Abstract
This modeling study evaluated the capability of alternative funnel-and-gate structures with three gates for capturing contaminated groundwater in a hypothetical unconfined aquifer. Simulated interceptor structures were linear and 45 m wide, consisting of three gates and two funnels (walls). One gate occupied the center and two gates occupied the ends of the interceptor structures. The structures, positioned perpendicular to regional groundwater flow, traversed the entire thickness of the aquifer. A total of four structures were evaluated (numbers designate widths of end, center, and end gates, respectively, in meters): 3-3-3, 2-5-2, 1-7-1, and 4-1-4. Particle tracking and zonal water budgets identified shapes of capture zones and discharge patterns for each interceptor structure. A mass transport model, accounting for advection and hydrodynamic dispersion, tested the capability of each structure for capturing a contaminant plume. Results suggest that: time-dependent capture zones underestimate the amount of time to capture a contaminant plume, wide center gates facilitate plume capture, and wide end gates facilitate lateral containment of contaminants. Of the structures simulated, the 2-5-2 configuration was relatively efficient at processing and containing the simulated contaminant plume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bilbrey LC, Shafer JM (2001) Funnel-and-gate performance in a moderately heterogeneous flow domain. Ground Water Monit Remediat 21(3):144–151
Burger C, Finkel M (2005) Performance of multiple gate funnel-and-gate systems in three-dimensional, anisotropic, heterogeneous aquifers, vol. 298. IAHS Press, Oxfordshire, pp 125–135
Chiang W-H, Kinzelbach W (1998) Processing MODFLOW: A simulation system for modeling groundwater flow and pollution. http://www.pmwin.net
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
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
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2001) Cost analyses for selected groundwater cleanup projects: pump and treat systems and permeable reactive barriers. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Economic analysis of the implementation of permeable reactive barriers for remediation of contaminated ground water. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2003) Capstone report on the application, monitoring, and performance of permeable reactive barriers for ground-water remediation, vol 1. Performance evaluations at two sites. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
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
Gupta N, Fox TC (1999) Hydrogeologic modeling for permeable reactive barriers. J Hazard Mater 68(1):19–39
Hemsi PS, Shackelford CD (2006) An evaluation of the influence of aquifer heterogeneity on permeable reactive barrier design. Water Resour Res 42:W03402
Hudak PF (2005) Effect of setback distance on ability of gravel trenches to intercept contaminated groundwater. Environ Monit Assess 104:419–423
Hudak PF (2007) Mass transport in groundwater near hanging-wall interceptors. J Environ Sci Health 42(3):317–321
HWC (1999) Case studies of permeable reactive barriers. Hazardous Waste Consultant 17(6):1.6–1.12
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
McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
McMurtry DC, Elton RO (1985) New approach to in situ treatment of contaminated ground waters. Environ Prog 4(3):168–170
Morgan LA, Ficklen D, Knowles M (2005) Site characterization to support permeable reactive barrier design. Remediation 15(4):63–71
Morrison SJ, Naftz DL, Davis JA, Fuller CC (2002) Introduction to groundwater remediation of metals, radionuclides, and nutrients with permeable reactive barriers. In: Naftz DL, Morrison SJ, Davis JA, Fuller CC (eds) Handbook of groundwater remediation using permeable reactive barriers. Academic, Amsterdam, pp 1–15
Painter BDM (2004) Reactive barriers: Hydraulic performance and design enhancements. Ground Water 42(4):609–619
Scherer MM, Richter S, Valentine RL, Alvarez PJ (2000) Chemistry and microbiology of permeable reactive barriers for in situ groundwater clean up. Critical Rev Environ Sci Technol 30(3):363–411
Sedivy RA, Shafer JM, Bilbrey LC (1999) Design screening tools for passive funnel and gate systems. Ground Water Monit Remediat 19(4):125–133
Starr RC, Cherry JA (1994) In situ remediation of contaminated ground water: the funnel-and-gate system. Ground Water 32(3):465–476
Striegel J, Sanders DA, Veenstra JN (2001) Treatment of contaminated groundwater using permeable reactive barriers. Environ Geosci 8(4):258–265
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hudak, P.F. Numerical modeling assessment of three-gate structures for capturing contaminated groundwater. Environ Geol 55, 1311–1317 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-1079-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-007-1079-x