Biogeochemistry

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 15–23 | Cite as

C2 and C3 hydrocarbon gases associated with highly reducing conditions in groundwater

  • D. L. Marrin
  • John J. Adriany
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the presence and concentration of light hydrocarbon gases in soil vapor located immediately above the capillary fringe of a petroleum-contaminated aquifer. A correlation was observed for the linear regression plot of redox potential versus detectable C2+C3 alkane concentrations for a limited number of sampling points. C2+C3 alkanes were not detected at points were redox potentials in groundwater exceeded -260 millivolts. The predominance of methanogenic processes in this redox range, as well as the observed C2+C3 concentration ratios, suggest that ethane and propane gases in soil vapor may be biogenically produced as well as a result of volatilization from NAPL.

Key words

ethane groundwater methane propane redox soil gas 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. El-Sebaay A, Van Cleemput O & Baert L (1989) Theoretical considerations in the oxidation of some gaseous hydrocarbons in the soil atmosphere. Soil Science 147: 103–106Google Scholar
  2. Graedel T (1978) Chemical Compounds in the Atmosphere. Academic Press, New York, NY, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  3. Ludvigsen L, Heron G, Albrechtsen H & Christensen T (1995) Geomicrobial and geochemical redox processes in a landfill-polluted aquifer. In: Hinchee R, Wilson J & Downey D (Eds) Intrinsic Bioremediation (pp 135–142). Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  4. Marrin D (1991) Subsurface biogenic gas ratios associated with hydrocarbon contamination. In: Hinchee R & Olfenbuttel R (Eds) In-Situ Bioreclamation (pp 546–560). ButterworthHeinemann, Stoneham, MA, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  5. Marrin D (1994) Spatial variability in redox conditions and groundwater bioremediation. In: Dracos T & Stauffer F (Eds) Transport and Reactive Processes in Aquifers (pp 583–587). Balkema Publ., Rotterdam, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Mayrsohn H, Crabtree J, Kuramoto M, Sothern R & Mano S (1977) Source reconciliation of atmospheric hydrocarbons. Atmos. Environ. 11: 189–192Google Scholar
  7. Oremland R, Miller L & Whitcar M (1987) Sources and flux of natural gases from Mono Lake, California. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 51: 2915–2929Google Scholar
  8. Patel R, Hou C, Laskin A & Felix A (1982) Microbial oxidation of hydrocarbons: properties of a soluble methane monooxygenase from a facultative methane-utilizing organism. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44: 1130–1137Google Scholar
  9. Robbins G, McAninch F, Gavas F & Ellis P (1995) An evaluation of soil-gas surveying for H2S for locating subsurface hydrocarbon contamination. Ground Water Monitor. Remed. 15: 124–132Google Scholar
  10. Topp E & Hanson R (1991) Metabolism of radiatively important trace gases by methaneoxidizing bacteria. In: Rogers J & Whitman W (Eds) Microbial Production and Consumption of Greenhouse Gases: Methane, Nitrogen Oxides and Halomethanes (Chapter 5). Am. Soc. for Microbiol., Washington DC, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  11. White A, Peterson M & Solbau R (1990) Measurement and interpretation of low levels of dissolved oxygen in groundwater. Ground Water 28: 584–590Google Scholar
  12. Wiesenburg D, Brooks J & Bernard B (1985) Biogenic hydrocarbon gases and sulfate reduction in the Orca Basin brine. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 49: 2069–2080Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. L. Marrin
    • 1
  • John J. Adriany
    • 2
  1. 1.Solana BeachUSA
  2. 2.Kahl Environmental ServicesSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations