issue. Tracking dissolved (first hundreds of μg/L) contamination in very permeable
aquifers could be problematic. In order to enhance the performance of the detection
limits, the manufacturer offers an updated technology called low-level MIP. Correct
evaluation of MIP logs is crucial. If the probe enters a highly contaminated zone, it
will cause significant “drag off” or “tailing”, so the clean intervals could appear
contaminated (Bumberger et al. 2012). However, an experienced operator should
recognize this and interpret the data correctly.
References
Adamson DT, Chapman S, Mahler N, Newell C, Parker B, Pitkin S, Rossi M, Singletary M (2014)
Membrane interface probe protocol for contaminants in low-permeability zones. Groundwater
52(4):550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12085
Bastiaens L, Stubdrup OP (2012) Soil treatment device and use thereof for treating contaminated
soil and/or groundwater contained therein. Patent WO 2012/123518 A3
Bronders J, Van Keer I, Touchant K, Vanermen G, Wilczek D (2009) Application of the membrane
interphase probe (MIP): an evaluation. J Soils Sediments 9(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11368-008-0054-9
Bumberger J, Radny D, Berndsen A, Goblirsch T, Flachowsky J, Dietrich P (2012) Carry-over
effects of the membrane interface probe. Groundwater 50(4):578–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1745-6584.2011.00879.x
Kukačka J, Bastiaens L, De Vos J, Andersen B (2015) MIP-IN: new device for combined detection
of pollutants and injection of reagents. Waste Forum 4:232–241
McAndrews B, Heinze K, DiGuiseppi W (2003) Defining TCE plume source areas using the
membrane interface probe (MIP). Soil Sediment Contam 12(6):799–813. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10588330390254838
McCall W, Christy TM, Pipp D, Terkelsen M, Christensen A, Weber K, Engelsen P (2014) Field
application of the combined membrane-interface probe and hydraulic profiling tool (MiHpt).
Groundwater Monit Rem 34(2):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12051
McCall W, Christy T, Goodrich J (2016) Application of the optical image profiler (OIP) to
characterize the Grimm oil site, Kalona, Iowa. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10431.30888
Soukupova J, Zboril R, Medrik I, Filip J, Safarova K, Ledl R, Mashlan M, Nosek J, Cernik M
(2015) Highly concentrated, reactive and stable dispersion of zero-valent iron nanoparticles:
direct surface modification and site application. Chem Eng J 262:813–822. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cej.2014.10.024
US EPA (2016) Contaminated site clean-up information. https://clu-in.org/characterization/technol
ogies/hrsc/hrscintro.cfm. Accessed 10 July 2019
624
V. Knytl
aquifers could be problematic. In order to enhance the performance of the detection
limits, the manufacturer offers an updated technology called low-level MIP. Correct
evaluation of MIP logs is crucial. If the probe enters a highly contaminated zone, it
will cause significant “drag off” or “tailing”, so the clean intervals could appear
contaminated (Bumberger et al. 2012). However, an experienced operator should
recognize this and interpret the data correctly.
References
Adamson DT, Chapman S, Mahler N, Newell C, Parker B, Pitkin S, Rossi M, Singletary M (2014)
Membrane interface probe protocol for contaminants in low-permeability zones. Groundwater
52(4):550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12085
Bastiaens L, Stubdrup OP (2012) Soil treatment device and use thereof for treating contaminated
soil and/or groundwater contained therein. Patent WO 2012/123518 A3
Bronders J, Van Keer I, Touchant K, Vanermen G, Wilczek D (2009) Application of the membrane
interphase probe (MIP): an evaluation. J Soils Sediments 9(1):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11368-008-0054-9
Bumberger J, Radny D, Berndsen A, Goblirsch T, Flachowsky J, Dietrich P (2012) Carry-over
effects of the membrane interface probe. Groundwater 50(4):578–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1745-6584.2011.00879.x
Kukačka J, Bastiaens L, De Vos J, Andersen B (2015) MIP-IN: new device for combined detection
of pollutants and injection of reagents. Waste Forum 4:232–241
McAndrews B, Heinze K, DiGuiseppi W (2003) Defining TCE plume source areas using the
membrane interface probe (MIP). Soil Sediment Contam 12(6):799–813. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10588330390254838
McCall W, Christy TM, Pipp D, Terkelsen M, Christensen A, Weber K, Engelsen P (2014) Field
application of the combined membrane-interface probe and hydraulic profiling tool (MiHpt).
Groundwater Monit Rem 34(2):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12051
McCall W, Christy T, Goodrich J (2016) Application of the optical image profiler (OIP) to
characterize the Grimm oil site, Kalona, Iowa. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10431.30888
Soukupova J, Zboril R, Medrik I, Filip J, Safarova K, Ledl R, Mashlan M, Nosek J, Cernik M
(2015) Highly concentrated, reactive and stable dispersion of zero-valent iron nanoparticles:
direct surface modification and site application. Chem Eng J 262:813–822. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cej.2014.10.024
US EPA (2016) Contaminated site clean-up information. https://clu-in.org/characterization/technol
ogies/hrsc/hrscintro.cfm. Accessed 10 July 2019
624
V. Knytl