Comparison of line-drive and push-pull flushing schemes

T. B. Boving, W. J. Blanford, J. E. McCray, C. E. Divine, Mark L Brusseau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The performance of cyclodextrin (CD)-enhanced push-pull (PP) and line-drive (LD) approaches to remediation of a site contaminated with a multicomponent dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) present in a surficial sandy aquifer was evaluated in this field study. The treatment techniques were compared to each other and to the projected performance of a conventional water-flushing system. Performance was assessed based on contaminant mass removed per unit volume of extraction solution and per unit time of operation. As expected, the CD-enhanced LD and PP approaches to remediation were more efficient than conventional flushing with water. Between the two techniques, the PP approach performed 1.5 to 2 times better than the LD approach, particularly for higher DNAPL saturation of the source zone. This result suggests that forcing the flushing solution directly into and through the DNAPL source zone minimized flow bypassing and consequently resulted in a more efficient transfer of contaminant mass between the DNAPL phase and the flushing solution. Nonuniform treatment zone contaminant concentrations and changes in contaminant composition influenced the treatment performances, but these effects were small and still permitted the comparison of successive tests. Although CD was used as the solubility-enhancing flushing agent in this study, it is likely that the results can be transferred to other chemically enhanced flushing technologies that use, for example, surfactants or alcohols.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-86
Number of pages12
JournalGround Water Monitoring and Remediation
Volume28
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2008

Fingerprint

flushing
Cyclodextrins
nonaqueous phase liquid
Impurities
Liquids
Remediation
pollutant
remediation
Aquifers
Water
Alcohols
Surface active agents
Solubility
surfactant
comparison
alcohol
solubility
Chemical analysis
aquifer
saturation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Comparison of line-drive and push-pull flushing schemes. / Boving, T. B.; Blanford, W. J.; McCray, J. E.; Divine, C. E.; Brusseau, Mark L.

In: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 28, No. 1, 12.2008, p. 75-86.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Boving, T. B. ; Blanford, W. J. ; McCray, J. E. ; Divine, C. E. ; Brusseau, Mark L. / Comparison of line-drive and push-pull flushing schemes. In: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 2008 ; Vol. 28, No. 1. pp. 75-86.
@article{9207849ac6ad4115a727a9e657b6dc22,
title = "Comparison of line-drive and push-pull flushing schemes",
abstract = "The performance of cyclodextrin (CD)-enhanced push-pull (PP) and line-drive (LD) approaches to remediation of a site contaminated with a multicomponent dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) present in a surficial sandy aquifer was evaluated in this field study. The treatment techniques were compared to each other and to the projected performance of a conventional water-flushing system. Performance was assessed based on contaminant mass removed per unit volume of extraction solution and per unit time of operation. As expected, the CD-enhanced LD and PP approaches to remediation were more efficient than conventional flushing with water. Between the two techniques, the PP approach performed 1.5 to 2 times better than the LD approach, particularly for higher DNAPL saturation of the source zone. This result suggests that forcing the flushing solution directly into and through the DNAPL source zone minimized flow bypassing and consequently resulted in a more efficient transfer of contaminant mass between the DNAPL phase and the flushing solution. Nonuniform treatment zone contaminant concentrations and changes in contaminant composition influenced the treatment performances, but these effects were small and still permitted the comparison of successive tests. Although CD was used as the solubility-enhancing flushing agent in this study, it is likely that the results can be transferred to other chemically enhanced flushing technologies that use, for example, surfactants or alcohols.",
author = "Boving, {T. B.} and Blanford, {W. J.} and McCray, {J. E.} and Divine, {C. E.} and Brusseau, {Mark L}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1745-6592.2007.00182.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "75--86",
journal = "Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation",
issn = "1069-3629",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of line-drive and push-pull flushing schemes

AU - Boving, T. B.

AU - Blanford, W. J.

AU - McCray, J. E.

AU - Divine, C. E.

AU - Brusseau, Mark L

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - The performance of cyclodextrin (CD)-enhanced push-pull (PP) and line-drive (LD) approaches to remediation of a site contaminated with a multicomponent dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) present in a surficial sandy aquifer was evaluated in this field study. The treatment techniques were compared to each other and to the projected performance of a conventional water-flushing system. Performance was assessed based on contaminant mass removed per unit volume of extraction solution and per unit time of operation. As expected, the CD-enhanced LD and PP approaches to remediation were more efficient than conventional flushing with water. Between the two techniques, the PP approach performed 1.5 to 2 times better than the LD approach, particularly for higher DNAPL saturation of the source zone. This result suggests that forcing the flushing solution directly into and through the DNAPL source zone minimized flow bypassing and consequently resulted in a more efficient transfer of contaminant mass between the DNAPL phase and the flushing solution. Nonuniform treatment zone contaminant concentrations and changes in contaminant composition influenced the treatment performances, but these effects were small and still permitted the comparison of successive tests. Although CD was used as the solubility-enhancing flushing agent in this study, it is likely that the results can be transferred to other chemically enhanced flushing technologies that use, for example, surfactants or alcohols.

AB - The performance of cyclodextrin (CD)-enhanced push-pull (PP) and line-drive (LD) approaches to remediation of a site contaminated with a multicomponent dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) present in a surficial sandy aquifer was evaluated in this field study. The treatment techniques were compared to each other and to the projected performance of a conventional water-flushing system. Performance was assessed based on contaminant mass removed per unit volume of extraction solution and per unit time of operation. As expected, the CD-enhanced LD and PP approaches to remediation were more efficient than conventional flushing with water. Between the two techniques, the PP approach performed 1.5 to 2 times better than the LD approach, particularly for higher DNAPL saturation of the source zone. This result suggests that forcing the flushing solution directly into and through the DNAPL source zone minimized flow bypassing and consequently resulted in a more efficient transfer of contaminant mass between the DNAPL phase and the flushing solution. Nonuniform treatment zone contaminant concentrations and changes in contaminant composition influenced the treatment performances, but these effects were small and still permitted the comparison of successive tests. Although CD was used as the solubility-enhancing flushing agent in this study, it is likely that the results can be transferred to other chemically enhanced flushing technologies that use, for example, surfactants or alcohols.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=39749203735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=39749203735&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2007.00182.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2007.00182.x

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:39749203735

VL - 28

SP - 75

EP - 86

JO - Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation

JF - Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation

SN - 1069-3629

IS - 1

ER -