Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 77:648 | Cite as

Borehole diffusive flux apparatus for characterizing diffusive mass-transfer in subsurface systems

  • Mark L. Brusseau
  • Kenneth C. Carroll
  • Zhilin Guo
  • Jon Mainhagu
Original Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

The concept of the Borehole Diffusive Flux Apparatus (BDFA) is presented herein. The BDFA is an innovative apparatus designed to provide continuous direct access to an undisturbed column of sediment that can be monitored at multiple discrete vertical intervals to provide high-resolution characterization of local-scale mass transfer and attenuation. The conceptual basis and technical design of the device are presented, along with an example of borehole design and installation at a field site. Mathematical simulations are used to illustrate its application for two scenarios. The results of these simulations indicate that test periods of several weeks to a few months should be sufficient to obtain robust results. The device has the potential to improve our ability to characterize critical mass-transfer and attenuation processes and to quantify the associated rates. This information is key to the evaluation of remediation alternatives, for enhancing the accuracy of mathematical models, and to support more effective long-term management of large groundwater contaminant plumes present at many sites.

Keywords

Groundwater contamination Back diffusion Attenuation Plume persistence Site characterization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funds provided by the NIEHS Superfund Research Program (P42 ES04940) and the U.S. Air Force. We thank Bill DiGuiseppi formerly of AECOM for his assistance with the field installation. We thank the reviewers for their comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ball WP, Liu C, Xia G, Young DF (1997) A diffusion-based interpretation of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene concentration profiles in a groundwater aquitard. Water Resour Res 33:2741–2757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu NB, Rao PSC, Poyer IC, Annable MD, Hatfield K (2006) Flux-based assessment at a manufacturing site contaminated with trichloroethylene. J Contam Hydrol 86(1–2):105–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockelmann A, Ptak T, Teutsch G (2001) An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. J Contam Hydrol 53:429–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borden RC, Daniel RA, LeBrun LE, Davis CW (1997) Intrinsic biodegradation of MTBE and BTEX in gasoline-contaminated aquifer. Water Resour Res 33(5):1105–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brusseau ML (2008) Characterizing diffusive flux and its contribution to plume attenuation and longevity. In: Response to FY 2009 statement of need: reduced uncertainty and costs for managing large, dilute contaminant groundwater plumesGoogle Scholar
  6. Brusseau ML, Guo Z (2014) Assessing contaminant-removal conditions and plume persistence through analysis of data from long-term pump-and-treat operations. J Contam Hydrol 164:16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brusseau ML, Nelson NT, Zhang Z, Blue JE, Rohrer J, Allen T (2007) Source-zone characterization of a chlorinated-solvent contaminated Superfund site in Tucson, AZ. J Contam Hydrol 90(1–2):21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brusseau ML, Hatton J, DiGuiseppi W (2011) Assessing the impact of source-zone remediation efforts at the contaminant-plume scale through analysis of contaminant mass discharge. J Contam Hydrol 126:130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapelle FH, Novak J, Parker J, Campbell BG, Widdowson MA (2007) A framework for assessing the sustainability of monitored natural attenuation. United States Geological Survey, Circular 1303Google Scholar
  10. Chapman SW, Parker BL (2005) Plume persistence due to aquitard back diffusion following dense nonaqueous phase liquid source removal or isolation. Water Res Res 41:W12411.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crank J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2018) High resolution site characterization. https://clu-in.org/characterization/technologies/hrsc/hrscintro.cfm. Accessed 2018.
  13. Johnson RL, Cherry JA, Pankow JF (1989) Diffusive contaminant transport in natural clay: a field example and implications for clay- lined waste disposal sites. Environ Sci Technol 23(3):340–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King M, Barker WG, Devlin JF, Butler BJ (1999) Migration and natural fate of a coal tare creosote plume: 2. Mass balance and biodegradation indicators. J Contam Hydrol 39:281–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knecht K, Schroth MH, Schulin R, Nowack B (2011) Development and evaluation of micro push–pull tests to investigate micro-scale processes in porous media. Environ Sci Technol 45:6460–6467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu CX, Ball WP (2002) Back diffusion of chlorinated solvent contaminants from a natural aquitard to a remediated aquifer under well-controlled field conditions: predictions and measurements. Ground Water 40:220–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matthieu III, Brusseau DE,ML, Guo Z, Plaschke M, Carroll KC, Brinker F (2014) Persistence of a groundwater contaminant plume after hydraulic source containment at a chlorinated-solvent contaminated site. Groundwater Monit Remed 34:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newell CJ, Rifai HS, Wilson JT, Connor JA, Aziz JA, Suarez MP (2002) Calculation and use of first-order rate constants for monitored natural attenuation studies. United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/540/S-02/500Google Scholar
  19. NRC (National Research Council) (2013) Alternatives for managing the nation’s complex contaminated groundwater sites. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker BL, Chapman SW, Guilbeault MA (2008) Plume persistence caused by back diffusion from thin clay layers in a sand aquifer following TCE source-zone hydraulic isolation. J Contam Hydrol 102:86–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ptacek CJ, Gillham RW (1992) Laboratory and field measurements of nonequilibrium transport in the Borden aquifer, Ontario, Canada. J Contam Hydrol 10(2):119–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rasa E, Chapman SW, Bekins BA, Fogg GE, Scow KM, Mackay DM (2011) Role of back diffusion and biodegradation reactions in sustaining an MTBE/TBA Plume in alluvial media. J Contam Hydrol 126:235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program) (2013) SERDP and ESTCP workshop on long term management of contaminated groundwater sites. https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Workshop-Report2

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark L. Brusseau
    • 1
  • Kenneth C. Carroll
    • 2
  • Zhilin Guo
    • 1
  • Jon Mainhagu
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Environmental SciencesNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations