Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, 77:797 | Cite as

The effects of aquifer heterogeneity on the 3D numerical simulation of soil and groundwater contamination at a chlor-alkali site in China

  • Ge Chen
  • Yajun Sun
  • Jiayu Liu
  • Shougan Lu
  • Ling Feng
  • Xiang Chen
Original Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

The simulation of groundwater flow and solute transport at contaminated sites often neglects the important influence that aquifer heterogeneity can have on the sub-surface distribution of contaminants. In this paper, the method of transition probability for geological statistics (T-PROGS) included in the Groundwater Model System (GMS) was applied to a chlor-alkali-contaminated site that was sampled with 68 soil borings and 15 groundwater monitoring wells. A 3-D groundwater numerical model and solute transport model was developed that was constrained by soil and groundwater data from the site. The spatial distribution of chloroethylene concentrations was simulated for a number of times using the levels measured in the field as a baseline. The results of these simulations showed that shapes and distribution of contaminant plumes are irregular both vertically and horizontally. The solute-transport simulations indicated that much of the contamination will preferentially move in groundwater through silt and fine-sands whereas flow is largely blocked in clays. Consequently, fine sand and silts become the most seriously polluted zones at the site, whereas, areas underlain by clays are largely uncontaminated. Heterogeneous lithologies beneath a site increase the complexity of coupling simulations of soil and groundwater.

Keywords

Transition probability Heterogeneous medium Groundwater contamination Chlor-alkali-contaminated site 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Jiangsu Fangzheng Environmental Protection Design & Research Co., Ltd. The authors would like to thank the team (Shougan Lu, Ling Feng, Xiang Chen, Heng Wang and Song Wu) who conducted the soil and groundwater sampling, as well as Shuping Chen, who constructed the groundwater wells. Thanks were also given to Shanghai SEP Analytical Services Co., Ltd. for the laboratory tests of water and soil samples. In addition, we are grateful for the support of the government for management of this site. The authors would also like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments on the improvement of this paper.

