Optimal monitoring locations for identification of ambivalent characteristics of groundwater pollution sources

Chakraborty, Anirban; Prakash, Om

doi:10.1007/s10661-022-10313-3

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In groundwater monitoring, site characterization is a complex process composed of many components and activities. It is carried on when a potential contamination threatens specific targets and should be necessary to provide background data on the site sensitivity to anthropogenic impact [1,2]. In situ monitoring plays a key role in groundwater protection and management, as it is the only way to find out reliable aquifer properties not only to assess the contamination but also to understand complex hydrogeological and hydrochemical processes [3][4][5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Well Multi-Parameter Logs and Low-Flow Purging Data for Soil Permeability Assessment and Related Effects on Groundwater Sampling

Filippi

Sappa

2023

Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cost-effective remediation is increasingly dependent on high-resolution site characterization (HRSC), which is supposed to be necessary prior to interventions. This paper aims to evaluate the use of low-flow purging and sampling water level data in estimating the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of soils. In a new quali-quantitative view, this procedure can provide much more information and knowledge about the site, reducing time and costs. In case of high heterogeneity along the well screen, the whole procedure, as well as the estimation method, could be less effective and rigorous, with related issues in the purging time. The result showed significant permeability weighted sampling, which could provide different results as the pump position changes along the well screen. The proposed study confirms this phenomenon with field data, demonstrating that the use of multiparameter well logs might be helpful in detecting the behaviour of low-permeability layers and their effects on purging and sampling. A lower correlation between low-flow permeability estimations and LeFranc test results was associated with high heterogeneity along the screen, with a longer purging time. In wells P43, MW08 and MW36, due to the presence of clay layers, results obtained differ for almost one order of magnitude and the purging time increases (by more than 16 min). However, with some precautions prior to the field work, the low-flow purging and sampling procedure could become more representative in a shorter time and provide important hydrogeological parameters such as hydraulic conductivity with many tests and high-resolution related results.

show abstract