Environmental Engineering Research

Korean Society of Environmental Engineers (대한환경공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

REVIEW OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT MASS FLUX MEASUREMENT

  • Goltz, Mark N. (Department of Systems and Engineering Management Air Force Institute of Technology) ;
  • Kim, Seh-Jong (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Seoul National University) ;
  • Yoon, Hyouk (Defense Management College National Defense University) ;
  • Park, Jun-Boum (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Seoul National University)
  • Published : 2007.09.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The ability to measure groundwater contaminant flux is increasingly being recognized as crucial in order to prioritize contaminated site cleanups, estimate the efficiency of remediation technologies, measure rates of natural attenuation, and apply proper source terms to model groundwater contaminant transport. Recently, a number of methods have been developed and subsequently applied to measure contaminant mass flux in groundwater in the field. Flux measurement methods can be categorized as either point methods or integral methods. As the name suggests, point methods measure flux at a specific point or points in the subsurface. To increase confidence in the accuracy of the measurement, it is necessary to increase the number of points (and therefore, the cost) of the sampling network. Integral methods avoid this disadvantage by using pumping wells to interrogate large volumes of the subsurface. Unfortunately, integral methods are expensive because they require that large volumes of contaminated water be extracted and managed. Recent work has investigated the development of an integral method that does not require extraction of contaminated water from the subsurface. We begin with a review of the significance and importance of measuring groundwater contaminant mass flux. We then review groundwater contaminant flux measurement methods that are either currently in use or under development. Finally, we conclude with a qualitative comparison of the various flux measurement methods.

Keywords

References

  1. UNESCO/WHO/UNEP, Water Quality Assessments - A Guide to Use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring Second Edition, D. Chapman, ed., E & FN Spon, London, 1996
  2. Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A., Ground-water, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979
  3. Einarson, M. D., and Mackay, D. M., Predicting impacts of groundwater contamination, Env. Sci. & Tech., 35(3):66A-73A, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1021/es0122647
  4. Wiedemeier, T. H., Rifai, H. S., Newell, C. J., and Wilson, J. T., Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1999
  5. Strategic Environmental Research and DeveI opm ent Program/Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (SERDP/ESTCP), Final Report: SERDP/ESTCP Expert Panel Workshop on Research and Development Needs for Cleanup of Chlorinated Solvent Sites, August 6-7, 2001
  6. American Petroleum Institute (API), Groundwater Remediation Strategies Tool. Publication 4730, Regulatory Analysis and Scientific Affairs Department, Washington DC, December 2003
  7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Mass flux evaluation finds SEAR continues to reduce contaminant plume, Technology News and Trends, 17:4-5, March 2005
  8. Borden, R. C., Daniel, R. A., LeBrun IV, L. E., and Davis, C. W., Intrinsic bioremediation of MTBE and BTEX in a gasoline-contaminated aquifer, Water Resources Research, 33(5):1105-1115,1997 https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR00014
  9. Bockelmann, A., Zamfirescu, D., Ptak, T., Grathwohl, P., and Teutsch, G., Quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rates at an industrial site with a limited monitoring network: a case study, J. Contam. Hyd., 60:97-121, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(02)00060-8
  10. Peter, A., Steinbach, A., Liedl, R., Ptak, T., Michaelis, W., and Teutsch, G., Assessing microbial degradation of a-xylene at fieldscale from the reduction in mass flow rate combined with compound-specific isotope analysis, J. Contam. Hyd., 71: 127-154, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2003.09.006
  11. Soga, K., Page, J., and Iliangasekare, T. H., A review of NAPL source zone remediation efficiency and the mass flux approach, J. Haz. Mat., 110:13-27, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.034
  12. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program/Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (SERDP/ESTCP), Final Report: SERDP and ESTCP Expert PaneI Workshop on Reducing the U ncertainty of DNAPL Source Zone Remediation, September 2006
  13. Sale, T. C., and McWhorter, D. B., Steady state mass transfer from single component dense nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields, Water Resource Research, 37(2): 393-404, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900236
  14. Rao, P. S. C., Jawitz, J. W., Enfield, C. G., Falta, R., Annable, M. D., and Wood, A. L., Technology integration for contam inated site remediation: Cleanup goals and performance metrics, in Ground Water Quality 2001, pp. 410-412, Univ. of Sheffield, UK, 2001
  15. Rao, P. S. C., and Jawitz, J. W., Comment on 'Steady state mass transfer from singlecom ponent dense nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields,' by T.e. Sale and D.B. McWhorter, Water Resource Research, 39(3): 1068, doi:10.1029/2001WR000599, 2003
  16. McWhorter, D. B., and Sale, T. C., Reply to comment by P. S. C. Rao and J. W. Jawitz on 'Steady state mass transfer from singlecomponent dense nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields,' by T.C. Sale and D.S. McWhorter, Water Resource Research, 39(3): 1069, doi:10.1029/2002WR001423, 2003
  17. National Research Council (NRC), Contam inants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2004
  18. Lemke, L. D., Abriola, L. M., and Lang, J. R., Influence of hydraulic property correlation on predicted dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zone architecture, mass recovery and contaminant flux, Water Resources Research, 40:W12417, doi:10.1029/2004WR003061, 2004
  19. Christ, J. A., Ramsburg, C. A., Pennell, K. D., and Abriola, L. M., Estimating mass discharge from dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zones using upscaled mass transfer coefficients: An evaluation using multiphase numerical simulations, Water Resources Research, 42(4): 10.1029/2006WR0004886, 2006
  20. McAllister, P. M., and Chiang, C. Y., A practical approach to evaluating natural attenuation of contaminants in ground water, Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation, 14(2):161-173, 1994 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1994.tb00111.x
  21. Bedient, P. B., Rifai, H. S., and Newell, C. J., Ground Water Contamination: Transport and Remediation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994
  22. Weight, W. D., and Sonderegger, J. L., Manual of Applied Field Hydrogeology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001
  23. Guilbeault, M. A., Parker, B. L., and Cherry, J. A., Mass and flux distributions from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers, Ground Water, 43(1): 70-86, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2005.tb02287.x
  24. Hatfield, K., Annable, M. D., Cho, J., Rao, P. S. C., and Klammler, H., A direct passive method for measuring water and contam inant fluxes in porous media, J. Contam. Hyd., 75:155-181, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2004.06.005
  25. De Jonge, H., and Rothenberg, G., New device and method for flux-proportional sampling of mobile solutes in soil and groundwater, Env. Sci. & Tech., 39(1): 274-282, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1021/es049698x
  26. Klammler, H., Hatfield, K., Annable, M. D., Agyei, E., Parker, B. L., Cherry, J. A., and Rao, P. S. C., General analytical treatment of the flow field relevant to the interpretation of passive flux meter measurements, Water Resources Research, 43: W04407, doi:10.1029/2005WR004718, 2006
  27. Annable, M. D., Hatfield, K., Cho, J., Klammler, H., Parker, B. L., Cherry, J. A., and Rao, P. S. C., Field-scale evaluation of the passive flux meter for simultaneous measurement of groundwater and contaminant fluxes, Env. Sci. & Tech., 39:7194-7201, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1021/es050074g
  28. Basu, N. B., Rao, P. S. C., Poyer, I. C., Annable, M. D., and Hatfield, K., Fluxbased assessment at a manufacturing site contam inated with trichloroethylene, J. Contam. Hyd., 86: 105-127, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2006.02.011
  29. Campbell, T. J., Hatfield, K., Klammler, H., Annable, M. D., and Rao, P. S. C., Magnitude and directional measures of water and Cr (VI) fluxes by passive flux meter, Env. Sci. & Tech., 40:6392-6397, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1021/es060268b
  30. Cho, J., Annable, M. D., Jawitz, J. W., and Hatfield, K., Passive flux meter measurement of water and nutrient in saturated porous media: bench-scale laboratory tests, J. Env. Qual., 36:1266-1272, 2007 https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2006.0370
  31. Lee, J., Rao, P. S. C ., Poyer, I. C., Toole, R. M., Annable, M. D., and Hatfield, K., Oxyanion flux characterization using passive flux meters: Development and field testing of surfactant-modified granular activated carbon, J. Contam. Hyd., 92: 208-229, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2006.12.002
  32. Bauer, S., Bayer-Raich, M., Holder, T., Kolesar, C., Muller, D., and Ptak, T., Quantification of groundwater contam ination in an urban area using integral pumping tests, J. Contam. Hyd., 75: 183-213, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2004.06.002
  33. Bockelmann, A., Ptak, T., and Teutsch, G., An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site, J. Contam. Hyd., 53: 429-453, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(01)00177-2
  34. Bayer-Raich, M., Jarsjo, J., Holder, T., and Ptak, T., Numerical estimations of contaminant mass flow rate based on concentration measurements in pumping wells, ModelCare 2002: A Few Steps Closer to Reality, IAHS Publication, 277:10-16, 2003
  35. Integrated Concept for Groundwater Remediation (lNCORE), Ptak, T., Alberti, L., Bauer, S., Bayer-Raich, M., Ceccon, S., Elsass, P., Holder, T., Kolesar, C., Muller, D., Padovani, C., Rinck, G., Schafer, G., Tanda, M., Teutsch, G., and Zanini, A., Integrated concept for groundwater remediation, Integral groundwater investigation, 2003
  36. Zeru, A. and G. Schafer, Analysis of groundwater contamination using concentration-time series recorded during an integral pumping test: Bias introduced by strong concentration gradients within the plume, J. Contam. Hyd., 81:106-124, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2005.08.005
  37. Brooks, M., Evaluation of remedial performance by contaminant flux as measured using integral pump test: Uncertainty assessment, personal communication, 2005
  38. Yoon, H., Validation of methods to measure mass flux of a groundwater contaminant, AFIT/GES/ENV/06M-08, Department of the Air Force Air University, Wright-Patterson AFB OH, 2006
  39. McCarty, P. L., Goltz, M. N., Hopkins, G. D., Dolan, M. E., Allan, J. P., Kawakami, B, T., and Carrothers, T. J., Full-scale evaluation of in situ cometabolic Degradation of trichloroethylene in groundwater through toluene injection, Env. Sci. & Tech., 32(1):88-100, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1021/es970322b
  40. Gandhi, R. K., Hopkins, G. D., Goltz, M. N., Gorelick, S. M., and McCarty, P. L., Full-scale demonstration of in situ cometabolic biodegradation of trichloroethylene in groundwater, 1: Dynamics of a recirculating well system, Water Resources Research, 38(4);10.1029/2001WR000379, 2002
  41. Kim, S. J ., Validation of an innovative groundwater contam inant flux measurement method, MS thesis, AFIT/GES/ENV/05-02, Department of System and Engineering M-anagement, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB OH, 2005
  42. Huang, J., Close, M. E., Pang, L., and Goltz, M. N., Innovative method to measure flux of dissolved contaminants in groundwater, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey California, 24-27 May 2004
  43. Goltz, M. N., Huang, J., Close, M. E., Flintoft, M. J., and Pang, L., Use of tandem circulation wells to measure hydraulic conductivity without groundwater extraction, in review, J. Contam. Hyd., 2007
  44. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTep), Final Report: Field Demonstration and Validation of a New Device for Measuring Water and Solute Fluxes at CFB Borden, November 2006

Cited by

  1. Flux-based risk management strategy of groundwater pollutions: the CMF approach vol.34, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-012-9491-x
  2. Review of Ancient Wisdom of Qanat, and Suggestions for Future Water Management vol.18, pp.2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2013.18.2.057
  3. Field demonstration and evaluation of the Passive Flux Meter on a CAH groundwater plume vol.20, pp.7, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1417-8
  4. Characterization of Persistent Volatile Contaminant Sources in the Vadose Zone pp.10693629, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12006
  5. STOCHASTIC MODELLING OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION AROUND AN ASH SLURRY HOLDING DYKE vol.17, pp.1, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2011.10515033