4.2 Article

Contaminant Dispersion and Breakthrough in Groundwater Flow: Case Study in Maui, Hawaii

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
卷 148, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0002018

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops a theory for dispersion based on the probability density function of tracer particle velocities in the aquifer, using previously published field data from groundwater tracer studies in Hawaii. The aquifer dispersion coefficient is empirically derived from tracer breakthrough curves, and the Weibull distribution provides a better fit to the data than Fickian diffusion. The study also estimates the cross-sectional area of the aquifer occupied by the injectate plume and the percentage of treated wastewater in the tracer measurement sites.
Previously published field data, from groundwater tracer studies in Hawaii, are used to develop a theory for dispersion based on the probability density function for tracer particle velocities in the aquifer. The density function is derived from tracer breakthrough curves associated with wastewater injection wells at the Lahaina Waste Water Reclamation Facility in Maui, HI. The aquifer dispersion coefficient is found to be proportional to the product of the time since tracer release and the pore velocity variance, developed empirically from the breakthrough data. Although particle velocity data are well described by Fickian diffusion with this dispersion coefficient, an empirical Weibull distribution provides an even better fit to the data, thereby enabling determination of tracer residence time in the aquifer. Based on the data, two independent methods of determining the cross-sectional area of the aquifer occupied by the 12,000 m(3)/day of injectate plume are found to be in close agreement at approximately 26,500 m(2). It is also estimated that treated wastewater arriving at the two tracer measurement sites is less than 2% of the injectate. (C) 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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

4.2
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