Modeling of Funnel and Gate Systems for Remediation of Contaminated Sediment

  • Fei Yan
  • Danny D. ReibleEmail author
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Capping is typically used to control contaminant release from the underlying sediments. While conventional capping doesn’t necessarily provide the removal of contaminants, incorporating a “funnel and gate” reactive barrier with capping has the potential to treat contaminants or limit contaminant migration. The purpose of this study was to develop a model of funnel and gate systems for remediation of contaminated sediment. Numerical modeling of vertical two dimensional water flow and solute transport was built in COMSOL MULTIPHYSICS 3.4. The model was employed to evaluate the performance of the funnel and gate system, i.e. residence time, removal efficiency, and breakthrough curve. Two types of gate, reactive and adsorptive gates, were evaluated for the remediation of phenanthrene contaminated sediment. The simulated results showed that the performance of the reactive gates depended on Damkohler number at the gate, and adsorptive gate could effectively slow contaminate migration into water body, and decrease the maximum concentration at the gate. This model could potentially serve as a design tool of funnel and gate systems for a range of typical sediment capping conditions.


Hydraulic Conductivity Groundwater Flow Breakthrough Curve Solute Transport First Order Reaction 
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.



The project described was supported by Award No.: 1R01ES016154-01 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIEHS or the NIH.


  1. Bilbrey LC, Shafer JM (2001) Funnel-and-gate performance in a moderately heterogeneous flow domain. Ground Water Monit Rem 21(3):144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gupta N, Fox TC (1999) Hydrogeologic modeling for permeable reactive barriers. J Hazard Mater 68(1–2):19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hatfield K, Burris DR, Wolfe NL (1996) Analytical model for heterogeneous reactions in mixed porous media. J Environ Eng-Asce 122(8):676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hudak PF (2004) Effects of funnel and gate geometry on capture of contaminated groundwater. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 72(3):557–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Klammler H, Hatfield K, Kacimov A (2010) Analytical solutions for flow fields near drain-and-gate reactive barriers. Ground Water 48(3):427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McMurtry DC, Elton RO (1985) New approach to in situ treatment of contaminated ground waters. Environ Prog 4:168–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Murphy P, Marquette A, Reible D, Lowry GV (2006) Predicting the performance of activated carbon-, coke-, and soil-amended thin layer sediment caps. J Environ Eng-Asce 132(7):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Painter BDM (2004) Reactive barriers: hydraulic performance and design enhancements. Ground Water 42(4):609–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Palermo M, Maynord S, Miller J, Reible D (1998) Guidance for in situ subaqueous capping of contaminated sediments. Great Lakes National Program Office, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Reible D et al (2003) Comparison of the long-term risks of removal and in situ management of contaminated sediments in the Fox River. Soil Sediment Contam 12(3):325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosner DE (2000) Transport processes in chemically reacting flow systems. General Publishing Company, Toronto, p 436Google Scholar
  12. Sedivy RA, Shafer JM, Bilbrey LC (1999) Design screening tools for passive funnel and gate systems. Ground Water Monit Rem 19(1):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Selim HM, Ma L (1998) Physical nonequillibrium in soils: modeling and application. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, p 8Google Scholar
  14. Smyth DJ, Shikaze SG, Cherry JA (1997) Hydraulic performance of permeable barriers for in situ treatment of contaminated groundwater. Land Contam Reclamation 5(3):131–137Google Scholar
  15. Starr RC, Cherry JA (1994) In situ remediation of contaminated ground-water—the funnel-and-gate system. Ground Water 32(3):465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Talbert B, Thibodeaux LJ, Valsaraj KT (2001) Effectiveness of very thin soil layers in chemical release from bed sediment. Environ Prog 20(2):103–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang XQ, Thibodeaux LJ, Valsaraj KT, Reible DD (1991) Efficiency of capping contaminated bed sediments insitu.1. laboratory-scale experiments on diffusion adsorption in the capping layer. Environ Sci Technol 25(9):1578–1584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yeo SS, Shackelford CD, Evans JC (2005) Membrane behavior of model soil-bentonite backfills. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural, Environmental EngineeringThe University of Texas at AustinAustin USA
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Architectural, Environmental Engineering, Bettie Margaret Smith Chair of Environmental Health EngineeringThe University of Texas at AustinAustin USA

Personalised recommendations