Recovery efficiency of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) with mass transfer limitation

Abstract

[1] Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is an effective strategy for water resources management and has been widely used in many contaminated and saline aquifers. However, its recovery efficiency (RE) may be significantly affected by mass transfer limitations. A numerical model is developed to simulate ASR performance by combining the convergent and divergent dispersion models with a first-order mass transfer model. By analyzing the concentration history at the pumping well, we obtain simple and effective relationships for investigating ASR efficiency under various mass transfer parameters, including capacity ratio and mass transfer timescale, and operational parameters, including injection durations and well-pumping rates. On the basis of such relationships, one can conveniently determine whether a site with mass transfer limitations is appropriate or not for ASR and how many ASR cycles are required for achieving a positive RE. Results indicate that the immobile domain may function as a contaminant source or sink or both during the recovery phase and RE usually improves with well-flow rate, the decrease of capacity ratio, and the ASR cycles. However, RE is a nonmonotonic function of the mass transfer timescale and the injection duration. A critical timescale is given for quantifying this nonmonotonic behavior. When the injection period is greater than such a critical value, increasing injection period results in a higher RE. Contrarily, when the injection period is less than the critical value, increasing the injection period may even yield a lower RE.

Control of saltwater intrusion by aquifer storage and recovery

“…The impacts of different hydrological factors on RE have been assessed by Lowry and Anderson (2006) through a set of parametric studies. The enhancement of ASR efficiency with multiple ASR cycles has been reported by Lu et al (2011) and Sherif and Shetty (2013) using the numerical approach.…”

“…The buffer zone basically holds the recoverable fraction of water. Therefore, ASR can be considered as one of the management options to control SWI besides its other positive role in water production/demand issues and maintaining the seasonal fluctuation in groundwater storage (Chen, 2014;Lu et al, 2011). Misut and Voss (2007) investigated the beneficial aspects of ASR in controlling SWI by defining a series of ASR wells in different confined/unconfined aquifers of a regional case study in the USA.…”

Integration of Artificial Recharge and Recovery Systems for Impaired Water Sources in Urban Settings: Overcoming Current Limitations and Engineering Challenges

“…However, open recharge basins can experience excessive algae blooms when spreading nutrient-rich water, water losses due to evaporation, and occasionally an increase in mosquitos (Grü tzmacher and Reuleaux, 2011). After infiltration, the water quality in some ARR systems has been shown to be degraded by enhanced mixing (Eastwood and Stanfield, 2001;Lowry and Anderson, 2006), limited mass transfer (Culkin et al, 2008;Lu et al, 2011), and metal leaching/acid rock drainage (Mirecki, 2004;Arthur, 2005).…”

“…(4). For rate-limited mass transfer, that is, the solute exchanges between mobile and immobile domains due to aquifer heterogeneity and preferential flow, a dual-domain ARR simulation needs to be employed (Culkin et al, 2008;Lu et al, 2011).…”

Flow dynamics in hyper-saline aquifers: hydro-geophysical monitoring and modeling

“…The latter investigated the tilting of the saltwater-freshwater interface, a phenomenon known as "buoyancy stratification". More recent studies have analyzed the efficiency of ASR for both field and synthetic cases (e.g., Kumar and Kimbler, 1970;Moulder, 1970;Kimbler et al, 1975;Ward et al, 2007Ward et al, , 2008Lu et al, 2011;Zuurbier et al, 2014). Ward et al (2008) conducted a numerical study to evaluate the efficiency of ASR under density-dependent conditions with anisotropy and heterogeneity of high and low permeable layers.…”