Assessment of a simple function to evaluate the relationship between mass flux reduction and mass removal for organic-liquid contaminated source zones.
The efficacy of a simple mass-removal function for characterizing mass-flux-reduction/mass-removal behavior for organic-liquid contaminated source zones was evaluated using the data obtained from a series of flow-cell experiments. The standard function, which employs a constant exponent, could not adequately reproduce the non-singular (multi-step) behavior exhibited by the measured data. Allowing the exponent to change as a function of mass removal (as the organic-liquid distribution and relative permeability change) produced non-singular relationships similar to those exhibited by the measured data. Four methods were developed to dynamically inform the exponent through use of measurable system-indicator parameters. Key factors that mediate the magnitude of mass flux (dilution and source accessibility) were accounted for using measures of source zone cross-sectional area, ganglia-to-pool (GTP) ratio, and relative permeability. The two methods that incorporated only the ganglia-to-pool ratio produced adequate simulations of the observed behavior for early stages of mass removal, but not for later stages. The method that incorporated parameters accounting for the source zone cross-sectional area (i.e., measure of system dilution) and source accessibility (GTP ratio and relative permeability) provided the most representative simulations of the observed data.
Hydrology and Water Resources, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Arizona, 429 Shantz Building, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Erica L
EL
DiFilippo
Mark L
ML
Brusseau
D052918:Environmental Restoration and Remediation; D010539:Permeability; D014872:Water Movements; D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical / Q000032:analysis* / Q000302:isolation & purification; D014877:Water Pollution, Chemical / Q000032:analysis* / Q000517:prevention & control
D014874:Water Pollutants, Chemical
Chemosphere. 2008 Apr;71(8):1511-21
18279910
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Nov 14;102(1-2):17-28
18420303
J Hazard Mater. 2004 Jul 5;110(1-3):13-27
15177723
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Nov 14;102(1-2):49-60
18579257
Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Oct 1;40(19):6110-6
17051808
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Nov 14;102(1-2):105-19
18929427
J Contam Hydrol. 2010 Jun 25;115(1-4):14-25
20434229
Environ Sci Technol. 2009 Dec 15;43(24):9374-9
19928794
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 May 26;98(1-2):22-35
18407371
Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Feb 1;40(3):815-22
16509323
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Nov 14;102(1-2):61-71
18502537
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Apr 28;97(3-4):87-99
18343529
Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Mar 1;36(5):1033-41
11917988
J Contam Hydrol. 2004 Oct;74(1-4):83-103
15358488
J Contam Hydrol. 2010 Sep 20;117(1-4):82-93
20685008
J Contam Hydrol. 2008 Aug 20;100(1-2):1-10
18555558
J Contam Hydrol. 2004 Aug;72(1-4):245-58
15240175
J Contam Hydrol. 2007 Feb 20;90(1-2):21-40
17049404
J Contam Hydrol. 2005 Aug;78(4):259-80
16019108
J Contam Hydrol. 2004 Apr;69(3-4):281-97
15028395