Combined Remedies

  • Dean F. Williamson
Chapter
Part of the SERDP ESTCP Environmental Remediation Technology book series (SERDP/ESTCP, volume 7)

Abstract

Combined remedies refer to the deliberate combination of two or more physical, chemical or biological remediation technologies, designed to provide a more effective remedy than is possible when using any one technology alone. Recent advances in understanding the limitations of individual remediation technologies and the economic and performance benefits of combined technologies has resulted in the increased use of combined remedies to treat DNAPL source zones. Several technology combinations have been applied in an attempt to exploit synergies between different processes or to deploy different technologies at the most appropriate stages in the life cycle of a source zone. The rationale for combining remedial technologies is discussed in this chapter, as well as the challenges involved in combining technologies. Several examples of both sequential and coupled remedy combinations are described, along with strategies for selecting and designing effective combined remedies. The chapter also presents the post-treatment impacts of primary source zone technologies, factors to consider for applying concurrent technologies and a summary of the recent literature on the testing and use of selected technology combinations.

Keywords

Migration Fermentation Sulfide Steam Arsenic 

References

  1. Adamson DT, McGuire TM, Newell CJ, Stroo H. 2011. Sustained treatment: Implications for treatment timescales associated with source-depletion technologies. Remediat J 20:27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amos BK, Deprato RC, Hughes JB, Pennell KD, Löffler FE. 2007. Effects of the non-ionic surfactant Tween 80 on microbial reductive dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes. Environ Sci Technol 41:1710–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadpour-Keely A, Wood AL, Lee TR, Mravik S. 2004. Microbial responses to in situ chemical oxidation, six-phase heating, and steam injection remediation technologies in groundwater. Remediat J 14:5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battelle Memorial Institute. 2010a. Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection, and Design. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC), Port Hueneme, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Battelle Memorial Institute. 2010b. Cost and Performance Report for Persulfate Treatability Studies. NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Becvar E, Evans P, Lebrón C, Stroo H, Wilson J, Wymore R. 2008. Workshop Report: In Situ Biogeochemical Transformation of Chlorinated Solvents. Prepared for AFCEE (Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence), NFESC, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA501302. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  7. Beyke G, Fleming D. 2005. In situ thermal remediation of DNAPL and LNAPL using electrical resistance heating. Remediat J 15:5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Block PA, Brown RA, Robinson D. 2004. Novel activation technologies for sodium persulfate in situ chemical oxidation. Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 24-27, Paper 2A-05.Google Scholar
  9. Brown RA, Lewis R, Leahy MC, Luhrs R. 2009a. Is there life after ISCO? The effect of oxidants on in situ bioremediation. Proceedings, 10th International Symposium on In Situ and On-site Bioremediation, Baltimore, MD, USA, May 5–8. Paper No. K-12.Google Scholar
  10. Brown RA, Mueller JG, Seech AG, Henderson JK, Wilson JT. 2009b. Interactions between biological and abiotic pathways in the reduction of chlorinated solvents. Remediat J 20:9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapelle FH, Bradley PM, Casey CC. 2005. Behavior of a chlorinated ethene plume following source-area treatment with Fenton’s Reagent. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen S, Markesic SJ, Abrams SH. 2002. Injection of zero-valent iron into a bedrock formation for the reduction of TCE. Proceedings, Third International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 20–23.Google Scholar
  13. Christ JA, Ramsburg CA, Abriola LM, Pennell KD, Löffler FE. 2005. Coupling aggressive mass removal with microbial reductive dechlorination for remediation of DNAPL source zones: A review and assessment. Environ Health Perspect 113:465–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conrad SH, Glass RJ, Peplinski WJ. 2002. Bench-scale visualization of DNAPL remediation processes in analog heterogeneous aquifers: Surfactant floods and in situ oxidation using permanganate. J Contam Hydrol 58:13–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza J, Fletcher KE, Löffler FE, Pennell KD. 2009. Fate of TCE heated in Fort Lewis soil. Environ Sci Technol 43:909–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costanza J, Otano G, Callaghan J, Pennell KD. 2010. PCE oxidation by sodium persulfate in the presence of solids. Environ Sci Technol 44:9445–9450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crimi ML, Siegrist RL. 2003. Geochemical effects on metals following permanganate oxidation of DNAPLs. Ground Water 41:458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crimi ML, Dugan PJ, Siegrist RL. 2009. Method and compositions for treatment of subsurface contaminants. U.S. Patent 7,553,105 B1.Google Scholar
  19. Crimi M, Silva JAK, Palaia T. 2013. Final Report: Cooperative Technology Demonstration: Polymer-Enhanced Subsurface Delivery and Distribution of Permanganate. ESTCP Project ER-200912. Prepared for Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  20. Dai Q, Reitsma S. 2005. Kinetic study of permanganate oxidation of tetrachloroethylene at a high pH under acidic conditions. Remediat J 14:67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davis EL. 1997. How Heat Can Enhance In Situ Soil and Aquifer Remediation: Important Chemical Properties and Guidance on Choosing the Appropriate Technique. EPA/540/S-97/502. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Ada, OK, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Dettmer K. 2002. A Discussion of the Effects of Thermal Remediation Treatments on Microbial Degradation Processes. USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Dolfing J, Van Eekert M, Seech A, Vogan J, Mueller J. 2008. In situ chemical reduction (ISCR) technologies: Significance of low Eh reactions. Soil Sediment Contam 17:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Droste EX, Marley MC, Parikh JM, Lee AM, Dinardo PM, Woody BA, Hoag GE, Chheda PV. 2002. Observed enhanced reductive dechlorination after in situ chemical oxidation pilot test. Proceedings, 3rd International Conference of Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA. Paper No. 2C-01.Google Scholar
  25. Dugan PJ, Siegrist RL, Crimi ML. 2009. Method and compositions for treatment of subsurface contaminants. U.S. Patent 2009/7553105.Google Scholar
  26. Dugan PJ, Siegrist RL, Crimi ML. 2010. Coupling surfactants/cosolvents with oxidants for enhanced DNAPL removal: A review. Remediat J 20:27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fletcher KE, Costanza J, Cruz-Garcia C, Ramaswamy NS, Pennell KD, Löffler FE. 2011. Effects of elevated temperature on Dehalococcoides dechlorination performance and DNA and RNA biomarker abundance. Environ Sci Technol 45:712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friis AK, Albrechtsen HJ, Heron G, Bjerg PL. 2005. Redox processes and release of organic matter after thermal treatment of a TCE-contaminated aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 39:5787–5795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friis AK, Edwards EA, Albrechtsen HJ, Udell KS, Duhamel M, Bjerg PL. 2007. Dechlorination after thermal treatment of a TCE-contaminated aquifer: Laboratory experiments. Chemosphere 67:816–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gavaskar A, Tatar L, Condit W. 2005. Cost and performance report for nano-scale zero valent iron technologies for source remediation. Prepared for NFESC, Port Hueneme, CA, USA. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA446916. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  31. Geosyntec. 2010. Cost and Performance Report: Remediation of DNAPL Through Sequential In Situ Chemical Oxidation and Bioaugmentation. ESTCP Project ER-200116. Prepared for ESTCP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  32. Heron G, Carroll S, Nielsen SG. 2005a. Full-scale removal of DNAPL constituents using steam-enhanced extraction and electrical resistance heating. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heron G, Baker R, LaChance J, Friis AK. 2005b. Using heat to accelerate remediation. Proceedings, 8th International Symposium In-Situ and On Site Bioremediation, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 6–9. Paper No. D-23.Google Scholar
  34. Hoag GE, Collins JB, Anderson DK. 2010. Method for Extraction and Surfactant-Enhanced Subsurface Contaminant Recovery. U.S. Patent 2010/0185039 A1.Google Scholar
  35. Hrapovic L, Sleep BE, Major DJ, Hood ED. 2005. Laboratory study of treatment of trichloroethene by chemical oxidation followed by bioremediation. Environ Sci Technol 39:2888–2897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang K, Hoag GE, Chheda P, Woody BA, Dobb GM. 1999. Kinetic study of oxidation of trichloroethene by potassium permanganate. Environ Eng Sci 16:265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang K, Zhao Z, Hoag GE, Dahmani A, Block PA. 2005. Degradation of volatile organic compounds with thermally activated persulfate. Chemosphere 61:551–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Huling SG, Pivetz BE. 2006. In-Situ Chemical Oxidation: Engineering Issue. EPA/600/R-06/072. Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  39. ITRC (Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council). 2005. Technical and Regulatory Guidance for In-Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2nd ed. Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/ListDocuments?TopicID=10&SubTopicID=17. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  40. ITRC. 2007. In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Ethene DNAPL Source Zones: Case Studies. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/ListDocuments?TopicID=3&SubTopicID=3. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  41. ITRC. 2008. In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Ethene DNAPL Source Zones. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/bioDNPL_Docs/BioDNAPL3.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  42. ITRC. 2011. Technical and Regulatory Guidance: Integrated DNAPL Site Strategy. ITRC, Washington, DC, USA. http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance/ListDocuments?TopicID=5&SubTopicID=10. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  43. Jackson RE. 2001. DNAPL remediation: Which “new paradigm” will prevail? Ground Water Monit Remediat 21:54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson P, Dahlen P, Kingston J, Foote E, Williams S. 2009. State-of-the-Practice Overview: Critical Evaluation of State-of-the-Art In Situ Thermal Treatment Technologies for DNAPL Source Zone Treatment. ESTCP Project ER-0314. Prepared for ESTCP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  45. Johnson RL, Tratnyek PG, Johnson RO. 2008. Persulfate persistence under thermal activation conditions. Environ Sci Technol 42:9350–9356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones A, Escobar M, Serlin C, Sercu B, Holden P, Stollar R, Murphy P. 2009. Microbial community composition assessment during in-situ chemical oxidation with permanganate: The effect of oxidants on in-situ bioremediation. Proceedings, Tenth International In Situ and On-site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, May 5–8.Google Scholar
  47. Kappler A, Straub K. 2005. Geomicrobiological cycling of iron. Rev Mineral Geochem 59:85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kennedy LG, Everett JW, Becvar E, DeFeo D. 2006. Field-scale demonstration of induced biogeochemical reductive dechlorination at Dover Air Force Base, Dover, Delaware. J Contam Hydrol 88:119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kingston JL, Dahlen PR, Johnson PC. 2010. State-of-the-practice review of in situ thermal technologies. Ground Water Monit Remediat 30:64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kirshling TL, Gregory KB, Minkley EG Jr, Lowry GV, Tilton RD. 2010. Impact of nano-scale zero valent iron on geochemistry and microbial populations in trichloroethylene contaminated aquifer materials. Environ Sci Technol 44:3474–3480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Koch SA, Rice MJ, Stolzenburg TR, Baker KB, Haselow J. 2007. Reversing full-scale ISCO. Proceedings, 9th International Symposium, In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Baltimore, MD, USA, May 7–10. Paper No. G-06.Google Scholar
  52. Krembs FJ, Siegrist RL, Crimi ML, Furrer RF, Petri BG. 2010. ISCO for groundwater remediation: Analysis of field applications and performance. Ground Water Monit Remediat 30:42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Laidler KJ. 1978. Physical Chemistry with Biological Applications. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co, San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  54. Leeson A, Johnson PC, Bruce CL, Johnson RL, Amerson IL, Vogel CM, Hinchee RE, Marley M, Peargin T, Coonfare CT, Gillespie RD. 2002. Design Paradigm: Air Sparging Technology Transfer and Multi-Site Evaluation. ESTCP Project ER-9808. Prepared for ESTCP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  55. Li Z, Hanlie H. 2008. Combination of surfactant solubilization with permanganate oxidation for DNAPL remediation. Water Res 42:605–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loomer DB, Al TA, Banks VJ, Parker BL, Mayer KU. 2010a. Manganese valence in oxides formed from in situ chemical oxidation of TCE by KMnO4. Environ Sci Technol 44:5934–5939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Loomer DB, Al TA, Banks VJ, Parker BL, Mayer KU. 2010b. Manganese and trace metal mobility under reducing conditions following in situ chemical oxidation of TCE by KMnO4: A laboratory column experiment. J Contam Hydrol 119:13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Luhrs RC, Lewis RW, Huling SG. 2006. ISCO’s long-term impact on aquifer conditions and microbial activity. Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA. Paper No. D-48.Google Scholar
  59. Macbeth TW, Starr RC, Sorenson KS, Goehlert R, Moor KS. 2005. ISCO Impacts on indigenous microbes in a PCE/DNAPL-contaminated aquifer. Proceedings, 8th International In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Baltimore, MD, USA, June 6–9. Paper No. D-22.Google Scholar
  60. MacKinnon LK, Thomson NR. 2002. Laboratory-scale in situ chemical oxidation or a perchloroethylene pool using permanganate. J Contam Hydrol 56:49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Martel KE, Martel R, Lefebvre R, Gelinas PJ. 1998. Laboratory study of polymer solutions used for mobility control during in situ NAPL recovery. Ground Water Monit Remediat 18:103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martin JP, Horst JF, Lenzo F. 2006. Full-scale ZVI and molasses treatment of PCE DNAPL in fractured bedrock. Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May. Paper No. C-50.Google Scholar
  63. McCray JE, Munakata-Marr J, Silva JAK, Davenport S, Smith MM. 2010. Final Report: Multi-Scale Experiments to Evaluate Mobility Control Methods for Enhancing the Sweep Efficiency of Injected Subsurface Remediation Amendments. SERDP Project ER-1486. Prepared for SERDP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  64. McElroy B, Keith A, Glasgow J, Dasappa S. 2002. In situ chemical reduction pilot tests – Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA. Paper No. 2A-17.Google Scholar
  65. McGuire T, Hughes JB. 2003. Effects of surfactants on the dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:2630–2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McGuire TM, McDade JM, Newell CJ. 2006. Performance of DNAPL source depletion technologies at 59 chlorinated solvent-impact sites. Ground Water Monit Remediat 26:73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Molin J, Mueller J, Hanson D, Fowler T, Skrotzki T. 2010. In situ remediation of PCE at a site with clayey lithology and significant smear zone. Remediat J 20:51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moore K. 2008. Geochemical Impacts from Permanganate Oxidation Based on Field Scale Assessments. MS Thesis. East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA. http://etd-submit.etsu.edu/etd/theses/available/etd-0910108-191936/unrestricted/MooreK100808f.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  69. Mravik SC, Sillan RK, Wood AL, Sewell GW. 2003. Field evaluation of the solvent extraction residual biotreatment technology. Environ Sci Technol 37:5040–5049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nelson MD, Parker BL, Al TA, Cherry JA, Loomer D. 2001. Geochemical reactions resulting from in situ chemical oxidation of PCE-DNAPL by KMnO4 in a sandy aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 35:1266–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. NRC (National Research Council). 2004. Contaminants in the Subsurface, Source Zone Assessment and Remediation. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  72. O’Hara S, Krug T, Quinn J, Clausen C, Geiger C. 2006. Field and laboratory evaluation of the treatment of DNAPL source zones using emulsified zero-valent iron. Remediat J 16:35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Okwi GJ, Thomson NR, Gillham RW. 2005. The impact of permanganate on the ability of granular iron to degrade TCE. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25:123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Olson MR, Sale TC, Shackelford CD, Bozzini C, Skeean J. 2012. Chlorinated solvent source zone remediation via ZVI-clay soil mixing: 1-year results. Ground Water Monit Remediat 32:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Parker J, Kim U, Kitanidis P, Cardiff M, Liu X, Lee J. 2011. Final Report: Practical Cost-Optimization of Characterization and Remediation Decisions at DNAPL Sites with Consideration of Prediction Uncertainty. SERDP Project ER-1611. Prepared for SERDP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  76. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 2000. Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Contamination on Industrial and Airfield Sites. Prepared for AFCEE, San Antonio, TX, USA. http://www.clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/dnapl/Treatment_Technologies/remediation_of_chlorinated_DNAPL_AFCEEAF_Chlor.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  77. Peale JGD, Mueller J, Molin J. 2010. Successful ISCR-enhanced bioremediation of TCE DNAPL source utilizing EHC® and KB-1®. Remediat J 20:63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pennell KD, Löffler FE, Costanza J, Fletcher KE, Ramaswamy NA, Otano G, Callaghan J. 2009. Final Report: Investigation of Chemical Reactivity, Mass Recovery and Biological Activity During Thermal Treatment of DNAPL Source Zones. SERDP Project ER-1419. Prepared for SERDP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  79. Powell T, Smith G, Sturza J, Lynch K, Truex M. 2007. New advances for in-situ treatment using electrical resistance heating. Remediat J 17:51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ramakrishnan V, Ogram AV, Lindner AS. 2005. Impacts of co-solvent flushing on microbial populations capable of degrading trichloroethylene. Environ Health Perspect 113:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ramsburg CA, Abriola LM, Pennell KD, Löffler FE, Gamache M, Amos BK, Petrovskis EA. 2004. Stimulated microbial reductive dechlorination following surfactant treatment at the Bachman road site. Environ Sci Technol 38:5902–5914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Richards A, Kueper BH, Gerhard JI. 2005. Hydraulic displacement of DNAPL source zones. First International Conference on Challenges in Site Remediation, Chicago, IL, USA, October 23–27.Google Scholar
  83. Richardson RE, James CA, Bhupathiraju VK, Alvarez-Cohen L. 2002. Microbial activity in soils following steam treatment. Biodegradation 13:285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sahl J, Munakata-Marr J. 2006. The effects of in situ chemical oxidation on microbiological processes: A review. Remediat J 16:57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sahl JW, Munakata-Marr J, Crimi ML, Siegrist RL. 2007. Coupling permanganate oxidation with microbial dechlorination of tetrachloroethene. Water Environ Res 79:5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schroth MH, Oostrom M, Wietsma TW, Istok JD. 2001. In situ oxidation of trichloroethylene by permanganate: Effects on porous medium hydraulic properties. J Contam Hydrol 50:79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Siegrist RL, Crimi M, Munakata-Marr J, Illangasekare T, Lowe K, Van Cuyk S, Dugan P, Heiderscheidt J, Jackson S, Petri B, Sahl J, Seitz S. 2006. Final Report: Reaction and Transport Processes Controlling In Situ Chemical Oxidation of DNAPLs. Project ER-1290. Prepared for SERDP, Alexandria, VA, USA. http://www.serdp.org/. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  88. Siegrist RL, Crimi M, Simpkin TJ, eds. 2013. In Situ Chemical Oxidation for Groundwater Remediation. SERDP/ESTCP Remediation Technology Monograph Series, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York, NY, USA. p. 678Google Scholar
  89. Shen H, Wilson JT. 2007. Trichloroethylene removal from groundwater in flow-through columns simulating a permeable reactive barrier constructed with plant mulch. Environ Sci Technol 41:4077–4083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shetty N, Zenker M, McKeon J, Moreno J. 2009. Remediation of chlorinated ethenes, ethanes, and methanes in groundwater using carbon- and iron-based electron donor. Remediat 19:35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shiau B. 2008. In situ surfactant and chemical oxidation flushing for complete remediation of contaminants and methods of using same. U.S. Patent 2008/7364386 B2.Google Scholar
  92. Simpkin T, Sale T, Kueper B, Pitts M, Wyatt K. 1999. Surfactants and Cosolvents for NAPL Remediation: A Technology Practices Manual. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  93. Smith MM, Silva JAK, Munakata-Marr J, McCray JE. 2008. Compatibility of polymers and chemical oxidants for enhanced groundwater remediation. Environ Sci Technol 42:9296–9301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sra KS. 2010. Mobility enhancement of Mn oxide during permanganate oxidation of TCE. Ground Water Monit Remediat 30:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sra KS, Thomson NR, Barker J. 2010. Persistence of persulfate in uncontaminated aquifer materials. Environ Sci Technol 44:3098–3104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stroo HF, Unger M, Ward CH, Kavanaugh MC, Vogel C, Leeson A, Marqusee JA, Smith BP. 2003. Remediating chlorinated solvent source zones. Environ Sci Technol 37:224A–230A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stroo HF, Ward CH. 2010. In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes. SERDP/ESTCP Remediation Technology Monograph Series, Springer Science + Business Media LLC, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Suchomel EJ, Pennell KD. 2006. Reductions in contaminant mass discharge following partial mass removal from DNAPL source zones. Environ Sci Technol 40:6110–6116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sutherson SS. 1997. Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, USA.Google Scholar
  100. Sutton NB, Grotenhuis JTC, Langenhoff AAM, Rijnaarts HHM. 2010. Efforts to improve coupled in situ chemical oxidation with bioremediation: A review of optimization strategies. J Soils Sediments 11:129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Truex M, Powell T, Lynch K. 2007. In situ dechlorination of TCE during aquifer heating. Ground Water Monit Remediat 27:96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Truex MJ, Macbeth TW, Vermuel VR, Fritz BG, Mendoza DP, Mackley RD, Wietsma TW, Sandberg G, Powell T, Powers J, Pitre F, Michaelsen M, Ballock-Dixon SJ, Zhong L, Oostrom M. 2011. Demonstration of combined zero-valent iron and electrical resistance heating for in situ remediation. Environ Sci Technol 45:5346–5351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. USACE (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers). 2009. Design: In Situ Thermal Remediation. Engineering Manual. EM 1110-1-4015. USACE, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  104. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Toxic Treatments, In Situ Steam/Hot-Air Stripping Technology, Applications Analysis Report. EPA/540/A5-90/008. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA. March.Google Scholar
  105. USEPA. 2000. Engineered Approaches to In Situ Bioremediation of Chlorinated Solvents: Fundamentals and Field Applications. EPA 542-R-00-008. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  106. USEPA. 2003. The DNAPL Remediation Challenge: Is There a Case for Source Depletion? EPA/600/R-03/143. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, USA.Google Scholar
  107. USEPA. 2004. In Situ Thermal Treatment of Chlorinated Solvents. Fundamentals and Field Applications. EPA 542-R-04-010. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  108. USEPA. 2009. DNAPL Remediation: Selected Projects Where Regulatory Closure Goals Have Been Achieved. EPA/542/R-09/008. USEPA, Washington, DC, USA. www.clu-in.org. Accessed January 17, 2014.
  109. Volkering F, Breure AM, Rulkens WH. 1998. Microbiological aspects of surfactant use for biological soil remediation. Biodegradation 8:401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Waldemer RH, Tratnyek PG, Johnson RL, Nurmi JT. 2007. Oxidation of chlorinated ethenes by heat-activated persulfate: Kinetics and products. Environ Sci Technol 41:1010–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Westersund J, Fernandes L, Jones S, Clough H. 2006. Stimulating anaerobic reductive dechlorination following chemical oxidation treatment. Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, CA, USA, May 22–25. Paper No. D-56.Google Scholar
  112. Zhai X, Hua I, Rao PS, Lee LS. 2006. Cosolvent-enhanced chemical oxidation of perchloroethylene by potassium permanganate. J Contam Hydrol 82:61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dean F. Williamson
    • 1
  1. 1.CH2M HillGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations