Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database pumped to all three injection wells for approximately 30 days at 3 gal / min. The water in the center injection well was replaced with 400 mg / L Triton X-100 at the same flow rate for 30 days while clean water continued in the outer wells. Clean water was pumped to all three wells for an additional 4 months. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the surfactant would increase the rate of desorption of TCE from the solid phase. Hence, researchers modeled the transport of the surfactant and the TCE. Note: Univesity of Virginia submitted "preproposal" to U.S. EPA SITE program for Picatinny Arsenal project in which soils will be flushed with surfactants to render sorbed TCE more amenable to oxygen-enhanced bioremediation. Several publications are available detailing results, as listed above; see these references for a complete understanding of results. Analysis of data from the wells and model suggests that the rate of TCE desorption increased about 30% as a result of Triton X-100 injection. Discussion from one source (Smith, et al., 1997) indicated that Triton-X sorption to natural soil is rate-limited and cannot be accurately described by equilibrium sorption models. Implications of this for surfactant-based technologies for remediation include potentially faster transport of surfactant through the subsurface, initially beneficial to the operation, but if the surfactant must be removed, the rate-limited sorption may be problematic at the conclusion of the surfactant flushing operation. In comparison to anionic surfactants and some other nonionic surfactants, Triton X-100 sorbs relatively strongly to the field soil, which would increase material costs for surfactant remediation operations, though this strong sorption to soils may be the reason for the ability of Triton X-100 to increase the rate of desorption of other sorbed organic pollutants such as TCE and carbon tetrachloride. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Deitsch, J. J. and Smith, J. A., 1996: "Surfactant Enhanced Remediation of Ground Water at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey," in Morganwalp, D. W. and Aronson, D. A., eds., U.S. Geological Survey Toxics Substances Hydrology Program-Proceedings of the Technical Meeting. Colorado Springs, Colorado- September 20-24, 1993, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4015, pp. 355--360. Deitsch, J. J. and Smith, J. A., 1995: "Effect of Triton X-100 on the Rate of Trichloroethene Desorption from Soil to Water," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 1069- 1080. Di Cesare, D. and Smith, J. A., 1994: "Effects of Surfactants on the Desorption Rate of Nonionic Organic Compounds from Soil to Water," Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 134, pp.1-29. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC), 1996: Surfactants/Cosolvents, Technology Evaluation Report TE-96-02, Dr. Chad T. Jafvert, Purdue University, for GWRTAC, Pittsburgh, PA, December 1996, available at www.gwrtac.org Rice University, 1997: Technology Practices Manual for Surfactants and Cosolvents, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005-1892, February 1997 Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 72 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Sahho, D., Smith, J.A., Imbrigotta, T.E., and McLellan, H.M., 1996: "Enhanced Trichloroethene Desorption from Long-term Contaminated Soil Using Triton X-100 and pH Increases: Proceedings, ASCE North American Water and Environement Congress 1996, Anaheim, CA, June 22-28. Sahoo, D., and Smith, J.A., 1997: "Enhance Trichloroethene Desorption from Long-term Contaminated Soil Using Trion X-100 and pH Increases: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 1910-1915. Sahoo, D., Smith, J.A., Imbrigotta, T.E., and McLellan, H.M., 1998: "Surfactant-enhanced Remediation of a Trichloroethylene (TCE) Contaminated Aquifer 2. Transport of TCE", Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 32, pp. 1686-1693. Smith, J.A., Sahoo, D., McLellan, H.M. and Imbrigotta, T.E., 1997: "Surfactant-enhanced Remediation of a Trichloroethylene (TCE) Contaminated Aquifer: 1. Transport of Triton X-100", Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 3565-3572. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), April 1995: Status Report: Surfactant Enhancements, EPA 542-K-94-003, U.S. EPA OSWER (5102W), TIO, Washington, DC, available at www.gwrtac.org. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 73 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
Page 1 and 2:
Technology Status Report Technology
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT This technology status rep
Page 5 and 6:
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 I
Page 7 and 8:
1.0 INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE OF STATU
Page 9 and 10:
a laboratory-scale project. As illu
Page 11 and 12:
3.1 Flushing Solutions 3.0 ANALYSIS
Page 13 and 14:
(approximately eight) full-scale pr
Page 15 and 16:
Table 1. In Situ Flushing - Summary
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Table 3 In Situ Flushing - Geology
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Table 4 In Situ Flushing - Recovere
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Full-Scale/Commercial 26% Figure 2.
Page 35 and 36:
Site Remediation 25% Figure 4. In S
Page 37 and 38:
NAPL Removal 34% Figure 6. In Situ
Page 39 and 40:
Figure 8. In Situ Flushing - Distri
Page 41 and 42:
Number of Projects 35 30 25 20 15 1
Page 43 and 44:
Number of Case Studies 45 40 35 30
Page 45 and 46:
25 ft and 50 ft and 10 ft and 100 f
Page 47 and 48:
Unconfined Aquifer 65% Figure 16. I
Page 49 and 50:
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 119: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?