Advanced Diagnostic Tools

  • Rula A. Deeb
  • Jennifer L. Nyman
  • Elisabeth L. Hawley
  • Michael C. Kavanaugh
  • Robert H. O’Laskey
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 7)


In the past decade, the advent of innovative diagnostic tools has improved site assessment and remediation practices. This chapter discusses five diagnostic tools that are particularly important for chlorinated solvent source zone remediation: multi-level monitoring systems; rock matrix characterization techniques; mass flux/mass discharge measurements; compound-specific isotope analysis; and molecular biological tools. The discussion includes descriptions of each diagnostic tool, a value of information analysis to help practitioners determine when the tools will be useful and cost effective, and practical recommendations for use of each tool.


Rock Matrix Life Cycle Cost Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Site Characterization Contaminant Distribution 
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.



The work summarized in this chapter was funded by ESTCP under project ER-0318. The authors would like to acknowledge project team members for their significant contribution to the project’s success. These include, in alphabetical order, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen (University of California, Berkeley), Michael Annable (University of Florida), John Cherry (University of Guelph), Murray Einarson (Haley and Aldrich), Ken Goldstein (The Louis Berger Group), Mark Goltz (Air Force Institute of Technology), Kirk Hatfield (University of Florida), Douglas Mackay (University of California, Davis), Tamzen Macbeth (CDM Smith), Daria Navon (ARCADIS), Beth Parker (University of Guelph), Suresh Rao (Purdue University), Kent Sorenson (CDM Smith) and Andrew Vitolins (ARCADIS).


  1. Abe Y, Aravena R, Zopfi J, Shoukar-Stash O, Cox E, Roberts JD, Hunkeler D. 2009. Carbon and chlorine isotope fractionation during aerobic oxidation and reductive dechlorination of vinyl chloride and cis-1,2-dichloroethene. Environ Sci Technol 43:101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahad J, Slater G. 2008. Differentiating biotic from abiotic (Fenton’s reaction) degradation of toluene: A test of compound-specific stable carbon isotopes. Sci Total Environ 401:194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Annable MD, Hatfield K, Cho J, Klammler H, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Rao PSC. 2005. Field-scale evaluation of the passive flux meter for simultaneous measurement of groundwater and contaminant fluxes. Environ Sci Technol 39:7194–7201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Back PE, Rosén L, Norberg T. 2007. Value of information analysis in remedial investigations. Ambio 36:486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer S, Bayer-Raich M, Holder T, Kolesar C, Muller D, Ptak T. 2004. Quantification of groundwater contamination in an urban area using integral pumping tests. J Contam Hydrol 75:183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayer-Raich M, Jarsjo J, Liedl R, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2004. Average contaminant concentration and mass flux in aquifers from time-dependent pumping well data - Analytical framework. Water Resour Res 40:W08303.Google Scholar
  7. Black WH, Smith HR, Patton FD. 1986. Multiple-level ground water monitoring with the MP system. Proceedings of the National Water Well Association’s Conference on Surface and Borehole Geophysical Methods and Ground Water Instrumentation. Denver, CO, USA, October 15–17, pp 41–61.Google Scholar
  8. Bockelmann A, Ptak T, Teutsch G. 2001. An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. J Contam Hydrol 53:429–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bockelmann A, Zamfirescu D, Ptak T, Grathwohl P, Teutsch G. 2003. Quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rates at an industrial site with a limited monitoring network: A case study. J Contam Hydrol 60:97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks MC, Wood LA, Annable MD, Hatfield K, Cho J, Holbert C, Rao PSC, Enfield CG, Lynch K, Smith RE. 2008. Changes in contaminant mass discharge from DNAPL source mass depletion: Evaluation at two field sites. J Contam Hydrol 102:140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buscheck TE. 2002. Mass Flux Estimates to Assist Decision-Making. Technical Bulletin. ChevronTexaco, Houston, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell T, Hatfield K, Klammler H, Annable MD, Rao PS. 2006. Magnitude and directional measures of water and Cr(VI) fluxes by passive flux meter. Environ Sci Technol 40:6392–6397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardiff M, Liu X, Kitanidis PK, Parker J, Kim U. 2010. Cost optimization of DNAPL source and plume remediation under uncertainty using a semi-analytic model. J Contam Hydrol 113:25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherry JA, Johnson PE. 1982. A multi-level device for monitoring in fractured rock. Ground Water Monit Rev 2:41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherry JA, Parker BL, Keller C. 2007. A new depth discrete multilevel monitoring approach for fractured rock. Ground Water Monit Remediat 27:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Jonge H, Rothenberg G. 2006. New device and method for flux-proportional sampling of mobile solutes in soil and groundwater. Environ Sci Technol 39:274–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Einarson M. 2006. Multi-level Groundwater Monitoring. In DM Nielsen, ed, Practical Handbook of Environmental Site Characterization and Ground-Water Monitoring, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 808–845.Google Scholar
  18. Einarson MD, Cherry JA. 2002. A new multi-level ground-water monitoring system utilizing multichannel tubing. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:52–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einarson MD, Mackay DM. 2001. Predicting impacts of ground water contamination. Environ Sci Technol 35:66A–73A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farhat SK, Newell CJ, Nichols EM. 2005. Mass Flux Toolkit. Groundwater Services, Houston, TX, USA. Accessed February 26, 2013.
  21. Feenstra S, Cherry J, Parker B. 1996. Conceptual Models for the Behavior of DNAPLs in the Subsurface. In Pankow J, Cherry J, eds, Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior and Remediation. Waterloo Press, Waterloo, ON, Canada, pp 53–88.Google Scholar
  22. Freeze RA, Bruce J, Massman, J, Sperling T, Smith L. 1992. Hydrogeological decision analysis: 4. The concept of data worth and its use in the development of site investigation strategies. Ground Water 30:574–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goltz MN, Close ME, Yoon H, Huang J, Flintoft MJ, Kim S, Enfield C. 2009. Validation of two innovative methods to measure contaminant mass flux in groundwater. J Contam Hydrol 106:51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guilbeault MA, Parker BL, Cherry JA. 2005. Mass and flux distributions from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers. Ground Water 43:70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatfield K, Annable MD, Kuhn S, Rao PS, Campbell T. 2002. A new method for quantifying contaminant flux at hazardous waste sites. In Thornton SF, Oswald SE, eds, Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. Internat Assoc Hydrological Sci Pub. No. 275, pp 25–32.Google Scholar
  26. Hatfield K, Annable M, Cho JH, Rao PSC, Klammler H. 2004. A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 75:155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard MH, Clingenpeel SR, Leiser OP, Rothermell JS, Watwood ME. 2005. Molecular and physiological characterization of aerobic TCE degradation potential. Proceedings, 8th In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, USA, Paper No. G-31.Google Scholar
  28. Huang J, Close ME, Pang L, Goltz MN. 2004. Innovative method to measure flux of dissolved contaminants in groundwater. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Monterey, CA, USA, May 24–27. Battelle Press. Abstract No. 1D-08.Google Scholar
  29. Hunkeler D, Aravena R, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Diao X. 2003. Monitoring oxidation of chlorinated ethenes by permanganate in groundwater using stable isotopes: Laboratory and field studies. Environ Sci Technol 37:798–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunkeler D, Chollet N, Pittet X, Aravena R, Cherry JA, Parker BL. 2004. Effect of source variability and transport processes on carbon isotope ratios of TCE and PCE in two sandy aquifers. J Contam Hydrol 74:265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurley JC, Parker BL. 2002. Rock core investigation of DNAPL penetration and TCE mobility in fractured sandstone. In Stolle D, Piggott AR, Crowder JJ, eds, Proceedings of the 55th Canadian Geotechnical and 3rd Joint IAH-CNC and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conferences, Ground and Water: Theory to Practice. Canadian Geotechnical Society. Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, October 20–23, 2001, pp 473–480.Google Scholar
  32. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2004. Strategies for Monitoring the Performance of DNAPL Source Zone Remedies. Accessed February 26, 2013.
  33. ITRC. 2010a. ITRC Technical Project Teams. Accessed February 26, 2013.
  34. ITRC. 2010b. Use and Measurement of Mass Flux and Mass Discharge. Int-DNAPL-1. Accessed February 26, 2013.
  35. ITRC. 2011. Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Fact Sheets. EMD-1. Washington, DC: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Environmental Molecular Diagnostics Team. . Accessed February 26, 2013.
  36. James BR, Freeze RA. 1993. The worth of data in predicting aquitard continuity in hydrogeological design. Water Resour Res 29:2049–2065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. James BR, Gorelick SM. 1994. When enough is enough: The worth of monitoring data in aquifer remediation design. Water Resour Res 30:3499–3513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kavanaugh M, Kresic N. 2008. Large Urban Groundwater Basins: Water Quality Threats and Aquifer Restoration. In Dimkic M, Brauch HJ, Kavanaugh M, eds, Groundwater Management in Large River Basins. IWA Publishing, London, UK, pp 520–600.Google Scholar
  39. Kubert M, Finkel M. 2006. Contaminant mass discharge estimation in groundwater based on multi-level point measurements: A numerical evaluation of expected errors. J Contam Hydrol 84:55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lebron CA, Phelan D, Heron G, Lachance J, Nielsen SG, Kueper BH, Rodriguez D, Wemp A, Baston D, Lacombe P, Chapelle FH. 2012. Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Removal from Fractured Rock Using Thermal Conductive Heating (TCH). Final Report ESTCP Project ER-200715. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Liang X, Dong Y, Kuder T, Krumholz LR, Philp RP, Butler EC. 2007. Distinguishing abiotic and biotic transformation of tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene by stable carbon isotope fractionation. Environ Sci Technol 41:7094–7100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lollar BS, Slater GF, Sleep B, Witt M, Klecka GM, Harkness M, Spivack J. 2001. Stable carbon isotope evidence for intrinsic bioremediation of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene at Area 6, Dover Air Force Base. Environ Sci Technol 35:261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lu X, Wilson JT, Kampbell DH. 2006. Relationship between Dehalococcoides DNA in ground water and rates of reductive dechlorination at field scale. Water Res 40:3131–3140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011a. Guidance Report: Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011b. Final Report: Vandenberg Air Force Base, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  46. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011c. Final Report: Fort Lewis, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  47. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 2011d. Final Report: Watervliet Arsenal, Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites. ESTCP Project Number ER-200318. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, Alexandria, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  48. Marchesi M, Aravena R, Otero N, Soler A, Gil I, Sra KS, Thomson NR, Mancini S. 2009. Assessment of in-situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) performance for chlorinated solvents contaminated groundwater using stable carbon isotope at laboratory and field scale. Geophysical Research Abstracts 11. EGU2009-10201-1. Accessed February 26, 2013.Google Scholar
  49. Massman J, Freeze RA. 1987. Groundwater contamination from waste management sites – the interaction between risk-based engineering design and regulatory policy. Water Resour 23:368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meyer JR, Parker, BL, Cherry JA. 2008. Detailed hydraulic head profiles as essential data for defining hydrogeologic units in layered fractured sedimentary rock. Environ Geol 56:27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Morrill PL, Lacrampe-Couloume G, Slater GF, Sleep BE, Edwards EA, McMaster ML, Major DW, Sherwood Lollar B. 2005. Quantifying chlorinated ethene degradation during reductive dechlorination at Kelly AFB using stable carbon isotopes. J Contam Hydrol 76:279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Newell CJ, Farhat SK, Adamson DT, Looney BB. 2011. Contaminant plume classification system based on mass discharge. Ground Water 49:914–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Parker BL. 2007. Investigating contaminated sites on fractured rock using the DFN approach. Proceedings of the 2007 USEPA/NGWA Fractured Rock Conference: State of the Science and Measuring Success in Remediation. Portland, ME, USA, September 24–26, pp 150–168.Google Scholar
  55. Parker BL, Cherry JA, Swanson BJ. 2006. A multilevel system for high-resolution monitoring in rotasonic boreholes. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Payne FC, Quinnan JA, Potter ST. 2008. Remediation Hydraulics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poulson SR, Naraoka H. 2002. Carbon isotope fractionation during permanganate oxidation of chlorinated ethylenes (cDCE, TCE, PCE). Environ Sci Technol 36:3270–3274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Price M, Williams AT. 1993. The influence of unlined boreholes on groundwater chemistry: A comparative study using pore-water extraction and packer sampling. J Instit Water Environ Manage 7:651–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rao PSC, Jawitz JW, Enfield CG, Falta RW, Annable MD, Wood AL. 2001. Technology integration for contaminated site remediation: Clean-up goals and performance criteria. In Thornton SF, Oswald SE, eds, Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution. Internat Assoc Hydrological Sci Pub. No. 275, pp 571–578.Google Scholar
  60. Reichard EG, Evans JS. 1989. Assessing the value of hydrogeologic information for risk-based remedial action decisions. Water Resour Res 25:1451–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ritalahti KM, Amos BK, Sung Y, Wu Q, Koenigsberg SS, Löffler FE. 2006. Quantitative PCR targeting 16S rRNA and reductive dehalogenase genes simultaneously monitors multiple Dehalococcoides strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:2765–2774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodriquez DJ. 2012. Assessment of Thermal Heating for the Removal of Chlorinated Solvents from Fractured Bedrock. PhD Thesis. Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Accessed February 26,2013 .Google Scholar
  63. Russell KT, Rabideau AJ. 2000. Decision analysis for pump-and-treat design. Ground Water Monit Remediat 20:159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sale T, Newell C, Stroo H, Hinchee R, Johnson P. 2008. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Management of Chlorinated Solvents in Soils and Groundwater. ESTCP. Project ER-0530. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. Accessed February 28, 2013.
  65. SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research & Development Program). 2004. Annual Report: DNAPL Source Zone Initiative. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  66. SERDP. 2005. Expert Panel Workshop Report: Research and Development Needs for the Environmental Remediation Application of Molecular Biological Tools. Retrieved from Accessed February 28, 2013.
  67. SERDP. 2006. Expert Panel Workshop Report: Reducing the Uncertainty of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation. ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
  68. Slater GF, Sherwood-Lollar B, Sleep BE, Edwards EA. 2001. Variability in carbon isotopic fractionation during biodegradation: Implications for field applications. Environ Sci Technol 35:901–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sterling SN, Parker BL, Cherry JA, Williams JH, Lane Jr JW, Haeni FP. 2005. Vertical cross contamination of trichloroethylene in a borehole in fractured sandstone. Ground Water 43:557–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stroo HF, Leeson A, Shepard AJ, Koenigsberg SS, Casey CC. 2006. Monitored natural attenuation forum: Environmental remediation applications of molecular biological tools. Remediat J 16:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sueker JK. 2001. Isotope applications in environmental investigations: Theory and use in chlorinated solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon studies. Remediat J 12:5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites. Final OSWER Directive. EPA/540/R-99/009. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA. Accessed July 22, 2013.
  73. USEPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion. EPA/600/R-03/143. Accessed July 22, 2013.
  74. USEPA. 2008. A Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Ground Water Contaminants using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA). EPA 600/R-08/148. Accessed May 9, 2013.
  75. USEPA. 2009. Amendment to the Record of Decision for the Commencement Bay – South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site, Operable Unit 1, Well 12A, Tacoma, Washington. USEPA Region 10, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
  76. van Dijk G. 2005. Bentonite usage hits new ground. GeoDrilling International, November, pp 36–39.Google Scholar
  77. Yokota F, Thompson K. 2004. Value of information literature analysis: A review of applications in health risk assessment. Med Decision Making 24:287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rula A. Deeb
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Nyman
    • 1
  • Elisabeth L. Hawley
    • 2
  • Michael C. Kavanaugh
    • 1
  • Robert H. O’Laskey
    • 2
  1. 1.GeosyntecOaklandUSA
  2. 2.ARCADISEmeryvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations