Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database 1991. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 92 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0045 Project Name: University of Michigan - Surfactant Remediation of NAPL-Cont City: Ann Arbor State/Province: MI Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): 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, avail. at www.gwrtac.org The following is excerpted from 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, avail. at www.gwrtac.org: Nonionic surfactant (polyoxyethylene (20), sorbitan monooleate (trade name Witconol 2722 or Tween 80) are being studied as flushing solution for NAPL removal. Dr. Abriola’s research group has been conducting laboratory and numerical modeling studies to evaluate the use of surfactants for remediating aquifers contaminated by nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). This work has been funded by the EPA’s R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory and Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Center (HSRC). The specific objectives of this research are to: screen and select surfactants that will enhance the solubility of NAPLs in water; measure the solubilization of representative NAPLs (e.g., dodecane, PCE, o-DCB) in aqueous surfactant solutions; quantify the ability of selected surfactants to recover entrapped NAPLs from soil columns; and develop and evaluate numerical models capable of predicting surfactant-enhanced solubilization and mobilization of NAPLs in ground-water systems. Soil column experiments were conducted to test the ability of a nonionic surfactant, polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate (trade name Witconol 2722 or Tween 80), to recover entrapped dodecane. After injecting a 4% surfactant solution, the concentration of dodecane exiting the column increased by approximately 100,000 times. Removal of 10% of the residual dodecane required 0.7 liters of surfactant solution, while comparable recovery without surfactant would have required 130,000 L of water. Numerical models were developed to explore the optimal surfactant flushing strategies based on the flow rate, flushing time, and volume of surfactant required to remove NAPLs from soil columns. Additional studies are underway to investigate the effects of rate-limited solubilization, NAPL mobilization and sorption on surfactant-based remediation technologies. No field demonstrations have been conducted to date, but it was anticipated that these studies will provide the basis for such work. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 93 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:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 139: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
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?