scholarly journals Optimization of in situ emplacement of nano-sized FeS for permeable reactive barrier construction

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. M. Olson ◽  
J.-H. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Reactive Barrier

An Injectable Apatite Permeable Reactive Barrier for In Situ 90 Sr Immobilization

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince R. Vermeul ◽  
Jim E. Szecsody ◽  
Brad G. Fritz ◽  
Mark D. Williams ◽  
Robert C. Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Reactive Barrier

Evaluation of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) integrity using electrical imaging methods

Geophysics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Slater ◽  
Andrew Binley
Keyword(s):  
Geophysical Methods ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Electrical Measurements ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Imaging Methods ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Electrical Imaging ◽  
Granular Iron

The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is a promising in‐situ technology for treatment of hydrocarbon‐contaminated groundwater. A PRB is typically composed of granular iron which degrades chlorinated organics into potentially nontoxic dehalogenated organic compounds and inorganic chloride. Geophysical methods may assist assessment of in‐situ barrier integrity and evaluation of long‐term barrier performance. The highly conductive granular iron makes the PRB an excellent target for conductivity imaging methods. In addition, electrochemical storage of charge at the iron–solution interface generates an impedance that decreases with frequency. The PRB is thus a potential induced polarization (IP) target. Surface and cross‐borehole electrical imaging (conductivity and IP) was conducted at a PRB installed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Kansas City plant. Poor signal strength (25% of measurements exceeding 8% reciprocal error) and insensitivity at depth, which results from current channeling in the highly conductive iron, limited surface imaging. Crosshole 2D and 3D electrical measurements were highly effective at defining an accurate, approximately 0.3‐m resolution, cross‐sectional image of the barrier in‐situ. Both the conductivity and IP images reveal the barrier geometry. Crosshole images obtained for seven panels along the barrier suggest variability in iron emplacement along the installation. On five panels the PRB structure is imaged as a conductive feature exceeding 1 S/m. However, on two panels the conductivity in the assumed vicinity of the PRB is less than 1 S/m. The images also suggest variability in the integrity of the contact between the PRB and bedrock. This noninvasive, in‐situ evaluation of barrier geometry using conductivity/IP has broad implications for the long‐term monitoring of PRB performance as a method of hydrocarbon removal.

Commercial Activated Carbon Modified with Sulfuric Acid: A Potential Permeable Reactive Barrier Material for In Situ Remediation of Cr(VI) from Groundwater

2011 ◽  
Vol 343-344 ◽  
pp. 172-176
Author(s):  
Jun Ping Liu ◽  
Huan Zhen Zhang ◽  
Xiao Meng Liu
Keyword(s):  
Activated Carbon ◽  
Sulfuric Acid ◽  
Adsorption Capacity ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Contaminated Groundwater ◽  
Batch Studies ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Chemically Modified ◽  
Synthetic Groundwater

In this study, removal of Cr(Ⅵ) from synthetic groundwater by adsorption onto commercial activated carbon (CAC) made up of coconut shell is investigated in batch studies. Surface modification of CAC with sulfuric acid is also conducted to evaluate its removal performance. It is evident that CAC chemically modified with sulfuric acid (sulfuric-treated CAC) demonstrates higher Cr(Ⅵ) removal efficiency than non-treated CAC in dealing with contaminated groundwater with the pH is about 7.0, suggesting that sulfuric-treated CAC is suitable for the in-situ remediation of Cr(Ⅵ) contaminated groundwater. Adsorption of Cr(Ⅵ) is strongly affected by pH, the granular sulfuric-treated CAC exhibits the highest Cr(Ⅵ) adsorption capacity at pH 1.5 and the maximum Cr(Ⅵ) adsorption capacity of which estimated with the Langmuir model was 8.24mg/g.

Ammonium removal from groundwater using a zeolite permeable reactive barrier: a pilot-scale demonstration

2014 ◽  
Vol 70 (9) ◽  
pp. 1540-1547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shengpin Li ◽  
Guoxin Huang ◽  
Xiangke Kong ◽  
Yingzhao Yang ◽  
Fei Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Pilot Scale ◽  
Field Application ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Capacity Limits ◽  
Term Operation ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
N Removal

In situ remediation of ammonium-contaminated groundwater is possible through a zeolite permeable reactive barrier (PRB); however, zeolite's finite sorption capacity limits the long-term field application of PRBs. In this paper, a pilot-scale PRB was designed to achieve sustainable use of zeolite in removing ammonium (NH4+-N) through sequential nitrification, adsorption, and denitrification. An oxygen-releasing compound was added to ensure aerobic conditions in the upper layers of the PRB where NH4+-N was microbially oxidized to nitrate. Any remaining NH4+-N was removed abiotically in the zeolite layer. Under lower redox conditions, nitrate formed during nitrification was removed by denitrifying bacteria colonizing the zeolite. During the long-term operation (328 days), more than 90% of NH4+-N was consistently removed, and approximately 40% of the influent NH4+-N was oxidized to nitrate. As much as 60% of the nitrate formed in the PRB was reduced in the zeolite layer after 300 days of operation. Removal of NH4+-N from groundwater using a zeolite PRB through bacterial nitrification and abiotic adsorption is a promising approach. The zeolite PRB has the advantage of achieving sustainable use of zeolite and immediate NH4+-N removal.

In‐Situ Treatment of Landfill Leachate with Permeable Reactive Barriers

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Boyes
Keyword(s):  
Landfill Leachate ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barriers ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Hazardous Wastes ◽  
Food Wastes ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Viable Solution ◽  
Reactive Barriers

As precipitation percolates through a landfill, it comes in contact with decomposing waste ranging from food wastes to factory wastes even to hazardous wastes. That water can then leach elements from the wastes and become contaminated forming what is typically called landfill leachate. Leachate has the potential to cause many health problems if allowed to reach the groundwater and every effort is made to slow and minimize its effect. The most common way of dealing with leachate is to pump it out of the base of the landfill with a series of pipes and pumps, but what about the treatment of the leachate in‐situ through the use of a permeable reactive barrier? Is it a viable solution?

scholarly journals Application of permeable reactive barrier in groundwater remediation

2019 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 06021
Author(s):  
Qianfeng He ◽  
Shihui Si ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Xiaoyu Tu
Keyword(s):  
Groundwater Remediation ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Structure Type ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Term Operation ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
External Power ◽  
Remediation Design

As a new in-situ remediation of groundwater, compared with the traditional “pump and treat” technology, the permeable reactive barrier (PRB) has the advantages of low cost, no external power, the small disturbance to groundwater, small secondary pollution and long-term operation, this paper introduces the basic concept of PRB, technical principle, structure type, the principle of active materials selection and mechanisms of remediation, design and installation factors, it provides ideas for further research and application of PRB technology in groundwater remediation projects in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document