Skip to main content

Assessment of Multi-Gate Interceptors Equipped with Baffles in Contaminated Aquifers


Funnel-and-gate structures with three gates, two funnels (collinear with gates), and two perpendicular flow-directing vanes (baffles) were assessed for capturing contaminated groundwater in a hypothetical unconfined aquifer. Simulated structures, anchored into an underlying aquiclude, were 35 m wide. One 5-m wide gate occupied the center, and two 3-m wide gates occupied the ends, of each structure. Both homogeneous and heterogeneous (with respect to hydraulic conductivity) aquifers were modeled, with baffles at various positions along funnels in alternative configurations. A contaminant transport model, accounting for advection and hydrodynamic dispersion, tested the capability of various structures for capturing contaminant plumes. Based upon modeling results: (1) structures with baffles performed up to 17% better (homogeneous case), but also up to 48% worse (heterogeneous case), than structures without them; (2) the most effective baffles generally occupied interior portions of funnels; and (3) small (1-m) shifts in the locations of baffles resulted in up to a 33% increase (homogeneous case) in remediation timeframe.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Bilbrey LC, Shafer JM (2001) Funnel-and-gate performance in a moderately heterogeneous flow domain. Ground Water Monitor Remed 21(3):144–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Burger C, Finkel M (2005) Performance of multiple gate funnel-and-gate systems in three-dimensional, anisotropic, heterogeneous aquifers. IAHS Publ 298:125–135

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cirpka OA, Burger CM, Nowak W, Finkel M (2004) Uncertainty and data worth analysis for the hydraulic design of funnel-and-gate systems in heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resour Res 40(11):WR11502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Elder CR, Benson CH, Eykholt GR (2002) Effects of heterogeneity on influent and effluent concentration from horizontal permeable reactive barriers. Water Resour Res 38(8):WR001259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2003) Capstone report on the application, monitoring, and performance of permeable reactive barriers for ground-water remediation: performance evaluations at two sites, vol 1. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eykholt GR, Elder CR, Benson CH (1999) Effects of aquifer heterogeneity and reaction mechanism uncertainty on a reactive barrier. J Hazard Mater 68(1):73–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta N, Fox TC (1999) Hydrogeologic modeling for permeable reactive barriers. J Hazard Mater 68(1):19–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hemsi PS, Shackelford CD (2006) An evaluation of the influence of aquifer heterogeneity on permeable reactive barrier design. Water Resour Res 42:W03402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hudak PF (2008) Numerical modeling assessment of three-gate structures for capturing contaminated groundwater. Environ Geol 55:1311–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. HWC (Hazardous Waste Consultant) (1999) Case studies of permeable reactive barriers. Hazard Waste Consultant 17(6):16–112

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mayer KU, Blowes DW, Frind EO (2001) Reactive transport modeling on an in situ reactive barrier for the treatment of hexavalent chromium and trichloroethylene in groundwater. Water Resour Res 37(12):3091–3104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  13. Painter BDM (2004) Reactive barriers: hydraulic performance and design enhancements. Ground Water 42(4):609–619

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sedivy RA, Shafer JM, Bilbrey LC (1999) Design screening tools for passive funnel and gate systems. Ground Water Monitor Remed 19(4):125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Starr RC, Cherry JA (1994) In situ remediation of contaminated ground water: the funnel-and-gate system. Ground Water 32(3):465–476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Zheng C, Wang PP (1999) MT3DMS, a modular three-dimensional multi-species transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Contract Report SERDP-99-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul F. Hudak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hudak, P.F. Assessment of Multi-Gate Interceptors Equipped with Baffles in Contaminated Aquifers. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 87, 96–100 (2011).

Download citation


  • Groundwater
  • Funnel-and-gate
  • Baffle
  • Contaminant transport