A two-stage extraction procedure for insensitive munition (IM) explosive compounds in soils

Methods for simultaneous determination of legacy and insensitive munition (IM) constituents in aqueous, soil/sediment, and tissue matrices

Currently, no standard method exists for analyzing insensitive munition (IM) compounds in environmental matrices, with or without concurrent legacy munition compounds, resulting in potentially inaccurate determinations. The primary objective of this work was to develop new methods of extraction, pre-concentration, and analytical separation/quantitation of 17 legacy munition compounds along with several additional IM compounds, IM breakdown products, and other munition compounds that are not currently included in U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 8330B. The eight additional compounds included were nitroguanidine, 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one, picric acid, 2,4-dinitroanisole, 2,4-dinitrophenol, 2-nitrophenol, 4-nitrophenol, and new surrogate ortho-nitrobenzoic acid (o-NBA). Analytical methods were developed to enable sensitive, simultaneous detection and quantitation of the 24 IM and legacy compounds, including two orthogonal high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) column separations with either ultraviolet (UV) or mass spectrometric (MS) detection. Procedures were developed for simultaneous extraction of all 24 analytes and two surrogates (1,2-dinitrobenzene, 1,2-DNB; o-NBA) from high- and low-level aqueous matrices and solid matrices, using acidification, solid phase extraction (SPE), or solvent extraction (SE), respectively. For low-level aqueous samples extracted by SPE, all compounds were recovered within current Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual (DoD QSM) Ver5.3 accepted limits for aqueous samples analyzed by EPA Method 8330B (57-135%), except NQ, which was consistently recovered at approximately 50%. Likewise, all compounds were recovered from six geographically/geochemically unique soil types within current QSM accepted limits for solid samples analyzed by EPA Method 8330B (64-135%). Further, the majority of compounds were recovered from four tissue types within current limits for solids, with generally low recovery only for Tetryl (from 4 to 62%). A preparatory chromatographic interference removal procedure was adapted for tissue extracts, as various analytical interferences were observed for all studied tissue types.

The effect of soil type on the extraction of insensitive high explosive constituents using four conventional methods

Explosive contamination is commonly found at military and manufacturing sites (Hewitt et al., 2005; Clausen et al., 2004; Walsh et al., 2013). Under current environmental legislation the extent of the contamination must be characterized by soil sampling and subsequent separation of the explosive contaminants from the soil matrix by extraction to enable chemical analysis and quantification (Dean, 2009). It is essential that the extraction method can consistently recover explosive residue from a variety of soil types i.e. all materials that have not degraded or irreversibly bound to the matrix, so that any resultant risk is not underestimated. In this study, five different soil types with a range of organic content, particle size and pH, were spiked with a mixture of RDX, DNAN, NQ and NTO at 50 mg/kg and were extracted using one of four one-step extraction methods: stirring, shaking, sonication, and accelerated solvent extraction (ASE). Analysis of the extraction efficiencies of the four methods found that they were broadly successful for the extraction of all IHE constituents from all five soils (an average of 84% ± 14% recovery across 80 extractions). However, soils with high organic content (Total Organic Content (TOC) ≥ 2%) were found to significantly affect extraction efficiency and reproducibility. NTO and DNAN were the least consistent in extraction efficiency with poorest recovery of NTO as low as 37% ± 2%. Of the four tested methods shaking was found to be the most reproducible, though less efficient than stirring (64%-91%). ASE was found to have the most variable results for extraction of IHE constituents suggesting that ASE was the most affected by the different soil types. Therefore, it is recommended that the efficiency and reproducibility of the selected extraction method should be validated by extracting known concentrations of the IHE from the soil of interest and that any required correction factors are reported.