Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database GWRTAC ID: FLSH0080 Project Name: University of Oklahoma - Remediation of Chlorinated Solvents City: Norman State/Province: OK Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 111-112 The following text was excerpted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 111-112: Surfactant enhanced subsurface remediation is being evaluated as an innovative technology to expedite contaminant extraction from the subsurface. Regulatory approval of this technology will likely be enhanced by use of surfactants with FDA direct food additive status ('edible' surfactants). This research establishes edible surfactant systems capable of solubilizing (via micellar partioning) and microemulsifying (via middle phase microemulsions) chlorinated solvents (PCE, TCE, and trans 1,2-DCE). Micellar partition coefficients with edible surfactants are observed to be comparable to values previously reported for other surfactants, with solubilization increasing aqueous concentrations by one to two orders of magnitude for the chlorinated organics. Middle phase microemulsion formation is dependent on surfactant structure and cosurfactant concentration. Solubility enhancement in the middle phase systems (microemulsification) is at least one to two orders of magnitude higher than solubilization for the same sufactant concentration, but is much more sensitive to the surfactant system and the contaminant. IN addition, successful microemulsion formation is seen to be a function of ground-water temperature and hardness, indicating the need to consider these and additional factors for successful design and implementation of surfactant enhanced subsurface remediation. This research thus establishes a variety of edible surfactant systems that can significantly expedite subsurface remediation of chlorinated solvents, and illustrates the importance of proper selection and design of surfactant systems. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Shiau, Bor-Jier, David A. Sabatini, and Jeffrey H. Harwell, Univ. of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1994: "Solubilization and Microemulsifcation of Chlorinated Solvents Using Direct Food Additive (Edible) Surfactants", in Groundwater, Vol. 32, No. 4, Jul-Aug 1994, pp. 561--569. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), November 1996: Innovative Ground-Water Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 160 of 164 Copyright GWRTAC 1998 Revision 1 Tuesday, November 17, 1998
In Situ Flushing Project Summaries GWRTAC Case Study Database Remediation Technologies: Publications and Conference Proceedings 1990-1996, U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office (5102G) Washington, DC 20460, p. 111-112 GWRTAC ID: FLSH0081 Project Name: University of Illinois - Impact of Surfactant of Configuration of City: Carbondale State/Province: IL Primary GWRTAC Personal Communication Source (Name/Organization): Project Summary: None None Report(s)/Publication(s) (GWRTAC Source): U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office Technology Information Summary Report, Sept. 1-15, 1998, page 6. The following text was excerpted from U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office Technology Information Summary Report, Sept. 1-15, 1998, page 6: A parallel-plate glass tank filled with Ottawa sand was used to create a laboratory-scale physical model for visual analysis of the fundamental 2-D flow characteristics of a gasoline spill moving through an unconfined aquifer. It was subsequently used to evaluate treatment of the contaminant plume with a surfactant. When samples of gasoline were introduced into the model at a point source located in the vadose zone, the gasoline was found to pool above the water saturated pores of the tension saturated zone of water. Reductions in the height of the capillary fringe beyond the gasoline lens was attributed to capillary pollution. Report(s)/Publication(s) (Additional Information Sources): Chevalier, Lizette R., Roger B. Wallace, and David C. Wiggert, 1998: "Impact of Surfactant on Configuration of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Lens", Journal of Soil Contamination, Vol. 7, No. 3, May 1998, page 395. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center Operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation Appendix - Page 161 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:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
Page 207: In Situ Flushing Project Summaries
show all

Technology Status Report: In Situ Flushing - CLU-IN

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?