precision and
vertical resolution, defined as:
• Accuracy - measure of overall agreement of the DRDP density measurement to a
known value.
• Precision - measure of agreement among repeated measurements of the same
property under substantially similar conditions expressed in terms of the standard
deviation.
• Vertical resolution - measure of the agreement of the DRDP determination of
thickness of a fluid mud layer and the thickness of the layer measured with a
measuring tape.
Gulfport Navigation Ship Channel sediment is generally a fine-grained cohesive sediment
with density profiles (in the dredging template) ranging from 1.006 to 1.250 g/cm3. The
source of the samples tested in the laboratory was mud collected and stored in two
55-gallon drums (Barrels 1 and 2). In the drums, the mud was allowed to consolidate and
needed to be diluted with seawater (taken from the same location as the mud) to create a
range of densities for testing. Preparing the samples required an independent means of
quickly measuring the densities during the evaluation process. The means of doing this
was a portable handheld densimeter, the Mettler-Toledo Densito 30PX. The densimeter
operates upon the vibrating "U-tube" principle, is temperature compensated, has a stated
accuracy of +/- 0.001 g/cm3, and has a resolution of 0.0001 g/cm3. The calibration of the
densimeter was checked daily using distilled water. It was found to be accurate in these
calibration tests to 0.0001 g/cm3 (one standard deviation).
To obtain relatively homogeneous sediment samples for testing, the fluid mud in the two
55 gallon (208 L) drums (Barrels 1 and 2) were stirred with a paddle stirrer. One liter
samples of material were then scooped from the surface of each drum. These 1-liter
samples of the source mud from the drums were taken at the start of the sensor evaluation
(triplicates) on 13 August 2009, at mid-point in the evaluation (triplicates) on 16 August
2009, and at the end of the evaluation (five samples) on 19 August 2009. The organic
contents of these samples were tested using the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) D 2974-071 (ASTM 2009c). Three 1-liter samples from Barrel 2
underwent grain-size analysis using the Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
5
of Soils (ASTM 2009a). The procedures for the Bulk Density Analysis-Pycnometer
Method are given in Appendix B.
The QAPP stated that the solids specific gravity and density would be determined by
performing the ASTM D 854-06 Standard Test Method for Determining Specific Gravity
of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometers (ASTM 2009b), but this test was later deemed
inappropriate because it was designed for dry and moist soil samples, not the high water
contents of the range of slurry density mixtures in which the DRDP was evaluated.
Various alternative laboratory test methods were considered, such as the American Public
Health Association et al. (1998), a standardized test for determining specific gravity of
sludge. This method (involving measuring the weight of a given volume of sample to
calculate specific gravity) was deemed to be too inaccurate. The best methods were
determined to be the Bulk Density Analysis-Pycnometer Method, developed by Dr. Allen
Teeter of ERDC, in conjunction with the Pycnometer Volume Calibration procedure.
To verify the precision of the Bulk Density Analysis-Pycnometer Method, five 1-liter
sample replicates from each 55 gallon drum of mud were tested and analyzed. Replicate
variances were calculated by dividing the standard deviations of the sediment laboratory
density results by the mean (i.e., the relative standard deviation (RSD) or coefficient of
variation (CV) and multiplying by 100 to express as a percentage). For Barrel 1, the RSD
was 0.2 percent, while for Barrel 2, it was 0.26 percent. Sediment laboratory tests of
particle size distribution and total organic content were also conducted on 1-liter samples
collected from the homogenized 55 gallon drums.
The evaluation testing included both static testing of water and mud for density
measurement accuracy and precision, and dynamic testing for density measuring
accuracy and vertical resolution. The static testing was conducted by lowering the DRDP
into samples in 20-liter buckets (Figure 2), and allowing the system to record samples at
8 Hz for several minutes. While the DRDP could sample at 20 Hz, it was constrained to
sampling at 8 Hz because of the data stream requirement of merging this parameter with
vertical position data. The dynamic testing of samples required that a substrate be
constructed in a rectangular tank, upon which a layer of fluid mud was placed. The
substrate needed to have properties that would result in system readings that clearly
differentiate it from the fluid mud. A layer of kaolinite, 18 cm thick, was chosen to
construct the substrate (Figure 3). For a yet undetermined reason, the DRDP was unable
to get an accurate sound velocity measurements in the kaolinite. This was a factor in the
DRDP measuring densities of the kaolinite greater than 1.3 g/cm3, which were inaccurate,
but which clearly differentiated the substrate from the mud layer. The mud layers were of
varying thicknesses and densities. For some of these tests, a layer of salt water was
placed on top of the fluid mud. The samples in these rectangular tanks were then
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
6
vertically profiled by the DRDP. Figure 4 shows a rectangular tank with a substrate, a
layer of fluid mud with a uniform thickness, and a layer of seawater ready to be profiled
by the DRDP. The DRDP, while recording data at 8 Hz, was lowered through the water
(when water was placed on top), through the fluid mud, and into the kaolinite substrate
(Figure 5). Once embedded in the substrate, data recording was stopped and the sensor
was retracted. This process was repeated three to five times in each tank.
Figure 2. Static testing of samples in 1-1 buckets.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
7
Figure 3, Kaolinite substrate in rectangular test tank.
Figure 4. A layer of seawater and mud over a kaolinite substrate in a rectangular test tank.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
8
Figure 5. DRDP ready to be lowered into rectangular test tank.
Figure 6. Custom designed Sensor Insertion Device (SID).
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
9
Lowering and raising the DRDP was conducted by mounting it on a rigid bracket which
was on a sliding track suspended over the sample containers. A custom-designed Sensor
Insertion Device (SID, Figure 6) was equipped with castors to allow it to be moved over
the samples after they were prepared. The SID used an adjustable-speed programmable
linear actuator (XLA-9 T35LS 500-ENC Specialty Motors, Inc.) to raise and lower the
bracket on its track; thereby, lowering the DRDP into the samples to precise vertical
locations at controlled and measureable descent rates. The ability of the SID to lower the
DRDP to precise locations was checked daily by having it lower the sensor 75 cm to a
location marked on the frame. The SID was able to do this with an accuracy better than
the plus-or-minus 1 mm as measured with a measuring tape. The SID output was the
sensor vertical position data recorded with the DRDP output data at 8 Hz.
During discussions about DRDP performance prior to laboratory evaluation testing, a
concern was identified regarding the effect of air bubbles in the samples being tested.
This concern was evaluated in the testing by introducing air bubbles into one of the
samples.
2.2 DRDP Measuring Principles
The operating frequency of the DRDP is 2 MHz. The functioning of the DRDP is based
on the measurement of three ultrasound parameters:
• Acoustic impedance of the medium (Zmed).
• Sound speed within the medium (cmed).
• Ultrasound transmission characteristics (attenuation) of the medium.
For the measurement of the acoustic impedance, ultrasound is emitted by the transducer
of the left sensor (SI, Figure 7). The ultrasound waves propagate to both sides (al and
a2) and are reflected at both ends of the sensor. The amplitudes of the reflected
ultrasound waves correspond to the acoustic impedance of the medium outside the sensor
(Zmed) and the acoustic impedance of the reference medium within the sensor (Zref).
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
10
Jl—
Transducer
Figure 7. DRDP measuring principles.
The acoustic impedance of the medium (Zmed) is calculated from the following equation:
^ncii ^sensor
I 4- r
] - r
Where, r is the reflection coefficient, psensor, is the density of the sensor medium, and,
Csensor, is the sound speed within the reference medium of the sensor.
To calculate the reflection coefficient (r), it is also necessary to measure the amplitudes
of the reflected sound waves (Amed and Aref). Then, r, is given by:
t —
,4 . -]
ht-yj
**
Where, k , is the sensor calibration coefficient.
The corresponding sound wave signals are shown in Figure 8. The x-axis in Figure 8 is
distance in centimeters within the DRDP sensor SI (Figure 7). Supplementary calculations
are done by some special algorithms needed for compensation of temperature dependent
changes of the measured sound speed within the reference material, which will alter the
amplitudes, Amed and Aref (described in German Patent DE 101 12 583 C2, issued to
Siemens AG on 27 March 2003). The determination of the required temperature
compensation is based on the relation of the temperature dependent changes of the sound
speed and the attenuation of the sensor reference medium. The most accurate density
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
11
measurement will occur when the temperature of the sensor material is the same as that of
measured medium outside the sensor. It is recommended that the specific temperature
dependent numerical relation of sound speed and attenuation be experimentally determined
for each DROP sensor manufactured.
1> AdmodusS_Iest_V1 .06. vi
Echo Medium
Echo Reference Medium
1,71,8 1,9 2,0 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 3,0 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 3,6
Emferrvung (cm)
Vpp $85.00 digits i/ppmV; 1337,87
Figure 8. Relation of the ultrasound wave signals reflected at the left and right sides of the sensor.
The sound speed within the medium is based on the measurement of the transmission time
of the ultrasound signal emitted from the second sensor (S2) on the right to the receiver
(transducer) of the left sensor (SI). This measurement is corrected by the time the
transducer needs for reaching maximum signal emission intensity, and by subtracting the
additional travel time through sensor section, a2. The sound speed within the medium
(section b) is then given by the following equation:
^ rae*t
Where, db, is the distance between SI and S2 and, ft,, is the travel time between SI and
S2.
The density of the medium, measured directly at the right window of the impedance sensor
is calculated as:
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
12
Z .
P
C
This density determination is valid for homogeneous media. For inhomogeneous (multi-
phase) media, this density value may not exactly correspond to the mean density of a
certain larger volume of such media. Therefore, a correction factor has been
experimentally determined from the medium related modifications of the sound waves that
have been emitted by the S2-transducer after they have passed through the medium. In this
respect, the DRDP output density value is a combination of the density values, one
measured directly at the surface of the sensor window and a second density (integral
density value) that is more closely related to the acoustic properties of the sample volume
that is penetrated by the ultrasound waves.
2.3 Evaluation Tests
Four types of evaluation tests were conducted. They were:
Type A. Static tests of fresh water at three temperatures and saltwater at one temperature.
The densities of the water were determine from the handheld densimeter and by
calculating them based on temperature measurements using a laboratory thermometer and
salinity measurements using a YSI XLM 600 CTD.
Type C. Static density measurements with the DRDP and handheld densimeter before
and after bubbles had been introduced into a sample by vigorous stirring.
Type D. Static DRDP density measurements in homogeneous mud mixtures. The
densities of the mixtures were measured using the handheld densimeter and from 1-liter
samples sent to the sediment laboratory for pycnometer analysis.
Type E. Dynamic testing of density and vertical resolution through mud mixtures of
various densities and thicknesses in rectangular test chambers. The densities of the
mixtures were measured using the handheld densimeter and, in most cases, from 1-liter
samples sent to the sediment laboratory.
The specific conditions for test types A, D, and E are given in Tables 1 through 3,
respectively.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
13
Table 1. Type A tests.
Test
Sample
Data File
Handheld
Densimeter
Reading (^cm3)
Calculated Density
(g/cm3)
A1
Fresh tap water at room
temperature (28.5°C)
Al-FW-ST
0.9968
0.9961
A2
Fresh hot tap water (40.0°C)
A2-FW-ST
0.9946
0.9922
A3
Fresh tap water with ice
melted in it (3.0°C)
A3-FW-ST
1.0010
0.9999
A4
Gulfport seawater (24.5 ppt
salinity, 24.0C)
A4-SW-ST
1.0177
1.0179
Table 2. Type D tests.
Test
Sample (Each Sample
Contained Gulfport
Navigation Ship Channel
Mud)
File
Handheld
Densimeter
Reading (^cm3)
D1
Directly from Barrel 1
D1-MS1-ST
Too dense for
densimeter
D2
Barrel 1 diluted with
seawater
D2-MS2-ST
1.1474
D3
Sample used for Test D2
diluted again with seawater
D3-MS3-ST
1.0867
D4
Barrel 1 diluted with
seawater
D4-MS4-ST
1.1675
D5
Barrel 1 diluted with
seawater
D5-MS5-ST
1.1210
D6
Barrel 1 diluted with
seawater
D6-MS6-ST
1.107
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
14
Table 3. Type E tests.
Test
Sample (Each Sample
Contained Gulfport
Navigation Ship Channel
Mud)
Files
Handheld
Densimeter
Reading (g/cm3)
DRDP Insertion
Speed (cm/s)
El
10-cm layer of mud directly
from Barrel 1 over kaolinite
substrate with no water on
top
E1-MS1-DY E2-
MS1-DY E4-MS1-
DY E5-MS1-DY
Too dense for
densimeter
1.27
E2
2-cm layer of mud directly
from Barrel 1 over kaolinite
substrate with no water on
top
E7-MS2-DY E9-
MS2-DY
Too dense for
densimeter
1.27
E3
10-cm layer of mud directly
from Barrel 1 over kaolinite
substrate with 5.7 cm of
saltwater on top
E11-MS3-DY E13-
MS3-DY E15-MS3-
DY
Too dense for
densimeter
1.27
E4
3-cm layer of diluted Barrel-
1 mud over kaolinite
substrate with 3.5 cm of
saltwater on top
E20-MS4-DY E21-
MS4-DY
1.1675
0.63
E5
2-cm layer of diluted Barrel-
1 mud over kaolinite
substrate with no water on
top
E28-MS8-DY E29-
MS8-DY E30-MS8-
DY
1.0900
0.63
E6
6-cm layer of diluted Barrel-
2 mud over kaolinite
substrate with 4.5 cm of
saltwater on top
E31-MS12-DY
E32-MS12-DY
E33-MS12-DY
E34-MS12-DY
1.1510
0.63 for files E31,
E32 and E33
6.35 for file E34
E7
2-cm layer of sample used
in Test E6 over kaolinite
substrate with 4 cm of
saltwater on top
E36-MS12-DY
E37-MS12-DY
E38-MS12-DY
E39-MS12-DY
E40-MS12-DY
1.1510
0.63 for files E36,
E37 and E38
6.35 for files E39
and E40
E8
5.85-cm layer of diluted
Barrel-2 mud over kaolinite
substrate with no water on
top
E41-MS13-DY
E42-MS13-DY
E43-MS13-DY
E44-MS13-DY
E45-MS13-DY
1.0884
0.63 for files E41,
E42 and E43
6.35 for files E44
and E45
E9
3-cm layer of sample used
in Test E8 over kaolinite
substrate with no water on
top
E46-MS13-DY
E47-MS13-DY
E48-MS13-DY
E49-MS13-DY
E50-MS13-DY
E50-MS13-DY
1.0886
0.63 for files E46,
E47 and E48
6.35 for files E49
and E50
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
15
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the three samples of the mud in Barrel 2 that underwent grain-size analysis
(Appendix C), the average content was 0.5 percent fine sand, 33.6 percent silt and
65.9 percent clay. The average Di0 andDgo values were 0.0021 and 0.0188 mm. The
sediment laboratory analysis of the organic content (Appendix C) in the three sets of
samples of mud taken from both barrels at the beginning, mid-point, and end of the
DRDP evaluation, resulted in an average organic matter content of 4.39 percent with
95 percent confidence levels of 3.80 and 4.98 percent and a variance of 0.77 with
95 percent confidence levels of 0.27 and 2.19 percent for Barrel 1. For the mud in
Barrel 2, the average organic matter content was 4.31 percent, with 95 percent confidence
levels of 3.66 and 4.96 percent, and a variance of 0.71, with 95 percent confidence levels
of 0.35 and 2.82 percent. The organic matter contents of these samples were much
smaller than the expected value of 12 percent as found from previous tests and
experiments using Gulfport Navigation Ship Channel sediment.
The results of the Type A tests are summarized in Table 4 and plotted in Figures 9
through 12. In the figures, the DRDP readings are plotted in black, the densimeter
reading is plotted in red, and the calculated density is plotted in blue.
Table 4. Results of Type A tests.
Test
DRDP Mean
Reading*
DRDP Reading
Standard
Deviation*
DRDP Mean Minus
Densimeter
Reading*
DRDP Mean Minus
Calculated
Density*
A1
0.9960
0.0007
-0.0007
<0.0001
A2
0.9959
0.0005
0.0013
0.0037
A3
1.0077
0.0003
0.0067
0.0078
A4
1.0206
0.0009
0.0029
0.0027
* Values are in g/cm3.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
Test A1
1.0200
DRDP mean = 0.9960
DRDP std = 0.0007
DRDP-dens = -0.0007
DRDP-calc = < 0.0001
1.0150
1.0100
O
^ 1.0050
1.0000
Calculated
Densimeter
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 9. Results of Test Al, fresh tap water at room temperature.
1.0200
1.0175
1.0150
Test A2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
DRDP mean = 0.9959
DRDP std = 0.0005
DRDP-dens = 0.0013
DRDP-calc = 0.0037
1.0125
-
-
1.0100
-
-
E
o
1.0075
-
-
1.0050
-
-
05
C
05
Q
1.0025
-
-
1.0000
0.9975
, L Jlt. i. l
Calculated
Densimeter
0.9950
wf niri
0.9925
0.9900
C
) 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
Time(s)
120 135 150 165 180
Figure 10. Results of Test A2, fresh, hot tap water.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
1.0200
1.0175
1.0150
1.0125
1.0100
">E 1.0075
O
1.0050
to
o 1.0025
1.0000
0.9975
0.9950
0.9925
0.9900
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Test A3
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
DRDP meari = 1.0077
DRDP std = 0.0003
DRDP-dens = 0.0067
DRDP-calc = 0.0070
Calculated
Densimeter
Figure 11. Results of Test A3, fresh tap water with melted ice.
Test A4
1.0300 i i 1 i — i
1.0275
1.0250
1.0225
1.0200
"E 1.0175
O
1.0150
to
,§ 1.0125
1.0100
1.0075
1.0050
1.0025
1.0000
DRDP mean = 1.0206
DRDP std = 0.0009
DRDP-dens = 0.0029
DRDP-calc = 0.0027
Calculated
Densimeter
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 12. Results of Test A4, Gulfport seawater at room temperature.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
18
All the statistics shown in Table 4, are based on 2 min of sampling time, with the
exception of Test A3. Test A3 took the DRDP from room temperature (about 25.0 C),
when the sensor was positioned above the ice-water sample, down to 3.0 C in the sample,
in a few seconds. This situation of sharp temperature differences would not occur during
an application in the field. In the field, before deployment, the sensor would be kept in a
bucket of water taken from body of water in which it would be deployed. Therefore, it
would be close to the temperature of the water and fluid mud when it began profiling.
The DRDP needs to have the temperature of its internal calibration chamber close to the
temperature of what it is sampling to give its most accurate readings. The DRDP did not
achieve this for the large temperature change imposed by Test A3, and it was only after
about 13 min of letting it sit in the sample that the internal sensor temperature was close
enough to give reasonable readings. For this reason, Figure 11 shows only about the last
1 min of the approximately 14 min A3 test. The summary statistics shown in Table 4 are
based only on the results shown in the figures. However, it is believed that when Test A3
was terminated, the DRDP still had not fully adjusted to the large temperature change. It
was also noted that, for est A3, the densimeter took a very long time to adjust before
giving a density reading of the cold water captured in its small sampling tube. According
to the densimeter readings, this only occurred when the temperature of water in its
sampling tube rose to 18.7°C. It is for these reasons that the results from Test A3 are
excluded from the summary statistics.
Only Test A1 had individual (i.e., 8 Hz) DRDP readings that were distributed about the
densimeter readings, so the standard deviations of the differences between the two were
not calculated (Figure 9). Excluding Test A3, in the Type A tests the average difference
between the average DRDP readings and the calculated densities is 0.0022 g/cm3, with a
standard deviation of 0.0019 g/cm3. In comparison to the densimeter readings, the
average difference between the average DRDP readings and the densimeter readings is
0.0012 g/cm3, with a standard deviation of 0.0018. The Type A tests, conducted in water
samples, showed an average DRDP precision (i.e., the standard deviation of the
individual DRDP readings) of 0.0007 g/cm3.
A Type C test was designed to evaluate the potential for air bubbles in the material to
affect the DRDP reading. The influence of air bubbles in the matrix became a concern
during Test A2 when air coming out of solution in the hot water taken from the tap for
the test formed air bubbles on the surfaces in the test bucket. Bubbles also formed on the
DRDP and had to be wiped off the face of the sensor before good density readings of the
hot water were obtained. Test C consisted of taking a sample that had just been used for
Test D3, during which the DRDP gave a reading of 1.091 g/cm3, and the densimeter gave
a reading of 1.0864 by stirring it vigorously with a kitchen whisk to aerate it. The
densimeter reading of this sample was then 1.0561 g/cm3, showing the decrease in
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
19
sample densities due to the incorporation of air into the sample, however, the DRDP
reading increased to 1.153 g/cm3.
The results of the Type D tests are shown in Figures 13 through 18 and summarized in
Table 5. For Test Dl, the mud taken directly from Barrel 1 was too dense to get a
densimeter reading (this was also true for some of the Type E tests). Only Test D4 has
some individual DRDP readings that are distributed about the densimeter reading;
therefore, the standard deviations of the differences between the individual (i.e., 8 Hz)
DRDP readings and the densimeter readings were not calculated. The average difference
between the mean densities measured by the DRDP and the densimeter readings is
0.0033 g/cm3, and the standard distribution is 0.0074 g/cm3. The average difference
between the mean densities measured by the DRDP and the densities determined from
the sediment laboratory analyses of the mud samples is 0.005 g/cm3 with a standard
distribution of 0.010 g/cm3. The average DRDP precision (i.e., the standard deviation of
the individual DRDP readings) for all six Type D tests was 0.0006 g/cm3, which is in
close agreement with that found for the Type A tests (i.e., 0.0006 versus 0.0007).
DRDP mean = 1.1931
DRDP std = 0.0004
DRDP-dens = NA - too thick
DRDP-sed lab analysis = -0.010
1.20/5
.2050
.2025
1.2000
1.19/5
i. 1950
* .925
1.1 yiju
Sediment laboratory analysis
1.18/5
] 1850
1 1025
1.1800
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 13. Results of Test Dl, static test of mud from Barrel 1.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
1.1600
1.1575
1.1550
Test D2
DRDP mean = 1.1406
DRDP std = 0.0003
DRDP-dens = -0.0068
DRDP-sed lab analysis = -0.005
1.1525
1.1500
Densimeter
Sediment laboratory analysis
1.1475
~ 1.1450
to
J 1.1425
1.1400
1.1375
-
1.1350
1.1325
-
1.1300
¦ i i i i i i i
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 14. Results of Test D2, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater
1.1100
1.1075
1.1050
Test D3
DRDP mean = 1.0914
DRDP std = 0.0004
DRDP-dens = 0.0047
DRDP-sed lab analysis = 0.009
1.1025
¦
1.1000
-
1.0975
•
~ 1.0950
-
£ 1.0925
1.0900
1.0875
-
1.0850
1.0825
Densimeter
Sediment laboratory analysis
1.0800
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 15. Results of Test D3, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
1.1800
1.1775
1.1750
1.1725
1.1700
1.1675
1.1650
Densimeter
Sediment laboratory analysis
1.1625
1.1600
DRDP mean = 1.1681
DRDP std = 0.0006
DRDP-dens = 0.0006
DRDP-sed lab analysis = 0.008
1.1575
1.1550
1.1525
1.1500
Time(s)
Figure 16. Results of Test D4f static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater
1.1300
1.1275
1.1250
1.1225
1.1200
1.1175
~ 1.1150
CO
Jj 1.1125
1.1100
1.1075
1.1050
1.1025
1.1000
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Test D5
Densimeter
Sediment laboratory analysis
DRDP mean = 1.1251
DRDP std = 0.0012
DRDP-dens = 0.0041
DRDP-sed lab analysis = 0.013
_i i i i i i i i i
Figure 17. Results of Test D5, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
22
Test D6
1.120
1.115
1.110
1.105
Densimeter
Sediment laboratory analysis
DRDP mean = 1.1207
DRDP std = 0.0007
DRDP-dens = 0.0137
DRDP-sed lab analysis = 0.018
.085 1
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
Time(s)
Figure 18. Results of Test D6, static test of Barrel 1, mud diluted with seawater.
Table 5. Comparison of DRDP density measurements, densimeter measurements and sediment
laboratory analyses for Type D tests.
Test
DRDP mean
reading*
DRDP reading
standard deviation*
DRDP mean minus
densimeter reading*
DRDP mean
minus sediment
laboratory
sample
analysis*
D1
1.1931
0.0004
NA-too dense
-0.010
D2
1.1406
0.0003
-0.0068
-0.005
D3
1.0914
0.0004
0.0047
0.009
D4
1.1681
0.0006
0.0006
0.008
D5
1.1251
0.0012
0.0041
0.013
D6
1.1207
0.0007
0.0137
0.018
* Values are in g/cm3.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
23
The Type E tests are shown in Figures 19 through 27. In the figures, a dashed red line
was drawn where it appeared that the full face of the DRDP sensor was in the mud. For
this report, this was done solely on the basis of where the density values stopped rapidly
increasing and appeared to stabilize. A solid redline was then drawn 1 cm above this
dashed line (the approximate diameter of the DRDP sensor face). These two lines should
represent where the DRDP began to enter the mud and where it was completely in the
mud layer. The lines were repeated further down in the profiles at a distance equal to the
measured thickness of the mud layer. These lines should represent where the DRDP
began to emerge from the mud layer and enter the kaolinite layer and then where the
DRDP was completely out of the mud. When the sensor insertion speed was 0.63 or
1.27 cm/s, the DRDP visually appears to clearly delineate the mud layer both at the
water-mud interface and at the mud-kaolinite interface.
0.0
Densimeter = NA- too thick
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.203
2.5
5.0
Avg-1.1865
Avg- 1.2193
Avg -1.1950
Avg - 1.2239
7.5
E
o
JZ
Q 10.0
o
¦t:
aj
to
.E 12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
0.25
0.45
0.65
0.85 1.05
Density (g/cm3)
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 19. Results of Test El, profile of 10-cm mud layer with no water on top.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
Tests E2
0
Densimeter = NA - too thick
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.203
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Avg- 1.2692
Avg - 1.2400
12
13 —
0.25
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 20. Results of Test E2, profile of 2-cm mud layer with no water on top.
Test E3
0.0
2.5
Densimeter = NA - too thick
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.203
5.0
7.5
10.0
Avg - 1.2071
Avg -1.2013
Avg - 1.2046
15.0
17.5
20.0
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 21. Results of Test E3, profile of 10-cm mud layer with 5.7-cm layer of water on top.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
o
Densimeter = 1.1675
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.160
1
Avg- 1.1866
Avg -1.1810
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 —
0.25
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 22. Results of Test E4, profile of 3-cm mud layer with 3.5-cm layer of water on top.
Tests E5
0
Densimeter = 1.0900
2
3
4
5
Avg - 1.0876
Avg - 1.0821
Avg - 1.0858
6
7
8
0.25
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 23. Results of Test E5, profile of 2-cm mud layer with no water on top.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
Test E6
0
Densimeter= 1.1510
2
3
4
5
6
7
Avg-1.1543
Avg-1.1581
Avg - 1.1574
Avg -1.1279
8
9
10
12
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/crn3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
Figure 24. Results of Test E6f profile of 6-cm mud layer with no water on top.
Test E7
0
Densimeter = 1.1510
2
Avg - 1.1520
Avg - 1.1500
Avg - 1.1531
Avg - No readings in layer
Avg - No readings in layer
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 —
0.25
0.65
1.05
1.45
1.65
0.45
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.25
Figure 25. Results of Test E7, profile of 2-cm mud layer with 4-cm layer of water on top.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
-
Avg - 1.0851
|
Avg - 1.0920
— Avg - 1.0908 I
Avg - 1.0655 j/
Avg - 1.0777 J
,
¦ Densimeter = 1.0884
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.082
I
Density (g/cm3)
Figure 26. Results of Test E8, profile of 5.85-cm mud layer with no water on top.
Test E9
0
Densimeter = 1.0886
Sediment laboratory analysis = 1.082
Avg - 1.0869
Avg - 1.0849
Avg -1.0917
Avg- 1.0828
Avg - 1.0387
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 —
0.25
0.45
0.65
0.85
Density (g/cm3)
1.05
1.25
1.45
1.65
Figure 27. Results of Test E9, profile of 3-cm mud layer with no water on top.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
28
To objectively evaluate the ability of the DRDP to measure the thicknesses of the mud
layers, the following process was applied to the Type E test data.
Steps:
1. The gradients of the DRDP density readings were calculated at each data point in the
profile as the difference between the density measured at that point, and the density
measured at the data point nearest to being 0.25 cm further down in the profile.
2. From the gradients calculated in Step 1, the changes in the gradient at each point in the
profile were calculated (starting from the top) as the value of the gradient at that point,
minus the value of the gradient at the point that immediately preceded it.
3. Starting from the top of the profile, the point at which the first change in gradient
exceeded 0.025 was marked as the start of the first layer. The value 0.025 was chosen by
trial-and-error using the criteria that it identify the depths where the lines were plotted in
Figures 19 through 27 at the locations where the DRDP sensor appeared to start to enter a
layer of water, mud or kaolinite. For those tests that had no water on top of the mud layer,
this point was marked as the point at which the DRDP entered the mud layer. In the cases
where there was water on top of the mud layer, this point was taken as the point at which
the DRDP entered the water, and the next point at which the change in the gradient
exceeded 0.025 was marked as the point where the DRDP entered the mud layer.
4. After marking the start of the mud layer, the next point at which the change in gradient
exceeded 0.025, and that was at least a distance of 0.75 times the thickness of the mud
layer further down in the profile, was marked as the point the DRDP entered the kaolinite
substrate.
5. The thickness of the mud layer was calculated as the difference between the point
marked as that where the DRDP entered the mud layer and the point marked as that
where the DRDP entered the kaolinite layer.
Of the 34 profiles through the mud layers made in the Type E tests, the above algorithm
failed to detect the mud layer for only two profiles. Figure 28 is a histogram of the
differences between the width of the mud layer measured using the algorithm, and the
measured widths using a measuring tape. The mean of the differences is -0.34 cm and the
standard deviation is 0.69 cm. A possible reason that the mean is a negative is that it was
noted that the sensor was compressing the mud layer, to some degree, as it entered the
mud. As it did this, it was noted that mud did not start covering the sensor face until some
small vertical distance below the surrounding mud surface. Thus, the DRDP measured
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
29
mud-layer thicknesses would be smaller than those measured with a measuring tape when
the original mud layers for testing were prepared. It is also possible that the mud layers
were not perfectly uniform in thickness leading to the slight differences in values.
DRDP Layer Width Measurements
0.175 i 1 1 1 1 1 r
mean error = -0.34
standard deviation = 0.69
Error (cm)
Figure 28. Histogram of the differences between the thicknessess of the mud layers using the test
procedure, and the thicknessess measured with a measuring tape.
The average difference between the mean DRDP density readings in the mud layer and
the densimeter readings, and between the mean DRDP density readings and the sediment
laboratory density determinations for the mud sample from which the layer was made are
shown in Table 6. The density differences shown in the table are in g/cm
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
30
Table 6. Comparison of DRDP density measurements, densimeter measurements and sediment
laboratory analyses for the Type E tests.
Test
DRDP Mean Density*
DRDP Mean Minus
Densimeter Reading*
Speed1/Speed2
DRDP Mean Minus
Sediment
Laboratory Sample
Analysis*
Speed 1/Speed 2
Insertion Speed 1
1.27 or
0.63 cm/s
Insertion Speed 2
6.35 cm/s
El
1.2003
NA
NA-too dense
-0.003
E2
1.2546
NA
NA-too dense
0.049
E3
1.2043
NA
NA-too dense
0.000
E4
1.1838
NA
0.0163
0.023
E5
1.0852
NA
-0.0048
NA
E6
1.1566
1.1279
0.0056/-0.0231
NA
E7
1.1517
No readings
when the DRDP
sensor face was
completely in
mud
0.0007
NA
E8
1.0893
1.0716
0.0009/-0.0168
0.007/-0.011
E9
1.0878
1.0608
-0.0008/-0.0279
0.005/-0.022
* Values are in g/cm3.
The average difference between the mean DRDP readings in comparison to the
densimeter readings at the 1.27 or 0.63 cm/s insertion speeds is 0.0029 g/cm3 with a
standard deviation of 0.0023 g/cm3. The average difference between the mean densities
measured by the DRDP and the densities determined from the sediment laboratory
analyses of the mud samples at the 1.27 or 0.63 cm/s insertion speeds is 0.013 g/cm3 and
the standard distribution is 0.019 g/cm3. At a faster insertion speed of 6.35 cm/s, the
average difference between the mean DRDP readings in comparison to the densimeter
readings is 0.0223 g/cm3. At the faster insertion speed Of 6.35 cm/s, the average
difference between the mean densities measured by the DRDP and the densities
determined from the sediment laboratory analyses of the mud samples is -0.016 g/cm3.
The errors at the 6.35 cm/s insertion speed may have been significantly better if the
DRDP had been able to output data at the normal 20 Hz rate. The Phase II sensor will not
have the 8 Hz sampling rate limitation and is expected to sample at 20 Hz.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
31
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The DRDP is capable of delineating fluid mud layers of 2-cm thickness or greater, when
it profiles these layers at an insertion speed of 1.27 cm/s or less. The average difference
between the DRDP measured thicknesses and those measured with a measuring tape was
-0.34 cm with a standard deviation of 0.69 cm. The negative mean for the differences is
likely due to the DRDP depressing the fluid mud layer as is enters it. It may be possible
to significantly reduce this by redesigning the DRDP housing (Phase II).
In comparison to the densimeter, the average difference between the DRDP density
measurements (for Type A, Type D, and Type E tests at insertion speeds of 1.27 cm/s or
less) and the densimeter readings is 0.0023 g/cm3 with a standard deviation of
0.0063 g/cm3 (n = 25). In comparison to the sediment laboratory sample analyses, the
average difference between the DRDP density measurements (for Type D and Type E
tests at insertion speeds of 1.27 cm/s or less) and the sample analyses is 0.0095 g/cm3
with a standard deviation is 0.0156 g/cm3 (n = 11). The average precision of the DRDP
measurements during the evaluation was 0.0007 g/cm3. For both comparisons, the
average difference is positive. This difference can potentially be significantly reduced
during instrument calibration.
The initial prototype of the DRDP was successful in delineating the mud layer
thicknesses and in determining the density of each mud layer. The fastest profiling speed
that would produce reasonable results may be higher when the DRDP operates at a
sample output speed greater than the 8 Hz needed for this laboratory evaluation. The
results of this evaluation will be incorporated into recommendations to modifying the
Phase I prototype during Phase II and in the subsequent delivery of the final DRDP
prototype.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
32
5.0 REFERENCES
American Public Health Association et al. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of
water and wastewater. 20th Editon, 1998. Washington, DC: American Public
Health Association, 1015 Fifteen Street, NW, 20005-2605.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009a.Standard test method for
particle-size analysis of soils designation: D 422 - 63 (Reapproved 2007).
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
http://enterprise.astm.org/SUBSCRIPTION/NewYalidateSubscription.cgi7D422.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009b. Standard test methods for
specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer: Designation: D 854 - 06.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA.http://enterprise.astm.org/SUBSCRIPTION/filtrexx40.cgi?/usr6/htdocs/newpil
ot. com/SUB SCRIPTION/REDLINEP AGES/D854.htmTM D 2974 - 071.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2009c. Standard test methods for
moisture, ash, and organic matter of peat and other organic soils: Designation: D
2974 - 07a. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
http://enterprise.astm.org/SUBSCRlPT10N/NevvValidateSubscription.cgi7D2974.
Bridges, T. T., S. Ells, D. Hayes, D. Mount, S. C. Nadeau, N. R. Palermo, C. Patmont,
and P. Schroeder. 2008. The four Rs of environmental dredging: Resuspension,
release, residual, and risk. Environmental Laboratory Technical Report TR 08-4.
Vicksburg, MS: Engineer Research and Development Center.
McAnally, W. H., C. Friedrichs, D. Hamilton, E. Hayter, P. Shrestha, H. Rodriguez, A.
Sheremet, and A. Teeter. 2007. Mangement of fluid mud in estuaries, bays and
lakes. 1: Present state of understanding and behavior. ASCE Task Committee on
Management of Fluid Mud, Hydraulic Engineering 133(l):9-22.
National Research Council. 2001. A risk-management strategy for PCB-contaminated
sediments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
Appendix A: Quality Assurance Project
Plan
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGING RESIDUALS DENSITY PROFILER (DRDP)
Prepared for;
Brian Schumacher, PhD,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Lbs Vwgas, Nevada
Prepared By:
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
9055 Halts Ferry Road
Vicksburg. MS 61038
Approved fay:
-JLll
Tim Welp /' Oaf#
tsesrvr* ¦ isa ^~^
cKUv rroject
9 February 2009
Dr. Brian Schumacher
EPA ProjvU Qffiwr
Date
Derek Wilson Date
ERDC Quality Assurance Coordinator
George Britis Date
EPA Quality Assurance Manager
iconciirer.re)
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
34
Distribution List:
Individuals who will receive a copy of the QA Project Plan:
Brian Schumacher EPA
George Brilis EPA
Timothy Welp USACE
Derek Wilson USACE
Trap Puckette Evans Hamilton, Inc.
Table of Contents Page
Distribution List 34
Project/Task Organization 35
Problem Definition/Background 37
Project/Task Description 38
Quality Control Checks 47
Schedule 48
Reports to Management 49
Data Management 49
Data Validation 49
Reports 50
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
35
Project/Task Organization
Successful development of a dredging residual density profiler (DRDP) requires a
qualified project team that effectively implements project and quality assurance plans.
The project organization and responsible staff are presented and summarized in Figure 1.
Principal Investigator:
Tim Weft- US ACE
(601>634-2083
Project OA Officer:
Derrick Wilson USACE
EPA Project Hmager:
Brim Schumadier
(702) -798-2242
Sensor Develcpaaimt Ccattrattor:
Esfaris Hamilton 3he\ Synergetik
Paul Trapier (Trap) Puckette
(843>3?7-0286
EPA QA Manager George BriJis
(702>7S>8-3128
Figure 1. Also shows overall organization for this project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Project Officer, Dr. Brian Schumacher
of the Environmental Sciences Division-Las Vegas (ESD-LV), is responsible for
direction and oversight of this project. George Brilis, ESD-LV Quality Assurance (QA)
Manager, will ensure that the project conforms to the quality standards set by EPA.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
36
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
ERDC will provide comprehensive technical support for this development project. The
project manager, Tim Welp, is responsible for tasks assigned to ERDC and for direct
communication with all project participants. Mr. Welp is also responsible for ensuring
that testing and quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) requirements are met for
the project and will prepare technical documents and coordinate technical
communications with the EPA project officer. Mr. Welp also will review analytical data
obtained during the demonstration and will be responsible for preparing the final report.
Mr. Welp's responsibilities as project manager will include the following:
• Maintain communication with the EPA Project Officer.
• Develop the QAPP and other project deliverables in accordance with the project
schedule.
• Manage staff and coordinate with the contractor.
• Provide required planning, cost, and schedule control.
• Maintain the project file and documentation of written records.
• Provide submittals to the project officer in a timely manner.
Derek Wilson is the ERDC QA Coordinator for this project and is responsible for
reviewing and ensuring the quality of project deliverables. Additional responsibilities will
include:
• Determining that the QAPP is prepared in accordance with quality assurance
requirements.
• Provide assistance and guidance in developing and revising the QAPP.
• Review the quality of project documentation.
• Ensure deliverables meet the quality goals of the project.
Evans Hamilton Inc (EHI).
ERDC's primary contractor for developing the DRDP will be EHI. Mr. Paul Trapier
Puckette of EHI will provide contractual coordination and technical oversight on
subcontractors involved in developing and testing the DRDP.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
37
Grieser und Partners/Synergetik
Grieser und Partners/Synergetik will redesign the original ADMODUS measurement
system, construct the DRDP prototype to improve spatial resolution, and assist in the
laboratory and field trials.
Problem Definition/Background
Fluid mud is found in navigation projects on the northeast coast, along the southeast coast,
and in several projects along the Gulf Coast. Dredging residuals, in the context of
environmental dredging projects, can consist of unconsolidated, fine-grained, high water
content suspensions that, while similar in composition to navigation project fluid muds, exist
in thinner layers (10 cm thick as opposed to 1 m). No standardized method exists in the
USACE to survey fluid mud. "When the upper sediment layer is not well consolidated,
the three major depth measurement methods used in the Corps (sounding pole, lead line,
and acoustic echo sounding) will generally not correlate with one another, or perhaps not
even give consistent readings from one time to the next when the same type of instrument
or technique is used" (USACE 2001). This measurement ambiguity has resulted in
navigation dredging contract payment disputes and has hindered complete site
characterizations of environmental dredging site sediment conditions.
The objective of this project is to improve the capability to accurately and precisely
characterize environmental dredging projects where fluid mud/residual conditions occur.
The ADMODUS fluid mud survey system was successfully demonstrated in the field
(Gulfport, MS, navigation channel) and in the laboratory as part of a project to evaluate
the systems accuracy, precision, and applicability to USACE surveying practices. The
laboratory testing plan was designed to investigate the systems maximum spatial
resolution for detecting and characterizing fluid mud layer thicknesses as it relates to
surveying nautical depth applications. This work also set the baseline work for
investigating the systems capacities for surveying dredging residual layers in
environmental dredging applications that are usually thinner (e.g., 1 to 10 cm) than
nautical depth applications (1 m plus).
As per Bridges et al. (2008)1 "dredging residuals refer to contaminated sediment found at
the post-dredging surface of the sediment profile, either within or adjacent to the
dredging footprint." After the initial consolidation period (i.e., within a period of several
days to a few weeks, depending on sediment characteristics and site conditions),
generated residuals (excluding sloughed materials) typically occur as a thin veneer (1 to
10 cm thick) of fine-grained material, with relatively low dry bulk density (ranging from
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
38
approximately 0.2 to 0.5 g/cm3). For comparison, the typical dry bulk density for fine-
grained sediment is 0.5 to 0.9 g/cm3.
An EPA Interagency Agreement (IAG) was signed between the ERDC and EPA's
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD) of the Office of Research and Development's
National Exposure Research Laboratory to have ERDC modify the ADMODUS probe
for use in characterizing dredge residuals for environmental dredge projects. Specifically,
the system will be optimized to identify fluid mud (or "fluff') residuals (possibly down to
a resolution of 1 cm) and facilitate sediment sampling efforts in conjunction with EPA's
new Undisturbed Sediment Sampler (USS) designed for environmental dredging projects
by the EPA's Characterization and Monitoring Branch (CMB).
In the environmental arena, it would be of great benefit to know a priori the exact
locations and thicknesses of the fluff layers without having to actually sample the
sediment and visually examining the collected sediment column. The sediment fluff
layers (e.g., newly deposited sediments from an upstream dredging event) of thicknesses
as thin as 1 cm are of interest to meet the needs identified in the National Research
Council (NRC 2001)2 report. The increased resolution of a modified ADMODUS probe
will allow accurate characterization of the thinner layers of dredging residuals and
enhance environmental dredging site characterization efforts.
bridges, T., S. Ells, D. Hayes, D. Mount, S. Nadeau, M. Palermo, C. Patmont, and P.
Schroeder. 2008. The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release,
Residual, and Risk. Environmental Laboratory Technical Report ERDC/EL TR-08-4.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
2National Research Council. 2001. A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated
Sediments. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Project/Task Description
A questionnaire will be sent out to personnel involved in dredging residual-related
activities to facilitate a requirements analysis to determine the needs that the DRDP
system should meet (functional requirements) in order to measure density profiles
(density vs. depth) in dredging residuals (also referred to as fluid mud).
This analysis will be the basis for establishing the following:
• The physical environment that the system should be able to function in.
• Systems measurement accuracies, precisions, and resolutions.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
39
• Operational parameters (deployment characteristics, sampling frequencies, etc.).
Information developed from this analysis will be used to develop design specifications,
cost estimations, and evaluate design/development trade offs.
An ERDC USACE delivery order contract will be established with EHI/Synergetik to
design and develop the DRDP incorporating results from the systems requirements
analyses and consideration of available funding. After assembly of the DRDP by the
contractor, ERDC will receive the prototype and conduct laboratory tests to estimate its
accuracy (measure of overall agreement of a sensor measurement to a known value),
precision (measure of agreement among repeated measurements of the same property
under substantially similar condition expressed generally in terms of the standard
deviation), and vertical resolution. The results of these trials will be documented in an
interim technical report. If performance is deemed successful, the contractor will
construct the DRDP, and provide it to ERDC and tested and evaluated in a laboratory to
estimate its respective dredging residual density measurement accuracy and resolution
then it will be demonstrated in a marine environment to evaluate its ability to measure
density profiles in field conditions. This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) defines
quality assurance requirements for the laboratory testing of the DRDP prototype, and
subsequent laboratory and field testing of the DRDP to demonstrate its robustness.
Prototype DRDP Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing will include a series of tests performed in 10-gallon (38 L) buckets and
82-gallon (310) round and square columns with custom-designed sampling ports as
shown respectively in Figures 2, 3, and 4. The containers will be filled with fluid mud
collected from the Gulfport Navigation Ship channel, and water (also collected from the
Gulfport Ship channel). Gulfport navigation channel sediment (from select reaches) is
generally a fine grained cohesive sediment with an organic content of approximately
12 percent, and density profile (in the dredging template) ranging from 1.006 to
1.250 g/cm3. Additional amounts of water will be subsequently added to vary densities
ranging from approximately 1.010 to 1.300 g/cm3 with one suspension density in between
this span at approximately 1.150 g/cm3. Thicknesses of these varying suspensions will be
varied from approximately 0.5 m to 0.5 cm to evaluate DRDP vertical measurement
resolution.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
Figure 2. Ten-gallon (38 L) buckets for lab tests.
Figure 3.82-gallon (310 L) capacity square sampling column for laboratory tests,
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
41
Figure 4.82-gallon (310 L) capacity round sampling column for laboratory tests.
The prototype DRDP will be mounted on a rigid bracket on a sliding track suspended
over the tanks. This custom-designed Sensor Insertion Device (SID, Figure 5) will be
equipped with castors and moved from tank to tank each with a specific mud/fluid mud
configuration. The SID will use an adjustable-speed programmable linear actuator
(XLA-9 T35LS 500-ENC Specialty Motions, Inc.) to raise and lower the bracket on its
track, thereby raising and lowering the instruments into and out of the tanks, and having
the ability to control the rate of descent at the design recommended speed of 45 cm/sec.
Laboratory samples will be collected in one of two ways: with a syringe attached to a
sampling port (ports shown in Figures 3 and 4), or with a syringe and a length of vinyl
tubing attached to a rigid rod (Figure 6). The first method will utilize fixed sampling
ports and the second method will be employed to take samples anywhere within the
column.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
42
Figure 5. Sensor insertion Device (SID) with linear actuator.
Figure 6. Rod and tube sampling apparatus,
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
43
The sampling ports were constructed by drilling holes through the side of the columns
and a 12 in. (30 cm) stainless steel tube with a 0.18 in. (0.5 cm) ID was inserted using a
bulkhead style compression fitting. The rods extend approximately 8 in. (20 cm) into the
container. On the exterior end of the rod, a small piece of vinyl tubing with a tubing
clamp and female luer lock fitting was attached. When sampling, a male luer lock syringe
will be attached to the female fitting on the end of the sampling port and the plastic
tubing clamp will be opened. Approximately 30 cc of material will be purged from each
port before filling the sampling syringe with a sample volume of 60 cc. A clean, dry
syringe will be used to sample each port. When a sample is needed from a location for
which there was no sampling port, the syringe and tube method will be used (10 gallon
(38 L) bucket tests). This will consist of a rigid rod attached to a piece of vinyl tubing
with a female luer lock fitting on one end. The rod/tubing will be inserted to a specified
depth, approximately 30 cc of material purged, and a sample drawn with a luer lock
syringe (sample volume of 60 cc). The sampling tube will be cleaned and dried between
individual samples.
Fluid mud residuals will be collected with these two sampling setups. Samples will be
collected from as close to the DRDP sensor as possible. These sediment samples will be
analyzed using ASTM D854-06 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil
Solids by Water Pycnometer to calculate specific gravity of soil solids and bulk wet
density. The precision for (within) laboratory testing in calculating solids specific gravity
for single operator results between 5 replicates, as defined by the standard deviation
equation and supplementary equations for mean and variance below) is estimated to be:
one standard deviation = 0.009 specific gravity units.
Mean
n
2-V;
Where n is defined as the number of values.
Variance
n
2i i vi - xY
2 i= i
Standard Deviation is the positive square root of the variance.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
44
To express variation as a fraction of the mean, the measure of relative variation, the
relative standard deviation (RSD) (or coefficient of variation (CV)) [as calculated by
dividing the standard deviation by the mean and multiplying by 100 to express as a
percentage] for the 5 replicates is estimated to be <5 percent.
Laboratory-measured residual sample values (collected as near to the DRDP as practical)
will be compared to the DRDP-determined values.
Absolute and relative errors as defined by:
Eabs = PDRDP " Plab
Erel — Eabs/ Plab
where
Eabs = Absolute error between instrument and laboratory-measured sample
densities (g/cc).
Erei = Relative error between instrument and laboratory-measured sample
densities (g/cc).
Pdrdp = Density measured by Dredging Residual Density Profiler (g/cc).
PLab = Density measured by laboratory-measured sample (g/cc).
will be calculated and analyzed by descriptive statistic methods, such as scatter plots,
histograms, and box plots, to describe accuracy and precision measurement capabilities
of the DRDP.
The fluid mud organic content of will be determined using the ASTM Standard Test
Method for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils
(D 2974-07A). A composite sampling protocol will consist of homogenizing the fluid
mud in two 55 gallon (208 L) drums with a paddle stirrer and scooping a 1 L sample of
material from the surface of each drum. In turn, these samples will be stirred and a
60 cm3 sample scooped from this composite and subsequently analyzed. As per ASTM
D 2974-071, this test's precision is not presented "due to the nature of the soil materials
tested by this test method. It is either not feasible or too costly at this time to have ten or
more laboratories participate in a round-robin testing program." Regarding test bias,
"There is no accepted reference value for this test method; therefore, bias cannot be
determined." A total of three composites (one taken at the beginning, one at the mid
point, and one near the end of the testing period) will be tested in triplicate and respective
means and 95 percent confidence intervals calculated.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
45
DRDP Laboratory and Field Testing
The final DRDP design will be evaluated in the lab as well as in the field. The lab testing
will consist of the same protocols as proscribed for the prototype DRDP testing.
Field testing will be conducted in the Gulfport MS Navigation channel. The DRDP will
be deployed at three different locations (locations will be selected by determining
presence of fluid mud present in the channel) to measure depth versus density profiles. A
ball valve sampler (BVS) (Figure 7) will be attached to the DRDP (to minimize spatial
variability) to collect fluid mud samples within the fluid mud strata. The BVS consists of
four sample containers mounted on a bar and separated by 1 ft (30 cm) spans. This
assembly is heavily weighed at one end. Each 200 ml sample container has an open/close
mechanism on it that can be activated pneumatically by a line from an air compressor on
the boat. To collect a sample, the bar with the sample containers (attached to the DRDP)
will be lowered to a specified depth. A depth pressure sensor (vented to the atmosphere)
attached to the bar will provide measurements of the systems vertical position in the
water column. During lowering, the sample containers are closed. Upon reaching the
specified depth, the open/close mechanisms on the sample jar are activated and the
containers opened. The air in the containers escapes and the surrounding fluid mud fills
the containers. After approximately 30 sec, the open/close mechanism is deactivated
allowing the bottles to close. The entire system is then recovered and the samples
removed from each sample container and placed into plastic sample bottles. To verify the
both the DRDP and BVS depth sensors' accuracies (BVS depth sensor is plus/minus
0.1 percent of the depth range) an engineering tape will be fastened to the ball valve
sampler and lowered down to the channel bottom and the deck unit-reported values will
be compared to measurements read from the tape at the waters surface.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler 46
Figure 7. Ball valve sampler (BVS).
EPA National Geospatial Data Policy (NGDP)
Whenever practical, and applicable this project shall adhere to the National Geospatial
Data Policy (NGDP) which establishes principles, responsibilities, and requirements for
collecting and managing geospatial data used by Federal environmental programs and
projects within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
2006). This Policy also establishes the requirement of collecting and managing geospatial
metadata describing the Agency's geospatial assets to underscore EPA's commitment to
data sharing, promoting secondary data use, and supporting the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (NSDI).
A minimum of three profiles (collecting density profiles from DRDP and four BVS-
collected sediment samples each) will be collected at each location. The BVS-collected
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
47
fluid mud samples will be analyzed in the same manner (with the same estimated testing
precision) as previously described for the DRDP prototype laboratory testing phase to
determine specific gravity and organic content (ASTM D854-06 and ASTM D2974-071).
The laboratory-measured fluid mud sample values (collected by the BVS as near to the
DRDP as practical) will be compared to the DRDP-determined values. By calculating
absolute and relative errors as defined by:
Eabs = PDRDP - Pbv
Erel — Eabs/ Pbv
where
Eabs = Absolute error between instrument and laboratory-measured sample
densities (g/cm3).
Erei = Relative error between instrument and laboratory-measured sample
densities collected by ball valve sampler (g/cm3).
Pdrdp = Density measured by Dredging Residual Density Profiler (g/cm3).
Pbv = Density measured by laboratory-measured sample collected by the ball
valve sampler (g/cm3).
will be calculated and analyzed by descriptive statistic methods such as scatter plots,
histograms, and box plots, to describe accuracy and precision measurement capabilities
of the DRDP.
Quality Control Checks
To verify precision of the soil specific gravity test (ASTM D854-06, Standard Test
Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer) results, 5 replicates
will be tested and analyzed for every 20 samples collected and tested. Replicate variance
will be expressed as a measure of relative variation by calculating the relative standard
deviation (RSD) (or coefficient of variation (CV)) as calculated by dividing the standard
deviation by the mean and multiplying by 100 to express as a percentage (previously
explained and defined in Prototype DRDP Laboratory Testing section). The RSD of the 5
replicates is estimated to be <5 percent. If this variance is exceeded, both the threshold
variance value of 5 percent and the laboratory testing procedure will be investigated and
the QC issue will be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both the EPA and ERDC
project managers' satisfaction.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
48
Regarding the precision and bias of the fluid mud organic content values determined by
the ASTM Standard Test Method for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and
Other Organic Soils (D 2974-07A) as previously referenced in ASTM D 2974-071, "due
to the nature of the soil materials tested by this test method. It is either not feasible or too
costly at this time to have ten or more laboratories participate in a round-robin testing
program." Regarding test bias, "There is no accepted reference value for this test method,
therefore, bias cannot be determined." A total of three composites will be taken (one at
the beginning, one at the mid point, and one near the end of the laboratory trials will be
tested in triplicate and respective means and 95 percent confidence intervals calculated).
In the field tests, to verify the BVS depth sensors reported accuracy of +/- 0.1 percent of
the depth range, an engineering tape will be fastened to the ball valve sampler and
lowered down to the channel bottom and the deck unit-reported values will be compared
(at 10 ft (3 m) intervals) to measurements read from the tape at the waters surface. If the
reported depth value exceeds this specified accuracy (as compared to the measurement
tape), the depth sensor will be replaced and retested, or the engineering tape will be
manually read and values recorded.
Schedule
The preliminary schedule is presented next. Specific schedules will depend upon funding,
personnel availability, contractual requirements, and DRDP design/development
parameters determined from the systems requirement analysis.
Activity
Date (MM/DD/YY)
Deliverable
Deliverable
Due Date
Anticipated
Date of
Initiation
Anticipated
Date of
Completion
Conduct requirements
analysis
11/1/08
12/30/08
Requirements
analysis
Scope of Work /Award
Delivery Order Contract
1/1/09
1/30/09
Develop and test DRDP
prototype in laboratory
2/1/09
8/1/09
DRDP prototype
and preliminary
test report
Develop and test final
DRDP in laboratory and
field.
8/2/09
4/30/10
DRDP
Technical Report
4/30//10
7/31/10
Technical
Report
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
49
Reports to Management
Quarterly status reports will be delivered to the EPA Project Manager (Brian
Schumacher) to inform management of project status. If something occurs that could
significantly affect the quality of the data, the USACE Principal Investigator (Tim Welp)
will notify the EPA Project Manager to seek resolution and advice on how to proceed.
Data Management
Data generated during the laboratory and field sampling portion of this project will be
input to a data management system based on Microsoft Excel. The system will be
customized for this project to optimize the efficiency and functionality.
The data management system will be used to store all relevant project data such as
sample locations and depths, sample-specific principal parameter settings, sample
collection and analysis times, analytical results for field samples, laboratory and QC
sample results. Hand entered data will be checked by someone not responsible for the
manual data input to verify accuracy.
The data management system will facilitate export of the investigation results to a variety
of statistical software programs for analysis.
Data Validation
The laboratory data will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable method and the
quality of the data reported. The following summarizes the areas of data validation:
• Data completeness
• Calibrations
• Replicates
• Field QC samples
Each data set will be validated to identify biases inherent to the data and determine its
usefulness. Data validation flags will be applied to those sample results that fall outside
of specified tolerance limits and, therefore, do not meet the data quality requirements of
the project. Data validation flags will indicate if results are considered anomalous,
estimated, or rejected. Only rejected data are considered unusable; however, other
qualified data may require further verification.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
50
Reports
ERDC will prepare a preliminary report documenting results from the prototype DRDP
laboratory testing phase. A detailed report will be prepared that documents the complete
investigation's activities and findings, summarizes the conclusions, and provides
recommendations for applying the results of this investigation. Recommendations for
additional research will be provided as warranted. The detailed report will be prepared in
the format specified in the EPA Handbook for Preparing Office of Research and
Development Reports (EPA 1995).
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. Hydrographic Surveying. Engineer Manual
EM 1110-2-1003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
CIO Policy Transmittal 05-022, Classification No. 2121, Policy Title: EPA
National Geospatial Data Policy, http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/fund/ngdp.pdf.
24 August 2005 (cited 15 September 2006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Handbook for Preparing Office of
Research and Development Report, 3rd Edition. EPA600/K-95/002. Cincinnati,
OH: Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
51
Appendix B: Pycnometer Volume Calibration
Procedure:
1. Go to SedLab sheets directory, Sprdshts, PYCNOVOL for a spreadsheet example
to use in determining the volume of a pycnometer. Copy and paste the spreadsheet
to another file.
2. Inspect all pycnometers to be calibrated for cracks or chips. If there are any cracks
or chips in the glass or glass stopper, discard pycnometer. Each pycnometer and
stopper has a matching number etched on them, so if either is cracked discard
both.
3. Make sure pycnometers are clean and dry. Remove all fingerprints from inside
and outside pycnometer and stopper by using Kimwipes.
4. Handle a pycnometer with a Kimwipe or exam glove and get tare weight using a
small balance. Record weight in the Tare column on the spreadsheet.
5. Remove pycnometer from balance, remove the stopper, and fill pycnometer with
room temperature distilled water up to the bottom of the pycnometer neck. Insert
stopper. Use a 10 cc syringe with hypodermic needle filled with room temperature
distilled water to finish filling pycnometer and stopper with water until a small
amount of water pushes out of stopper opening. Kimwipe water from stopper and
any external water on the pycnometer. Inspect pycnometer and stopper for air
bubbles (all air must be removed). If air is present, try tapping on pycnometer to
remove air. If tapping doesn't work, insert hypodermic needle again and try short
quick squirts of distilled water to remove air. Again, remove any external water
and fingerprints. Place filled pycnometer on balance and record weight in the Wt.
bottle + water column on the spreadsheet.
6. This can be done before or after weighing pycnometers. Place a thermometer in
the distilled water used in filling pycnometer(s) and record temperature in the
Temp. C column on the spreadsheet. The water temperature will correspond to a
value on the Density of Water chart (on the wall behind computer). Record the
value (rounded to the third decimal) in the Dens. Water column on the
spreadsheet. Example: 22.2°C = 0.998.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
52
7. After the Tare wt., Wt. pycno + water and Density of water have been recorded on
the spreadsheet the water wt. and the pycnometer volume will be generated
automatically by formulas on the spreadsheet.
8. Do this procedure three times on each pycnometer. Calculate the average of the
three pycnometer volumes obtained. The averaged volume then will used in the
calculation of bulk density of a sediment sample.
Bulk Density Analysis-Pycnometer Method
Using pycnometers to determine the bulk density of sediment has shown to be the most
accurate method.
Before starting this procedure:
1. Clean and inspect pycnometers. If glass is cracked or glass stopper is chipped do
not use.
2. Pycnometers and stoppers all have numbers etched on them. Make sure
pycnometers and stoppers match.
3. Periodically, the pycnometers volumes need to be checked. Procedure for doing
this can be found in SedLabsheets directory, Sprdshts, Pycnovol file. The
pycnometer volume is used in the equation to determine the bulk density.
4. Sediment samples and distilled water should be at room temperature.
5. Create or open directory and create file in Excel.
a. Spreadsheet is in SedLab sheets directory, Sprdshts, BDENSITY.
b. Enter sample information, pycnometer numbers, and pycnometer volumes
on the spreadsheet.
Procedure:
1. First clean pycnometers and stoppers inside and outside using Kimwipes to
remove fingerprints, dust, water, etc.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
53
2. Weigh each stoppered pycnometer on microbalance (small scales) and record
under Tare wt. column on the spreadsheet. Note: Whichever balance was used
to get Tare wts. use that balance for remaining weights.
3. Thoroughly mix sediment sample then carefully spoon sample into pycnometer
until it's about one-half full. Kimwipe away any sample that is on the lip or
inside neck of pycnometer and insert stopper.
4. Wipe fingerprints, etc., from outside of pycnometer, weigh and record in Wt.
bottle + sediment column on the spreadsheet.
5. Fill a 250 ml beaker with distilled water, insert a thermometer for several minutes
and record temperature in Temp. C column on the spreadsheet. Look at Density
of Water chart, find density (probably 0.998) in relation to temperature, and
record in the Density of water column on the spreadsheet.
6. Filling the pycnometer:
a. Remove stopper.
b. Using squirt bottle slowly fill pycnometer with distilled water until water
level is at bottom of pycnometer neck.
c. Inspect sediment and be sure there are no imbedded air bubbles. If there
is, use a needle to gently remove them.
d. Insert stopper.
e. Attach a hypodermic needle to a 10 cc syringe and fill syringe with
distilled water from beaker mentioned in 5 above.
f. Insert needle into stopper opening down to just below stopper bottom and
slowly fill remaining area in pycnometer and stopper until a small amount
of water seeps from stopper opening. Wipe off excess water.
g. Inspect for any trapped air bubbles in pycnometer and stopper. All air
bubbles must be removed! If air bubble is noticed, try tapping on
pycnometer or a short quick jet from the syringe may work. If all else
fails remove stopper and refill.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
54
7. Kimwipe off water, fingerprints, etc. from pycnometer and stopper. Weigh and
record in Wt. bottle + sed. + water column of spreadsheet.
8. Formula in the sediment density column of spreadsheet will generate the bulk
density.
9. Empty pycnometers and wash with soap and warm water. If sample residue stain
is noticed inside the pycnometer, use a test tube brush to remove residue. Rinse
pycnometers with distilled water and either place the pycnometers upside down
into a sieve and place into the oven (60°-80°C) and allow to dry -30 min or use
Kimwipes to remove water inside and out of pycnometer. Also, canned air can be
used to blow and dry water from inside the pycnometer and stopper. NOTE: If
the pycnometers have been oven dried they need time to cool down before reuse
(-30 min).
10. Normally pycnometers not in use are placed in a desiccator and set on a counter
top where they aren't bothered or jostled.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
55
Appendix C: Sediment Laboratory Total Organic Content and
Grain-size Analyses Results
r-^—
u
,r
S. 8a
7
EVF OPENING in INCHES
iHirv Mfci. am in
o- 1 If-
tu
u
S. STAWDA
ftD SIEVE NUMBERS
KU0
#tro mi
HYDROMETER
10Q
1
I
I I
-
-
*
' r-
<1
0
90
10
BO
20
70
V
30
s
V
C£
Ui
Z
40 rn
s
u.
Z SO
LU
U
S
40
f/
m
z
50 n
CO
eo ^
30
70
20
eo
10
l
90
0
100
too
10
0.1
0.01
0.QO1
GRAIN SIZE -
mm
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
I
Fine
Silt
I
CIay
9 Sample No
Elev or Depth
Classification
Nat w%
LL
PL
PI
o] 1
Clay (CHI Gray
Project Development or High Resolution Dredsine Residud
Visual
Profiler
T
Area
i1 i
Boring No. 8/16/09 Rairel 2
Particle Size Distribution Report
Date: 9,io,'2009 Corps of Enqineers
Figure CI. Plot of the grain size distribution for Barrel 2, Sample 1.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
56
CRWNSlZf-OiSTRIHUT.ON IfcSl DATA
»1ft'20a9
Project: l>cv;inpTr.-n' 01 11 id: iksuUiiun [^wl.viv, 3csidi, J Pt.-fiLr
l.iKStoft: «• k. I" <1 .Ti<- 7
!.- i hi:- i
r-» = <1 r ;-s2r j:! :J||jr (CH), Gray
Visual
r.
iSsmifilf
asni tan
.¦jrar:-!
:mio
y.p I
CumulattM
Tare Wright
»)
liiM)
5ta»
apeivng
&I7C
Oumutaii¥c
Wright
IMainad
iSHWMj
f'o-cont
I .icf
1
0.00
¦111;
0.0ft
, :;i t f>
»m
i.ott
;:e i-
Ajr
0.M
! •:!(,.• !'
»»
0.00
Mi' ;>
ti-i
0.00
Mi-"'';
*70
can
S
f li-t
0.10
m-; fi
.'! 1«J
0.30
V'.l -
h:t«i
0.40
j
ls«-» matfiSa i iM-uina sin
I fMtttai #1U tosrsd Itpon camp-trl* fwmpn* ¦ j 01.0
Wt>iBlil at Hki-OT«er sample =rS#J
lie wntiMnihim mrmctloti
i cerKitftM ;r wM i-wxtly 4n« umAlKiMi MbiM at » hj.
•. corr?:Uon jim» - l- I
urnwfaf !<« - • ?t,i n:
-cyp«*Ml,l
n*rr effwOw Mptn oquat-an; L ¦ 1 &2SNK64 » I3.MIJ * Him
Tumi*,
Actual
f'6 wb**-.w —i -rj
vOrT#Gi®&
E i !_> r>»
71 •>
;60,80
21J
1.0253
. "
h.cra
?5 "¦<
! i
120.00
11J
1.0238
i¦ ix.is
I..MH
250,(10
22,0
1.0213
'< C'lfs
Ji >
!«J. 7
0.102?
SI. I
M '
[ CcbWci
-- ¦¦ .
1
s»
¦rt
Ocsura#
Flnt
T!>
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
57
u s. sieve opening in inches
U 3. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
-S i .
rlYDROMSTER
7i1
Ll
I-
Z
UJ
LJ
CL
40
too
100
0.1
0.01
0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
Gravel
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Silt
Etev or Depth
Classification
PL
Project Development of High Resolution Dredging Residual
Profiler
Clay (CH), Gray
Visual
Boring No, &¦' 16/09 Barrel 2
. Particle Size Distribution Report
Corps of Engineers
Data: 9/10/2009
Figure C3. Plot of the grain size distribution for Barrel 2, Sample 2,
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
58
GRAIN S'2c Ulo ! UILUJ7CA T-JSr DA I A
9.1C,'2009
P-oJci.l' IXulu^n-rii u |! t'ji K.' iitiitiiti.
l.iitLliar: ;• ¦ ¦ I' n..-
R.-ripk Niis-ihiir: .
ill -^r-ipiiu,!.
Vkivj
u'jfc- Kc
-I I'futl
1--,.
»Wj
5. ¦
larr
ftpaiisl
1.1II)
CWWIIiihw
P*
Tamvvweht
»Y3
&&
CWWtBBM
woont
Hi.sail •-••i
l-qrair" f
Parttmt
FllWf
SICI
i),a
l«IJ
0.00
100 JO
#20
MO
100,0
¦-'h\
III®
mo
Mi*
MB
mo
(1.00
100.0
#711
0.10
f9«S
fcjn,*
O.lfl
99.8
V'-U
0.20
V '»f5l
02.0
ffj
, ¦¦¦'! |J
'smart* piss
*«* aw iwpiw* iwwuing #10
P'K.ira m B aascd upon wnplu ¦ s* - -t - V
«f hytfUMnrtar tame)* *51J
*,L-:r\;il " :?:i i . ¦.
^•ur portl* correct an I'lir .3 density and rc-amar.iK tiniylit;a) Jfl riujj, C •
V(r>! t - -rr'.c-l ;• |ly - ¦
!=r ' "f - i I,- !¦( ^ulirK - > ,
^¦nroncwr type- * 'M it
hyr-iir^'p fipc.iv; wpt n I - . ,,
L ^!_^c -:1
lamp.
Acruj-
C;.
Ff
iii.- in— «r
h'^-r -il
•i— |- -i
utog C.l
-fta-iirq
Hiaatfhnji
K
Km
ttf»p 1
• i'. >r
lh;
l.ifUfc
! i':f:
i; •;« i •.
1-
,M S
" 1
iSfjM'j
1
* ;:fi
11 €
1.0-.15
1.0279
ui •
1
t "1 -ff
7,7
S •iJ'.J
>1
I ¦> ill"
21J
¦ IC<>*
I ;i* At
* '
S..o
' -i K
Hp, CJSs
."V 1
f !! 4H
i i;-i
¦1 ir j
1
H ?
inrTi
?•< »i
or- >«i
>
i;
I \iY-
2o,\-
¦*f-S
=:
t'T.i
¦'li ri,[
IH3
I >.Oi i
OOP
>
;«i.
4 7
"J.I'II1!!
t2S
J'llitl
1
I mi
r i.
-;i ='
'1 !¦'.'!? !
y\y
i
mm
n i/j i'
•11.>1
!
S«id
Hiaia,
- 4
0.0 }
.TrtSr"j"~(
rOWTM
Mert:i "i
. Flrw
SIB
«af
, T«*"
fljj |
0.# I
ci,»
0J
0,4
-
12.5
67. t
D«
20
l-'3.
'l.D
UGC_
!> s it,:
oHo
ll.f s
—r
«Jhb
,j l! '7
°9U
0S5
I ,&4
Figure C4. Grain size distribution test data for Barrel 2, Sample 2.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
59
-
u
s
SIEVE OPENING IN iNOeS
VA in. V; in. a"fi In
2 in- Win.
#4
U.S STAT1
DA
RD SIEVE
NJMSERS
#:4A
HYDROMETER
I
1
1
1 1
1
1
¦o
0
90
|
10
80
20
70
V
30
60
\
b
•x
LLi
?
\
V,
40 nt
S
U.
H
Z
LL
O
50
\
m
z
\
50 0
IE
40
Vj
CO
eo 3
—r—
30
70
20
60
10
90
0
I
j
|'
WO
10
1
0-1
0.O
0001
GRAIN SIZE -
% Gravel
% Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
i
Fine
Silt
1
Clay
Sample No.
ElOv or Depth
Classification
Nat w%
LL
PL
PI
jo
3
Clav fCH>. Gray
Project JjeveJapmcnt ot High Resolution Dredging Residual
Visual
Profiler
Area
Boring No.
S/lSiW Barrel 2
Particle Size Distribution Report
Date
9/10/2009
Corps of Engineers
Figure C5. Plot of the grain size distribution for Barrel 2, Sample 3.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
60
Graik s ijt n;s • r. buiion rr st da ~a
b, :u
Piojt'Li. IvveV'tiiiiMt i:t DitpJsrint;kn'isMii
"LOCaliOfl. .V"ln <>I r Jarr.i ""
irrf'Jul
Mt!t;r.-li:c5cn.r:;i-c: ¦ ,.j.
Visual
GumuMlwi
ajwlflW T*r» iBreWcigW
CgiwM] isnntb} tfpasnsj
: 49,50 0,{» 1.011
U'jir Jlatltm
tthifffit
ni-voi,-ij3
fetaliM*
Pi;:f., i
Si«
i^rar-.i:
Fliwr
#]§
CI.CW
MB;®
"li
0.00
18 Mi-
rtlr.]
O.flO
lt! II ,i'
a
mi
l>MfJ
am
100 J
V?'!
mm
I- •
»."i i
mo
]«ti
l> l«0
itn
1KJ.0
-: 3. ¦
ft;j i
W.1
H'SC
0,20
m. 6
?|#M •i-r.vnj s»^; rqH§
I tic 100.0
i t#wip#r»lun
V>nr. ..!¦ >> , II 1 JlBteWJ at m ffeg. 6" -CI
::i-T--in v - I
: viravllv .-.I - > *tl
' rl«i**35iB
¦ r tffecdv* depth equation: L • l4.lt.MM • 1064S x Sm
Hhh#,
Actual
twmmtm
r i, M
Pt'CMt
(sit# fitfln.l
•IiVn C,|
teaaifld
K
Depth
1 inrr
' 1
1.034?
l,l»
(IJOZ
MJ
7.1
D.tMI
4l.> 1
' 5.DO
J! J
1,0313
i.lfl?
MDS
12.3
" ^
VMM
Sit s
•15.1©
3.3-S
1.(1291
1.0845
M1J2
m?
t.6
mim
*i"X ^
MM
23.5
1.0275
I.JJ339
€1,0131
27,5
m
"j ;
mm
21,5
1.62S4
; :
cr.ooa
25.3
M
0,0033
$6.7
12MD
11.5
I.S239
tftffl
«,01J2
23.8
10 0
t.Oiili
<4
ISM#
m
I.OSM
mm
#,o:r«
23,0
:ibj
0JB87
.5,, ~i
Cotblcs
C >1
iltU
woan«
' i >,i
Gravrl
I- ii-
t>'l
;; faflrf ____
Tali j Camm [ Pwili^n t flat
U,l> I.I' 0.U a.* M.4
Sri ' Oav ; lota.
> - 'j <.s ¦ , f
Dt6
1 >JtU
\ / ¦
UEC
fxr-u'vi
°ac
"¦35
i, 11
•: Ji
tj ;> •11 is,;.'!1
Figure C6. Grain size distribution test data for Barrel 2, Sample 3.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
61
PA~A "CP oneAVC CONTIMT lASTM D2L A i
'
L-pivLTt 1/ -i-JM K,.>ul.j: :;i rvD^C'9
T CLIENT
Residual Pi ofbf | 1-mWa'p
h Sheet 1 cf 2 ' lv: 5/2009
::: = i:;ig
Bil'irji 1
Dili f: 1
Sample Nto,
1
2
3
tr ' cv?j*nsrt
0/: 3.-00
e.' T 3. CD
5.* 13/09
No
2
3
4
1
&•
T»r»*$oii (dried *n«n
2* i
34
x?:i
Soil pried at 110']
14 H
15.0
14,4
T.% - Soil pried at 4 4 IT)
23 a
sTl
76.S
H 1
14 3
"3.S
TflttWefeht
9.5
00
C'-anic Con*enc Iwt.l
Uiga'v; C&rjeni
47
4 7
4.2
Ih-TK; 2
Bar-c £
Barry! 2
Sample No.
1
2
5
C^ 1 hwyriun
V-
8M4/DG
- . S|.-
m
$
r
IS
i
ff
m
S
Two - Roil :«'»<«! ill 1 "3
25 6
27.6
25 9
Soil (drwd at 11i*|
14 9
14.9
15.3
Tarp - £ nil '.nrwii -„il 44'.T
24.9
26,9
£5.2
i
Soil Mried at 443';
14 J
14
14.8
Tire Weight
10 7
i. ¦
1C.6
———
————>
¦ mm,}
Grga - z Center
4 7
4.S
¦¦
i "
6a-rc 1
Odi-e« i
Sample Mo.
1
2
3
mma
~&wm
vr;i
- N--
17
tfl 1
20
-
I
Tj..' - SiJll I tri^j ar ' "U")
: '
27,2
:i=
15 7
14 y I 13.a
7a-e - So«; (dried a» 440'
24.2
2o.n 1 ?6 H
s>
5 ¦ . .
ISO
I 13. a I
Tat* Weight
9.2
-m: I.
Organ* Content (wt)
7
w"li fin, CiHlfHlir {-«)
4.S
2,8 I 3.6
$ > aiwte * «t03' »hki *«r- vn m w* «r« * *ro I
s 1 wtafst«»M«nr I
rieftSc*
TSSwimm- Ishecwii*- 1
Figure C7. Results of the organic content analyses.
-------
Dredging Residuals Density Profiler
62
• •• n^FCT
data SHEET FOR ORGANIC CON I DMT (ASTM D29 '4-C7A*
—i imrn-t,- ii "YfupMCI'
Development of Hcph Resolution Dredging
Residual Profiler
= Sheet 2 of 2
MD3309
r: ;p_NT
3a *l
Tim: Weip
Soring
" Barrel 2
Bane! 2
] Barrel 2
i fp \o
i 1
; 2
I 3
"1.. il'. oi Llevavon
\ 6/16/05
1 8/1 ^09
>6'09
«-• No
5 22
1 ~3'i
Tare - Sal Id'ten at HO';
26 1
24 6
1 25.0
'
So 1fcteu a! 110
15,0
1.
rs.B
i,
j
Tj'o + Soil vdrifi : .r *4u :
2?3
24 0
24.2
-
C--.i I -40 )
14.2
12 8
15.0
|—
i*eightj 13.1
K,?
9 2
Organic Content (wt}"
Organic Content (Wl
5 3
A 5
j 5.1
Bor'nej
Ba«ei 1
Barrel 1
Barfof 1
Handle No
¦
2
ZJtptii or h'-evation
a-*1 E3/0S
8/19/09
& 19/09 i
1 are No,
3i
34 C
36 0
Ta*e t Sui! {a'ikjd a! 110"J
20,1
29.4
25 9
F
Soil (unud aM 1D )
14*4 '
_
14. a
|4& I
-
: tre ^ Soi> {dried at 440")
28,6
•;-h
£ :
Sor- (dried at 4. ¦ r g
Barrel 2 ' Barrel 2
Barrel 2
mule No
1
2
3
Depth or fcievabon
8/19/09
0/19/09
ti/19''G9
h 'J).
17
3fi
39
Tare + Soil (dried at 110*)
23 6
27 5
?t> u
j£!
So'l (c'ritxl a? I "0"f
P
15 5
14 5
E
n
1a/e + Soil (riried at 440'}
25.1
2C.9
26.5
SJnii inrted at A4U l
Ta*o Weight
15.1
14,9
14.1
r&
T
14.0
12.0
12.4
Organ c Content (a!"| j
^ Organic Content
3.2
3 9
2.B
OiTgamc = "AX cf Sail Dn&a a' ' - ¦/»'t Soil L' izj-iJ*0' x 100
jmrnmrnm
a* Soil Dried an 10'
CHECKED BY.
Figure C8. Results of the organic content analyses.
-------
-------
oEPA
United Stcites
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research
and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-09/120
September 2009
www.epa.gov
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE ~;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA PERMIT No. G-35
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |