4.5 Article

Improving the delineation of hydrocarbon-impacted soils and water through induced polarization (IP) tomographies: A field study at an industrial waste land

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 136, 期 -, 页码 25-42

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2012.05.003

关键词

NAPL; Induced polarization; Geophysics; Soil contamination; Screening

资金

  1. University of Mons (Faculty of Engineering, Geology Department)
  2. SPAQuE (private society in charge of industrial waste land management in the Walloon Region of Belgium)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Without a good estimation of samples representativeness, the delineation of the contaminated plume extent and the evaluation of volumes of hydrocarbon-impacted soils may remain difficult. To contribute to this question, a time domain induced polarization (IP) field experiment was conducted on an industrial waste land. Boreholes were drilled to specify the local geological context. Cross-hole seismic tomographies were performed to extend borehole logs and to draw an interpreted geological cross-section. Soil samples taken during drillings were analysed in laboratory. A preliminary survey was conducted to locate the IP profile. The polarization signatures linked to the presence of clayey sediments were filtered out from the data set. Chargeability and resistivity depth soundings were computed and compared to mean concentrations of total organic products to overcome the data support issue between the geophysical models and the spot samples of soils. A logarithmic relation between chargeabilities and smoothed hydrocarbon concentrations in soils was found. Taking into account contaminant's concentration thresholds defined in local codes and regulations allows defining chargeability classes to delineate hotspots on this site. This showed that IP tomography can be an accurate screening methodology. A statistical methodology is proposed to assess the efficiency of the investigation strategy. (C) 2012 Elsevier BM. 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