Advertisement

Analytical solutions for organic contaminant diffusion in triple-layer composite liner system considering the effect of degradation

  • Hefu Pu
  • Jinwei Qiu
  • Rongjun ZhangEmail author
  • Junjie Zheng
Research Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents analytical solutions for predicting one-dimensional diffusion of an organic contaminant through a triple-layer composite liner system comprising a geomembrane (GM), a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and a compacted clay liner (CCL). We consider two different bottom boundary conditions, i.e., fixed-concentration bottom boundary and semi-infinite bottom boundary, for which the methods of separation of variables and Laplace transform, respectively, are used to obtain the analytical solutions. The proposed analytical solutions are then verified against the CST3 numerical model and an analytical solution available in the literature. Using the verified analytical solutions, a series of parametric studies is conducted to investigate the effect of several relevant parameters on contaminant transport through the GM/GCL/CCL liner system. The results indicate that the CCL thickness, the CCL distribution coefficient, and the effective diffusion coefficient of CCL have significant impact on contaminant diffusion in the GM/GCL/CCL liner system, whereas the effective diffusion coefficient of the GCL, the diffusion coefficient of the GM, and the partition coefficient of the GM have negligible effect on contaminant diffusion in the GM/GCL/CCL liner system. The analytical solutions presented herein can be used to aid the design of a triple-layer composite liner system and the verification of other numerical models.

Keywords

Analytical solutions Degradation Diffusion Geomembrane Geosynthetics Landfill composite liner Organic contaminant 

List of symbols

\(C_{0}\)

Contaminant concentration in leachate

\(D_{\text{ccl}}\)

Effective diffusion coefficient for CCL

\(D_{\text{gcl}}\)

Effective diffusion coefficient for GCL

\(D_{\text{gm}}\)

GM diffusion coefficient

\(J\)

Contaminant mass flux

\(J_{ss}\)

Steady-state contaminant mass flux

\(K_{d}\)

Distribution coefficient

\(K_{{d{\text{ccl}}}}\)

Distribution coefficient for CCL

\(K_{{d{\text{gcl}}}}\)

Partition coefficient between GM and GCL

\(K_{{d{\text{gm}}}}\)

Partition coefficient for the organic contaminant and GM

\(L_{\text{ccl}}\)

Thickness of CCL

\(L_{\text{gcl}}\)

Thickness of GCL

\(L_{\text{gm}}\)

Thickness of GM

\(n_{\text{ccl}}\)

Porosity of CCL

\(n_{\text{gcl}}\)

Porosity of GCL

\(R_{{d{\text{ccl}}}}\)

Retardation factor for CCL

\(t_{1/2}\)

Contaminant half-life

\(\lambda\)

First-order decay constant

\(\rho_{d}\)

Dry density

\(\rho_{{d{\text{ccl}}}}\)

Dry density of CCL

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this investigation was provided by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0800200), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51678268), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (Grant No. HUST-2016YXMS101). This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Barroso M, Touze-Foltz N, von Maubeuge K, Pierson P (2006) Laboratory investigation of flow rate through composite liner consisting of a geomembrane, a GCL and a soil liner. Geotext Geomembr 24(3):139–155Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barroso MCP, Lopes MGDA, Bergamini G (2010) Effect of the waste pressure on fluid migration through geomembrane defects. In: Proceedings 9th international conference on geosynthetics, Guaruja, Brazil, pp 959–962Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benson C, Zhai H, Wang X (1994) Estimating the hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay liners. J Geotech Eng 120:366–387Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benson CH, Trast JM (1995) Hydraulic conductivity of thirteen compacted clays. Clays Clay Miner 43(6):669–681Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonaparte R, Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2002) Assessment and recommendations for improving the performance of waste containment systems. EPA Report EPA/600/R-02/099, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chinese Ministry of Construction (CNMC) (2007) Technical code for liner system of municipal solid waste landfill (CJJ 113–2007). China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen Y, Wang Y, Xie H (2015) Breakthrough time-based design of landfill composite liners. Geotext Geomembr 43:196–206Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleall PJ, Li YC (2011) Analytical solution for diffusion of VOCs through composite landfill Liners. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:850–854Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edil TB (2003) A review of aqueous-phase VOC transport in modern landfill liners. Waste Manag 23(7):561–671Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Zein A, Rowe RK (2008) Impact on groundwater of concurrent leakage and diffusion of dichloromethane through geomembranes in landfill liners. Geosynth Int 15(1):55–71Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Zein A, McCarroll I, Touze-Foltz N (2012) Three-dimensional finite-element analyses of seepage and contaminant transport through composite geosynthetics clay liners with multiple defects. Geotext Geomembr 33:34–42Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    USEPA (2002) National primary drinking water regulations. United States Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Estornell P, Daniel DE (1992) Hydraulic conductivity of three geosynthetic clay liners. J Geotech Eng 118(10):1592–1606Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eun J, Tinjum JM, Benson CH, Edil TB (2017) Comparison of volatile organic compound transport in composite liners with HDPE and ethylene-vinyl alcohol co-extruded geomembranes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(6):04017010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farquhar GJ (1989) Leachate: production and characterization. Can J Civ Eng 16:317–325Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foose GJ (2002) Transit-time design for diffusion through composite liners. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 7(590):590–601Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Foose GJ, Benson CH, Edil TB (2002) Comparison of solute transport in three composite liners. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 5(391):391–403Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fox PJ (2007) Coupled large strain consolidation and solute transport. II: model verification and simulation results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(1):16–29Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fox PJ, Lee J (2008) Model for consolidation-induced solute transport with nonlinear and nonequilibrium sorption. Int J Geomech 8(3):188–198Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fox PJ, Thielmann SS, Stern AN, Athanassopoulos C (2014) Interface shear damage to a HDPE geomembrane. I: gravelly compacted clay liner. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(8):04014039Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harpur WA, Wilson-Fahmy RF, Koerner RM (1993) Evaluation of the contact between geosynthetic clay liners and geomembranes in terms of transmissivity. In: Proceedings of the seventh GRI conference on geosynthetic liners systems: innovations, concerns and design, industrial fabrics association international, St. Paul, MN, pp 138–149Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hendry MJ, Barbour SL, Boldt-Leppin BEJ, Reifferscheid LJ, Wassenaar LI (2009) A comparison of laboratory and field based determinations of molecular diffusion coefficients in a low permeability geologic medium. Environ Sci Technol 43(17):6730–6736Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoor A, Rowe RK (2013) Potential for desiccation of geosynthetic clay liners used in barrier systems. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(10):1648–1664Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hrapovic L (2000) Laboratory study of intrinsic degradation of organic pollutants in compacted clayey soil. In: Dissertation, The University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joo JC, Kim JY, Nam K (2005) Estimation of mass transport parameters of organic compounds through high density polyethylene geomembranes using a modified double-compartment apparatus. J Environ Eng 131(5):790–799Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kalbe U, Muller W, Berger W, Eckardt J (2002) Transport of organic contaminants within composite liner systems. Appl Clay Sci 21:67–76Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klett N, Edil TB, Benson CH, Connelly J (2005) Evaluation of volatile organic compounds in Wisconsin landfill leachate and lysimeter samples. Final Report to the University of Wisconsin System Groundwater Research Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lake CB, Rowe RK (2000) Diffusion of sodium and chloride through geosynthetic clay liner. Geotext Geomembr 18(2–4):103–131Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lake CB, Rowe RK (2004) Volatile organic compound diffusion and sorption coefficients for a needle-punched GCL. Geosynth Int 11(4):257–272Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lake CB, Rowe RK (2005) A comparative assessment of volatile organic compound (VOC) sorption to various types of potential GCL bentonites. Geotext Geomembr 23:323–347Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li YC, Cleall PJ (2010) Analytical solutions for contaminant diffusion in double-layered porous media. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(11):1542–1554Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu CX, Ball WP (1998) Analytical modeling of diffusion-limited contamination and decontamination in a two-layer porous medium. Adv Water Resour 21(4):297–313Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McWatters RS, Rowe RK (2010) Diffusion transport of VOCs through LLDPE and two coextruded geomembranes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(9):1167–1171Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mendes MJA, Touze-Foltz N, Palmeira EM, Pierson P (2010) Influence of structural and material properties of GCLs on interface flow in composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geosynth Int 17(1):34–47Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    MOE (2002) Safe drinking water act. Ministry of the Environment, Queens Printer for Ontario, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Montgomery JH, Welkom LM (1990) Groundwater chemicals desk reference. Lewis Publishers, Michigan, p 638Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mueller W, Jakob R, Tatzky-Gerth R, August H (1998) Solubilities, diffusion, and partition coefficients of organic pollutants in HDPE geomembranes: experimental results and calculations. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on geosynthetics, Atlanta, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, Minn., 239–248Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Othman MA, Bonaparte R, Gross BA (1997) Preliminary results of composite liner field performance study. Geotext Geomembr 15(4–6):289–312Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Park JK, Nibras M (1993) Mass flux of organic chemicals through polyethylene geomembranes. Water Environ Res 65(3):227–237Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Park JK, Sakti JP, Hoopes JA (1996) Transport of organic compounds in thermoplastic geomembranes I: mathematical model. J Environ Eng 122(9):800–806Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Petrov RJ, Rowe RK (1997) Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)—chemical compatibility by hydraulic conductivity testing and factors impacting its performance. Can Geotech J 34(6):863–885Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petrov RJ, Rowe RK, Quigley RM (1997) Selected factors influencing GCL hydraulic conductivity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(8):683–695Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pu H, Fox PJ (2016) Model for coupled large strain consolidation and solute transport in layered soils. Int J Geomech 16(2):04015064Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pu H, Fox PJ, Shackelford CD (2016) Assessment of consolidation-induced contaminant transport for compacted clay liner systems. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(3):04015091Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pu H, Shackelford CD, Fox PJ (2016) Assessment of consolidation-induced VOC transport for a GML/GCL composite liner system. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 142(11):04016053Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pu H, Qiu J, Zhang R, Zheng J (2018) Assessment of consolidation-induced VOC transport for a GML/GCL/CCL composite liner system. Geotext Geomembr 46(4):455–469Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rowe RK (1995) Leachate characterization for MSW landfills. In: Proceedings Sardinia 95, fifth international symposium on sanitary landfill, CISA, Cagliari, Italy, vol 2, pp 327–344Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rowe RK (1998) Geosynthetics and the minimization of contaminant migration through barrier systems beneath solid waste. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on geosynthetics, Atlanta, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, pp 27–102Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rowe RK (2005) Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems (45th Rankine Lecture). Géotechnique 55(9):631–678Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rowe RK (2012) Short- and long-term leakage through composite liners (The 7th Arthur Casagrande Lecture). Can Geotech J 49(2):141–169Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rowe RK, Booker JR (2005) POLLUTEv7: Pollutant migration through a nonhomogeneous soil. Distributed by GAEA Environmental Engineering Ltd, WhitbyGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rowe RK, Mukunoki T, Sangam HP (2005) BTEX diffusion and sorption for a geosynthetic clay liner at two temperatures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(10):1211–1221Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rowe RK, Quigley RM, Brachman RWL, Booker JR (2004) Barrier systems for waste disposal. Spon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ruhl JL, Daniel DE (1997) Geosynthetic clay liners permeated with chemical solutions and leachates. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(4):369–381Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sangam HP, Rowe RK (2001) Migration of dilute aqueous organic pollutants through HDPE geomembranes. Geotext Geomembr 19(6):329–357Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sangam HP, Rowe RK (2005) Effect of surface fluorination on diffusion through a high density polyethylene geomembrane. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(6):694–704Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shackelford CD (1990) Transit-time design of earthen barriers. Eng Geol 29:79–94Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shackelford CD (1994) Waste-soil interactions that alter hydraulic conductivity. In: Daniel DE, Trautwein SJ (eds) STP 1142 hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soil. ASTM, West Conshohoken, pp 111–168Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shackelford CD (2014) The ISSMGE Kerry Rowe Lecture: the role of diffusion in environmental geotechnics. Can Geotech J 51(11):1219–1242Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2014) Resource conservation and recovery act orientation manual, vol EPA530-F-11-003. USEPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wu X, Shi J, He J (2016) Analytical solutions for diffusion of organic contaminant through GCL triple-layer composite liner considering degradation in liner. Environ Earth Sci 75:1371Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xie H, Lou Z, Chen Y, Jin A, Zhan TL, Tang X (2013) An analytical solution to organic contaminant diffusion through composite liners considering the effect of degradation. Geotext Geomembr 36:10–18Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xie H, Thomas HR, Chen Y, Sedighi M, Zhan TL, Tang X (2015) Diffusion of organic contaminants in triple-layer composite liners: an analytical modeling approach. Acta Geotech 10:255–262Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geotechnical and Underground EngineeringHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations