Advertisement

A multidisciplinary procedure to evaluate and optimize the efficacy of hydraulic barriers in contaminated sites: a case study in Northern Italy

  • Alessandro Chelli
  • Andrea Zanini
  • Emma Petrella
  • Alessandra Feo
  • Fulvio Celico
Original Article

Abstract

In the last decades, hydraulic barriers have been activated in a large number of polluted sites with the aim of preventing groundwater pollution outside the contaminated area. From a regulatory point of view, there is the need of evaluating the efficacy of these barriers. For this reason, the goal of the present study is to apply a coupled experimental modelling approach aimed at evaluating the efficacy of the barrier and providing management strategies. In particular, a case study in Italy is investigated. The study case is of main interest because of its complexity due to a heterogeneous aquifer and the presence of surface water that interacts with the below aquifer. The study has been carried out through the experimental characterization of the aquifer system (coupling the classic stratigraphic techniques with the results of radiocarbon dating, as well as through pumping and injection tests) and its hydrogeological behaviour (by means of hydraulic- and the stream-head measurements, as well as some isotopic investigations), and the implementation of a numerical model (through MODFLOW 2005). The results show the effectiveness of the coupled experimental modelling approach to analyse and simulate the hydrodynamics within the test aquifer system, as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the hydraulic barrier. Based on the results of the numerical model, easy solutions were designed to manage the barrier.

Keywords

MODFLOW Groundwater management Stable isotopes Groundwater modelling Radiocarbon dating 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We warmly acknowledge Roberto Pecoraro, Massimo Gialli, Domenico Iaconetta, Antonina Lutri, Francesco Giudice, Enrico Galeotti, Jean Pierre Davit and Emanuele Scanferla for providing the data used in the present work and for useful discussions. The authors are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on this work.

Funding

This study was funded by Versalis (eni).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12665_2018_7420_MOESM1_ESM.docx (417 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 417 kb)

References

  1. Ahmed MA, Abdel Samie SG, El-Maghrabi HM (2011) Recharge and contamination sources of shallow and deep groundwater of pleistocene aquifer in El-Sadat industrial city: isotope and hydrochemical approaches. Environ Earth Sci 62:751–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberti L, Lombi S, Zanini A (2011) Identifying sources of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in a residential area in Italy using the integral pumping test method. Hydrogeol J 19:1253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0742-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Charideh A (2011) Environmental isotope study of groundwater discharge from the large karst springs in West Syria: a case study of Figeh and Al-sin springs. Environ Earth Sci 63:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amorosi A, Pavesi M, Ricci Lucchi M, Sarti G, Piccin A (2008) Climatic signature of cyclic fluvial architecture from the Quaternary of the Central Po Plain, Italy. Sedim Geol 209:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson MP (1989) Hydrogeologic facies models to delineate large-scale spatial trends in glacial and glaciofluvial sediments. Geol Soc Am Bull 101:501–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson MP, Woessner WW (1992) Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  7. Aquino D, Petrella E, Florio T, Celico P, Celico F (2015) Complex hydraulic interactions between compartmentalized carbonate aquifers and heterogeneous siliciclastic successions: a case study in southern Italy. Hydrol Process 29:4252–4263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM-Standard (95 (2006)) D5880 standard guide for subsurface flow and transport modeling. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. Bini M, Brückner H, Chelli A, Pappalardo M, Da Prato S, Gervasini L (2012) Palaeogeographies of the Magra Valley coastal plain to constrain the location of the Roman harbour of Luna (NW Italy). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 337–338:37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boschetti T, Gonzales-Hernandez P, Hernandez-Diaz R, Naclerio G, Celico F (2015) Seawater intrusion in the Guanahacabibes Peninsula (Pinar del Rio Province, western Cuba): effects on karst development and water isotope composition. Environ Earth Sci 73:5703–5719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cervi F, Borgatti L, Dreossi G, Marcato G, Michelini M, Stenni B (2017) Isotopic features of precipitation and groundwater from the Eastern Alps of Italy: results from the Mt. Tinisa hydrogeological system. Environ Earth Sci 76:410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chelli A, Pappalardo M, Bini M, Brückner H, Neri G, Neri M, Spada G (2017) Assessing tectonic subsidence from estimates of Holocene relative sea-level change: an example from the NW Mediterranean (Magra Plain, Italy). The Holocene.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617715688 Google Scholar
  13. Chen C-S, Tu C-H, Chen S-J, Chen C-C (2016) Simulation of groundwater contaminant transport at a decommissioned landfill site—a case study, Tainan City, Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(5):467.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13050467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cupola F, Tanda MG, Zanini A (2015) Laboratory sandbox validation of pollutant source location methods. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess 29(1):169–182.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0869-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Oria M, Zanini A, Cupola F (2018) Oscillatory pumping test to estimate aquifer hydraulic parameters in a bayesian geostatistical framework. Math Geosci 50(2):169–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9717-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doherty JE (2003) Groundwater model calibration using pilot-points and regularization. Ground Water 41(2):170–177.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.tb02580.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doherty JE (2010) PEST, model-independent parameter estimation—user manual (5th edn, with slight additions). Watermark Numerical Computing, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  18. Doherty JE, Fienen MN, Hunt RJ (2010) Approaches to highly parameterized inversion: pilot-point theory, guidelines, and research directions. U.S. Geological Survey scientific investigations report 2010–5168Google Scholar
  19. Feo A, Zanini A, Petrella E, Celico F (2018) A Python script to compute isochrones for MODFLOW. Groundwater 56(2):343–349.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fienen M, Hunt R, Krabbenhoft D, Clemo T (2009) Obtaining parsimonious hydraulic conductivity fields using head and transport observations: a Bayesian geostatistical parameter estimation approach. Water Resour Res 45:W08405.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fogg GE (1986) Groundwater flow and sand–body interconnectedness in a thick, multiple aquifer system. Water Resour Res 22:679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeze RA, Cherry JA (1979) Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  23. Guzzetti F, Marchetti M, Reichenbach P (1997) Large alluvial fans in the north-central Po Plain (northern Italy). Geomorphology 18:119–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gzyl G, Zanini A, Fra̧czek R, Kura K (2014) Contaminant source and release history identification in groundwater: a multi-step approach. J Contam Hydrol 157:59–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2013.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model—the ground-water flow process: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and methods 6-A16Google Scholar
  26. Harbaugh AW, Langevin CD, Hughes JD, Niswonger RN, Konikow LF (2017) MODFLOW-2005 version 1.12.00, the U.S. Geological Survey modular groundwater model: U.S. Geological Survey software release, 03 February 2017.  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7RF5S7G
  27. Johnson AI (1967) Specific yield—compilation of specific yields for various materials. U.S. Geological Survey water supply paper 1662-DGoogle Scholar
  28. Konikow LF, Hornberger GZ, Halford KJ, Hanson RT (2009) Revised multi-node well (MNW2) package for MODFLOW ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Survey techniques and methods 6-A30Google Scholar
  29. Longinelli A, Selmo E (2003) Isotopic composition of precipitation in Italy: a first overall map. J Hydrol 270:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Longinelli A, Stenni B, Genoni L, Flora O, Defrancesco C, Pellegrini G (2008) A stable isotope study of the Garda lake, northern Italy: its hydrological balance. J Hydrol 360:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marchetti M (1992) Geomorfologia ed evoluzione recente della Pianura Padana Centrale a Nord del Fiume Po. PhD thesis, Milano UniversityGoogle Scholar
  32. Marchetti M (1996) Variazioni idrodinamiche dei corsi d’acqua della Pianura Padana centrale connesse con la deglaciazione. Il Quat 9(2):465–472Google Scholar
  33. Marchetti M (2002) Environmental changes in the central Po Plain (northern Italy) due to fluvial modifications and anthropogenic activities. Geomorphology 44:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mengistu H, Tessema A, Abiye T, Demlie M, Lin H (2015) Numerical modeling and environmental isotope methods in integrated mine-water management: a case study from the Witwatersrand basin, South Africa. Hydrogeol J 23:533.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-014-1216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Munz M, Krause S, Tecklenburg C, Binley A (2011) Reducing monitoring gaps at the aquifer–river interface by modelling groundwater–surface water exchange flow patterns. Hydrol Process 25:3547–3562.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neupauer RM, Lin R (2006) Identifying sources of a conservative groundwater contaminant using backward probabilities conditioned on measured concentrations. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004115 Google Scholar
  37. Paradis D, Martel R, Karanta G, Lefebvre R, Michaud Y, Therrien R, Nastev M (2007) Comparative study of methods for WHPA delineation. Ground Water 45(2):158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petitta M, Primavera P, Tuccimei P, Aravena R (2011) Interaction between deep and shallow groundwater systems in areas affected by Quaternary tectonics (Central Italy): a geochemical and isotope approach. Environ Earth Sci 63:11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petrucci F, Tagliavini S (1969) Note illustrative della Carta Geologica d’Italia. Foglio 61, Cremona, Geological Survey of Italy, RomaGoogle Scholar
  40. Pisinaras V, Petalas C, Tsihrintzis VA, Karatzas GP (2013) Integrated modeling as a decision-aiding tool for groundwater management in a Mediterranean agricultural watershed. Hydrol Process 27:1973–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Poeter EP, Gaylord DR (1990) Influence of aquifer heterogeneity on contaminant transport at the Hanford Site. Ground Water 28:900–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollock DW (1989) Documentation of computer programs to compute and display pathlines using results from the U.S. Geological Survey modular three-dimensional finite difference ground-water models, open-file report 89-381. USGS, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  43. Ravazzi C, Marchetti M, Zanon M, Perego R, Quirino T, Deaddis M, De Amicis M, Margaritora D (2013) Lake evolution and landscape history in the lower Mincio River valley, unravelling drainage changes in the central Po Plain (N-Italy) since the Bronze Age. Quatern Int 288:195–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Regione Lombardia (2015) DTM—Digital Terrain ModelGoogle Scholar
  45. Romanelli A, Quiroz Londoño OM, Martinez HE, Escalante AH (2014) Hydrogeochemistry and isotope techniques to determine water interactions in groundwater-dependent shallow lakes, Wet Pampa Plain, Argentina. Environ Earth Sci 71:1953–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Segadelli S, Vescovi P, Ogata K, Chelli A, Zanini A, Boschetti T, Petrella E, Toscani L, Gargini A, Celico F (2017) A conceptual hydrogeological model of ophiolitic aquifers (serpentinized peridodite): the test example of Mt. Prinzera (northern Italy). Hydrol Process 31:1058–1073.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tamez-Meléndez C, Hernández-Antonio A, Gaona-Zanella PC, Ornelas-Soto N, Mahlknecht J (2016) Isotope signatures and hydrochemistry as tools in assessing groundwater occurrence and dynamics in a coastal arid aquifer. Environ Earth Sci 75:830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weissmann GS, Fogg GE (1999) Multi-scale alluvial fan heterogeneity modeled with transition probability geostatistics in a sequence stratigraphic framework. J Hydrol 226:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xu Z, Wu Y, Yu F (2012) A three-dimensional flow and transport modeling of an aquifer contaminated by perchloroethylene subject to multi-PRB remediation. Transp Porous Med 91:319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-011-9847-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zanini A, Woodbury AD (2016) Contaminant source reconstruction by empirical Bayes and Akaike’s Bayesian information criterion. J Contam Hydrol 185–186:74–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2016.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zanini A, Tanda MG, Woodbury AD (2017) Identification of Transmissivity Fields using a Bayesian strategy and perturbative approach. Adv Water Resour 108:69–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.07.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Life Sciences and Environmental SustainabilityUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations