Abstract
In situ sparging (ISS) has been used extensively as a tool for restoration of aquifers contaminated with a range of organic chemicals. The primary mechanisms of contaminant removal are volatilization and enhanced in situ degradation. Volatilization has been discussed extensively (Johnson, 1998; Johnson et al. 1998, 1999; Rutherford and Johnson, 1996) and will only be discussed briefly here. In the context of enhanced degradation, the most common sparging approach is to deliver oxygen (as air) to the subsurface to facilitate aerobic biodegradation. This approach is, of course, best suited for compounds that can be readily biodegraded under aerobic conditions (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons) and is less well suited for other important classes of contaminants (e.g., chlorinated hydrocarbons, energetics, etc.).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The term “in situ air sparging” is frequently represented by the acronym IAS. However, since this chapter will discuss the injection of a range of gases, we have used the more general acronym ISS.
References
Battelle. 2001. Final Air Sparging Guidance Document. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) Technical Report TR-2193-ENV.
Bruce CL, Amerson IL, Johnson RL, Johnson PC. 2001. Use of an SF6-based diagnostic tool for assessing air distributions and oxygen transfer rates during IAS operation. Bioremediation J 5:337–347.
Clayton WS. 1998. A field and laboratory investigation of air fingering during air sparging. Ground Water Monit Remediat 17:134–145.
Clayton WS. 1999. The effects of pore scale dead-end air fingers on relative permeabilities for air sparging in soils. Water Resour Res 35:2909–2919.
ESTCP (Environmental Security Technology Certification Program). 2001. Use of Cometabolic Air Sparging to Remediate Chloroethene-Contaminated Groundwater Aquifers: Project CU-9810 Final Report. Prepared by Battelle, Columbus, OH, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
ESTCP. 2002a. Multi-Site In Situ Air Sparging: Project CU-9808 Final Report. Prepared by Battelle, Columbus, OH, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
ESTCP. 2002b. Design Paradigm: Air Sparging – Technology Transfer and Multi-Site Evaluation. Prepared by Leeson A, Johnson PC, Johnson RL, Vogel CM, Hinchee RE, Marley M, Peargin T, Bruce CL, Amerson IL, Coonfare CT, Gillespie RD, McWhorter DB for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
ESTCP. 2003. In-Situ Remediation of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Contaminated Aquifers Using Propane Biosparging: Project ER-200515 Final Report. Prepared by Envirogen, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
ESTCP. 2005. Push-Pull Tests for Evaluating the Aerobic Cometabolism of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons. Project CU-9921Final Report. Prepared by Semprini L, Istok J, Azizian M, Kim Y; Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
Johnson PC. 1998. An assessment of the contributions of volatilization and biodegradation to in situ air sparging performance. Environ Sci Technol 32:276–281.
Johnson RL, Johnson PC, McWhorter DB, Hinchee RE, Goodman I. 1993. An overview of in situ air sparging. Ground Water Monit Remediat 13:127–135.
Johnson PC, Johnson RL, Neaville C, Hansen CC, Stearns SM, Dortch IJ. 1997. An assessment of conventional in situ air sparging pilot tests. Ground Water 35:765–774.
Johnson PC, Das A, Bruce CL. 1999. Effect of flow rate changes and pulsing on the treatment of source zones by in situ air sparging. Environ Sci Technol 33:1726–1731.
Johnson PC, Johnson RL, Bruce CL, Leeson A. 2001a. Advances in in situ air sparging/biosparging. Bioremediation J 5:251–266.
Johnson PC, Leeson A, Johnson RL, Vogel CM, Hinchee RE, Marley M, Peargin T, Bruce CL, Amerson IL, Coonfare CT, Gillespie RD. 2001b. A practical approach for the selection, pilot testing, design, and monitoring of in situ air sparging/biosparging systems. Bioremediation J 5:267–281.
Johnson RL, Johnson PC, Amerson IL, Johnson TL, Bruce CL, Leeson A, Vogel CM. 2001c. Diagnostic tools for integrated in situ air sparging pilot tests. Bioremediation J 5:283–298.
Johnson RL, Johnson PC, Johnson TL, Leeson A. 2001d. Helium tracer tests for assessing contaminant vapor recovery and air distribution during in situ air sparging. Bioremediation J 5:321–336.
Johnson RL, Johnson PC, Johnson TL, Thomson NR, Leeson A. 2001e. Diagnosis of in situ air sparging performance using transient groundwater pressure changes during startup and shutdown. Bioremediation J 5:299–320.
Johnson PC, Bruce CL, Miller KD. 2003. In Situ Bioremediation of MTBE in Groundwater. NFESC Technical Report TR-2222-ENV. Prepared for ESTCP, Arlington, VA, USA.
Johnson PC, Johnson RL, Bruce CL. 2010. Air sparging for the treatment of chlorinated solvent plumes. In Stroo HF, Ward CH, eds, In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. Springer Science + Business Media, New York, NY, USA, pp 455–480.
Johnston CD, Rayner JL, Patterson BM, Davis GB. 1998. Volatilisation and biodegradation during air sparging of dissolved BTEX-contaminated groundwater. J Contam Hydrol 33:377–404.
McCray JE, Falta RW. 1997. Numerical simulation of air sparging for remediation of NAPL contamination. Ground Water 35:99–110.
NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health). 2005. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. http://www.cdc.gov/Niosh/npg/.
Rutherford K, Johnson PC. 1996. Effects of process control changes on aquifer oxygenation rates during in situ air sparging in homogeneous aquifers. Ground Water Monit Remediat 16:132–141.
Salanitro JP, Johnson PC, Spinnler GE, Maner PM, Wisniewski HL, Bruce CL. 2000. Field-scale demonstration of enhanced MTBE bioremediation through aquifer bioaugmentation and oxygenation. Environ Sci Technol 34:4152–4162.
SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program). 2003. Low-Volume Pulsed Biosparging of Hydrogen for Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. ER-1206 Final Report. Prepared by Groundwater Services, Inc., Houston, TX, USA. http://www.serdp.org/content/advancedsearch/. Accessed August 5, 2011.
Thomson NR, Johnson RL. 2000. Air distribution during in situ air sparging: An overview of mathematical modeling. J Hazard Mater 72:265–282.
Tomlinson DW, Thomson NR, Johnson RL, Redman JD. 2003. Air distribution in the Borden aquifer during in situ air sparging. J Contam Hydrol 67:113–132.
U.S. Army. 2008. Engineering and Design: In Situ Air Sparging. EM1110-1–4005.192 p.
van Dijke MIJ, van der Zee SEATM. 1998. Modeling of air sparging in a layered soil: Numerical and analytical approximations. Water Resour Res 34:341–353.
Yu D-Y, Bae W, Kang N, Banks MK, Choi C-H. 2005. Characterization of gaseous ozone decomposition in soil. Soil Sediment Contam 14:231–247.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johnson, R.L., Johnson, P.C. (2012). In Situ Sparging for Delivery of Gases in the Subsurface. In: Kitanidis, P., McCarty, P. (eds) Delivery and Mixing in the Subsurface. SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology, vol 4. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2239-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2239-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-2238-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-2239-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)