Modeling Source Zone Remediation

  • Jason I. Gerhard
  • Bernard H. Kueper
  • Brent E. Sleep
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 7)


Significant advances have produced source zone remediation modeling tools of real practical value. These advances include improved understanding of the physics and biogeochemistry of DNAPL source zones, more rigorous mathematical descriptions of the relationships between multiphase flow, groundwater flow, contaminant transport, mass transfer and species reactions, and superior numerical algorithms and computing power. Models are available for a wide range of activities supporting site investigation and remediation, including testing of site conceptual models, choosing between remediation alternatives, designing and optimizing a remedial design, and examining the sensitivity of predicted outcomes to data uncertainties or engineering decisions. This chapter presents an overview of source zone remediation modeling. The relative advantages of analytical and numerical models are introduced. The main model components are presented, providing insight into the relationships between site data, simulated processes and modeling results. The key steps in carrying out a modeling study are discussed and several examples are presented to illustrate how source zone remediation models can be applied.


Source Zone Fracture Aperture Entry Pressure Multiphase Flow Model Steam Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ababou RD, McLaughlin D, Gelhar LW, Tompson AFB. 1989. Numerical simulation of three-dimensional saturated flow in randomly heterogeneous porous media. Transp Porous Media 4:549–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abriola LM, Rathfelder KM, Yadav S, Maiza M. 1992. VALOR Code Version 1.0: A PC Code for Simulating Subsurface Immiscible Contaminant Port. EPRI TR-101018. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Abriola LM, Lang J, Rathfelder K. 1997. Michigan Soil-Vapor Extraction Remediation (MISER) Model—A Computer Program to Model Bioventing of Organic Chemicals in Unsaturated Geological Material. EPA/600R-97/099. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Alexandra R, Gerhard JI, Kueper BH. 2012. Hydraulic displacement of dense, non-aqueous phase liquids. Ground Water 50:1745–6584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baston DP, Kueper BH. 2009. Thermal conductive heating in fractured bedrock: Screening calculations to assess the effect of groundwater influx. Adv Water Resour 32:231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baston DP, Falta RW, Kueper BH. 2010. Numerical modeling of thermal conductive heating in bedrock. Ground Water 48:836–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernardez LA, Therrien R, Lefebvre R, Martel R. 2009. Simulating the injection of micellar solutions to recover diesel in a sand column. J Contam Hydrol 103:99–108.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks RH, Corey AT. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology Paper 3. Civil Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Carrigan CR, Nitao JJ. 2000. Predictive and diagnostic simulation of in situ electrical heating in contaminated, low-permeability soils. Environ Sci Technol 34:4835–4841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christ JA, Abriola LM. 2007. Modeling metabolic reductive dechlorination in dense non-aqueous phase liquid source-zones. Adv Water Resour 30:1547–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christ JA, Ramsburg CA, Pennell KD, Abriola LM. 2006. Estimating mass discharge from dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zones using upscaled mass transfer coefficients: An evaluation using multiphase numerical simulations. Water Resour Res 42:W11420, doi:10.1029/2006WR004886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delshad M, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K. 1996. A compositional simulator for modeling surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation. J Contam Hydrol 23:303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falta RW, Pruess K, Finsterle S, Battistelli A. 1995. T2VOC User’s Guide, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-36400. Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Falta RW, Rao PS, Basu N. 2005. Assessing the impacts of partial mass depletion in DNAPL source zones: I. Analytical modeling of source strength functions and plume response. J Contam Hydrol 78:259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerhard J, Kueper BH. 2003a. Capillary pressure characteristics necessary for simulating DNAPL infiltration, redistribution, and immobilization in saturated porous media. Water Resour Res 39:1212, doi:10.1029/2002WR001270.Google Scholar
  16. Gerhard JI, Kueper BH. 2003b. Relative permeability characteristics necessary for simulating DNAPL infiltration, redistribution, and immobilization in saturated porous media. Water Resour Res 39:1213, doi:10.1029/2002WR001490.Google Scholar
  17. Gerhard JI, Kueper BH. 2003c. The influence of constitutive model parameters on the predicted migration of DNAPL in heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour Res 39:1279, doi:10.1029/2002WR001570.Google Scholar
  18. Gerhard JI, Kueper BH, Hecox GR, Schwarz R. 2001. Site-specific design for dual phase recovery and stabilization of pooled DNAPL. Ground Water Monit Remediat Spring:71–88.Google Scholar
  19. Glassley WE, Nitao JJ, Grant CW, Boulos TN, Gokoffski MO, Johnson JW, Kercher JR, Levatin JA, Steefel CI. 2001. Performance Prediction for Large-Scale Nuclear Waste Repositories. Final Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA. 42 p.Google Scholar
  20. Grant GP, Gerhard JI. 2007a. Simulating the dissolution of a complex dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zone: 1. Model to predict interfacial area. Water Resour Res 43:W12410, doi:10.1029/2007WR006038.Google Scholar
  21. Grant GP, Gerhard JI. 2007b. Simulating the dissolution of a complex dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zone: 2. Experimental validation of an interfacial area-based mass transfer model. Water Resour Res 43:W12409, doi:10.1029/2007WR006039.Google Scholar
  22. Grant GP, Gerhard JI, Kueper BH. 2007. Multidimensional validation of a numerical model for simulating a DNAPL release in heterogeneous porous media. J Contam Hydrol 92:109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jawitz JT, Fure AD, Demmy GG, Berglund S, Rao PSC. 2005. Groundwater contaminant flux reduction resulting from nonaqueous phase liquid mass reduction. Water Resour Res 41:W10408, doi:10.1029/2004WR003825#doilink .Google Scholar
  24. Kaluarachchi JJ, Parker JC. 1988. User’s Guide to MOFAT-2D, version 1.2, A Two-Dimensional Vertical Section Finite Element Code for Flow and Multispecies Transport in Three Fluid Phase Porous Media Systems. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA. (with unlimited use rights to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).Google Scholar
  25. Kaluarachchi JJ, Parker JC. 1990. Modeling multicomponent organic chemical transport in three-fluid-phase porous media. J Contam Hydrol 5:349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kokkinaki A, O'Carroll DM, Werth CJ, Sleep BE. 2013. An evaluation of Sherwood–Gilland models for NAPL dissolution and their relationship to soil properties. J Contam Hydrol 155:87–98.Google Scholar
  27. Kouznetsova L, Mao X, Robinson C, Barry DA, Gerhard JI, McCarty PL. 2010. Biological reduction of chlorinated solvents: Batch-scale geochemical modeling. Adv Water Resour 33:969–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kueper BH, Frind EO. 1991. Two-phase flow in heterogeneous porous media: 1. Model development. Water Resour Res 27:1049–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kueper BH, Redman D, Starr RC, Reitsma S, Mah M. 1993. A field experiment to study the behavior of tetrachloroethylene below the water table: Spatial distribution of residual and pooled DNAPL. Ground Water 31:756–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemke LD, Abriola LM. 2006. Modeling DNAPL mass removal in nonuniform formations: Linking source zone architecture and system response. Geosphere 2:74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemke L, Bahrou A. 2009. Partitioned multiobjective risk modeling of carcinogenic compounds in groundwater. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23:27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leverett MC, Lewis WB. 1941. Steady flow of gas-oil-water mixtures through unconsolidated sands. Trans AIME Pet Eng Div 142:107–116.Google Scholar
  33. MacPhee SL, Gerhard JI, Rein G. 2012. A novel method for simulating smoldering propagation and its application to STAR (Self-sustaining treatment for active remediation). Environ Model Softw 31:84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McClure PD, Sleep BE. 1996. Simulation of bioventing for soil and ground-water remediation. J Environ Eng 122:1003–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McWhorter D, Sunada D. 1990. Exact integral solutions for two‐phase flow. Water Resour Res 26:399–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Molson JW, Frind EO, Van Stempvoort DR, Lesage S. 2002. Humic acid enhanced remediation of an emplaced diesel source in groundwater. 2. Numerical model development and application, J Contam Hydrol 54:277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mundle K, Reynolds DA, West M, Kueper BH. 2007. Concentration rebound following in-situ chemical oxidation in fractured clay. Ground Water 45:692–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nitao JJ. 1998. User's Manual for the USNT Module of the NUFT Code, Version 2.0. Report UCRL-MA-130653. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA. 65 p.Google Scholar
  39. O’Carroll DM, Sleep BE. 2007. Hot water flushing for immiscible displacement of a viscous NAPL. J Contam Hydrol 91:247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Carroll DM, Sleep BE. 2009. Role of NAPL thermal properties in the effectiveness of hot water flooding. Transp Porous Media 79:393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker JC, Park E. 2004. Modeling field-scale dense nonaqueous phase liquid dissolution kinetics in heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resour Res 40:W05109, doi:10.1029/2003WR002807#doilink.Google Scholar
  42. Pang TW. 2010. DNAPL Remediation of Fractured Rock Evaluated Via Numerical Simulation. PhD Thesis, Institute for Infrastructure and Environment, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  43. Pinder GF, Abriola LM. 1986. On the simulation of nonaqueous phase organic compounds in the subsurface. Water Resour Res 22:109S–119S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pope G, Delshad M. 2000. Volume I: User’s Guide for UTCHEM-9.0, A Three-Dimensional Chemical Flood Simulator. Reservoir Engineering Research Program, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. 153 p.Google Scholar
  45. Poulsen M, Kueper BH. 1992. A field experiment to study the behavior of tetrachloroethylene in unsaturated porous media. Environ Sci Technol 26:889–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Powers SE, Abriola LM, Weber WJ Jr. 1994. An experimental investigation of nonaqueous phase liquid dissolution in saturated subsurface systems: Transient mass transfer rates. Water Resour Res 30:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pruess K. 2004. The TOUGH Codes—A family of simulation tools for multiphase flow and transport processes in permeable media. Vadose Zone J 3:738–746.Google Scholar
  48. Pruess K, Battistelli A. 2002. TMVOC, A Numerical Simulator for Three-Phase Non-isothermal Flows of Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Saturated-Unsaturated Heterogeneous Media. LBNL-49375. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Pruess K, Oldenburgh C, Moridis G. 1999. TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0. LBNL-43134. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. 198 p.Google Scholar
  50. Rathfelder KM, Lang JR, Abriola LM. 2000. A numerical model (MISER) for the simulation of coupled physical, chemical, and biological processes in soil vapor extraction and bioventing systems. J Contam Hydrol 43:239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saba T, Illangasekare TH. 2000. Effect of groundwater flow dimensionality on mass transfer from entrapped nonaqueous phase liquid contaminants, Water Resour Res 36:971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. She HY. 1997. Laboratory Evaluation of In Situ Steam Flushing for NAPL Removal from Soil. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  53. She HY, Sleep BE. 1998. The effect of temperature on capillary pressure-saturation relationships for air-water and perchloroethylene-water systems. Water Resour Res 34:2587–2597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. She HY, Sleep BE. 1999. Removal of PCE from soil by steam flushing in a two-dimensional laboratory cell. Ground Water Monit Remediat 19:70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sleep BE, Ma Y. 1997. Thermal variation of organic fluid properties and impact on thermal remediation feasibility. J Soil Contam 6:281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sleep BE, Sykes JF. 1993. Compositional simulation of groundwater contamination by organic compounds: 1. Model development and verification. Water Resour Res 29:1697–1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slough KJ, Sudicky EA, Forsyth PA. 1999. Numerical simulation of multiphase flow and phase partitioning in discretely fractured geologic media. J Contam Hydrol 40:107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stroo HF, Ward CH, eds. 2010. In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. SERDP/ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology Monograph Series. Springer, New York, NY, USA. 802 p.Google Scholar
  59. Unger AJA, Sudicky EA, Forsyth PA. 1995. Mechanisms controlling vacuum extraction coupled with air sparging for remediation of heterogeneous formations contaminated by dense nonaqueous phase liquids. Water Resour Res 31:1913–1925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Unger AJA, Forsyth PA, Sudicky EA. 1996. Variable spatial and temporal weighting schemes for use in multi-phase compositional problems. Adv Water Resour 19:1–27.Google Scholar
  61. Van Genuchten MTh. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Am J 44:892–898Google Scholar
  62. Van Genuchten MTh, Alves WJ. 1982. Analytical Solutions of the One-Dimensional Convective-Dispersive Solute Transport Equation. USDA Technical Bulletin 1661. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA. 149 p.Google Scholar
  63. West MR. 2009. Mathematical Modeling of Source Zone Remediation. PhD Thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  64. West MR, Kueper BH. 2010. Plume detachment and recession times in fractured rock. J Ground Water 48:416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. West MR, Kueper BH. 2012. Numerical simulation of DNAPL source zone remediation with in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO). Adv Water Resour 44:126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West MR, Grant GP, Gerhard JI, Kueper BH. 2008. The influence of precipitate formation on the chemical oxidation of TCE DNAPL with potassium permanganate. Adv Water Resour 31:324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. White MD, Oostrom M. 2003. STOMP, Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases. Version 3.0. User’s Guide. PNNL-14286. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  68. White MD, Oostrom M, Lenhard RJ. 2004. A practical model for mobile, residual, and entrapped NAPL in porous media. Ground Water 42:734–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu T, Sonnenthal E, Spycher N, Pruess K. 2008. TOUGHREACT User's Guide: A Simulation Program for Non-isothermal Multiphase Reactive Geochemical Transport in Variably Saturated Geologic Media, V1.2.1. LBNL-55460-2008. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA. 195 p.Google Scholar
  70. Zheng C. 1990. MT3D, A Modular Three-Dimensional Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA. 170 p.Google Scholar
  71. Zheng C, Bennett GD. 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 621 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason I. Gerhard
    • 1
  • Bernard H. Kueper
    • 2
  • Brent E. Sleep
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada
  3. 3.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations