4.5 Article

Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses - 1. Experimental studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTAMINANT HYDROLOGY
卷 48, 期 3-4, 页码 325-350

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7722(00)00185-6

关键词

remediation; surfactants; porous media; tetrachloroethylene; PCE; NAPLs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A matrix of batch, column and two-dimensional (2-D) box experiments was conducted to investigate the coupled effects of rate-limited solubilization and layering on the entrapment and subsequent recovery of a representative dense NAPL, tetrachloroethylene (PCE). during surfactant flushing. Batch experiments were performed to determine the equilibrium solubilization capacity of the surfactant. polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monooleate (Tween 80), and to measure fluid viscosity, density and interfacial tension. Results of one-dimensional column studies indicated that micellar solubilization of residual PCE was rate-limited at Darcy velocities ranging from 0.8 to 8.2 cm/h and during periods of flow interruption. Effluent concentration data were used to develop effective mass transfer coefficient (K-c) expressions that were dependent upon the Darcy velocity and duration of flow interruption. To simulate subsurface heterogeneity, 2-D boxes were packed with layers of F-70 Ottawa sand and Wurtsmith aquifer material within 20-30 mesh Ottawa sand. A 4% Tween 80 solution was then flushed through PCE-contaminated boxes at several flow velocities, with periods of flow interruption. Effluent concentration data and visual observations indicated that both rate-limited solubilization and pooling of PCE above the fine layers reduced PCE recovery to levels below those anticipated from batch and column measurements. These experimental results demonstrate the potential impact of both mass transfer limitations and subsurface layering on the recovery of PCE during surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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