4.8 Article

Transport of Ferrihydrite Nanoparticles in Saturated Porous Media: Role of Ionic Strength and Flow Rate

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 7, 页码 4008-4015

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es202643c

关键词

-

资金

  1. EU [226565]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of nanoscale ferrihydrite particles, which are known to effectively enhance microbial degradation of a wide range of contaminants, represents a promising technology for in situ remediation of contaminated aquifers. Thanks to their small size, ferrihydrite nanoparticles can be dispersed in water and directly injected into the subsurface to create reactive zones where contaminant biodegradation is promoted. Field applications would require a detailed knowledge of ferrihydrite transport mechanisms in the subsurface, but such studies are lacking in the literature. The present study is intended to fill this gap, focusing in particular on the influence of flow rate and ionic strength on particle mobility. Column tests were performed under constant or transient ionic strength, including injection of ferrihydrite colloidal dispersions, followed by flushing with particle-free electrolyte solutions. Particle mobility was greatly affected by the salt concentration, and particle retention was almost irreversible under typical salt content in groundwater. Experimental results indicate that, for usual ionic strength in European aquifers (2 to 5 mM), under natural flow condition ferrihydrite nanoparticles are likely to be transported for 5 to 30 m. For higher ionic strength, corresponding to contaminated aquifers, (e.g., 10 mM) the travel distance decreases to few meters. A simple relationship is proposed for the estimation of travel distance with changing flow rate and ionic strength. For future applications to aquifer remediation, ionic strength and injection rate can be used as tuning parameters to control ferrihydrite mobility in the subsurface and therefore the radius of influence during field injections.

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

4.8
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