Advertisement

Introduction

  • Peter K. Kitanidis
  • Perry L. McCarty
Chapter
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 4)

Abstract

The remediation of a site contaminated with one or more hazardous chemicals normally involves removing, destroying, or stabilizing in place the chemicals of concern. Chemical destruction or stabilization generally involve chemical or biological reactions that require the bringing together of the contaminant with one or more chemical or biological ingredients necessary for the reaction to proceed. For example, the aerobic biological destruction of the gasoline derived contaminant benzene in groundwater would require that oxygen be present or introduced in some manner and mixed with the benzene so that naturally occurring microorganisms residing within the aquifer could bring about benzene oxidation to carbon dioxide and water. Nutrients for growth of the microorganisms, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, may also need to be added to sustain the reaction. Additionally in some cases, acidic or basic chemicals such as hydrochloric acid or sodium bicarbonate may need to be mixed in with the water to achieve a pH condition that is satisfactory for biological growth. In some cases, such as in the anaerobic biological destruction of vinyl chloride, special strains of microorganisms may also need to be added as they may not be present naturally in the aquifer. In all such cases, the important processes of mass transfer and mixing are involved. Because of the complexity of aquifer systems, such mass transfer and mixing often becomes one of the most difficult and expensive aspects of site remediation. Thus, it behooves the designer or operator of a remediation system to be well versed in the fundamentals and applications of mass transfer and mixing processes as they apply to aquifer systems. The purpose of this volume is to aid in that understanding.

Keywords

Injection Well Mass Transfer Limitation Benzene Oxidation Contaminant Mass Remediation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson JE, McCarty PL. 1994. Model for treatment of trichloroethylene by methanotrophic biofilms. J Environ Eng 120:379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant L, Thompson KE. 2001. Theory, modeling and experiment in reactive transport in porous media. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 6:217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cirpka OA, Valocchi AJ. 2007. Two-dimensional concentration distribution for mixing-controlled bioreactive transport in steady state. Adv Water Resour 30:1668–1679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dykaar BB, Kitanidis PK. 1996. Macrotransport of a biologically reacting solute through porous media. Water Resour Res 32:307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Li L, Peters CA, Celia MA. 2006. Upscaling geochemical reaction rates using pore-scale network modeling. Adv Water Resour 29:1351–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lichtner PC, Tartakovsky DM. 2003. Stochastic analysis of effective rate constant for heterogeneous reactions. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess 17:419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacQuarrie KTB, Sudicky EA. 1990. Simulation of biodegradable organic contaminants in groundwater, 2. Plume behavior in uniform and random flow fields. Water Resour Res 26:223–239.Google Scholar
  8. Maher K, Steefel CI, DePaolo DJ, Viani BE. 2006. The mineral dissolution rate conundrum: Insights from reactive transport modeling of U isotopes and pore fluid chemistry in marine sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70:337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Malmstrom ME, Destouni G, Banwart SA, Stromberg BHE. 2000. Resolving the scale dependence of mineral weathering rates. Environ Sci Technol 34:1375–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Malmstrom ME, Destouni G, Martinet P. 2004. Modeling expected solute concentration in randomly heterogeneous flow systems with multicomponent reactions. Environ Sci Technol 38:2673–2679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nauman B. 2001. Handbook of Chemical Reactor Design, Optimization, and Scaleup. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. 600 p.Google Scholar
  12. Rifai HS, Bedient PB. 1990. Comparison of biodegradation kinetics with an instantaneous reaction model for groundwater. Water Resour Res 26:637–645.Google Scholar
  13. Roberts PV, Semprini L, Hopkins GD, Grbic-Galic D, McCarty PL, Reinhard M. 1989. In-situ aquifer restoration of chlorinated aliphatics by methanotrophic bacteria. EPA/600/S2-89/033. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, USA. August.Google Scholar
  14. Simoni SF, Schaefer A, Harms H, Zehnder AJB. 2001. Factors affecting mass transfer limited biodegradation in saturated porous media. J Contam Hydrol 50:99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Steefel CI, Lichtner PC. 1998. Multicomponent reactive transport in discrete fractures, 1. Controls on reaction front geometry. J Hydrol 209:186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tatterson GB. 2003. Scaleup and Design of Industrial Mixing Processes. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA. 392 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter K. Kitanidis
    • 1
  • Perry L. McCarty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations