Reactive Transport in Heterogeneous Media

  • Harvey Scher
  • Brian Berkowitz
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)


We analyze the dynamics of reactive transport in heterogeneous media, emphasizing the nature of the chemical reactions and the role of small-scale fluctuations induced by the structure of the porous medium, which is the main component of geological formations. Our goal is the interpretation of the results of laboratory-scale experiments, for which detailed characterization of the system is possible. Modelling approaches have been based on continuum and particle tracking (PT) schemes, which differ in how the fluctuations are incorporated. We choose PT methods wherein space-time transitions are drawn from appropriate probability distributions that have been tested to account for anomalous (non-Fickian) transport. While PT methods have been employed for many years to describe conservative transport, their application to laboratory-scale reactive transport problems in the context of both Fickian and non-Fickian regimes is relatively recent. We concentrate on experimental observations of different types of reactions in heterogeneous media: (1) the dynamics of a bimolecular reactive transport (A + BC) in passive (non-reactive) media, and (2) a multi-step chemical reaction, as exemplified in the process of dedolomitization involving both dissolution and precipitation. The fluctuations in a number of the key variables controlling the processes prove to have a dominant role; elucidation of this role forms the basis of the present study. An implication of these findings is that subtle changes in patterns of water flow, as a result of climate change or changes in land use, may have significant effects on water quality.


Particle Tracking Reactive Transport Continuous Time Random Walk Particle Tracking Method Reactive Transport Problem 
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. 1.
    Smoluchowski M (1906) Zur kinetischen theorie der brownschen molekularbewegung und der suspensionen. Ann Phys 21:756–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Palanichamy J, Becker T, Spiller M, Köngeter J, Mohan S (2007) Multicomponent reaction modelling using a stochastic algorithm. Comput Vis Sci 12(2):51–61. doi: 10.1007/s00791-007-0080-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fabriol R, Sauty JP, Ouzounian G (1993) Coupling geochemistry with a particle tracking transport model. J Contam Hydrol 13:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun NZ (1999) A finite cell method for simulating the mass transport process in porous media. Water Resour Res 35:3649–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao Y, Gillespie D, Petzold L (2005) Multiscale stochastic simulation algorithm with stochastic partial equilibrium assumption for chemically reacting systems. J Comput Phys 206:395–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindenberg K, Romero AH (2007) Numerical study of A + A → 0 and A + B → 0 reactions with inertia. J Chem Phys 127(17):174506. doi: 10.1063/1.2779327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srinivasan G, Tartakovsky DM, Robinson BA, Aceves AB (2007) Quantification of uncertainty in geochemical reactions. Water Resour Res 43:W12415. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yuste SB, Klafter J, Lindenberg K (2008) Number of distinct sites visited by a subdiffusive random walker. Phys Rev E 77(3):032101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edery Y, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2009) Modeling bimolecular reactions and transport in porous media. Geophys Res Lett 36:L02407. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gillespie D (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem 25(81):2340–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sahimi M, Gavals GR, Tsotsis TT (1990) Statistical and continuum models of fluid–solid reactions in porous media. Chem Eng Sci 45(6):1443–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sahimi M (1993) Flow phenomena in rocks: from continuum models to fractals, percolation, cellular automata, and simulated annealing. Rev Mod Phys 65(4):1393–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delay F, Ackerer P, Danquigny C (2005) Simulating solute transport in porous or fractured formations using random walk particle tracking: a review. Vadose Zone J 4:360–379. doi: 10.2136/vzj2004.0125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berkowitz B, Scher H (1998) Theory of anomalous chemical transport in fracture networks. Phys Rev E 57(5):5858–5869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dentz M, Cortis A, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2004) Time behavior of solute transport in heterogeneous media: transition from anomalous to normal transport. Adv Water Resour 27(2):155–173. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dentz M, Scher H, Holder D, Berkowitz B (2008) Transport behavior of coupled continuous-time random walks. Phys Rev E 78:041110. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.78.041110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berkowitz B, Cortis A, Dentz M, Scher H (2006) Modeling non-Fickian transport in geological formations as a continuous time random walk. Rev Geophys 44:RG2003. doi: 10.1029/2005RG000178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gardiner CW (2004) Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry and the natural sciences, vol 13, 3rd edn, Springer series in synergetics. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gillespie D (1976) A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions. J Comput Phys 22:403–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gillespie D (1977) Concerning the validity of the stochastic approach to chemical kinetics. J Stat Phys 16(3):311–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scheidegger AE (1959) An evaluation of the accuracy of the diffusivity equation for describing miscible displacement in porous media. In: Proceedings of the theory of fluid flow in porous media conference. University of Oklahoma, Norman, pp 101–116Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edery Y, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2011) Dissolution and precipitation dynamics during dedolomitization. Water Resour Res 47:W08535. doi: 10.1029/2011WR010551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gramling CM, Harvey CF, Meigs LC (2002) Reactive transport in porous media: a comparison of model prediction with laboratory visualization. Environ Sci Technol 36(11):2508–2514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edery Y, Scher H, Berkowitz B (2010) Particle tracking model of bimolecular reactive transport in porous media. Water Resour Res 46:W07524. doi: 10.1029/2009WR009017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubio AD, Zalts A, El Hasi CD (2008) Numerical solution of the advection reaction–diffusion equation at different scales. Environ Model Software 1(23):90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sànchez-Vila X, Fernàndez-Garcia D, Guadagnini A (2010) Interpretation of column experiments of transport of solutes undergoing an irreversible bimolecular reaction using a continuum approximation. Water Resour Res 46:W12510. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009539 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singurindy O, Berkowitz B (2003) Evolution of hydraulic conductivity by precipitation and dissolution in carbonate rock. Water Resour Res 39:1016. doi: 10.1029/2001WR001055 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manahan SE (2000) Environmental chemistry, 9th edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Singurindy O, Berkowitz B (2003) Flow, dissolution, and precipitation in dolomite. Water Resour Res 39:1143. doi: 10.1029/2002WR001624 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences and Energy ResearchWeizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations