Water Resources Management

, Volume 29, Issue 14, pp 5171–5184 | Cite as

Laboratory Study of Low-Flow Rates on Clogging Processes for Application to Small-Diameter Injection Wells

  • Angela R. Thompson
  • R. L. Stotler
  • G. L. Macpherson
  • G. Liu
Article

Abstract

A new concept in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) aims to lower costs by using gravity-induced infiltration and small diameter wells installed with direct-push technology. Such systems will have significantly lower injection rates than traditional ASR. Clogging is a major concern for ASR systems; however, previous investigations of injection well clogging assumed a high injection rate. To address this bias, this study investigates the potential for clogging in low-flow (<0.38 m3/min) ASR injection wells. The effects of low-flow rate injection on hydraulic conductivity and geochemistry were examined using laboratory columns packed with sand and gravel taken from an experimental low-flow ASR site. Changes in hydraulic conductivity and geochemistry were monitored over 17 days using two types of source water (treated surface water and native groundwater) at three different flow rates (Darcy velocities 1 m/d, 3 m/d, 5 m/d). The hydraulic conductivity of the lowest flow rate columns decreased below initial levels by at least one order of magnitude during the experiment. Observations of biofilm in effluent tubing suggest bacterial clogging reduced the hydraulic conductivity in medium and low flow treated surface water columns, but bacterial abundance was not quantified in this study. Clay dispersion was estimated to be an important process, partially reversing the bacterial clogging. Further understanding of clogging factors at low flow rates will aid in the selection of the most beneficial clogging prediction tests and pretreatment and redevelopment methods for low-flow ASR systems.

Keywords

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) Direct-push Low-flow Column experiments Clogging clay dispersion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding to this project was provided by: NIWR/USGS National Competitive Grant Program (Project Number 2011KS113G), Geological Society of America Student Research Grant, Kansas Geological Foundation, University of Kansas Department of Geology and Frederick T. Holden Fund. Edward Reboulet and Steve Knobbe at the Kansas Geological Survey assisted with core sampling in the field. Mr. Lyle Schardt provided access to the stock well, and the City of Lawrence provided access to the KAW Water Treatment Facility for treated water collection. Dr. Masato Ueshima assisted with cation analysis. Dr. Jennifer Roberts reviewed and provided comments to an early draft of this manuscript. We are also grateful for comments from two anonymous reviewers and the WARM editorial team.

Supplementary material

11269_2015_1111_MOESM1_ESM.doc (115 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 115 kb)

References

  1. Arthur J, Dabous A, Cowart J (2005) Water–rock geochemical considerations for aquifer storage and recovery: Florida case studies. Dev Water Sci 52:327–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D4647/D4647M (2013) Standard test methods for identification and classification of dispersive clay soils by the pinhole test. doi:  10.1520/D4647_D4647M-13
  3. Baveye P, Vandevivere P, Hoyle BL, DeLeo PC, de Lozada DS (1998) Environmental impact and mechanisms of the biological clogging of saturated soils and aquifer materials. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 28(2):123–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bichara A (1986) Clogging of recharge wells by suspended solids. J Irrig Drain Eng 112(3):210–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bichara A (1988) Redevelopment of clogged recharge wells. J Irrig Drain Eng 114(2):343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloetscher F, Muniz A, and Witt, GM (2004) Groundwater injection: modeling, risks, and regulations, McGraw-Hill ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouwer H (2002) Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering. Hydrogeol J 10(1):121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown C, Hatfield K, and Newman M (2004) Lessons learned from a review of 50 ASR projects from the United States, England, Australia and India, in Proceedings UCOWR/NIWR Annual Conference: Increasing Freshwater Supplies. Santa Fe, NMGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrne FE and Beck HV (1950) Geologic Construction-material Resources in Republic County, Kansas, US Department of the Interior, Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  10. Characklis W (1981) Bioengineering report: fouling biofilm development: a process analysis. Biotechnol Bioeng 23(9):1923–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connorton BJ and McIntosh P (1994) Artificial groundwater recharge II: EUREAU survey on artificial recharge, in Proceedings of the second international symposium on artificial recharge of ground water: Walt Disney World, Swan, FL 17–22Google Scholar
  12. Dillon P, Pavelic P, Massmann G, Barry K, Correll R (2001) Enhancement of the membrane filtration index (MFI) method for determining the clogging potential of turbid urban stormwater and reclaimed water used for aquifer storage and recovery. Desalination 140(2):153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon P, Pavelic P, Page D, Beringen H, Ward J (2009) Managed aquifer recharge: an introduction. National Water Commission, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  14. Du X, Wang Z, Ye X (2013) Potential clogging and dissolution effects during artificial recharge of groundwater using potable water. Water Resour Manag 27:3573–3583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebigbo A, Phillips A, Gerlach R, Helmig R, Cunningham AB, Class H, and Spangler LH (2012) Darcy‐scale modeling of microbially induced carbonate mineral precipitation in sand columns. Water Resourc Res 48(7)Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, O. o. W (2009) 2006 Community water system survey, v. IGoogle Scholar
  17. Eusuff MM, Lansey KE (2004) Optimal operation of artificial groundwater recharge systems considering water quality transformations. Water Resour Manag 18:379–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerlach R, Cunningham AR (2011) Influence of biofilms on porous media hydrodynamics. In: Vafai K (ed) Porous media: applications in biological systems and biotechnology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 173–230Google Scholar
  19. Greskowiak J, Prommer H, Massmann G, Johnston CD, Nützmann G, Pekdeger A (2005) The impact of variably saturated conditions on hydrogeochemical changes during artificial recharge of groundwater. Appl Geochem 20(7):1409–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Han Z (2003) Groundwater resources protection and aquifer recovery in China. Environ Geol 44(1):106–111Google Scholar
  21. Händel F, Liu G, Dietrich P, Liedl R, Butler J (2014) Numerical investigations of aquifer recharge using small-diameter wells and surface basin. J Hydrol 517:54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harpaz Y (1971) Artificial ground-water recharge by means of wells in Israel. J Hydraul Div 97(12):1947–1964Google Scholar
  23. Huisman L, Olsthoorn TN (1983) Artificial groundwater recharge. Pitman Publishing, Boston, p 320Google Scholar
  24. Hutchinson AS (1993) Estimation and quantification of injection well clogging, Tucson, Arizona. MS Thesis, Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, University of Arizona, 164 pGoogle Scholar
  25. Jha MK, Kamii Y, Chikamori K (2009) Cost-effective approaches for sustainable groundwater management in alluvial aquifer systems. Water Resour Manag 23:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jury WA, Vaux H (2005) The role of science in solving the world's emerging water problems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(44):15715–15720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kumar MD, Ghosh S, Patel A, Singh OP, Ravindranath R (2006) Rainwater harvesting in India: some critical issues for basin planning and research. Land Use Water Resour Res 6(1):1–17Google Scholar
  28. Liu G, Knobbe S, Reboulet E, Whittemore DO, Händel F and Butler J (2015) Field investigation of a new recharge approach for ASR projects in near-surface aquifers, Ground Water, in reviewGoogle Scholar
  29. Maliva RG and Missimer TM (2010) Aquifer storage and recovery and managed aquifer recharge using wells: planning, hydrogeology, design, and operation, Houston, Texas, USA: Schlumberger Water Services, Methods in Water Resources Evaluation Series No. 2Google Scholar
  30. Oberdorfer JA, Peterson FL (1985) Waste‐water injection: geochemical and biogeochemical clogging processes. Ground Water 23(6):753–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Office of the Federal Register, N. A. a. R. A (2009) Federal register Volume 74, Issue 229. B. o. R. (ed.) In Department of the Interior, p. 62807–62808.Google Scholar
  32. Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313(5790):1068–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Okubo T, Matsumoto J (1979) Effect of infiltration rate on biological clogging and water quality changes during artificial recharge. Water Resour Res 15(6):1536–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsthoorn TN (1982) Clogging of recharge wells: main subjects: KIWA-Communications, v. 72Google Scholar
  35. Or D, Smets BF, Wraith J, Dechesne A, Friedman S (2007) Physical constraints affecting bacterial habitats and activity in unsaturated porous media–a review. Adv Water Resour 30(6):1505–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parkhurst DL and Appelo C (1999) User's guide to PHREEQC (Version 2): a computer program for speciation, batch-reaction, one-dimensional transport, and inverse geochemical calculationsGoogle Scholar
  37. Pavelic P, Dillon PJ, Barry KE, Vanderzalm JL, Correll RL, Rinck-Pfeiffer SM (2007) Water quality effects on clogging rates during reclaimed water ASR in a carbonate aquifer. J Hydrol 334(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pavelic P, Dillon P, Mucha M, Nakai T, Barry K, Bestland E (2011) Laboratory assessment of factors affecting soil clogging of soil aquifer treatment systems. Water Res 45(10):3153–3163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pyne RDG (1995) Groundwater recharge and wells: a guide to aquifer storage recovery, Lewis Publishers, 376 pGoogle Scholar
  40. Rebhun M, Schwarz J (1968) Clogging and contamination processes in recharge wells. Water Resour Res 4(6):1207–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Ragusa S, Sztajnbok P, Vandevelde T (2000) Interrelationships between biological, chemical, and physical processes as an analog to clogging in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. Water Resour 34(7):2110–2118Google Scholar
  42. Rinck-Pfeiffer S, Dillon P, Ragusa S and Hutson J (2002) Injection well clogging processes during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) with reclaimed water: Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability; proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, v. 4, p. 189–194Google Scholar
  43. Scanlon BR, Faunt CC, Longuevergne L, Reedy RC, Alley WM, McGuire VL, McMahon PB (2012) Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US high plains and central Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(24):9320–9325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schippers J, Verdouw J (1980) The modified fouling index, a method of determining the fouling characteristics of water. Desalination 32:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schippers J, Verdouw J, Zweere G (1995) Predicting the clogging rate of artificial recharge wells. J Water Supply Res Technol-Aqua 44(1):18–28Google Scholar
  46. Schlager E (2006) Challenges of governing groundwater in US western states. Hydrogeol J 14(3):350–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schlager E, Heikkila T (2011) Left high and dry? Climate change, common‐pool resource theory, and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public Adm Rev 71(3):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seki K, Miyazaki T (2001) A mathematical model for biological clogging of uniform porous media. Water Resour Res 37(12):2995–2999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Srivastava RC, Kannan K, Mohanty S, Nanda P, Sahoo N, Mohanty RK, Das M (2009) Rainwater management for smallholder irrigation and its impact on croc yields in eastern India. Water Resour Manag 23:1237–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor SW, Jaffé PR (1990) Biofilm growth and the related changes in the physical properties of a porous medium: 1. Exp Investig: Water Resour Res 26(9):2153–2159Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Census Bureau, P. D (2012) 2012 National projectionsGoogle Scholar
  52. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2014) Estimates of the components of resident population change: April 1, 2010 to July 2013Google Scholar
  53. Vandevivere P, Baveye P, Lozada DS, DeLeo P (1995) Microbial clogging of saturated soils and aquifer materials: evaluation of mathematical models. Water Resour Res 31(9):2173–2180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P., van Kempen, C. M., Reckman, J. W., Vasak, S., and Bierkens, M. F., 2010, Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys Res Lett. 37(20)Google Scholar
  55. Ziegler AC, Christensen VG, and Ross HC (1999) Baseline water quality and preliminary effects of artificial recharge on ground water, South Central Kansas, 1995–98, US Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4250Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela R. Thompson
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. L. Stotler
    • 1
  • G. L. Macpherson
    • 1
  • G. Liu
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Kansas Department of Health and EnvironmentTopekaUSA
  3. 3.Kansas Geological SurveyLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations