Display options
Cite
Matthieu DE, Brusseau ML, Guo Z, et al. Persistence of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume after Hydraulic Source Containment at a Chlorinated-Solvent Contaminated Site. Ground Water Monit Remediat. 2014;34(4):23-32doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12077.
Matthieu, D. E., Brusseau, M. L., Guo, Z., Plaschke, M., Carroll, K. C., & Brinker, F. (2014). Persistence of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume after Hydraulic Source Containment at a Chlorinated-Solvent Contaminated Site. Ground water monitoring & remediation, 34(4), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12077
Matthieu, D E, et al. "Persistence of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume after Hydraulic Source Containment at a Chlorinated-Solvent Contaminated Site." Ground water monitoring & remediation vol. 34,4 (2014): 23-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12077
Matthieu DE, Brusseau ML, Guo Z, Plaschke M, Carroll KC, Brinker F. Persistence of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume after Hydraulic Source Containment at a Chlorinated-Solvent Contaminated Site. Ground Water Monit Remediat. 2014;34(4):23-32. doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12077. PMID: 26069436; PMCID: PMC4459649.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ground Water Monit Remediat. 2014;34(4):23-32. doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12077.

Persistence of a Groundwater Contaminant Plume after Hydraulic Source Containment at a Chlorinated-Solvent Contaminated Site.

Ground water monitoring & remediation

D E Matthieu, M L Brusseau, Z Guo, M Plaschke, K C Carroll, F Brinker

Affiliations

  1. Soil, Water and Environmental Science Department, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, 429 Shantz Bldg., Tucson, AZ 85721.
  2. Soil, Water and Environmental Science Department, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, 429 Shantz Bldg., Tucson, AZ 85721 ; Hydrology and Water Resources Department, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, 429 Shantz Bldg., Tucson, AZ 85721.
  3. Conestoga-Rovers and Assoc., Inc., Phoenix, AZ.
  4. Tucson Airport Authority, Tucson, AZ.

PMID: 26069436 PMCID: PMC4459649 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12077

Abstract

The objective of this study was to characterize the behavior of a groundwater contaminant (trichloroethene) plume after implementation of a source-containment operation at a site in Arizona. The plume resides in a quasi three-layer system comprising a sand/gravel unit bounded on the top and bottom by relatively thick silty clayey layers. The system was monitored for 60 months beginning at start-up in 2007 to measure the change in contaminant concentrations within the plume, the change in plume area, the mass of contaminant removed, and the integrated contaminant mass discharge. Concentrations of trichloroethene in groundwater pumped from the plume extraction wells have declined significantly over the course of operation, as have concentrations for groundwater sampled from 40 monitoring wells located within the plume. The total contaminant mass discharge associated with operation of the plume extraction wells peaked at 0.23 kg/d, decreased significantly within one year, and thereafter began an asymptotic decline to a current value of approximately 0.03 kg/d. Despite an 87% reduction in contaminant mass and a comparable 87% reduction in contaminant mass discharge for the plume, the spatial area encompassed by the plume has decreased by only approximately 50%. This is much less than would be anticipated based on ideal flushing and mass-removal behavior. Simulations produced with a simplified 3-D numerical model matched reasonably well to the measured data. The results of the study suggest that permeability heterogeneity, back diffusion, hydraulic factors associated with the specific well field system, and residual discharge from the source zone are all contributing to the observed persistence of the plume, as well as the asymptotic behavior currently observed for mass removal and for the reduction in contaminant mass discharge.

Keywords: DNAPL; back diffusion; contaminant plume; mass flux

References

  1. Chemosphere. 2008 Apr;71(8):1511-21 - PubMed
  2. J Contam Hydrol. 2010 Jun 25;115(1-4):14-25 - PubMed
  3. J Contam Hydrol. 2013 Jun;149:1-12 - PubMed
  4. Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Nov 1;40(21):6770-81 - PubMed
  5. J Contam Hydrol. 2011 Nov 1;126(3-4):235-47 - PubMed
  6. J Contam Hydrol. 2010 May 20;114(1-4):18-34 - PubMed
  7. J Contam Hydrol. 2007 Feb 20;90(1-2):21-40 - PubMed
  8. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013 Oct;224(10):1741 - PubMed
  9. Chemosphere. 2013 Jan;90(2):459-63 - PubMed
  10. J Contam Hydrol. 2008 May 26;98(1-2):22-35 - PubMed
  11. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jun 15;45(12):5352-8 - PubMed
  12. Chemosphere. 2009 Apr;75(4):542-8 - PubMed
  13. J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Nov 14;102(1-2):86-104 - PubMed
  14. J Contam Hydrol. 2011 Nov 1;126(3-4):130-9 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support