4.5 Article

Hydrogeophysical imaging of deposit heterogeneity and groundwater chemistry changes during DNAPL source zone bioremediation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 118, 期 1-2, 页码 43-61

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2010.07.001

关键词

Bioremediation; DNAPL; Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT)

资金

  1. UK Bioremediation LINK Programme
  2. BBSRC
  3. DTI
  4. Environment Agency
  5. EPSRC
  6. NERC [NE/C513193/1]
  7. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C513193/1, bgs05007] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. NERC [bgs05007] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Robust characterization and monitoring of dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source zones is essential for designing effective remediation strategies, and for assessing the efficacy of treatment. In this study high-resolution cross-hole electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was evaluated as a means of monitoring a field-scale in-situ bioremediation experiment, in which emulsified vegetable oil (EVO) electron donor was injected into a trichloroethene source zone. Baseline ERT scans delineated the geometry of the interface between the contaminated alluvial aquifer and the underlying mudstone bedrock, and also the extent of drilling-induced physical heterogeneity. Time-lapse ERT images revealed major preferential flow pathways in the source and plume zones, which were corroborated by multiple lines of evidence, including geochemical monitoring and hydraulic testing using high density multilevel sampler arrays within the geophysical imaging planes. These pathways were shown to control the spatial distribution of the injected EVO, and a bicarbonate buffer introduced into the cell for pH control. Resistivity signatures were observed within the preferential flow pathways that were consistent with elevated chloride levels, providing tentative evidence from ERT of the biodegradation of chlorinated solvents. (C) 2010 Natural Environment Research Council. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据