References

  1. Arribére MA, Ribeiro S, Sánchez RS, Gil MI, Román G, Daurade LE, Fajon V, Horvat M, Alcalde R, Kestelman AJ (2003) Heavy metals in the vicinity of a chlor-alkali factory in the upper Negro River ecosystem, v. 301. Science of The Total Environment, Northern Patagonia, pp 187–203Google Scholar
  2. Bacquart T, Murugan A, Carré M, Gozlan B, Auprêtre F, Haloua F, Aarhaug TA (2018) Probability of occurrence of ISO 14687-2 contaminants in hydrogen: principles and examples from steam methane reforming and electrolysis (water and chlor-alkali) production processes model. Int J Hydrog Energy 43:11872–11883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosch C, Olivares A, Faria M, Navas JM, Del Olmo I, Grimalt JO, Piña B, Barata C (2009) Identification of water soluble and particle bound compounds causing sublethal toxic effects. A field study on sediments affected by a chlor-alkali industry. Aquat Toxicol 94:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daher W, Pistre S, Kneppers A, Bakalowicz M, Najem W (2011) Karst and artificial recharge: theoretical and practical problems: a preliminary approach to artificial recharge assessment. J Hydrol 408:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dell D, Bersezio R, Felletti F, Giudici M, Comunian A, Renard P (2012) Comparison of three geostatistical methods for hydrofacies simulation: a test on alluvial sediments. Hydrogeol J 20:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dell D, Vassena C, Baratelli F, Giudici M, Bersezio R, Felletti F (2014) Connectivity and single/dual domain transport models: tests on a point-bar/channel aquifer analogue. Hydrogeol J 22:761–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dong Z, Liu Y, Duan L, Bekele D, Naidu R (2015) Uncertainties in human health risk assessment of environmental contaminants: a review and perspective. Environ Int 85:120–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dranguet P, Cosio C, Le Faucheur S, Beauvais-Flück R, Freiburghaus A, Worms IAM, Petit B, Civic N, Docquier M, Slaveykova VI (2017) Transcriptomic approach for assessment of the impact on microalga and macrophyte of in-situ exposure in river sites contaminated by chlor-alkali plant effluents. Water Res 121:86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreybrodt W, Romanov D, Kaufmann G (2009) Evolution of isolated caves in porous limestone by mixing of phreatic water and surface water at the water table of unconfined aquifers: a model approach. J Hydrol 376:200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feehley CE, Zheng C, 2000, A dual-domain mass transfer approach for modeling solute transport in heterogeneous aquifers: application to the macrodispersion experiment (MADE) site. Water Resour Res 36:2501–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frenţiu T, Ponta M, Sârbu C (2015) Prediction of the fate of Hg and other contaminants in soil around a former chlor-alkali plant using fuzzy hierarchical cross-clustering approach. Chemosphere 138:96–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gray JM, Bishop TFA, Wilford JR (2016) Lithology and soil relationships for soil modelling and mapping. Catena 147:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. He F, Wu J (2003) Markov Chain-based multi-indicator geostatistical model. Hydrogeol Eng Geol 56:28–32Google Scholar
  14. He Y, Hu K, Li W, Li B (2008) Stochastic simulation of three-dimensional spatial distribution of soil profile textural layers in alluvial plain, North China. Acta Pedol Sinica 56:193–200Google Scholar
  15. Huang G, Zhang M, Liu C, Li L, Chen Z (2018) Heavy metal(loid)s and organic contaminants in groundwater in the Pearl River Delta that has undergone three decades of urbanization and industrialization: distributions, sources, and driving forces. Sci Total Environ 635:913–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huertas D, Grimalt JO, Jover L, Sanpera C, Ruiz X, 2016, Organochlorine compounds in Purple Heron eggs (Ardea purpurea) nesting in sites located around a chlor-alkali plant (Ebro River). Sci Total Environ 540:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jin P, Shao J, Li C, Cui Y, Zhang L (2009) Application of T-PROGS to a 3-D numerical simulation of groundwater flow. Hydrogeol Eng Geol 6:21–26Google Scholar
  18. Kang B, Wang D, Du S, 2017, Source identification and degradation pathway of multiple persistent organic pollutants in groundwater at an abandoned chemical site in Hebei, China. Expos Health 9:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolon K, Ruczakowska A, Samecka-Cymerman A, Kempers AJ, 2015, Brachythecium rutabulum and Betula pendula as bioindicators of heavy metal pollution around a chlor-alkali plant in Poland. Ecol Indic 52:404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Langousis A, Kaleris V, Kokosi A, Mamounakis G (2017) Markov based transition probability geostatistics in groundwater applications: assumptions and limitations. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 5:1–18Google Scholar
  21. Lee S, Carle SF, Fogg GE (2007) Geologic heterogeneity and a comparison of two geostatistical models: sequential Gaussian and transition probability-based geostatistical simulation. Adv Water Resour 30:1914–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lesser LE, Mora A, Moreau C, Mahlknecht J, Hernández-Antonio A, Ramírez AI, Barrios-Piña H (2018) Survey of 218 organic contaminants in groundwater derived from the world’s largest untreated wastewater irrigation system: Mezquital Valley. Chemosphere, Mexico, pp 510–521Google Scholar
  23. Luo Z, Wang Y (2012) 3-D variable parameter numerical model for evaluation of the planned exploitable groundwater resource in regional unconsolidated sediments. J Hydrodyn Ser B 24:959–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maillard F, Girardclos O, Assad M, Zappelini C, Pérez Mena JM, Yung L, Guyeux C, Chrétien S, Bigham G, Cosio C, Chalot M (2016) Dendrochemical assessment of mercury releases from a pond and dredged-sediment landfill impacted by a chlor-alkali plant. Environ Res 148:122–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marchant BP, McBratney AB, Lark RM, Minasny B (2013) Optimized multi-phase sampling for soil remediation surveys. Spat Stat 4:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martín A, Anquela AB, Dimas-Pagés A, Cos-Gayón F (2015) Validation of performance of real-time kinematic PPP. A possible tool for deformation monitoring. Measurement 69:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Navrátil T, Šimeček M, Shanley JB, Rohovec J, Hojdová M, Houška J, 2017, The history of mercury pollution near the Spolana chlor-alkali plant (Neratovice, Czech Republic) as recorded by Scots pine tree rings and other bioindicators. Sci Total Environ 586:1182–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pham HV, Tsai FTC (2017) Modeling complex aquifer systems: a case study in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (USA). Hydrogeol J 25:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reis AT, Rodrigues SM, Araújo C, Coelho JP, Pereira E, Duarte AC (2009) Mercury contamination in the vicinity of a chlor-alkali plant and potential risks to local population. Sci Total Environ 407:2689–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Theodossiou N, Fotopoulou E (2015) Delineating well-head protection areas under conditions of hydrogeological uncertainty. A case-study application in northern Greece. Environ Proces 2:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomlinson DW, Rivett MO, Wealthall GP, Sweeney REH (2017) Understanding complex LNAPL sites: Illustrated handbook of LNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface. J Environ Manag 204:748–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vassena C, Rienzner M, Ponzini G, Giudici M, Gandolfi C, Durante C, Agostani D (2012) Modeling water resources of a highly irrigated alluvial plain (Italy): calibrating soil and groundwater models. Hydrogeol J 20:449–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yadav N, Yadav A, Kim JH (2016) Numerical solution of unsteady advection dispersion equation arising in contaminant transport through porous media using neural networks. Comput Math Appl 72:1021–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yoo K, Shukla SK, Ahn JJ, Oh K, Park J (2016) Decision tree-based data mining and rule induction for identifying hydrogeological parameters that influence groundwater pollution sensitivity. J Clean Product 122:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yunze MA (2011) Problems and solutions facing environmental protection industry in China. Energy Procedia 5:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhan M, Zhao P, Zhao Z, Hang J, Zhang L, Hong S (2014) Chlorobenzene transport simulation and uncertainty analysis in chemical enterprise relocation site. Environ Pollut Control 6:111Google Scholar
  37. Zhang C, Wu Y, Qin R, 2014, Research on effects of hydraulic conductivity upscaling on groundwater solute transport in heterogeneous aquifer. Hydrogeol Eng Geol 41:19–25Google Scholar
  38. Zheng Y, Han F (2016) Markov chain monte carlo (MCMC) uncertainty analysis for watershed water quality modeling and management. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 30:293–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zheng C, Wang P (1999) MT3DMS: a modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems, documentation and user’s guide. University of Alabama, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhuang W, Liu Y, Chen Q, Wang Q, Zhou F (2016) A new index for assessing heavy metal contamination in sediments of the Beijing-Hangzhou Grand Canal (Zaozhuang Segment): a case study. Ecol Indic 69:252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zou H, Liu S, Cai G, Puppala AJ, Bheemasetti TV (2017) Multivariate correlation analysis of seismic piezocone penetration (SCPTU) parameters and design properties of Jiangsu quaternary cohesive soils. Eng Geol 228:11–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuo D (2017) Study on water content of lime concretion clay and the influence on subway construction. Geotech Investig Surv 5:37–40Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resources and GeosciencesChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina
  2. 2.Jiangsu Fangzheng Environmental Protection Design and Research Co., LtdXuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations