Advertisement

Natural Attenuation of Hydrocarbon Compounds in Groundwater

  • Steven F ThorntonEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology book series (HHLM)

Abstract

Natural attenuation (NA) is a widely used strategy for the risk-based management of groundwater contaminated with hydrocarbons. New process-based conceptual models highlight the spatial distribution of biodegradation processes in plumes, controlled by microbial activity, electron acceptor bioavailability, and aquifer properties, as a key control on NA performance. The plume fringe is identified as a critical interface for enhanced microbial activity and biodegradation of hydrocarbons in plumes. Mass transport and process heterogeneity in aquifers must be adequately resolved to ensure reliable estimates of hydrocarbon attenuation. The adoption of mass discharge as a performance measure and use of high-resolution multilevel monitoring devices is recommended to address these issues. These concepts are illustrated with a case study example. Stable isotope methods are important tools in NA assessments and, when combined with hydrochemical analyses, offer new possibilities to characterize contaminant sources, biodegradation pathways, redox processes, element cycling, the relative contribution of different attenuation processes, and quantify biodegradation of hydrocarbons in groundwater.

1 Introduction

Natural attenuation (NA) of polluted subsurface environments refers to naturally occurring physical, chemical, and biological processes which occur in situ and act, in isolation or combination, without human intervention to reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, flux, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil and groundwater (Wiedemeier et al. 1995; ASTM 1998; U.S. EPA 1998a, b; Environment Agency 2000; McLaughlan et al. 2006). These in situ processes include biodegradation, abiotic degradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction (U.S. EPA 1999; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; McLaughlan et al. 2006; Rivett and Thornton 2008). The technical application of NA processes for the management of soil and contaminated groundwater is termed monitored natural attenuation (MNA). This emphasizes rigorous performance assessment of NA using appropriate monitoring strategies and analytical tools to demonstrate an acceptable reduction in environmental risk at a specific compliance point or receptor within a reasonable timeframe (U.S. EPA 1998a; Environment Agency 2000; Rügner et al. 2006). Example receptors include humans (by direct exposure), potable water supply wells, and surface water bodies, whereas the legal boundary of a site is a typical compliance point, although many other examples may be identified in specific circumstances. Different receptors may be identified at various stages in the management of a contaminated site, during future site development or use and for different contaminants, according to their properties. While NA can be implemented to manage inorganic contaminants in both soil and groundwater, this chapter describes the theoretical concepts and practical application for hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater. These are illustrated by reference to petroleum hydrocarbons, a common pollutant in groundwater, but also underpin the implementation of NA for other similar organic compounds (e.g., polyaromatic hydrocarbons, diesel, phenols, coal tar compounds). The reader is referred to other texts for the assessment of NA in soils (Mulligan and Yong 2004; Khan et al. 2011), for chlorinated organic compounds (RTDF 1997; U.S. EPA 1998b; Environment Agency 1999; Wiedemeier et al. 1999) and for inorganic compounds (U.S. EPA 2007a, b).

Scientifically and operationally NA is distinct from bioremediation in that only biological processes are considered in bioremediation, whereas these contribute with many other nonbiological processes to NA (Alvarez and Illman 2006; U.S. EPA 2006; Rivett and Thornton 2008). The key technical components underpinning the implementation of NA for groundwater are (i) a site-specific risk assessment, (ii) development of a conceptual model which describes NA processes and translation of this understanding into a mathematical model for prediction, and (iii) demonstration and performance assessment of NA against stated site management and remediation objectives (Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Environment Agency 2000; Alvarez and Illman 2006; McLaughlan et al. 2006). The risk assessment seeks to identify the relevant contaminant linkage(s) in terms of the source-pathway-receptor (or target) framework (Environment Agency 2006). Characterizing the source (e.g., type, form, distribution, quantity of contaminants) and quantifying NA processes along the pathway (e.g., aquifer) are critical to the robust prediction of potential impacts on receptors, risk reduction, and effectiveness of NA in groundwater. If this analysis indicates remediation is necessary at a site, then the identified risks can be mitigated to an acceptable level by reducing the source mass or concentration, and/or reducing the flux of contaminants or preventing migration along the pathway, and/or removing or isolating the receptor. In most cases source reduction measures will be required to support the implementation of NA for contaminated groundwater, to ensure the achievement of remediation objectives in reasonable timescales (Environment Agency 2000; Chapelle et al. 2003).

2 Conceptual Model for Natural Attenuation of Hydrocarbons in Groundwater

Groundwater contamination by hydrocarbons originates from sources (e.g., leaking underground storage tanks, pipeline distribution systems, refining facilities, coal-gasification and chemical manufacturing plants, fuel transportation, and waste disposal practices) that release pure or dissolved phase hydrocarbon compounds to soil or the unsaturated zone. The dissolved phase compounds migrate to the water table in recharge water, which infiltrates the unsaturated zone. Pure liquids move under gravity to the water table, where they either form an immiscible phase in the capillary fringe if less dense (light nonaqueous phase liquid, LNAPL) than water (e.g., petroleum fuel) (CL:AIRE 2014), or migrate below the water table if more dense (e.g., coal tar) (Environment Agency 2003). The constituent compounds also dissolve into groundwater, limited thermodynamically by their effective solubility in the mixture (Thornton et al. 2013).

A general conceptual model of a contaminant plume formed in groundwater from a release of hydrocarbons is shown in Fig. 1. The plume is shown within the Source-Pathway-Target risk assessment framework. It is created by the continuous dissolution of organic compounds from the hydrocarbon source and transport of these to the water table, where groundwater advection and dispersion distribute the mass down hydraulic gradient of the release point. The plume source geometry and composition, ambient flow field, physical heterogeneity of the aquifer, and availability of electron acceptors for biodegradation exert an important control on the spatial and temporal distribution of hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater. Volatilization may reduce the concentration of dissolved contaminants in groundwater, where the plume is located at the water table (CL:AIRE 2014). Other abiotic processes such as sorption contribute to the attenuation of hydrocarbon compounds by slowing (retarding) their migration in the plume, according to the contaminant-specific properties (e.g., relative hydrophobicity) and the aquifer geochemistry (Schwarzenbach et al. 2003). When originating from a single source area, the plume boundary is usually sharply defined by transverse dispersion in the aquifer, a process which induces mixing of the contaminated and uncontaminated groundwater. Dispersion is controlled by the aquifer physical properties and is important in diluting the contaminant concentrations and supplying dissolved electron acceptors for biodegradation in the plume (Chapelle et al. 2003; McLaughlan et al. 2006). In most cases, biodegradation of hydrocarbons at the plume fringe will largely be limited by the small magnitude of transverse dispersion in aquifers (Lerner et al. 2000; Thornton et al. 2001a, b; Rahman et al. 2005; Watson et al. 2005; Gutierrez-Neri et al. 2009). However, in general biodegradation is usually more important than either physical or chemical processes for the natural attenuation of hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater.
Fig. 1

Conceptual model for natural attenuation of hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater, in which contaminant fluxes are reduced during flow from a source along the aquifer pathway to a receptor by a combination of spatially distributed aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation processes, as shown

Contaminated groundwater is transported from the source at A, through the plume B, to the receptor at C. If the flux and concentration of pollutants measured across the control planes is reduced sufficiently to make the risks to the receptor acceptably low, then NA is considered to be successful. The control planes are virtual points of reference, used at different locations along the plume flowpath to estimate the change in contaminant concentration or flux over the distance between them. This measure is used in more sophisticated monitoring strategies to assess the performance of NA for site management (see section on performance assessment). Biodegradation of the organic contaminants by aerobic respiration, nitrate reduction, and sulfate reduction using dissolved electron acceptors (O2, NO3, SO4) will occur at the periphery or fringe of the plume, driven by mixing between the plume and background groundwater (Lerner et al. 2000; Thornton et al. 2001a; Bauer et al. 2008; Gutierrez-Neri et al. 2009; Eckert et al. 2015). Slower anaerobic biodegradation by manganese reduction, iron reduction, and methanogenesis will occur inside the plume core, using mineral Mn and Fe oxide fractions on the aquifer sediment and fermentation processes. Generally, microbial activity and biodegradation processes at the plume fringe are more important for attenuation than processes occurring in the plume core (Thornton et al. 2001b; McLaughlan et al. 2006; Tuxen et al. 2006; Bauer et al. 2008; Tischer et al. 2013; Eckert et al. 2015). The plume will increase in length until a steady state is reached, in which the contaminant flux from the source is balanced by the rate of attenuation from the combined fringe mixing-controlled and the slower internal reactions (Chapelle et al. 2003; Gutierrez-Neri et al. 2009). Source management measures are typically implemented with NA to both reduce the duration and steady-state length of the plume (McLaughlan et al. 2006). If the source is depleted (e.g., by natural weathering) or removed through source management measures (e.g., remediation), the plume may become detached from the source and migrate down hydraulic gradient as a separate entity (Wiedemeier et al. 1999).

3 Sorption of Hydrocarbon Compounds in Groundwater

Sorption of dissolved hydrophobic hydrocarbons in groundwater is generally well described by the partitioning of the organic compound within the particulate organic matter fraction of the aquifer sediment (Schwarzenbach et al. 2003; Chapelle et al. 2003). At the low dissolved concentrations of organic chemicals typically found in most plumes, this process can be described by a linear isotherm and estimated from laboratory batch sorption tests or using empirical relationships (McLaughlan et al. 2006):
$$ {\mathrm{K}}_{\mathrm{d}} = {\mathrm{K}}_{\mathrm{oc}}.{\ \mathrm{f}}_{\mathrm{oc}} $$
where Kd is the distribution coefficient of the organic chemical between the groundwater and aquifer at equilibrium (L3/M), Koc is the distribution coefficient of the organic chemical normalized to the total organic carbon content (L3/M), and foc is the fraction of organic carbon present in the aquifer material (fraction). Other relationships have been developed to estimate Kd according to the fundamental properties of the organic chemicals, such as their octanol-water partition coefficient, Kow (Fetter 2001), and also extended to predict sorption at higher concentrations using Freundlich and Langmuir isotherms (Schwarzenbach et al. 2003). The transport of organic chemicals in a plume can then be estimated according to the following relationship:
$$ {\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{f}}=1+\frac{\uprho_{\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{K}}_{\mathrm{d}}}{\uptheta} $$

where Rf is the retardation factor for the organic chemical, relative to the groundwater velocity [dimensionless], ρb is the bulk density of aquifer material (M/L3), and θ is the porosity of the aquifer material (fraction).

Sorption results in retardation of contaminants relative to the groundwater velocity and limits plume migration until it reaches steady state (Chapelle et al. 2003). It can be important for the NA of more hydrophobic hydrocarbon compounds in aquifers with relatively higher particulate organic carbon (e.g., alluvial and carbonaceous materials). Table 1 compares the relative mobility of organic chemicals in groundwater, according to their solubility and respective Koc value. More soluble organic chemicals (e.g., phenol and cresols) are highly mobile in groundwater and typically migrate further from the point of release, whereas polyaromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., naphthalene and phenanthrene) have relatively limited mobility and may be restricted to the plume source area. This knowledge helps inform monitoring programs for NA, by identifying the expected type and spatial distribution of organic chemicals which may be present in groundwater, according to the known source composition (e.g., a release of coal tar vs. gasoline).
Table 1

Relative mobility of common organic chemicals in groundwater

Compound

Solubility (ppm)

Koc

Mobility class

Acetone

Miscible

1

Very high

2-Methylphenol (o-cresol)

31,000

15

Very high

4-Methylphenol ( p-cresol)

24,000

17

Very high

2,4-Dimethylphenol (2,4-xylenol)

17,000

21

Very high

Phenol

82,000

27

Very high

2-Chlorophenol

11,087

27

Very high

Benzene

1,780

97

High

Toluene

500

242

Moderate

o-Xylene

170

363

Moderate

p-Xylene

156

552

Low

m-Xylene

146

588

Low

Ethylbenzene

150

622

Low

3,5-Dimethylphenol (3,5-xylenol)

 

1,038

Low

2,6-Dimethylphenol (2,6-xylenol)

 

1,060

Low

Naphthalene

32

1,300

Low

Phenanthrene

1.3

23,000

Immobile

Data source: Fetter (2001)

4 Biodegradation of Hydrocarbon Compounds in Groundwater

Biodegradation of hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater occurs by aerobic and anaerobic pathways, coupled to the reduction of dissolved electron acceptors (oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, and carbon dioxide) and mineral oxidants (manganese and iron oxides) on the aquifer sediment (Chapelle 1993; Borden 1994). In most cases, biodegradation of these compounds occurs through primary metabolism, in which the microorganisms use the hydrocarbon compounds as carbon and energy sources (Wiedemeier et al. 1999), although co-metabolism is also important (Borden 1994; Alvarez and Illman 2006). The various pathways by which hydrocarbon compounds can be biodegraded in groundwater to organic intermediates or mineralized to carbon dioxide and the microorganisms responsible have been extensively studied. A detailed analysis of these is outside the scope of this chapter, but can be found in many excellent reviews (Smith 1991; Cerniglia 1992; Harayama and Timmis 1992; Haritash and Kaushik 2009). This section describes the biogeochemical processes which develop in hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater as a basis to interpret and predict the natural attenuation of these compounds.

Molecular oxygen is used by aerobic bacteria as the terminal electron acceptor for respiration, whereas both facultative and obligate anaerobic microorganisms can facilitate anaerobic oxidation of hydrocarbons (Borden 1994). For a given oxidizable substrate (i.e., hydrocarbon compound), these electron acceptors are typically consumed in the order oxygen, nitrate, Mn-oxide, Fe-oxide, sulfate, and carbon dioxide, according to the decreasing energy yield to microorganisms mediating the reactions (Chapelle 1993; Reinhard 1994). The microorganisms release this energy by coupling the oxidation of an electron donor (the hydrocarbon compound) with the reduction of an electron acceptor in a redox reaction. The specific energy yield of a redox reaction can be quantified using the Gibbs free energy of the reaction (ΔGr o). Calculated values of ΔGr o for selected electron acceptor and electron donor (hydrocarbon compound) half-cell reactions are shown in Table 2 and expressed per mole e- transferred. Coupled redox reactions are expected to occur in the order of their thermodynamic energy yield, provided microorganisms facilitating each reaction are present and there is adequate supply of electron acceptors for biodegradation. For a given redox condition and availability of electron acceptors, this implies a preferred order of hydrocarbon biodegradation in mixtures. For example, aerobic respiration of BTEX would theoretically occur in the order B > T = E > X, although other factors (e.g., presence of competing substrates and viable microorganisms supporting biodegradation) may affect this sequence (Environment Agency 1999; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Spence et al. 2005).
Table 2

Gibbs free energy of reaction for electron donor and electron acceptor half-cell reactions for selected hydrocarbon compounds

Species

Electron donor half-cell reactiona

ΔGro (kJ/mol e-)

Species

Electron acceptor half-cell reactionb

ΔGro (kJ/mol e)

Benzene

C6H6 + 12H2O > 6CO2 + 30H+ + 30e

−29.44

Hexachlorobenzenec

2e + H+ + C6Cl6 > C6HCl5 + Cl

−39.33

Toluene

C7H8 + 14H2O > 7CO2 + 36H+ + 36e

−28.91

Tetrachlorobenzenec

2e + H+ + C6H2Cl4 > C6H3Cl3 + Cl

−36.40

Ethylbenzene

C8H10 + 16H2O > 8CO2 + 42H+ + 42e

−28.91

Trichlorobenzenec

2e + H+ + C6H3Cl3 > C6H4Cl2 + Cl

−34.73

m-Xylene

C6H4(CH3)2 + 16H2O > 8CO2 + 42H+ + 42e

−28.62

Redox process d

  

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene

C6H3(CH3)3 + 18H2O > 9CO2 + 48H+ +48e

−28.43

Aerobic respiration

4e + 4H+ + O2 > 2H2O

−77.40

Phenol

C6H6O + 11H2O > 6CO2 + 28H+ + 28e

−30.81

Denitrification

5e + 6H+ + NO3  > N2 + 3H2O

−70.71

Naphthalene

C10H8 + 20H2O > 10CO2 + 48H+ + 48e

−28.82

Mn(IV) reduction

2e + 4H+ + MnO2(s) > Mn2+ + 2H2O

−36.03

Tetrachlorobenzenec

C6H2Cl4 + 12H2O > 6CO2 + 26H+ + 4Cl + 22e

−51.86

Fe(III) reduction

e + 3H+ + FeOOH > Fe2+ + 2H2O

−64.62

Trichlorobenzenec

C6H3Cl3 + 12H2O > 6CO2 + 27H+ + 3Cl + 24e

−44.49

Sulfate reduction

8e + 8H+ + SO4 2− > S2− + 4H2O

22.45

Dichlorobenzenec

C6H4Cl2 + 12H2O > 6CO2 + 28H+ + 2Cl + 26e-

−38.41

Methanogenesis

8e + 8H+ + CO2(g) > CH4(g) + 2H2O

24.95

Chlorobenzenec

C6H5Cl + 12H2O > 6CO2 + 29H+ + Cl + 28e

−33.51

   

Carbohydrate

CH2O + H2O > CO2 + 4H+ + 4e

−41.84

   

aElectron donor half-cell reactions define the relevant species which will be oxidized in a redox reaction involving an electron acceptor

bElectron acceptor half-cell reactions define the relevant species which will be reduced in a redox reaction involving an electron donor

cChlorobenzene compounds are chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons which can be biodegraded and biotransformed in redox reactions as an electron donor or electron acceptor, according to the relative oxidation status of the compound

dCommon redox processes in hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifers, presented as generic electron acceptors which participate in the reduction of organic and inorganic electron donors

In hydrocarbon-contaminated aerobic groundwater, these microbially mediated reactions create a characteristic sequence of spatially and temporally dynamic redox processes, comprising successive zones of predominantly aerobic respiration, denitrification, Mn/Fe-reduction, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis along the flowpath from the plume source (Chapelle 1993; Borden 1994; Williams et al. 2001). Characteristically this creates steep biogeochemical gradients across the plume fringe, driven by microbial activity and consumption of electron acceptors, where hydrocarbon biodegradation is enhanced (Thornton et al. 2001a; Thornton et al. 2014; Tuxen et al. 2006; Prommer et al. 2009; Tischer et al. 2013). The development of these redox zones (Fig. 2) is sustained by the supply of hydrocarbon (and other oxidizable) compounds from the plume source and the availability of both dissolved and mineral-based electron acceptors in the aquifer. This is critical for the natural attenuation of hydrocarbons in groundwater, given that biodegradation of specific compounds may only occur under specific redox conditions (Borden et al. 1997; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Banwart and Thornton 2003, 2010; Wilson et al. 2004).
Fig. 2

Idealized conceptual model in longitudinal section and vertical profile of redox zone distribution in groundwater for a typical plume of oxidizable hydrocarbon compounds

The aquifer oxidation capacity (OXC) provides a convenient measure of the total reservoir of electron acceptors from all sources that can support hydrocarbon biodegradation in a per unit volume of aquifer (Heron et al. 1994). This is given by:
$$ \mathrm{OXC}=4\left[{\mathrm{O}}_2\left(\mathrm{aq}\right)\right]+5\left[{\mathrm{NO}}_3\left(\mathrm{aq}\right)\right]+2\left[{\mathrm{MnO}}_2\left(\mathrm{s}\right)\right]+\left[\mathrm{FeOOH}\left(\mathrm{s}\right)\right]+8\left[{\mathrm{SO}}_4\left(\mathrm{aq}\right)\right]+8\left[{\mathrm{CO}}_2\left(\mathrm{aq}\right)\right] $$

where [ ] denotes concentration or mass in moles, (aq) denotes aqueous concentration, and (s) denotes solid mineral species. A key assumption of this analysis is that all electron acceptors are available for biodegradation. However, biodegradation using dissolved electron acceptors is potentially limited by the relatively low solubility of oxygen or rate of mass transfer of oxygen, nitrate, and sulfate into the plume by dispersion (Thornton et al. 2001a, b; 2014). Moreover, while aquifer sediments typically have a significant reservoir of mineral-bound electron acceptors as Mn- and Fe-oxides, only the easily reducible amorphous forms will contribute oxidation capacity for hydrocarbon biodegradation in groundwater (Borden 1994; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Banwart and Thornton 2003; Thornton et al. 2011). Estimates of OXC therefore represent an upper limit on the maximum concentration of hydrocarbons that can be biodegraded according to the theoretical consumption of the total mass of electron acceptors in the aquifer.

5 Performance Assessment of Natural Attenuation for Hydrocarbon Compounds

The performance assessment of natural attenuation for hydrocarbons in groundwater aims to (i) characterize the nature and spatial extent of in situ biodegradation processes for the hydrocarbons, (ii) estimate hydrocarbon biodegradation rates, and (iii) confirm NA occurs at a rate which will reduce environmental risk, protect identified receptors, and achieve site management/remediation objectives. It also identifies the need for additional measures if NA will not achieve remediation requirements in isolation. These aims are fulfilled through an intensive long-term monitoring program of groundwater quality and source composition, supported by a technically rigorous evaluation of the site investigation and groundwater quality data, as documented in relevant technical protocols and guidance (AFCEE 1995; Buscheck and O’Reilly (1995); ASTM 1998; Environment Agency 1999, 2000; U.S. EPA 1999; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; CGER 2000). Current best practice for the performance assessment of NA may involve the integrated analysis of hydrochemical, isotopic, microbiological, and other data using a wide range of qualitative and quantitative techniques (reviewed in Bombach et al. (2010) and Hunkeler and Aravena (2010)) at different scales (Table 3) to document the occurrence and extent of hydrocarbon attenuation by in situ processes.
Table 3

Data collection and analysis typically used for the performance assessment of hydrocarbon natural attenuation in groundwater

Indicator or measurement

Basis for performance assessment

Hydrochemical-based

 

Decreased electron acceptor concentration

Utilization by microorganisms during biodegradation of specific hydrocarbons

Increased inorganic carbon concentration

Production from biodegradation and mineralization of hydrocarbon compounds and organic metabolites

Stoichiometry and mass balance between reactants and products

Balanced consumption of electron acceptors and organic compounds (hydrocarbons and relevant organic metabolites) during biodegradation under specific redox conditions

Increased concentrations of intermediate-stage and final products

Identification of specific biodegradation pathways and transformation for hydrocarbons

Increased ratio of transformation products to parent compounds

Progressive biodegradation of parent compound to metabolite over space and time

Decreased ratio of reactant to inert tracer

Preferential biodegradation of hydrocarbon species relative to a nonreactive species in the same mixture, accounting natural attenuation due to abiotic processes

Relative rates of transformation of different hydrocarbons consistent with laboratory data

Independent confirmation of biodegradation potential at field-scale based on controlled laboratory studies

Stable isotope-based

 

Changes in carbon, chloride, and hydrogen isotope ratios of specific organic contaminants (depending on respective chemical group), and isotope ratios of electron acceptors and inorganic carbon in CO2 and CH4

Biodegradation of specific organic compounds (if based on compound-specific isotope analysis, CSIA), biodegradation of nonspecific compounds (if based on total dissolved carbon isotope ratios), and specific redox processes (if based on isotope ratios of electron acceptors)

Microbiological-based

 

Increased number of (live/active) bacteria in hydrocarbon plume

Increase in size of viable microbial community for in situ biodegradation

Increase in relative abundance of known degraders in hydrocarbon plume

Increased contribution of specific microorganisms within community with capability for hydrocarbon biodegradation

Increase in abundance of genes associated with biodegradation in hydrocarbon plume

Development of metabolic pathways in microorganisms which enable biodegradation of specific hydrocarbons

This analysis is formalized within a “lines of evidence” framework, which includes the collection of different types of information (AFCEE 1995; ASTM 1998; U.S. EPA 1998a, b; Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Environment Agency 1999, 2000; National Academy of Sciences 2000; Alvarez and Illman 2006; McLaughlan et al. 2006):
  • Primary line of evidence: Field time-series data showing a consistent reduction in the contaminant concentration or flux over time at one or more points along the source-pathway-receptor linkage, typically used to deduce the status of the plume (i.e., expanding, stable or shrinking), relative to predictions of groundwater flow

  • Secondary line of evidence: Field data demonstrating in situ biodegradation of hydrocarbons in the plume, typically based on the consumption of dissolved (e.g., O2, NO3, SO4) and mineral phase (e.g., MnO4, FeOOH) electron acceptors in the aquifer and corresponding increase in organic metabolites, inorganic reaction products (e.g., Mn2+, Fe2+, HS), and other chemical species (e.g., dissolved CO2 and CH4) that verify different biodegradation processes

  • Tertiary line of evidence: Supporting evidence related to the verification of natural attenuation processes, such as laboratory microcosm studies to quantify biodegradation rates, confirmation of biodegradation mechanisms and pathways using stable isotope analysis, or the use of molecular biological techniques to demonstrate the activity of appropriate hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms

Not all lines of evidence are required in every case, but rather an appropriate level of data collection and interpretation will apply. However, this analysis will typically include mathematical modeling studies to verify the site conceptual model underpinning the interpretation and to predict the long-term behavior of the plume for site management. Primary and secondary lines of evidence are obtained from the distribution of dissolved reactants along the plume flowpath, using groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells in the plume source area, uncontaminated and contaminated sections of the aquifer. The plume is presumed to have a centerline, characterized by the monitoring wells, for this analysis. Visual, graphical, and quantitative methods, including regression techniques, statistical analyses, and mass balances (e.g., Table 3), are available to interpret these data using concentration versus time and concentration versus distance plots (see Wiedemeier et al. 1999; Environment Agency 2000; Alvarez and Illman 2006 for summary). An important objective is the estimation of plume-scale contaminant biodegradation rates from this analysis, often assumed to follow first-order kinetics for mathematical simplicity and use in numerical reactive transport codes (Buscheck and Alcantar 1995; Suarez and Rifai 1999; Beyer et al. 2007). Similarly, the maximum steady-state plume length and time to plume stabilization must also be predicted, usually to evaluate receptor impacts and remediation timescales. Various mathematical approaches and modeling tools have been developed to undertake this for hydrocarbons plumes, based on different conceptual models of plume development, substrate mixtures, and biodegradation processes (Chapelle et al. 2003; Atteia and Guillot 2007; Gutierrez-Neri et al. 2009).

A relatively sophisticated site assessment and monitoring program is required to verify the effectiveness of NA for hydrocarbons in groundwater (Wiedemeier et al. 2006). This is because the technical appraisal relies primarily on the evaluation of subsurface transport and biodegradation processes using the aquifer characteristics and groundwater quality data. However, data quality can be strongly influenced by heterogeneity in the spatial and temporal distribution of contaminants, geological and hydrogeological properties, and biodegradation processes, which must be resolved for correct performance assessment of NA. These issues are incorporated in the concepts of mass transport heterogeneity and process heterogeneity, which must be resolved in NA assessments.

5.1 Mass Transport Heterogeneity

Mass transport heterogeneity results from the spatial and temporal variability in contaminant distribution and plume development due to the combined effects of variation in plume source term (composition and location) aquifer properties (geological structure, stratigraphy and geochemistry) and hydrogeology (recharge, groundwater flow direction). The effect of these factors on plume development is illustrated by considering a series of generic plume scenarios (not exhaustive of all possible scenarios), shown in Fig. 3. If the plume has a unique or representative centerline that can be identified (Fig. 3a), then centerline monitoring may be possible and a pseudo-first-order contaminant biodegradation rate estimated from the contaminant concentration versus distance profile (Buscheck et al. 1995; Wiedemeier et al. 1999). However, where a plume has a single dominant flowpath (i.e., a centerline), it may be missed by monitoring wells installed using an assumed, but incorrect, groundwater flow direction or if there is periodic lateral migration of the plume due to seasonal (or induced) variations in groundwater flow direction (Fig. 3b). Furthermore, macroscale physical heterogeneity (e.g., buried stream channels) may result in a “centerline” that deviates according to the subsurface geological structure (Fig. 3c) (Mackay et al. 2001). Rather than follow a unique centerline, contaminants may be transported along a “flowpath” within a series of relatively discrete plumes of varying strength and/or migration rate (Jankowski et al. 1997; Lee et al. 2001). This can reflect preferential pathways due to heterogeneity in the aquifer hydrogeology, for example, layers with different permeability, cross-bedding or discontinuities (Fig. 3d) or distributed sources (Fig. 3f).
Fig. 3

Conceptual diagrams illustrating problem in establishing and instrumenting representative centerline monitoring in different scenarios: (a) uniformly distributed plume in homogeneous, isotropic media, (b) uniformly distributed plume in homogeneous, isotropic media where hydraulic gradient is inaccurately defined or is temporally variable, (c) uniformly distributed plume in media with undetected macroscale heterogeneity (e.g., buried stream channel), (d) nonuniformly distributed plume migrating along preferred pathways in heterogeneous media within plume envelope, (e) nonuniformly distributed plume generated from heterogeneously distributed sources within plume envelope. Insert diagrams show resulting apparent and actual contaminant concentration-distance profiles

Hydrocarbon releases from source zones may also vary temporally as the source term naturally weathers or is depleted in more soluble components (Thornton et al. 2013), or due to water table fluctuations, recharge variations, and changes in groundwater flow direction (McMahon and Bruce 1997; Davis et al. 1999; McGuire et al. 2000; Mackay et al. 2001; Wilson et al. 2002). This variability may occur on a scale of weeks to months (water table, recharge and flow direction changes) or years (source term aging and compositional changes). Therefore, centerline monitoring typically requires more detailed site characterization to accurately define the spatial-temporal variation in plume flowpath.

The effect of mass transport heterogeneity on NA assessments is potentially significant. The assumption of a fixed centerline for a plume can mean that the primary pathway contributing most to contaminant migration can be missed. When the monitoring wells which intersect the plume are sampled, this can result in an apparent longitudinal contaminant concentration profile, which is less than the actual profile (Fig. 3a–c). A misleading interpretation of a much shorter plume length and overestimation of hydrocarbon attenuation along the flowpath would then arise.

An alternative approach is to use changes in contaminant mass discharge and mass flux through a series of monitoring wells set transverse to the plume flowpath (i.e., functioning as control planes) and capturing the full depth and width of the plume for performance assessment of NA (Kao and Wang 2001; Wilson et al. 2004; Alvarez and Illman 2006; ITRC 2010). Mass discharge and flux estimates quantify source or plume strength at a given time and location (ITRC 2010). Mass flux is a rate measurement specific to a defined area, which is usually a subset of a plume cross section, and expressed as mass/time/area. Mass discharge is an integrated mass flux estimate, representing the sum of all mass flux measures across an entire plume. It therefore gives the total mass of any solute transported in groundwater through a defined plane. If the total mass discharge of contaminants migrating through successive control planes decreases over time, NA is evident (Alvarez and Illman 2006).

The mass discharge of hydrocarbons (or any other dissolved chemical species) can be estimated from (API 2003; ITRC 2010):
$$ {\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{d}}={\sum}_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{C}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{q}}_{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{i}} $$
where Md is the total hydrocarbon mass discharge from the plume source that passes a given control plane (M/T), Ci is the concentration of a specific hydrocarbon measured at the flow area within the given control plane (M/L3), qi is the specific discharge (L/T), and Ai is the flow area associated with specific hydrocarbon measurement within the control plan (L2). The value of qi can be calculated from:
$$ {\mathrm{q}}_{\mathrm{i}}=\mathrm{K}.\mathrm{i} $$

where K is the hydraulic conductivity of the flow area (L/T) and i is the aquifer hydraulic gradient (L/L).

Flux planes can capture spatially and temporally variable contaminant distribution, as well as estimate biodegradation rates using different methods, such as the sampling of a dense monitoring array (Borden et al. 1997; Kao and Wang 2001; Béland-Pelletier et al. 2011), control plane pumping of a more sparse array (Bockelmann et al. 2003; ITRC 2010; Béland-Pelletier et al. 2011), or a passive flux meter approach (Hatfield et al. 2004; ITRC 2010). In addition to defining the source strength and plume attenuation rate, mass flux estimates can identify areas of a plane through which most contaminant mass is moving. This helps target monitoring and remediation efforts (e.g., amendments to enhance NA) to optimize treatment. As such, flux-based methods provide a superior analysis of NA performance compared with methods based on assumed centerlines of plumes, by integrating results from many monitoring wells and accommodating plume heterogeneity in estimates of mass loss (API 2003; Wilson et al. 2004; Alvarez and Illman 2006; Beyer et al. 2007). However, this approach requires a higher density of groundwater monitoring wells or sampling stations, ideally using higher resolution MLS, to characterize the contaminant and hydraulic conductivity distribution in sufficient detail (API 2003; Alvarez and Illman 2006; ITRC 2010).

5.2 Process Heterogeneity

Process heterogeneity refers to the spatial and temporal distribution of biodegradation processes that occurs in plumes. As biodegradation is the most important attenuation mechanism for hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater, monitoring should focus on deducing the type and location of biodegradation processes in plumes from the groundwater chemistry and other data. This information is necessary to estimate biodegradation rates (Thornton et al. 2001b), and experience shows that contaminant biodegradation is strongly influenced by the evolution in redox conditions (Lyngkilde and Christensen 1992; Lerner et al. 2000; Cozzarelli et al. 2001; Thornton et al. 2001a), contaminant concentrations (Pickup et al. 2001; Wu et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2012) and microbial communities (Elliott et al. 2010; Rizoulis et al. 2013) in plumes. While the characteristic longitudinal development of redox zones resulting from biodegradation of hydrocarbon compounds in groundwater (Fig. 2) has long been known (Champs et al. 1979; Barcelona et al. 1989; Chapelle et al. 2002), the importance of biodegradation at the plume fringe is now increasingly recognized as a major contribution to overall biodegradation in organic contaminant plumes (Pickup et al. 2001; Anneser et al. 2008; Prommer et al. 2009; Tischer et al. 2013; Thornton et al. 2014). However, weak vertical dispersive mixing means that the plume fringe zone may be less than 1 m thick (Davis et al. 1999; Schreiber and Bahr 1999; Cozzarelli et al. 1999; Cozzarelli et al. 2001; McGuire et al. 2000), with steep gradients in chemical species, such as electron acceptors, electron donors, and metabolites (see profiles in Fig. 2), and microorganisms supporting biodegradation (Tuxen et al. 2006).

The challenge of monitoring process heterogeneity in hydrocarbon plumes is therefore to adequately resolve the spatial and temporal distribution of biodegradation processes. This objective can only satisfactorily be achieved using high-resolution multilevel sampling (MLS) devices (Thornton et al. 2001a; Einarson and Cherry 2002; Spence et al. 2005; Anneser et al. 2008). Figure 4 shows vertical profiles of phenol and selected redox-sensitive chemical species across the plume fringe at two locations in an aromatic hydrocarbon plume, obtained from a MLS (1 m sampling interval), with black bars indicating the lengths of single screen monitoring wells typically used at the site. (Thornton et al. 2001b). It is evident that neither the vertical distribution of chemical species in the plume nor the steep gradients in these across the plume fringe can be adequately discriminated with the single screen monitoring wells, which straddle multiple redox zones and induce dilution, mixing, or averaging of dissolved chemical concentrations within the borehole, destroying any gradients. This artifact can result in erroneous interpretation of dominant biodegradation processes in hydrocarbon plumes and underestimation of biodegradation capacity (Martin-Hayden and Robbins 1997; Schreiber and Bahr 1999).
Fig. 4

Vertical profiles of phenol (successive annual surveys) and selected redox-sensitive chemical species (1998 survey) at near source MLS (a) and downstream MLS (b) in an aromatic hydrocarbon plume. Black bars are typical screen lengths for single screen monitoring wells at the site

The MLS devices provide superior understanding of the chemical framework needed to quantify contaminant biodegradation and predict the bioattenuation potential of the plume as a whole. At the study site, they suggest that simultaneous aerobic respiration and NO3 and Fe3+ reduction occurs over a narrow 1 m mixing zone at the plume fringe. Further illustration is provided in Table 4, which shows a depth-integrated electron acceptor and carbon mass balance for the plume, estimated from the MLS at locations A and B using the methodology developed by Thornton et al. (2001b). The mass balance compares total electron acceptor consumption with contaminant consumption and production of organic and inorganic metabolites. It shows that aerobic respiration and denitrification at the plume fringe account for significantly greater biodegradation and carbon turnover than anaerobic biodegradation processes in the plume core, apart from fermentation (Table 4). This mass balance was also used to estimate. An overall plume-scale pseudo-first-order biodegradation rate of 0.005 year−1 was estimated from this mass balance, two orders of magnitude lower than that obtained using data from the single-screen monitoring wells.
Table 4

Contaminant carbon and aquifer oxidant consumption estimated from MLS vertical profiles at locations A and B

Species

Oxidant consumption (kg·m−2)a

Contaminant consumption (kg phenol-C·m−2)a, b

 

Borehole A

B

A

Residual phenol-C

Borehole B

Residual phenol-C

O2

0.42

0.21

0.14

 

0.066

 

NO3

4.67

4.2

0.97

 

0.87

 

SO4

0.0016

0.001

0.00034

 

0.00022

 

MnO2

0.041

0.24

0.0032

 

0.018

 

FeOOH

0.15

0.24

0.0056

 

0.009

 

Acetatec

  

0.31

 

0.19

 

Total

5.28

4.89

1.43

7.18

1.15

15.5

aValues are integrated over the depth of the MLS profile

bConsumption is presented in terms of equivalent phenol carbon and by assuming that all contaminants are present as phenol

cAcetate is assumed to be produced by fermentation of the hydrocarbon compounds

5.3 Stable Isotopes

Measurements of hydrochemical species in groundwater will not always provide conclusive proof of hydrocarbon biodegradation for NA assessments (Borden 1994; Hunkeler and Aravena 2010). For example, biodegradation of specific hydrocarbon compounds in mixtures can be difficult to deduce if common pathways exist, when organic metabolites are similar to potential parent compounds, or if analytes are present at trace levels that are difficult to quantify (Alvarez and Illman 2006; Spence et al. 2005). Also changes in redox conditions which are attributed to hydrocarbon biodegradation in groundwater can also arise from metabolism of other co-contaminants, including natural substances, confounding quantitative interpretation, and mass balances at the plume scale.

Many of these problems can be addressed using natural abundance and compound-specific stable isotope analysis (CSIA) of H, C, N, O, S, and Cl in hydrocarbon compounds, their biodegradation metabolites, and the respective elements in NO3 , SO4 2−, CO2, CH4. The fundamental principles and environmental applications of stable isotope analysis have been extensively reviewed (Meckenstock et al. 2004; Hunkeler and Elsner 2010; Elsner and Imfeld 2016). With respect to the natural attenuation of hydrocarbons in groundwater, stable isotope analysis can be used to (i) identify the source(s) and origin (e.g., via biological or abiotic transformation) of a compound (both organic and inorganic) released to or formed in a given environment; (ii) deduce specific pathways and redox processes (e.g., aerobic vs. anaerobic) for biodegradation; (iii) assess the contribution of biotic and abiotic transformation processes affecting contaminants during subsurface transport; (iv) quantify the extent of biodegradation; (v) verify reactive transport models for prediction of environmental impacts, remediation system design, and treatment timescales; and (vi) understand element cycling in natural and contaminated systems using isotope-labeled compounds (Höhener and Aelion 2010).

More recent development of stable isotope methods include the use of dual isotope analysis to interpret in situ biodegradation processes for aromatic hydrocarbons and other organic contaminants. Attention has mainly focused on understanding the reaction mechanisms and enzymes involved (Morasch et al. 2001), relevant metabolic pathways (Mancini et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2008), characterizing the physiological groups of microorganisms facilitating biodegradation (Kümmel et al. 2015), deducing the dominant redox processes supporting biodegradation (Spence et al. 2001, 2005; Feisthauer et al. 2012; Thornton et al. 2014), and quantifying biodegradation at field scale (Hunkeler et al. 2001; Mancini et al. 2002, 2003; Richnow et al. 2003; Griebler et al. 2004; Meckenstock et al. 2004; Spence et al. 2005; Fischer et al. 2007; Hunkeler and Aravena 2010; Thornton et al. 2011; Lesser-Carillo 2014).

6 Research Needs

The process-based conceptual model which describes the spatial distribution of microbiological activity and biodegradation potential in hydrocarbon plumes is increasingly recognized as a fundamental biogeochemical framework to understand and predict the natural attenuation of a wide range of aromatic hydrocarbon contaminants in groundwater. The steep gradients in biogeochemical processes which characterize the plume fringe interface provide a unique environment for the biodegradation of oxidizable organic chemicals. However, further research is needed in two areas to understand the complex relationships that exist within the microbial communities which develop at this interface and to interpret their interactions in response to changing environmental conditions.

6.1 Mechanistic Understanding of Microbial Community Interactions at Plume Interfaces

It is likely that the composition, function, and activity of specific populations within the microbial community at the plume fringe will be sensitive to selective pressures created by the availability of organic substrates and electron acceptors, which in turn are controlled by the aquifer properties and groundwater flow field. Both competitive and synergistic interactions between microbial populations may characterize the biodegradation of hydrocarbons under these conditions, but this is poorly understood. Moreover, little is known about the characteristic response times of the microbial community to temporal variations in plume conditions, such as those which occur by natural evolution in the source term composition and by engineered interventions (e.g., injection of amendments to increase microbial activity and contaminant turnover). The work of Thornton et al. (2014) highlighted the potential to increase rates of NA in such circumstances, but the response, in particular the recovery timescales, of planktonic and attached populations in a hydrocarbon plume to such intervention must be qualified and formerly linked to the biogeochemical drivers controlling this behavior.

6.2 Quantitative Description of Microbial Interactions at Plume Interfaces

Datasets to quantitatively measure and interpret the microbial interactions which develop at the plume fringe, supported by a theoretical framework which enables these observations to be translated into predictions of NA performance at field scale. This necessarily requires the improved mechanistic understanding outlined above and new modeling tools which can represent such dynamic relationships across different scales (microscale to plume scale). The work completed in Watson et al. (2005) highlighted the importance of such adaptive modeling frameworks to scale biogeochemical processes across the plume fringe but also emphasized the conceptual and theoretical limitations of existing modeling approaches.

References

  1. AFCEE (Air Force Centre for Environmental Excellence) (1995) Technical protocol for implementing intrinsic remediation with long-term monitoring for natural attenuation of fuel contamination dissolved in groundwater, vol 1–2. AFCEE, Transfer Division, Brooks Air Force Base, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez PJJ, Illman WA (2006) Bioremediation and natural attenuation. Process fundamentals and mathematical models. Wiley, Hoboken, p 614Google Scholar
  3. Anneser B, Einsiedl F, Meckenstock RU, Richters L, Frank Wisotzky F, Griebler C (2008) High-resolution monitoring of biogeochemical gradients in a tar oil-contaminated aquifer. Appl Geochem 23:1715–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. API (American Petroleum Institute) (2003). Groundwater remediation strategies tool, Publication no. 4730, p 80Google Scholar
  5. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (1998) Standard guide for remediation of ground water by natural attenuation at petroleum release sites. ASTM Standard Guide, West Conshohocken. E1943-98Google Scholar
  6. Atteia O, Guillot C (2007) Factors controlling BTEX and chlorinated solvents plume length under natural attenuation conditions. J Contam Hydrol 90:81–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker K, Bottrell SH, Thornton SF, Peel K, Spence MJ (2012) Effect of contaminant concentration on in-situ bacterial sulphate reduction and methanogenesis in a phenol-contaminated aquifer. Appl Geochem 27:2010–2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banwart SA, Thornton SF (2003) The geochemistry and hydrology of groundwater bioremediation by natural attenuation. In: Head I, Singleton I (eds) Bioremediation: a critical review. Horizon Scientific Press, Wymondham, pp 93–138Google Scholar
  9. Banwart SA, Thornton SF (2010) Natural attenuation of hydrocarbons in groundwater. In: Timmis KN (ed) Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 2474–2486Google Scholar
  10. Barcelona MJ, Holm TR, Schock MR, George GK (1989) Spatial and temporal gradients in aquifer oxidation-reduction conditions. Water Resour Res 25:991–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bauer RD, Maloszewski P, Zhang Y, Meckenstock RU, Griebler C (2008) Mixing-controlled biodegradation in a toluene plume – results from two-dimensional laboratory experiments. J Contam Hydrol 96:150–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Béland-Pelletier C, Fraser M, Barker J, Ptak T (2011) Estimating contaminant mass discharge: a field comparison of the multilevel point measurement and the integral pumping investigation approaches and their uncertainties. J Contam Hydrol 122:63–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Beyer C, Chen C, Gronewold J, Kolditz O, Bauer S (2007) Determination of first-order degradation rate constants from monitoring networks. Groundwater 45:774–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 60:97–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bombach P, Richnow HH, Kastner M, Fischer A (2010) Current approaches for the assessment of in situ biodegradation. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 86:839–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Borden RC (1994) Natural bioremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated ground water. In: Handbook of bioremediation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 177–199Google Scholar
  17. Borden RC, Daniel RA, LeBrun LE IV, Davis CW (1997) Intrinsic biodegradation of MTBE and BTEX in a gasoline-contaminated aquifer. Water Resour Res 33:1105–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buscheck TE Alcantar CM (1995) Regression techniques and analytical solution to demonstrate intrinsic bioremediation. Intrinsic bioremediation. RE Hinchee, JT Wilson D Downey. Columbus, Battelle Press, 109–116Google Scholar
  19. Buscheck T, O’Reilly K (1995) Protocol for monitoring intrinsic bioremediation in groundwater. Chevron Research and Technology Company, Health, Environment and Safety Group, Richmond,CA, p 20Google Scholar
  20. Cerniglia CE (1992) Biodegradation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Biodegradation 3:351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. CGER (Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources) (2000) Natural attenuation for groundwater remediation, chapter: 5 protocols for documenting natural attenuation. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 212–254Google Scholar
  22. Champs DR, Gulens J, Jackson RE (1979) Oxidation-reduction sequences in groundwater flow systems. Can J Earth Sci 16:319–337Google Scholar
  23. Chapelle FH (1993) Ground-water microbiology and geochemistry. Wiley, New York, pp 424Google Scholar
  24. Chapelle FH, Bradley PM, Lovley DR, O’Neill K, Landmeyer JE (2002) Rapid evolution of redox processes in a petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer. Groundwater 40:353–360Google Scholar
  25. Chapelle FH, Widdowson MA, Brauner JS, Mendez E, Casey CC (2003) Methodology for estimating times of remediation associated with monitored natural attenuation, U.S. Geological survey water-resources investigations report 03–4057, p 58Google Scholar
  26. CL:AIRE (2014) An illustrated handbook of LNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface. CL:AIRE, London. ISBN: 978-1-905046-24-9. Download www.claire.co.uk/LNAPL
  27. Cozzarelli IB, Herman JS, Baedecker MJ, Fischer JM (1999) Geochemical heterogeneity of a gasoline-contaminated aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 40:261–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cozzarelli IB, Bekins BA, Baedecker MJ, Aiken GR, Eganhouse RP, Tuccillo ME (2001) Progression of natural attenuation processes at a crude-oil spill site: I. Geochemical evolution of the plume. J Contam Hydrol 53:369–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Davis GB, Barber C, Power TR, Thierrin J, Patterson BM, Rayner JL, Wu Q (1999) The variability and intrinsic remediation of a BTEX plume in anaerobic sulphate-rich groundwater. J Contam Hydrol 36:265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eckert D, Kürzinger P, Bauer R, Griebler C, Cirpka OA (2015) Fringe-controlled biodegradation under dynamic conditions: quasi 2-D flow-through experiments and reactive-transport modeling. J Contam Hydrol 172:100–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Einarson MD, Cherry JA (2002) A new multilevel ground water monitoring system using multichannel tubing. Ground Water Monit Remediat 22:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Elliott DR, Scholes JD, Thornton SF, Rizoulis A, Banwart SA, Rolfe SA (2010) Dynamic changes in microbial community structure and function in phenol-degrading microcosms from a contaminated aquifer. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 71:247–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Elsner M, Imfeld G (2016) Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) of micropollutants in the environment – current developments and future challenges. Curr Opin Biotechnol 41:60–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Environment Agency (1999). Natural attenuation of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents in groundwater, R&D technical report P305. p 135. ISBN: 1857051394Google Scholar
  35. Environment Agency (2000) Guidance on the assessment and monitoring of monitored natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater, R&D publication, vol 95. Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  36. Environment Agency (2003) An illustrated handbook of DNAPL transport and fate in the subsurface. p 67. ISBN: 1844320669Google Scholar
  37. Environment Agency (2006) Remedial targets methodology: hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination. GEHO0706BLEQ-E-E, p 129Google Scholar
  38. Feisthauer S, Seidel M, Bombach P, Traube S, Knöller K, Wange M, Fachmann S, Richnow HH (2012) Characterization of the relationship between microbial degradation processes at a hydrocarbon contaminated site using isotopic methods. J Contam Hydrol 133:17–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 615. ISBN: 0-13-088239-9Google Scholar
  40. Fischer A, Theuerkorn K, Stelzer N, Gehre M, Thullner M, Richnow HH (2007) Applicability of stable isotope fractionation analysis for the characterization of benzene biodegradation in a BTEX-contaminated aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 41:3689–3696Google Scholar
  41. Fischer A, Herklotz I, Herrmann S, Thullner M, Weelink SAB, Stams AJM, Scholmann M, Richnow H-H, Vogt C (2008) Combined carbon and hydrogen isotope fractionation investigations for elucidating benzene biodegradation pathways. Environ Sci Technol 42:4356–4363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Griebler C, Safinowski M, Vieth A, Richnow HH, Meckenstock RU (2004) Combined application of stable carbon isotope analysis and specific metabolites determination for assessing in situ degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons in a tar oil-contaminated aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 38:617–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Gutierrez-Neri M, Ham PAS, Schotting RJ, Lerner DN (2009) Analytical modelling of fringe and core biodegradation in groundwater plumes. J Contam Hydrol 107:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Harayama S, Timmis KN (1992) Aerobic biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons. In: Sigel H, Sigel A (eds) Metal ions in biological systems. Vol. 28: degradation of environmental pollutants by microorganisms and their metalloenzymes. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 99–155Google Scholar
  45. Haritash, A.K. and C.P. Kaushik, C.P. (2009). Biodegradation aspects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): a review. J Hazard Mater, 169, 1–15.Google Scholar
  46. Hatfield K, Annable M, Chob J, Rao PSC, Klammler H (2004) A direct passive method for measuring water and contaminant fluxes in porous media. J Contam Hydrol 75:155–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Heron G, Christensen TH, Tjell JC (1994) Oxidation capacity of aquifer sediments. Environ Sci Technol 28:153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Höhener P, Aelion CM (2010) Fundamentals of environmental isotopes and their use in biodegradation. In: Aelion CM et al (eds) Environmental isotopes in biodegradation and bioremediation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  49. Hunkeler D, Aravena R (2010) Investigating the origin and fate of organic contaminants in groundwater using stable isotope analysis. In: Aelion CM et al (eds) Environmental isotopes in biodegradation and bioremediation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 249–292Google Scholar
  50. Hunkeler D, Elsner M (2010) Principles and mechanisms of isotope fractionation. In: Aelion CM et al (eds) Environmental isotopes in biodegradation and bioremediation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 43–78Google Scholar
  51. Hunkeler D, Anderson N, Aravena R, Bernasconi SM, Butler BJ (2001) Hydrogen and carbon isotope fractionation during aerobic biodegradation of benzene. Environ Sci Technol 35:3462–3467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. ITRC (2010) Use and measurement of mass flux and mass discharge. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy Team, Washington, DC, p 154. www.itrcweb.org
  53. Jankowski J, Beck P, Acworth RI (1997) Vertical heterogeneity in the Botany Sands aquifer, Sydney, Australia: implications for chemical variations and contaminant delineation. Groundwater in the urban environment: problems, processes and management. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 445–450Google Scholar
  54. Kao CM, Wang YS (2001) Field investigation of natural attenuation and intrinsic biodegradation rates at an underground storage tank site. Environ Geol 40:622–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Khan M, Zaidi A, Goel R, Musarrat J, (2011) Biomanagement of metal-contaminated soils, Environmental pollution, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN: 978-94-007-1913-2Google Scholar
  56. Kümmel S, Herbst FA, Bahr A, Duarte M, Pieper DH, Jehmlich N, Seifert J, von Bergen M, Bombach P, Richnow HH, Vogt C (2015) Anaerobic naphthalene degradation by sulfate-reducing Desulfobacteraceae from various anoxic aquifers. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 91. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiv006Google Scholar
  57. Lee JY, Cheon JY, Lee KK, Lee SK, Lee MH (2001) Factors affecting the distribution of hydrocarbon contaminants and hydrogeochemical parameters in a shallow sand aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 50:139–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Lerner DN, Thornton SF, Spence MJ, Banwart SA, Bottrell SH, Higgo JJ, Mallinson HEH, Pickup RW, Williams GM (2000) Ineffective natural attenuation of degradable organic compounds in a phenol-contaminated aquifer. Ground Water 38:922–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lesser-Carillo LE (2014) 13C/12C isotope fractionation during aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation of naphthalene. Int J Geosci 5:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lyngkilde J, Christensen TH (1992) Fate of organic contaminants in the redox zones of a landfill leachate pollution plume (Vejen, Denmark). J Contam Hydrol 10:291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mackay DM, Wilson RD, Scow KS, Einarson MD, Fowler B, Wood IA (2001) In situ remediation of MTBE at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Contam Soil Sediment Water Spring pp 43–46Google Scholar
  62. Mancini SA, Lacrampe-Couloume G, Jonker H, van Breukelen BM, Groen J, Volkering F, Sherwood Lollar B (2002) Hydrogen isotopic enrichment: an indicator of biodegradation at a petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated field site. Environ Sci Technol 36:2464–2470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Mancini SA, Ulrich AC, Lacrampe-Couloume G, Sleep B, Edwards EA, Sherwood Lollar B (2003) Carbon and hydrogen isotopic fractionation during anaerobic biodegradation of benzene. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:191–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Martin-Hayden JM, Robbins GA (1997) Plume distortion and apparent attenuation due to concentration averaging in monitoring wells. Ground Water 35:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McGuire JT, Smith EW, Long DT, Hyndman DW, Haack SK, Klug MJ, Velbel MA (2000) Temporal variations in parameters reflecting terminal-electron accepting processes in an aquifer contaminated with waste fuel and chlorinated solvents. Chem Geol 169:471–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McLaughlan RG, Merrick NP, Davis GB (2006) Natural attenuation: a scoping review. CRC for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment technical report no. 3. p 73Google Scholar
  67. McMahon PB, Bruce BW (1997) Distribution of terminal electron-accepting processes in an aquifer having multiple contaminant sources. Appl Geochem 12:507–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Meckenstock RU, Morasch B, Griebler C, Richnow H-H (2004) Stable isotope fractionation analysis as a tool to monitor biodegradation in contaminated aquifers. J Contam Hydrol 75:215–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Morasch B, Richnow HH, Schink B, Meckenstock R (2001) Stable hydrogen and carbon isotope fractionation during microbial toluene degradation: mechanistic and environmental aspects. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4842–4849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Mulligan CN, Yong RN (2004) Natural attenuation of contaminated soils. Environ Int 30:587–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. National Academy of Sciences (2000) Natural attenuation for groundwater remediation. Committee on ground water clean-up alternatives. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  72. Pickup RW, Rhodes G, Alamillo ML, Mallinson HEH, Thornton SF, Lerner DN (2001) Microbiological analysis of multilevel borehole samples from a contaminated groundwater system. J Contam Hydrol 53:269–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Prommer H, Anneser B, Rolle M, Insiedl F, Griebler C (2009) Biogeochemical and isotopic gradients in a BTEX/PAH contaminant plume: model-based interpretation of a high-resolution field data set. Environ Sci Technol 43:8206–8282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Rahman MA, Jose SC, Nowak W, Cirpka OA (2005) Experiments on vertical transverse mixing in a large-scale heterogeneous model aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 80:130–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Reinhard M (1994) In-situ bioremediation technologies for petroleum-derived hydrocarbons based on alternate electron acceptors (other than molecular oxygen). Handbook of bioremediation. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 131–147Google Scholar
  76. Richnow HH, Annweiler E, Michaelis W, Meckenstock RU (2003) Microbial degradation of aromatic hydrocarbons in a contaminated aquifer monitored by 13C/12C isotope fractionation. J Contam Hydrol 64:59–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Rivett MO, Thornton SF (2008) Monitored natural attenuation of organic contaminants in groundwater: principles and application. Water Manag J 161:381–392Google Scholar
  78. Rizoulis A, Elliott DR, Rolfe SA, Thornton SF, Banwart SA, Pickup RW, Scholes JS (2013) Diversity of planktonic and attached bacterial communities in a phenol-contaminated sandstone aquifer. Microb Ecol 66:84–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. RTDF (1997) Natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in groundwater: principles and practices. Version 3.0. August. Remediation Technologies Development ForumGoogle Scholar
  80. Rügner H, Finkel M, Kaschl A, Bittens M (2006) Application of monitored natural attenuation in contaminated land management – a review and recommended approach for Europe. Environ Sci Pol 9:568–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schreiber ME, Bahr JM (1999) Spatial electron acceptor variability: implications for assessing bioremediation potential. Biorem J 3:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schwarzenbach RP, Gschwend PM, Imboden DM (2003) Environmental organic chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley-Interscience, New York, p 1327. ISBN: 0-47 1-35750-2Google Scholar
  83. Smith MR (1991) The biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria. Biodegradation 1:191–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Spence MJ, Bottrell S, Thornton SF, Lerner DN (2001) Isotopic modelling of the significance of sulphate reduction for phenol attenuation in a polluted aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 53:285–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Spence MJ, Bottrell SH, Thornton SF, Richnow H, Spence KH (2005) Hydrochemical and isotopic effects associated with fuel biodegradation pathways in a chalk aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 79:67–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Suarez MP, Rifai HS (1999) Biodegradation rates for fuel hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents in groundwater. Biorem J 3:337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Thornton SF, Quigley S, Spence M, Banwart SA, Bottrell S, Lerner DN (2001a) Processes controlling the distribution and natural attenuation of phenolic compounds in a deep sandstone aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 53:233–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Thornton SF, Lerner DN, Banwart SA (2001b) Assessing the natural attenuation of organic contaminants in aquifers using plume-scale electron and carbon balances: model development with analysis of uncertainty and parameter sensitivity. J Contam Hydrol 53:199–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Thornton SF, Bottrell SH, Spence KS, Pickup R, Spence MJ, Shah N, Mallinson HEHM, Richnow HH (2011) Assessment of MTBE biodegradation in contaminated groundwater using 13C and 14C analysis: field and laboratory microcosm studies. Appl Geochem 26:828–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Thornton SF, Tobin K, Smith JWH (2013) Comparison of constant and transient-source zones on simulated contaminant plume evolution in groundwater: implications for hydrogeological risk assessment. Ground Water Monit Remediat 33:78–91Google Scholar
  91. Thornton SF, Baker KM, Bottrell SH, Rolfe SA, McNamee P, Forrest F, Duffield P, Wilson RD, Fairburn AW, Cieslak L (2014) Enhancement of in situ biodegradation of organic compounds in groundwater by targeted pump and treat intervention. Appl Geochem 48:28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tischer K, Kleinsteuber S, Schleinitz KM, Fetzer I, Spott O, Stange F, Lohse U, Franz J, Neumann F, Gerling S, Schmidt C, Hasselwander E, Harms H, Wendeberg A (2013) Microbial communities along biogeochemical gradients in a hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer. Environ Microbiol 15:2603–2615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Tuxen N, Albrechtsen HJ, Bjerg PL (2006) Identification of a reactive degradation zone at a landfill leachate plume fringe using high resolution sampling and incubation techniques. J Contam Hydrol 85:179–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. U.S. EPA (1998a) EPA policy on use of monitored natural attenuation for site remediation. Seminars on monitored natural attenuation for ground water, 1–3 to 1–6. U.S. EPA/625/K-98/001Google Scholar
  95. U.S. EPA (1998b) Technical protocol for evaluating natural attenuation of chlorinated solvents in ground water. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, p 248Google Scholar
  96. U.S. EPA (1999) Use of monitored natural attenuation at superfund, RCRA corrective action, and underground storage tank sites. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Directive 9200.4-17P, p 32Google Scholar
  97. U.S. EPA (2006) In situ and ex situ biodegradation technologies for remediation of contaminated sites. Engineering issue, solid waste and emergency response, EPA 625/R-06/015, p 22Google Scholar
  98. U.S. EPA (2007a) Monitored natural attenuation of inorganic contaminants in ground water, vol 1. Technical basis for assessment. EPA/600/R-07/139Google Scholar
  99. U.S. EPA (2007b) Monitored natural attenuation of inorganic contaminants in ground water, vol 2. Assessment for non-radionuclides including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, nitrate, perchlorate, and selenium. EPA/600/R-07/140, p 124Google Scholar
  100. Watson IA, Oswald SE, Banwart SA, Crouch RS, Thornton SF (2005) Modeling the dynamics of fermentation and respiratory processes in a groundwater plume of phenolic contaminants interpreted from laboratory-to field-scale. Environ Sci Technol 39:8829–8839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Wiedemeier T, Wilson JT, Kampbell DH, Miller RN, Hansen JE (1995) Technical protocol for implementing intrinsic remediation with long-term monitoring for natural attenuation of fuel contamination dissolved in groundwater. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence – Technology Transfer Division, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  102. Wiedemeier TH, Rifai HS, Newell CJ, Wilson JT (1999) Natural attenuation of fuels and chlorinated solvents in the subsurface. Wiley, New York. ISBN: 0 471 19749 1Google Scholar
  103. Wiedemeier TH, Barden MJ, Haas PE, Dickson WZ (2006) Designing monitoring programs to effectively evaluate the performance of natural attenuation. In: Nielsen DM (ed) Practical handbook of environmental site characterization and groundwater monitoring, 2nd edn. CRC Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, pp 574–634Google Scholar
  104. Williams GM, Pickup RW, Thornton SF, Lerner DN, Mallinson HEH, Moore Y, White C (2001) Biogeochemical characterisation of a coal-tar distillate plume. J Contam Hydrol 53:175–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Wilson RD, Mackay DM, Scow KM (2002) In situ MTBE biodegradation supported by diffusive oxygen release. Environ Sci Technol 36:190–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Wilson RD, Thornton SF, Mackay DM (2004) Challenges in monitoring the natural attenuation of spatially variable plumes. Biodegradation 15:359–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Wu Y, Lerner DN, Banwart SA, Thornton SF, Pickup RW (2006) Persistence of fermentative process to phenolic toxicity in ground water. J Environ Qual 35:2021–2025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Groundwater Protection and Restoration Group, Department of Civil and Structural EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations