Modeling Plume Responses To Source Treatment

  • Ronald W. Falta
  • Bernard H. Kueper
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 7)


Source zone remediation at a site may be undertaken for a number of reasons. The plume response to source remediation is a complex function of many variables, including the fraction of mass remaining in the source compared to the plume, source concentration compared to regulatory limits, ratio of plume decay rates to groundwater velocity, relationship between source mass removal and source discharge, and local diffusive effects in the plume. As discussed in this chapter, models are tools that allow practitioners to quantify plume response to source remediation. This insight, gained from modeling, can then allow the practitioner to establish reasonable goals and expectations for what can be achieved through source remediation.


Vinyl Chloride Source Zone Retardation Factor Source Mass Reductive Dechlorination 
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. Abriola LM, Jang 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
  2. Alvarez PJJ, Illman WA. 2006. Bioremediation and Natural Attenuation. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Aziz CE, Newell CJ, Gonzales JR, Hass P, Clement TP, Sun Y. 2000. BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System User’s Manual Version 1.0. EPA/600/R-00/008. Office of Research and Development, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Aziz CE, Newell CJ, Gonzales JR. 2002. BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System Version 2.2 User’s Manual Addendum. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  5. Basu NB, Rao PSC, Poyer JC, Annable MD, Hatfield K. 2006. Flux – Based assessment at a manufacturing site contaminated with trichloroethylene. J Contam Hydrol 86:105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu NB, Rao PSC, Falta RW, Annable MD, Jawitz JW, Hatfield K. 2008. Temporal evolution of DNAPL source and contaminant flux distribution: Impacts of source mass depletion. J Contam Hydrol 95:93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks MC, Annable MD, Rao PSC, Hatfield K, Jawitz JW, Wise WR, Wood AL, Enfield CG. 2002. Controlled release, blind tests of DNAPL characterization using partitioning tracers. J Contam Hydrol 59:287–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks MC, Annable MD, Rao PSC, Hatfield K, Jawitz JW, Wise WR, Wood AL, Enfield CG. 2004. Controlled release, blind tests of DNAPL remediation by ethanol flushing. J Contam Hydrol 69:281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapelle FH, Widdowson MA, Brauner JS, Mendez E, Casey C. 2003. Methodology for Estimating Times of Remediation Associated with Monitored Natural Attenuation. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4057. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  10. 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 4:W11420.Google Scholar
  11. Christ JA, Ramsburg CA, Pennell KD, Abriola LM. 2010. Predicting DNAPL mass discharge from pool-dominated source zones. J Contam Hydrol 114:18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clement TP. 1997. RT3D – A modular computer code for simulating reactive multi-species transport in 3-dimensional groundwater aquifers. PNNL-11720. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Clement TP, Sun Y, Hooker BS, Petersen JN. 1998. Modeling multispecies reactive transport in ground water. Ground Water Monit Remed 18(2):79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delshad M, Pope GA, Sepehrnoori K. 1996. A compositional simulator for modeling surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation. J Contam Hydrol 23:303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiFillippo EL, Brusseau ML. 2008. Relationship between mass flux reduction and source zone mass removal: Analysis of field data. J Contam Hydrol 98:22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Domenico PA. 1987. An analytical model for multidimensional transport of a decaying contaminant species. J Contam Hydrol 91:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falta RW. 2003. Modeling sub-grid block scale DNAPL pool dissolution using a dual domain approach. Water Resour Res 39:1360–1368.Google Scholar
  18. Falta RW. 2008. Methodology for comparing source and plume remediation alternatives. Ground Water 46:272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falta RW, Pruess K, Finsterle S, Battistelli A. 1995. T2VOC User’s Guide, Report LBL-36400. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Falta RW, Rao PSC, Basu N. 2005a. 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
  21. Falta RW, Basu N, Rao PSC. 2005b. Assessing the impacts of partial mass depletion in DNAPL source zones: II. Coupling source strength functions to plume evolution. J Contam Hydrol 79:45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Falta RW, Stacy MB, Ahsanuzzman ANM, Wang M, Earle RC. 2007. REMChlor Remediation Evaluation Model for Chlorinated Solvents User’s Manual Version 1.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  23. Fure AD, Jawitz JJ, Annable MD. 2006. DNAPL source depletion: Linking architecture and flux response. J Contam Hydrol 85:118–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerhard J, Kueper B, Hecox G. 1998. The influence of waterflood design on the recovery of mobile DNAPLs. Ground Water 36:283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grant GP, Gerhard JI. 2007. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Helmig R, Braun C, Emmert M. 1994, MUFTE – A numerical model for simulation of multiphase flow processes in porous and fractured porous media, program documentation (HGK-208). Technical Report 94/3. Institut fur Wasserbau, Universitat Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Kaye AJ, Cho J, Basu NB, Chen X, Annable MD, Jawitz JW. 2008. Laboratory investigation of flux reduction from dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) partial source zone remediation by enhanced dissolution. J Contam Hydrol 102:17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liang H. 2009. Probabilistic Remediation Evaluation Model for Chlorinated Solvents Considering Uncertainty. PhD thesis. Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Liang H, Falta RW, Newell CJ, Farhat SK, Rao PSC, Basu N. 2010a. Decision & Management Tools for DNAPL Sites: Optimization of chlorinated solvent source and plume remediation considering uncertainty, environmental security testing and certification program. ESTCP Project Final Report ER-0704. Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Liang H, Falta RW, Henderson JK, Shoemaker S. 2010b. Probabilistic simulation of source and plume remediation for a site contaminated by trichloroethylene. Ground Water Monit Remediat 32:131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipson D, Kueper BH, Gefell MJ. 2005. Matrix diffusion-derived plume attenuation in fractured bedrock. Ground Water 43:30–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McGuire TM, Newell CJ, Looney BB, Vangelas KM, Sink CH. 2004. Historical analysis of monitored natural attenuation: A survey of 191 chlorinated solvent sites and 45 solvent plumes. Remediat J 15:99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Newell CJ, McLeod RK, Gonzales JR. 1996. BIOSCREEN Natural Attenuation Decision Support System User’s Manual, Version 1.3. EPA/600/R-96/087. USEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Nitao J. 1996. Reference Manual for the NUFT Flow and Transport Code. Report UCRL-ID-113520. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  35. NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Panday S, Wu YS, Huyakorn PS, Springer EP. 1994. A three-dimensional multiphase flow model for assessing NAPL contamination in porous and fractured media, porous medium simulation examples. J Contam Hydrol 16:131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pankow JF, Cherry JA. 1996. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater, Waterloo Press, Waterloo, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  38. Park E, Parker JC. 2005. Evaluation of an upscaled model for DNAPL dissolution kinetics in heterogeneous aquifers. Adv Water Resour 20:1280–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parker JC, Falta RW. 2008. Comparison of alternative upscaled model formulations for simulating DNAPL source dissolution and biodecay. Adv Water Resour 31:1325–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker JC, Park E. 2004. Modeling field-scale dense nonaqueous phase liquid dissolution kinetics in heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resour Res 40:W05109.Google Scholar
  41. Pruess K, Battistelli A. 2002. TMVOC, A Numerical Simulator for Three-Phase Non-isothermal Flows of Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Saturated-Unsaturated Heterogeneous Media. Report LBNL-49375. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Rao PSC, Jawitz JW. 2003. Comment on “Steady state mass transfer from single-component dense non-aqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields” by Sale TC, McWhorter DB. Water Resour Res 39:1068.Google Scholar
  43. Rao PSC, Jawitz JW, Enfield CG, Falta R, Annabel MD, Wood AL. 2001. Technology integration for contaminated site remediation: Cleanup goals and performance metrics. Ground Water Quality, Sheffield, UK. pp 410–412.Google Scholar
  44. Reynolds DA, Kueper BH. 2001. Multiphase flow and transport in fractured clay/sand sequences. J Contam Hydrol 51:41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reynolds DA, Kueper BH. 2002. Numerical examination of the factors controlling DNAPL migration through a single fracture. Ground Water 40:368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sale TC, McWhorter DB. 2001. Steady-state mass transfer from single-component dense non-aqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields. Water Resour Res 37:393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sale TC, Newell CJ. 2010. Impacts of Source Management on Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. In Stroo HF, Ward CH, eds, In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stroo HF, Ward CH, eds. 2010. In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. Springer, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Sudicky EA, Frind EO. 1982. Contaminant transport in fractured porous media: Analytical solutions for a system of parallel fractures. Water Resour Res 18:1634–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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
  51. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is there a case for source depletion? EPA/600/R-03/143. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Waddill DW, Widdowson MA. 2000. SEAM3D – A numerical model for three dimensional solute transport and sequential electron acceptor-based bioremediation in groundwater. ERDC/EL TR-00-18. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  53. West M, Kueper BH. 2007. Plume detachment and recession times following source treatment in bedded fractured rock. Proceedings, USEPA/NGWA Fractured Rock Conference: State of the Science and Measuring Success in Remediation. Portland, ME, USA, September 24–26, pp 343–356. Accessed January 30, 2014.
  54. West MR, Kueper BH. 2010. Plume detachment and recession times in fractured rock. Ground Water 48:416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. West M, Kueper BH, Novakowski KS. 2004. Semi-analytical solutions for solute transport in fractured rock using a strip source of finite width. Adv Water Resour 27:1045–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West MR, Kueper BH, Ungs M. 2007. On the use and error of approximation in the Domenico (1987) solution. Ground Water 45:126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. White MD, Oostrom M, Lenhard RJ. 1995. Modeling fluid flow and transport in variable saturated porous media with the STOMP simulator. Adv Water Resour 18:353–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Widdowson MA. 2003. SEAM3D: A numerical model for three-dimensional solute transport and sequential electron acceptor-based biodegradation in ground water. Final Report to the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  61. Widdowson MA, Mendez E, Chapelle F, Casey CC. 2004. Natural Attenuation Software User’s Manual, Version 2. Accessed November 20, 2012.
  62. Wiedemeier TD, Rifai HS, Newell CJ, Wilson JT. 1999. Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wood AL, Falta RW. 2003. SERDP and NRMRL Sponsor Field Test of Cosolvent-Enhanced DNAPL Removal. EPA 542-N-03-003. Technology News and Trends, Issue 6. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Wood AL, Enfield CG, Espinoza FP, Annable M, Brooks MC, Rao PSC, Sabatini D, Knox R. 2005. Design of aquifer remediation systems: (2) Estimating site-specific performance and benefits of partial source removal. J Contam Hydrol 81:148–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zhang H, Schwartz FW. 2000. Simulating the in situ oxidative treatment of chlorinated compounds by potassium permanganate. Water Resour Res 36:3031–3042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhang K, Yamamoto H, Pruess K. 2007. TMVOC-MP: A parallel numerical simulator for three-phase non-isothermal flows of multicomponent hydrocarbon mixtures in porous/fractured media. Report LBNL-63827. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  67. Zheng C, Wang PP. 1999. MT3DMS: A modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide. Contract Report SERDP-99-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.Google Scholar
  68. Zhu J, Sykes JF. 2004. Simple screening models of NAPL dissolution in the subsurface. J Contam Hydrol 72:245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald W. Falta
    • 1
  • Bernard H. Kueper
    • 2
  1. 1.Clemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  2. 2.Queen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations