Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN
Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN
Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>In</strong> <strong>Situ</strong> <strong>Flushing</strong> Project Summaries<br />
GWRTAC Case Study Database<br />
contaminants and assessing contaminant biodegradation and toxicity. Soil biotreatability was also<br />
verified and validated. The goal of the on-site demonstration was to evaluate the effects of<br />
surfactants and washing on biological activity, to assess and optimize the well points in controlling<br />
the treatment, and to assess the effect of nutrients and other environmental factors on biological<br />
activity.<br />
Laboratory Results<br />
Using an experimental computer-designed multifactorial plan, the lab studies optimized the<br />
selection of surfactants as a function of the percentage of hydrocarbons extracted. The results<br />
were used to formulate a mixture of surfactanats with no mutagenic effect on E. Coli. Also, the soil<br />
contains a microbial flora that is able to biodegrade contaminants marked with heterotrophic cell<br />
counts on the order of 106 bacteria/gm. Of this number, about 6% of the microorganisms are<br />
BTEX degraders. Respiratory activity in the soil indicates that it is biologically very active. Onecolumn<br />
soil assays identified a condition conducive to a significant 25% reduction in MOG over a<br />
30-day period.<br />
Washing Test Results<br />
Varying conditions of soil saturation were experimented. The distribution of solutions thorugh the<br />
network of well points, with no surface infiltration, provided better hydraulic control of the injected<br />
solutions. Low surfactant concentrations were nonetheless measured outside the site and in the<br />
rock below the experimental plot of land. <strong>In</strong> a general sense, surfactant showed low efficiency in<br />
extracting hydrocarbons. It appears that the complexity of the geological conditions of the site<br />
influenced these results. Washing with surfactants had little or no effect on either the toxicity of the<br />
soil or groundwater. Moreover, following the washing, mean concentrations of heterotrophic and<br />
specific bacteria were equivalent to those obtained prior to washing, except in groundwater, where<br />
a sproradic increase was noted. Lastly, a reduction or absence of effect on respiration and on<br />
hexadecane mineralization was observed.<br />
Tracer Test Results<br />
A tracer test was done after the washing tests, but before the biological phase, so as to ensure that<br />
the injected solutions were distributed throughout the lot. Horizontal and vertical distribution were<br />
shown to be almost total. Only one characterized zone, possibly containing silt heterogeneities,<br />
was not reached. The vertical migration of the injected solution was generally limited to the<br />
experimental lot. Low concentrations were measured in rock.<br />
Biodegradation Test Results<br />
Oxygen consumption, measured by an in situ respirometric test, varied from 0.1% per hour to 5.1%<br />
per hour. Using a kinetic rate of zero, an estimate of the hydrocarbon degradation rate was<br />
obtained, which, at best, was 137 mg/kg-j. Analysis of gaseous oxygen in the soil pointed out the<br />
unequal distribution of oxygen during aeration: certain zones, possibly containing silt<br />
heterogeneities, remained anaerobic. The vertical and horizontal migration of nutrients is not<br />
limited to the experimental plot of land. Concentrations of NO3- and NH4+ were measured in<br />
unsolidated deposits and in rock off the site.<br />
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center<br />
Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation<br />
Appendix - Page 76 of 164<br />
Copyright GWRTAC 1998<br />
Revision 1<br />
Tuesday, November 17, 1998