Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Eine Plattform für die Wissenschaft: Bauingenieurwesen, Architektur und Urbanistik
Comparison of permeable reactive barrier, funnel and gate, nonpumped wells, and low-capacity wells for groundwater remediation
This modeling study compared the performance of a no-action and four active groundwater remediation alternatives: a permeable reactive barrier, a funnel and gate, nonpumped wells with filter media, and a low-capacity extraction and injection well. The simulated aquifer had an average seepage velocity of 0.04 m d−1, and the initial contaminant plume was 58 m long and 13 m wide. For each active alternative, mass transport modeling identified the smallest structure necessary to contain and remove the contaminant plume. Although the no-action alternative did not contain the plume, each active alternative did contain and remove the plume, but with significantly different installation and operation requirements. Low-capacity pumping wells required the least infrastructure, with one extraction well and one injection well each discharging only 1.7 m3 d−1. The amount of time necessary to remove the contaminant plume was similar among active alternatives, except for the funnel and gate, which required much more time. Results of this study suggest that, for a modest seepage velocity and relatively narrow contaminant plume, low-capacity wells may be an effective alternative for groundwater remediation.
Comparison of permeable reactive barrier, funnel and gate, nonpumped wells, and low-capacity wells for groundwater remediation
This modeling study compared the performance of a no-action and four active groundwater remediation alternatives: a permeable reactive barrier, a funnel and gate, nonpumped wells with filter media, and a low-capacity extraction and injection well. The simulated aquifer had an average seepage velocity of 0.04 m d−1, and the initial contaminant plume was 58 m long and 13 m wide. For each active alternative, mass transport modeling identified the smallest structure necessary to contain and remove the contaminant plume. Although the no-action alternative did not contain the plume, each active alternative did contain and remove the plume, but with significantly different installation and operation requirements. Low-capacity pumping wells required the least infrastructure, with one extraction well and one injection well each discharging only 1.7 m3 d−1. The amount of time necessary to remove the contaminant plume was similar among active alternatives, except for the funnel and gate, which required much more time. Results of this study suggest that, for a modest seepage velocity and relatively narrow contaminant plume, low-capacity wells may be an effective alternative for groundwater remediation.
Comparison of permeable reactive barrier, funnel and gate, nonpumped wells, and low-capacity wells for groundwater remediation
Hudak, Paul F. (Autor:in)
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A ; 49 ; 1171-1175
24.08.2014
5 pages
Aufsatz (Zeitschrift)
Elektronische Ressource
Englisch
Funnel-and-gate remediation systems augmented with passive filter wells
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2010
In situ remediation of nitrate-contaminated groundwater using a permeable reactive barrier
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2002