Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 19, pp 19362–19375 | Cite as

An analytical model for contaminant transport in landfill composite liners considering coupled effect of consolidation, diffusion, and degradation

  • Haijian XieEmail author
  • Huaxiang Yan
  • Shijin Feng
  • Qiao Wang
  • Peixiong Chen
Research Article

Abstract

One-dimensional mathematical model is developed to investigate the behavior of contaminant transport in landfill composite liner system considering coupled effect of consolidation, diffusion, and degradation. The first- and second-type bottom boundary conditions are used to derive the steady-state and quasi-steady-state analytical solutions. The concentration profiles obtained by the proposed analytical solution are in good agreement with those obtained by the laboratory tests. The bottom concentration and flux of the soil liners can be greatly reduced when the degradation effect and porosity changing are considered. For the case under steady-state, the bottom flux and concentration for the case with t 1/2 =10 years can be 2.8 and 5.5 times lower than those of the case with t 1/2 =100 years, respectively. The bottom concentration and flux of the soil liners can be greatly reduced when the coefficient of volume compressibility decreases. For quasi-steady-state and with t 1/2 = 10 years, the bottom flux and concentration for the case with m v  = 0.02/MPa can be 17.4 and 21 times lower than the case with m v  = 0.5/MPa. This may be due to the fact that the true fluid velocity induced by consolidation is greater for the case with high coefficient of volume compressibility. The bottom flux for the case with single compacted clay liner (CCL) can be 1.5 times larger than that for the case with GMB/CCL considering diffusion and consolidation for DCM. The proposed analytical model can be used for verification of more complicated numerical models and assessment of the coupled effect of diffusion, consolidation, and degradation on contaminant transport in landfill liner systems.

