title: Hydraulic constraints on the performance of a groundwater denitrification wall for nitrate removal from shallow groundwater.
abstract: Denitrification walls are a practical approach for decreasing non-point source pollution of surface waters. They are constructed by digging a trench perpendicular to groundwater flow and mixing the aquifer material with organic matter, such as sawdust, which acts as a carbon source to stimulate denitrification. For efficient functioning, walls need to be permeable to groundwater flow. We examined the functioning of a denitrification wall constructed in an aquifer consisting of coarse sands. Wells were monitored for changes in nitrate concentration as groundwater passed through the wall and soil samples were taken to measure microbial parameters inside the wall. Nitrate concentrations upstream of the wall ranged from 21 to 39 g N m(-3), in the wall from 0 to 2 g N m(-3) and downstream from 19 to 44 g N m(-3). An initial groundwater flow investigation using a salt tracer dilution technique showed that the flow through the wall was less than 4% of the flow occurring in the aquifer. Natural gradient tracer tests using bromide and Rhodamine-WT confirmed groundwater bypass under the wall. Hydraulic conductivity of 0.48 m day(-1) was measured inside the wall, whereas the surrounding aquifer had a hydraulic conductivity of 65.4 m day(-1). This indicated that during construction of the wall, hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer had been greatly reduced, so that most of the groundwater flowed under rather than through the wall. Denitrification rates measured in the center of the wall ranged from 0.020 to 0.13 g N m(-3) day(-1), which did not account for the rates of nitrate removal (0.16-0.29 g N m(-3) day(-1)) calculated from monitoring of groundwater nitrate concentrations. This suggested that the rate of denitrification was greater at the upstream face of the wall than in its center where it was limited by low nitrate concentrations. While denitrification walls can be an inexpensive tool for removing nitrate from groundwater, they may not be suitable in aquifers with coarse textured subsoils where simple inexpensive construction techniques result in major decreases in hydraulic conductivity.
authors.affiliation: Landcare Research NZ Ltd., Private Bag 3127, Hamilton, New Zealand. SchipperL@landcareresearch.co.nz
authors.forename: Louis A
authors.initials: LA
authors.lastname: Schipper
authors.forename: Gregory F
authors.initials: GF
authors.lastname: Barkle
authors.forename: John C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Hadfield
authors.forename: Maja
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Vojvodic-Vukovic
authors.forename: Craig P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Burgess
mesh_terms: D002244:Carbon; D004738:Engineering; D004784:Environmental Monitoring; D009566:Nitrates / Q000302:isolation & purification* / Q000378:metabolism*; D010539:Permeability; D012988:Soil Microbiology; D014872:Water Movements; D018508:Water Purification / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D009566:Nitrates; D002244:Carbon