Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Large-diameter, non-pumped wells filled with reactive media for groundwater remediation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A groundwater flow and contaminant transport model was used to simulate arrays of non-pumped wells with reactive media for remediating contaminated groundwater. Each array featured a minimum number of wells, with identical diameter, capable of removing a contaminant plume within a hypothetical site. Simulated well diameters ranged from 0.25 m (similar to typical remediation wells) to 1.25 m (similar to large-diameter, bucket-augered wells). Both arrays occupied a linear transect located approximately 5 m downgradient of the front of a polluted enclave and oriented 90° to the hydraulic gradient. The minimum smallest diameter array contained 23 wells, whereas the minimum largest diameter array contained only four wells. Results of this study suggest that bucket-augering technology, adapted to install non-pumped wells with reactive media, may be an effective alternative for remediating contaminated groundwater in some environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • API (American Petroleum Institute) (1989) Hydrogeologic database for ground water modeling. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowes DW, Ptacek CJ, Benner SG, McRae CWT, Bennett TA, Puls RW (2000) Treatment of inorganic contaminants using permeable reactive barriers. J Contam Hydrol 45(1):123–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortone I, Di Nardo A, Di Natale M, Erto A, Musmarra D, Santonastaso GF (2013) Remediation of an aquifer polluted with dissolved tetrachloroethylene by an array of wells filled with activated carbon. J Hazard Mater 260:914–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byung L, Park E, Um J, Lee K, Jeong J, Nam K (2013) Release characteristics of molasses from a well-type barrier system in groundwater: a large test tank study for nitrate removal. Environ Earth Sci 70(1):167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elder CR, Benson CH, Eykholt GR (2002) Effects of heterogeneity on influent and effluent concentration from horizontal permeable reactive barriers. Water Resour Res 38(8):1152. doi:10.1029/2001WR001259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flury B, Frommer J, Eggenberger URS, Mader URS, Nachtegaal M, Kretzschmar R (2009) Assessment of long-term performance and chromate reduction mechanisms in a field scale permeable reactive barrier. Environ Sci Technol 43:6786–6792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerin TF, Horner S, McGovern T, Davey B (2002) An application of permeable reactive barrier technology to petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated groundwater. Water Res 36(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemsi PS, Shackelford CD (2006) An evaluation of the influence of aquifer heterogeneity on permeable reactive barrier design. Water Resour Res 42:W03402. doi:10.1029/2005WR004629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudak PF (2008) Configuring passive wells with reactive media for treating contaminated groundwater. Environ Prog 27(2):257–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudak PF (2012) Relative efficiency of multi-transect, non-pumped, reactive well networks for removing contaminated groundwater. Toxic Hazard Subst Environ Eng 47(13):2159–2162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudak PF (2014) Comparison of permeable reactive barrier, funnel and gate, non-pumped wells, and low-capacity wells for groundwater remediation. J Environ Sci Health 49(10):1171–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai KCK, Lo IMC, Birkelund V, Kjeldsen P (2006) Field monitoring of a permeable reactive barrier for removal of chlorinated organics. J Environ Eng 132(2):199–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Painter BDM (2004) Reactive barriers: hydraulic performance and design enhancements. Gr Water 42(4):609–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources) (2003) Standard operating procedure nine: drilling methods. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre

    Google Scholar 

  • USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) (1999) Deep aquifer remediation tools (DARTs): a new technology for ground-water remediation. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, Reston, pp 156–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeul VR, Szecsody JE, Fritz BG, Williams MD, Moore RC, Fruchter JS (2014) An injectable apatite permeable reactive barrier for in situ 90Sr immobilization. Groundw Monit Remediat 34(2):28–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RD, Mackay DM, Cherry JA (1997) Arrays of unpumped wells for plume migration control by semi-passive in situ remediation. Gr Water Monit Remediat, Summer, pp 185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng C, Wang PP (1999) MT3DMS, A modular three-dimensional multi-species transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems documentation and user’s guide. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Contract Report SERDP-99-1, Vicksburg

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and the Environment, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305279, Denton, TX, 76203-5017, USA

    Paul F. Hudak

Authors
  1. Paul F. Hudak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul F. Hudak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hudak, P.F. Large-diameter, non-pumped wells filled with reactive media for groundwater remediation. Environ Earth Sci 76, 667 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7029-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7029-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation