1 Linda M. Abriola The University of Michigan Ann Arbor Presented at: In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated with Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids: Fundamentals

1

Linda M. AbriolaThe University of Michigan

Ann Arbor

Presented at:In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated with Non-Aqueous Phase

Liquids: Fundamentals and Case StudiesChicago, IL

December 10-12, 2002

Surfactant Enhanced DNAPL Source Surfactant Enhanced DNAPL Source Zone Remediation: Zone Remediation:

Results of a Field Demonstration and Results of a Field Demonstration and Implications for BioavailabilityImplications for Bioavailability

2

Project TeamProject Team

Project Director: Peter Adriaens (UM)SEAR Sub-Project Director: Linda M. Abriola (UM)Project Coordinator: Jack Lendvay (USF)

Additional SEAR Project Personnel

Peter Brink (UM)Gary Daniels (Geotrans)Chad Drummond (MWH)

Matt Gamache (UM)Ernie Hahn (UM)Hsi Lan Hsu (UM)Larry Lemke (UM)

Andrew Ramsburg (GA Tech)Jodi Ryder (UM)

Tom Yavaraski (UM)

SEAR Co-Principal Investigators

Kim F. Hayes (UM)Tohren Kibbey (U OK)

Erik Petrovskis (Geotrans)Kurt D. Pennell (GA Tech)

Klaus Rathfelder (GeoSyntec)

3

Research SponsorsResearch Sponsors

• US EPA Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic Hazardous Substance Research Center

• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

4

Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer RemediationSurfactant Enhanced Aquifer Remediation

Recovery of solubilized and/or mobilized organic

Injection of surfactant solution

Surfactant micelles can dramatically increase aqueous solubility

Surfactants can reduce interfacial tension, increasing the mobility of the organic liquid

and / or

5

Bachman Road SiteBachman Road Site

6

Bachman RoadBachman Road

1994 Contaminant 1994 Contaminant Concentration Concentration

ContoursContours

Plume A: Halorespiration

Plume B: SEAR (Source Zone)

Lake

Huron

6

7

aqueous samples

soil cores20 ft

Former Dry Cleaners

crawl space

U.S.HWY

23

Direction of regionalgroundwater flowPilot-Scale Test Zone

shed

Site CharacterizationSite Characterization

8

PCE Source Area

8

9

Extraction Well 5.2 gpm

Pilot Study Area

North

Coordinates in Michigan Coordinate System (feet)

Water Injection, W21 gpm



Surfactant Injection, S10.5 gpm



Pilot Test DesignPilot Test Design

10

Simulated flowlines (upper layer)Simulated flowlines (upper layer)

11

Simulated surfactant concentration Simulated surfactant concentration

(5 days of injection)(5 days of injection)

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0

1

2

3

4

5

distance (m)

dept

h (m

)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

PCE saturation

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 5 10 15 20

wide release areanarrow release area

PCE effluent Breakthrough

PC

E c

once

ntra

tion

(ppm

)

time (d)

Simulated PCE Distribution and Recovery Simulated PCE Distribution and Recovery

13

Conclusions from Pre-test Conclusions from Pre-test ModelingModeling

• Pilot test design should achieve desired sweep

• Even for this relatively homogeneous formation, spatial variability in texture influences mass distribution and remediation efficiency

• NAPL recovery strongly depends upon the hydraulic conductivity distribution and source release history

14

Installation of Multi-level SamplersInstallation of Multi-level Samplers

15

Top View of Multi-Level Monitoring WellTop View of Multi-Level Monitoring Well

15

16

Location of Multi-Level Sampling PointsLocation of Multi-Level Sampling Points

ML1 (37O)

ML5 (65O)

ML2 (40O)

ML4 (57O)

ML3 (52O)

Shed

Speedy Printing

9.5’13.6’

12.3’

16.3’

20.3’22.3’

10’ 14’ 17.9’

21.8’

21.2’

24.1’

19.5’

15.3’

22.2’

11.1’

17.5’19.5’

21.4’

23.7’

11.4’

15.7’

19.7’

21.5’22.2’Ex Well

W1

S1 S2 S3

W2W35 ft.

N

17

Injection Flow Control SystemInjection Flow Control System

18

Injection/Mixing TanksInjection/Mixing Tanks

19

55 Gallon Drums of Tween 8055 Gallon Drums of Tween 80

20

Cross-Flow Sieve Tray Air Stripping Cross-Flow Sieve Tray Air Stripping SystemSystem

21

Sample CollectionSample Collection

22

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Time from start of Tween injection (d)

Measured

Simulated

Simulated Breakthrough

Measured Breakthrough

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


Measured

Simulated

Simulated Breakthrough

Measured Breakthrough

a)

b)

Simulated and Measured Surfactant Breakthrough Simulated and Measured Surfactant Breakthrough at Two Observation Pointsat Two Observation Points

23

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Tween 80

PCE mg/L

PCE Breakthrough

Tween 80 Breakthrough

Surfactant Breakthrough and Surfactant Breakthrough and Observed PCE Concentrations (ML5E)Observed PCE Concentrations (ML5E)

24

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Time from start of Tween injection (d)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Tween 80

PCE

Extraction Well Recovery of Extraction Well Recovery of Surfactant and PCESurfactant and PCE

25

Source Zone Monitoring (ML5)Source Zone Monitoring (ML5)

(mg/L)

Date Comments PCE Tween PCE Tween PCE Tween PCE Tween PCE Tween6/30/2000 Start of surfactant injection 0.35 NQ<311 45.31 NQ<311 48.00 NQ<311 0.89 NQ<311 98.84 NQ<3118/15/2000 Last day of SEAR test NQ<5.14 NQ<90 NQ<5.14 NQ<90 NQ<5.14 NQ<90 NQ<5.14 NQ<90 NQ<5.14 NQ<908/29/2000 2 weeks after test NQ<1 122.23 NQ<1 103.71 NQ<0.63 NQ<90 NQ<0.63 NQ<9010/10/2000 56 days after test 0.0845 63.72 0.4566 93.96 0.8823 54.13 0.0888 64.93 0.9368 63.875/10/2001 270 days after test 0.288 NQ<16 0.052 21.85 0.10 NQ<16 NQ<.015 NQ<16 0.19 NQ<1611/13/2001 450 days after test 0.0220 NQ<50 0.1700 NQ<50 0.2400 NQ<50 0.0200 NQ<50 0.4000 NQ<50

ML-5B (13.6')ML-5A (9.5') ML-5E (21.4')ML-5D (19.5')ML-5C (17.5')

26

Extraction Well 5.2 gpm

Pilot Study Area

North

Coordinates in Michigan Coordinate System (feet)







Pilot Test Configuration

Suspected source zone

26

27

Source Zone Monitoring for Degradation ProductsSource Zone Monitoring for Degradation Products(ML5) – Nov 2001(ML5) – Nov 2001

(mg/L)

Date Comments

11/13/01 Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)

11/13/01 Trichloroethylene (TCE)

11/13/01 cis - 1.2 - Dichloroethene

11/13/01 trans -1.2 - Dichloroethene

11/13/01 Vinyl Chloride

11/13/01 Tween

11/13/01 acetate (mM)

NQ<.001NQ<50

NQ<.001NQ<50

mg/L0.4

0.0410.12

NQ<.001NQ<.001NQ<50

mg/L0.02

0.0060.017

NQ<.001NQ<.001NQ<50

mg/L0.240.0310.11

NQ<.001NQ<.001NQ<50

mg/L0.17

0.0520.57

NQ<.001NQ<.001

mg/L0.0220.120.47

ML-5E (21.4')ML-5D (19.5')ML-5C (17.5')ML-5B (13.6')ML-5A (9.5')

NQ<0.1NQ<0.1 0.49 NQ<0.1 NQ<0.1

28

Post Test CharacterizationPost Test CharacterizationNovember 2001November 2001

29

ConclusionsConclusions• Breakthrough curves indicate good sweep efficiency within

the treatment zone• 95% of the injected surfactant mass was recovered• 19 liters of PCE were recovered during test• Analysis of partitioning alcohols suggest very low

saturations within the treatment zone• Concentration tailing in extraction well suggests additional

source area within capture zone• Source zone concentrations reduced by approximately two

orders of magnitude• Evidence of post-test microbial activity enhancement within

residual source zone

30

Ongoing WorkOngoing Work

• Monitoring of PCE and degradation products

• Further site characterization

• Full-scale SEAR design

• Exploration of feasibility of halorespiration stimulation in treated

zone

31

ReferencesReferences

• Drummond, C.D., L.D. Lemke, K.M. Rathfelder, E.J. Hahn, and L.M. Abriola, “Simulation of surfactant-enhanced PCE recovery at a pilot test field site,” in Treating Dense Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids (DNAPLs): Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds (G.B Wickramanayake, A.R. Gavaskar, and N. Gupta eds.), 77-84, Battelle Press, Columbus, 2000.

• Abriola, L.M., C. Drummond, L. Lemke, K. Rathfelder, K. Pennell, E. Petrovskis, and G. Daniels, “Surfactant enhanced aquifer remediation: application of mathematical models in the design and evaluation of a pilot test,” In Groundwater Quality: Natural and Enhanced Restoration of Groundwater Pollution, Thornton, S.F. and S.E. Oswald, eds, IAHS Publication 275, 303-310, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2002.

Documents

1 Linda M. Abriola The University of Michigan Ann Arbor Presented at: In Situ Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated with Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids: Fundamentals