In Situ Sparging. II: Groundwater Mounding and Impacts on Aquifer Properties
Publication: Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Volume 19, Issue 1
Abstract
In situ sparging of gaseous was demonstrated through laboratory and pilot-scale testing to be an effective means to neutralize a caustic brine plume (CBP) and to reduce levels of mercury and other heavy metals in groundwater. The CBP exhibits high pH levels ranging from 10.5 to 12, densities as high as , high dissolved silica concentrations, and mercury ranging from 50 to . The CBP lies at the base of a moderately permeable aquifer at depths ranging from 30 to 50 ft below ground surface. The pilot test involved a single sparge well and 13 monitoring wells screened at varying depths and radial distances up to 100 ft. The pilot test demonstrated that pH within an aquifer volume of approximately () could be reduced to near neutral pH. Sparging caused intermittent mounding of groundwater levels, particularly in the piezometric surface of the basal portion of the aquifer, where the sparge well was screened. The piezometric surface in the basal portion of the aquifer rose to several feet above the ground surface during active sparging and then rapidly declined upon cessation of sparging. However, the rise in the overlying groundwater table was considerably muted by the lower vertical hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. At its peak during the sparging, the groundwater table rose to within approximately a foot of the surface. Pre- and post-sparging aquifer testing indicated that the transmissivity of the aquifer was reduced by approximately 75% and the storativity was substantially increased. These changes in aquifer properties are believed to be primarily associated with the residual saturation of gas from the sparging and exsolution of gas from the groundwater in areas immediately adjacent to channels where groundwater is expected to have near saturation levels of .
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Batu, V. (1998). Aquifer hydraulics: A comprehensive guide to hydrogeologic data analysis, Wiley, New York.
DeGlee, G. J. (1930). “Over grodwaterstromingen bij wateronttrekking door middel van putten.” Thesis, J. Waltman, Delft, The Netherlands (in Dutch).
DeGlee, G. J. (1951). “Berekeningsmethoden voor de winning van grondwater.”, The Hague, The Netherlands (in Dutch).
Lundegard, P. D., and LaBrecque, D. (1995). “Air sparging in a sandy aquifer (Florence, Oregon, U.S.): Actual and apparent radius of influence.” J. Contam. Hydrogeol., 19(1), 1–27.
Neuman, S. P. (1972). “Theory of flow in unconfined aquifers considering delayed response to the water table.” Water Resour. Res., 8(4), 1031–1045.
Pankow, J. F., and Cherry, J. A. (1996). Dense chlorinated solvents and other DNAPLs in groundwater, Waterloo Press, Portland, OR.
Theis, C. V. (1935). “The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using groundwater storage.” Eos Trans. AGU, 16(2), 519.
Yager, R. M., and Fountain, J. C. (2001). “Effect of natural gas exsolution on specific storage in a confined aquifer undergoing water level decline.” Groundwater, 39(4), 517–525.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Apr 1, 2014
Accepted: Oct 7, 2014
Published online: Nov 19, 2014
Published in print: Jan 1, 2015
Discussion open until: Apr 19, 2015
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.