Comparison of permeable reactive barrier, funnel and gate, nonpumped wells, and low-capacity wells for groundwater remediation.
This modeling study compared the performance of a no-action and four active groundwater remediation alternatives: a permeable reactive barrier, a funnel and gate, nonpumped wells with filter media, and a low-capacity extraction and injection well. The simulated aquifer had an average seepage velocity of 0.04 m d(-1), and the initial contaminant plume was 58 m long and 13 m wide. For each active alternative, mass transport modeling identified the smallest structure necessary to contain and remove the contaminant plume. Although the no-action alternative did not contain the plume, each active alternative did contain and remove the plume, but with significantly different installation and operation requirements. Low-capacity pumping wells required the least infrastructure, with one extraction well and one injection well each discharging only 1.7 m(3) d(-1). The amount of time necessary to remove the contaminant plume was similar among active alternatives, except for the funnel and gate, which required much more time. Results of this study suggest that, for a modest seepage velocity and relatively narrow contaminant plume, low-capacity wells may be an effective alternative for groundwater remediation.
a Department of Geography and Environmental Science Program , University of North Texas , Denton , Texas , USA.
Paul F
PF
Hudak
D052918:Environmental Restoration and Remediation / Q000379:methods*; D005374:Filtration; D060587:Groundwater; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D014876:Water Pollution / Q000517:prevention & control*
Remediation; funnel and gate; groundwater well; reactive barrier