Mass Flux as a Remedial Performance Metric at NAPL Contaminated Sites

  • Michael D. Annable
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Recent research efforts have shifted from a focus on contaminant concentration in soil and water, for site characterization and remedial performance assessment, to one based on contaminant mass flux and discharge. The shift has lead to advances in our ability to collect data on contaminant mass flux and discharge at field sites. The current field methods for measuring mass flux and integrated mass load include traditional transects of wells and multilevel samplers, integral pumping methods and passive flux meters. The generation of spatially discrete contaminant and Darcy flux data has increased our ability to observe flux distributions associated with complex DNAPL source zones. The characteristics of flux distributions from DNAPL contaminated sites and how this information can be used for performance assessment of remedial technologies is the focus of this paper. Changes in mass flux, as a result of remedial activities, has lead to insights on the relationship between flux architecture and source mass removal. This relationship is reviewed in light of available results from both laboratory and field experiments.


groundwater systems contaminant flux performance assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abriola, L.M. 2005. Contaminant source zones: Remediation or perpetual stewardship? Environ. Health Perspectives, 113 (7): A438-A439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annable, M.D., K. Hatfield, J. Cho, H. Klammler, B.L. Parker, J.A. Cherry, and P.S.C. Rao. 2005. Field-Scale Evaluation of the Passive Flux Meter for Simultaneous Measurement of Groundwater and Contaminant Fluxes. Env. Sci. Tech., 39 (18): 7194-7201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. API 2003. “Groundwater Remediation Strategies Tool.” Regulatory Analysis and Scientific Affairs Department, Publication No. 4730, American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  4. API 2002. “Estimating Mass Flux for Decision-Making: An Expert Workshop.” American Petroleum Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  5. Basu, N.B., P.S.C. Rao, I.C. Poyer, M.D. Annable, and K. Hatfield. 2006. Flux-Based Assess-ment at a Manufacturing Site Contaminated with Trichloroethylene, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 86, No. 1-2, pp. 105-127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bockelmann, A., T. Ptak, and G. Teutsch. 2001. An analytical quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rate constants at a former gasworks site. J. Contam. Hydrol., 53, 429-453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bockelmann, A., D. Zamfirescu, T. Ptak, P. Grathwohl, and G. Teutsch. 2003. Quantification of mass fluxes and natural attenuation rates at an industrial site with a limited monitoring network: a case study. J. Contam. Hydrol., 60 (1-2): 97-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, M.C., M.D. Annable, P.S.C. Rao, K. Hatfield, J.W. Jawitz, W.R. Wise, A.L. Wood., and C.G. Enfield. Controlled Release, Blind Test of DNAPL Remediation by Ethanol Flushing. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, Vol. 69, 2004, pp. 281-297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, T.J., K. Hatfield, H. Klammler, M.D. Annable, and P.S.C. Rao. Magnitude and Directional Measures of Water and Cr(VI) Fluxes by Passive Flux Meter, Env. Sci. Tech.. Vol. 40, 2006, pp. 6392-6397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devlin, J.F. and C.D. McElwee. 2007. Effects of measurement error on horizontal hydraulic gradient estimates. Ground Water, 45 (1): 62-73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einarson, M. D. and D.M. Mackay. 2001. Predicting impacts of groundwater contamination. Environmental Science and Technology. 35 (3): 66A-73A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enfield, C.G., A.L. Wood, M.C. Brooks, M.D. Annable, and P.S.C. Rao. Design of aquifer remediation extraction systems: (1) Describing hydraulic structure and NAPL architecture using tracers. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 81 (1-4): 2005, pp. 125-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EPA 2004. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion? Kavanaugh, M.C. and P.S.C. Rao (editors), EPA/600/R-03/143, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Falta, R.W., P.S.C. Rao, and N. Basu. 2005a. “Assessing the Impacts of Partial Mass Depletion in DNAPL Source Zones: I. Analytical Modeling of Source Strength Functions and Plume Response.” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 78 (4): 259-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Falta, R.W., N. Basu, and P.S.C. Rao. 2005b. “Assessing Impacts of Partial Mass Depletion in DNAPL Source Zones: II. Coupling Source Strength Functions to Plume Evolution,” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 79 (1-2): 45-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fure, A.D., J.W. Jawitz, and M.D. Annable. 2006. DNAPL Source Depletion: Linking Archi-tecture and Flux Response, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 85: 118-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guilbeault, M.A., B.L. Parker, and J.A. Cherry. 2005. Mass and flux distributions from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers. Ground Water, 43 (1): 70-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatfield, K., M.D. Annable, J. Cho, P.S.C. Rao, and H. Klammler. 2004. “A Direct Passive Method for Measuring Water and Contaminant Fluxes in Porous Media.” Journal of Con-taminant Hydrology, 75 (3-4), 155-181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatfield, K., P.S.C. Rao, M.D. Annable, and T. Campbell. 2002. Device and method for measure-ing fluid and solute fluxes in flow systems, Patent US 6,402,547 B1, US Patent Office, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. ITRC 2003. “Assessing the performance of DNAPL source reduction remedies.” Dense non-aqueous phase liquids team, Interstate technology & regulatory council.Google Scholar
  21. Jawitz, J.W., A.D. Fure, G.G. Demmy, S. Berglund, and P.S.C. Rao. 2005. Groundwater con-taminant flux reduction resulting from nonaqueous phase liquid mass reduction. Water Resour. Res. 41 (10): Art. No. W10408.Google Scholar
  22. Klammler, H., K. Hatfield, and M.D. Annable. Concepts for Measuring Horizontal Groundwater Flow Directions Using the Passive Flux Meter, Advances in Water Resources, 30 (4): 984-997, 2007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klammler, H., K. Hatfield, M.D. Annable, E. Agyei, B.L. Parker, J.A. Cherry, and P.S.C. Rao. 2007. General analytical treatment of the flow field relevant to the interpretation of passive fluxmeter measurements, Water Resour. Res., 43, W04407, doi:10.1029/2005WR004718.Google Scholar
  24. Kübert, M. and M. Finkel. 2006. Contaminant Mass Discharge Estimation in Groundwater Based on Multi-level Point Measurements: A Numerical Evaluation of Expected Errors, J. Contam. Hydrol., 84 (1-2), 55-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemke L.D., L.M. Abriola, and J.R. Lang. 2004. Influence of hydraulic property correlation on predicted dense nonaqueous phase liquid source zone architecture, mass recovery and contaminant flux. Water Resour. Res. 40 (12): Art. No. W12417.Google Scholar
  26. NRC 2004. Contaminants in the Subsurface: Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Parker, J.C. and E. Park. 2004. Modeling field-scale dense nonaqueous phase liquid dissolution kinetics in heterogeneous aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 40, W05109, doi; 10.1029/ 2003WR002807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson, B.M., G.B. Davis, and C.D. Johnston. 1999. Automated in situ devices for monitoring of VOCs and oxygen in water and soil environments. In: Contaminated Site Remediation: Challenges posed by urban and industrial contaminants (Ed. C.D. Johnson). Proc. Con-taminated Site Remediation Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia, pp. 227-234.Google Scholar
  29. Patterson, B.M., G.B. Davis, and A.J. McKinley. 2000. Volatile organic compounds in ground-water, probes for the analysis of, In Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry, (Ed. R.A. Meyers), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chinchester, pp. 3515-3526.Google Scholar
  30. Ptak, T., M. Schirmer, and D. Teutsch. 2000. Development and performance of a new multilevel groundwater sampling system. Risk, Regulatory and Monitoring Considerations: Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Wickramanayake, Godage B., Gavaskar, Arun R., Kelley, Mark E. and Nehring, Karl W. (eds.), Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio, USA, ISBN 1-57477-095-0, 95-102.Google Scholar
  31. Rao, P.S.C., J. Jawitz, C. Enfield, R. Falta, M. Annable and A. Wood. 2002. Technology inte-gration for contaminated site remediation: Cleanup goals and performance criteria. In Ground-water Quality 2001. Proceedings, Edited by S. Thornton and S. Oswald, IAHS Publication no. 275, pp. 571-578.Google Scholar
  32. Rao, P.S.C. and J.W. Jawitz. 2003. Comment on “Steady state mass transfer from single-component dense nonaqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields” by T.C. Sale and D.B. McWhorter. Water Resour. Res., 39, 1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sale, T.C. and D.B. McWhorter. 2001. Steady-state mass transfer from single-component dense non-aqueous phase liquids in uniform flow fields, Water Resour. Res., 37, 393-404.Google Scholar
  34. Stroo, H.F., M. Unger., C.H. Ward., M.C. Kavanaugh., C. Vogel, A. Leeson, J.A. Marqusee and B.P. Smith. 2003. Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. Environmental Science & Technology, 37 (11): 224A-230A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teutsch, G., T. Ptak, R. Schwarz, T. Holder. 2000. Ein neus integrales Verfahren zur Quanti-fizierung der Grundwasserinnission: I. Theoretische Grundlagen. Grudwasser 4 (5): 170-175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wood, A.L., C.G. Enfield, M.D. Annable, M.C. Brooks, P.S.C. Rao, D. Sabatini, and R. Knox. 2005. Design of aquifer remediation extraction systems: (2) Estimating site-specific performance and benefits of partial source removal. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 81 (1-4), pp. 148-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Annable

    There are no affiliations available

    Personalised recommendations