Keywords

Landfill Composite liner Contaminant diffusion Degradation Consolidation Analytical model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial supports from the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, Grant No.2012CB719806), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 51478427, 51278452, and 51008274), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No.2014QNA4019), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. LY13D060003), and Zhejiang Provincial Public Industry Research Project (Grant No. 2015C31005) are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Aldaeef AA, Rayhani MT (2014) Hydraulic performance of compacted clay liners (CCLs) under combined temperature and leachate exposures. Waste Manage 34(12):2548–2560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alshawabkeh AN, Rahbar N (2006) Parametric study of one-dimensional solute transport in deformable porous media. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(8):1001–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alshawabkeh AN, Rahbar N, Sheahan TC, Tang G (2004) Volume change effects on solute transport in clay under consolidation. In: Alshibli R et al (eds) Geo Jordan. ASCE, New York, pp 105–115, ASCE Practice Publ. No. 1Google Scholar
  4. Bright MI, Thornton SF, Lerner DN, Tellam JH (2000) Attenuation of landfill leachate by clay liner material in laboratory columns, 1. Experimental procedures and behavior of organic contaminants. Waste Manage Res 18(3):198–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen YM, Zhan Tony LT, Wei HY (2009a) Mechanical compressibility of municipal solid wastes and its relationship to fill ages. Waste Manage 29(1):86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen YM, Xie HJ, Ke H, Chen RP (2009b) An analytical solution for one-dimensional contaminant diffusion through multi-layered system and its applications. Environ Geol 58(5):1083–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clement TP, Hooker BS, Skeen RS (1996) Macroscopic models for predicting changes in saturated porous media properties caused by microbial growth. Groundwater 34(5):934–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. COMSOL, COMSOL Multiphysics. 5th ed. 2014. http://cn.comsol.com/release/5.0.
  9. Davis GB, Patterson BM, Johnston CD (2009) Aerobic bioremediation of 1,2 dichloroethane and vinyl chloride at field scale. J Contam Hydrol 107:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du YJ, Shen SL, Liu SY, Hayashi S (2009) Contaminant mitigation performance of Chinese standard municipal solid waste landfill liner system. Geotext Geomembr 27(3):232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edil TB (2003) A review of aqueous-phase VOC transport in modern landfill liners. Waste Manage 23:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eganhouse RP, Cozzarelli IM, Scholl MA, Matthews LL (2001) Natural attenuation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the leachate plume of a municipal landfill: using alkylbenzenes as process probes. Ground Water 39(2):192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foose GJ (2002) Transit-time design for diffusion through composite liners. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(7):590–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox PJ (2007a) Coupled large strain consolidation and solute transport. I. Model development. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox PJ (2007b) Coupled large strain consolidation and solute transport. II. Model verification and simulation results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(1):16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox PJ, Berles JD (1997) CS2: a piecewise-linear model for large strain consolidation. Int J Num and Anal Meth Geomech 21(7):453–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox PJ, Lee J (2008) Model for consolidation-induced solute transport with nonlinear and nonequilibrium sorption. Int J Geomech 8(3):188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox PJ, Pu H (2015) Consolidation-induced solute transport for constant rate of strain. II: comparison with incremental loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141:n.4, 4014128Google Scholar
  19. Fox PJ, Shackelford CD (2010) State-of-the-Art: consolidation-induced contaminant transport for high water content geo-materials. GeoFlorida 2010:129–138, Advances in analysis, modeling and design, ASCECrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Francisca FM, Glatstein DA (2010) Long term hydraulic conductivity of compacted soils permeated with landfill leachate. Appl Clay Sci 49(3):187–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guan C, Xie HJ, Wang YZ, Chen YM, Jiang YS, Tang XW (2014) An analytical model for solute transport through a GCL-based two-layered liner considering biodegradation. Sci Total Environ 466:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hrapovic L, Rowe RK (2002) Intrinsic degradation of volatile fatty acids in laboratory compacted clayey soil. J Contam Hydrol 58:221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim JY, Edil TB, Park JK (2001) Volatile organic compound (VOC) transport through compacted clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klett NO (2006) Leachate characterization and volatile organic compound (VOC) transport: a study of engineered landfills in Wisconsin. M.Sc. thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  25. Lake CB, Rowe RK (2005) A comparative assessment of volatile organic compound (VOC) sorption to various types of potential GCL bentonites. Geotext Geomembr 23(4):323–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee J, Fox PJ (2009) Investigation of consolidation-induced solute transport. II: experimental and numerical results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(9):1239–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee J, Fox PJ, Lenhart JJ (2009) Investigation of consolidation-induced solute transport. I: effect of consolidation on transport parameters. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(9):1228–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis TW, Pivonka P, Smith DW (2009a) Theoretical investigation of the effects of consolidation on contaminant transport through clay barriers. Int J Num and Anal Meth Geomech 33(n.1):95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis TW, Pivonka P, Fityus SG, Smith DW (2009b) Parametric sensitivity analysis of coupled mechanical consolidation and contaminant transport through clay barriers. Comput Geotech 36(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MCPRC (Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China) (2007) Technical code for liner system of municipal solid waste landfill. CJJ113-2007. China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, in ChineseGoogle Scholar
  31. McWatters RS, Rowe RK (2010) Diffusive transport of VOCs through LLDPE and two coextruded geomembranes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(9):1167–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell JK, Santamarina JC (2005) Biological consideration in geotechnical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(10):1222–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Othman MA, Bonaparte R, Gross BA (1997) Preliminary results of composite liner field performance study. Geotext Geomembr 15(4–6):289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Park MG, Benson CH, Edil TB (2012) Comparison of batch and double compartment tests for measuring voc transport parameters in geomembranes. Geotext Geomembr 31:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters GP, Smith DW (2002) Solute transport through a deforming porous medium. Int J Num and Anal Meth Geomech 26(7):683–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Potter LJ, Savvidou C, Gibson RE (1994) Consolidation and pollutant transport associated with slurried mineral waste disposal. In: Carrier WD III (ed) Proc 1st Int. Congress on Environmental Geotechnics. BiTech Publishers, Ltd., Edmonton, AB, p 525–530Google Scholar
  37. Pu H, Fox PJ (2015) Consolidation-induced solute transport for constant rate of strain. I: model development and simulation results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(n.4):04014127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pu H, Fox PJ, Shackelford CD (2016) Assessment of consolidation-induced contaminant transport for compacted clay liner systems. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(3):04015091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qian X, Koerner RM, Grey DH (2001) Geotechnical aspects of landfill design and construction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  40. Rebata-Landa V, Santamarina JC (2006) Mechanical limits to microbial activity in deep sediments. Geochem Geophy Geosy 5(71):335–360Google Scholar
  41. Regadío M, Ruiz AI, Rodríguez-Rastrero M, Cuevas J (2015) Containment and attenuating layers: an affordable strategy that preserves soil and water from landfill pollution. Waste Manage 46:408–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rowe RK (2005) Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems, 45th Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique 55:631–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rowe RK, Nadarajah P (1997) An analytical method for predicting the velocity field beneath landfills. Can Geotech J 34(2):264–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowe RK, Hrapovic L, Kosaric N, Cullimore DR (1997) Anaerobic degradation of DCM diffusion through clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 23(12):1085–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowe RK, Quigley RM, Brachman RW, Booker JR (2004) Barrier systems for waste disposal. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Seki K, Miyazaki T (2001) A mathematical model for biological clogging of uniform porous media. Water Resour Res 37(12):2995–2999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shackelford CD (2014) The ISSMGE Kerry Rowe Lecture: the role of diffusion in environmental geotechnics. Can Geotech J 51(11):1219–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh N, Hennecke D, Hoerner J, Koerdel W, Schaeffer A (2008) Mobility and degradation of trinitrotoluene/metabolties in soil columns: effect of soil organic carbon content. J Environ Sci Heal A 43(7):682–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith DW (2000) One-dimensional contaminant transport through a deforming porous medium: theory and a solution for a quasi-steady-state problem. Int J Num and Anal Meth Geomech 24(8):693–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thullner M, Zeyer J, Kinzelbach W (2002) Influence of microbial growth on hydraulic properties of pore networks. Transport Porous Med 49(1):99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vandevivere P (1995) Bacterial clogging of porous media: a new modelling approach. Biofouling 8(4):281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Varank G, Demir A, Yetilmezsoy K, Bilgili MS, Top S, Sekman E (2011) Estimiation of transport parameters of phenolic compounds and inorganic contaminants through composite landfill liners using one-dimensional mass transport model. Waste Manage 31:2263–2274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Willingham TW, Werth CJ, Valocchi AJ, Krapac IG, Toupiol C, Stark TD, Daniel DE (2004) Evaluation of multidimensional transport through a field–scale compacted soil liner. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(9):887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolfram Research, Mathematica Edition: Version 7.0. Inc.: Champaign: 2008. http://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/
  55. Xie HJ, Lou ZH, Chen YM, Zhan TL, Tang X (2013) An analytical solution to organic contaminant diffusion through composite liners considering the effect of degradation. Geotext Geomembr 36:10–18Google Scholar
  56. Xie HJ, Jiang YS, Zhang CH, Feng SJ (2015) Steady-state analytical models for performance assessment of landfill composite liners. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(16):12198–12214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang HJ, Jeng DS, Seymour BR, Barry DA, Li L (2012) Solute transport in partially-saturated deformable porous media: application to a landfill clay liner. Adv Water Resour 40:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zheng C, Bennett GD (2002) Applied contaminant transport modeling, 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haijian Xie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Huaxiang Yan
    • 1
  • Shijin Feng
    • 2
  • Qiao Wang
    • 1
  • Peixiong Chen
    • 3
  1. 1.College of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Geotechnical EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Second Institute of Oceanography, SOAHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations