Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses

Taylor, Tammy P.; Pennell, Kurt D.; Abriola, Linda M.; Dane, J. H.

doi:10.1016/s0169-7722(00)00185-6

Cited by 107 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the hydrocarbon solubility is highly dependent on the flow rate of surfactant solution. (Taylor et al, 2001). Soil washing using surfactants was innovated for soils contaminated with oil hydrocarbons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Soils Using Surfactants: Coulumn Study

Hirotoshi¹

2012

American Journal of Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents the experimental remediation studies of diesel contaminated soil with Sodium Deducible Sulfate (SDS) as surfactants using column tests. Sandy selected soil had the grain size distribution of # 40 meshes to the # 200 mesh range. The soil columns were contaminated with adequate diesel amount to achieve the concentration of 10000 and 20000 ppm in soil. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 percent of surfactants and pH values of 4, 7, 9 and 11, were examined. After 72 h, washing began and all tests were continued up to 10 pore volume and the trend of remediation and permeability of soil during the test was investigated. pH and TPH of outlet solution measured during 2, 4, 6 and 10 pore volumes. Times were recorded during 0.67, 1, 1.33, 2, 3.33, 4, 5.67, 6, 7.33, 8, 8.67, 9.33 and 10 pore volumes, in order to calculate permeability values.Results showed that in all states the quantity of remediation for acidic states was very low and efficiency of remediation when using only water was about (1:3) of maximum amount. For soil with initial contaminant concentration of 10000 ppm the maximum efficiency is for surfactant in the concentration of 0.3 and pH = 11 and for soil with initial contamination amount of 20000 ppm the maximum efficiency is for surfactant in the concentration of 0.1 and pH = 11. By increasing the amount of surfactant concentration, the permeability of soil decreased and in pH = 11 the amount of permeability is maximum. With increasing initial contamination quantity rate of increasing of remediation and permeability decreased. Consequently in the low level of contamination the effect of washing solution pH value in soil remediation and permeability is more in comparing with high level of contamination. For initial contamination of 10000 ppm optimum removal efficiency obtained 35% for surfactant of 0.3% and pH = 11. For initial contamination of 20000 ppm, optimum removal efficiency is obtained as 45% for 0.1% of surfactant and pH = 11. Using of higher soil column, sampling from different elevation for investigating remediation trend in height and surveying temperature effect on diesel contaminated soil remediation can help to modification procedure and improvement of efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Soils Using Surfactants: Coulumn Study

Hirotoshi¹

2012

American Journal of Environmental Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dwarakanath and Pope, 1998 For transport experiments (1-D column and 2-D box), TCE-DNAPL was dyed with 10 -4 M OilRed-O (Alfa Aesar) for the purpose of visualization. Previous research has shown that the addition of Oil-Red-O at this concentration does not significantly affect the relevant physical properties of the DNAPL (Taylor et al, 2001), nor the partitioning behavior of the tracers (Willson et al, 2000).…”

Section: Ii221 Materials and Analytical Methodsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Light transmission analysis was performed before and after each surfactant flush to evaluate the effect of aggressive mass removal on SZA, while effluent samples were collected continuously during the surfactant floods to determine total mass removed due to micellar enhanced solubilization. Following the introduction of the surfactant pulse, flow through the box was interrupted for 12 hours to maximize solubilization since dissolution during surfactant flooding has been observed to be a rate limited process (Pennell et al 1994, Taylor et al 2001. Side-port samples were also collected to evaluate plume development during the surfactant flushing.…”

Section: Ii123 Aquifer Cell Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While most research related to surfactant enhanced source zone remediation has focused on the solubilization behavior of pure organic liquids (Diallo et al 1994, Jafvert et al 1994, Taylor et al 2001, the NAPL present at contaminated sites often consists of a number of different components, including grease, stabilizing agents, fuels and various different solvents (Jackson and Dwarakanath 1999, McCray et al 2000, Moran et al 2007). Therefore, a detailed understanding of the contribution of each component in these mixtures to solubilization behavior is required to accurately predict mass removal and plume response.…”

Section: Ii121 Introduction To Dissolution and Micellar Solubilizmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metric Identification and Protocol Development for Characterizing DNAPL Source Zone Architecture and Associated Plume Response

Abriola¹,

Miller²,

Pennell³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThe overarching goal of this research is to develop and demonstrate a comprehensive approach for field characterization of DNAPL source zones which quantifies the key features that control plume response. Here the intent is to integrate targeted (local-scale) in situ tests with transect-based observations of downstream contaminant flux or concentration and information on subsurface geologic variability. To address its primary goal, the research encompasses the following specific objectives: (1) identification of the most information rich metrics for linking NAPL architecture to plume response; (2) development and refinement of in situ test methods and modeling tools that can be used to quantify identified metrics in targeted regions of the source zone; (3) integration of these metrics and tools with current machine learning characterization methods for an overall source zone assessment protocol; and (4) development of simplified models for prediction of plume response. The research approach integrates batch, column and aquifer cell experiments with mathematical modeling and data processing tools to identify and quantify features of the DNAPL architecture controlling down gradient plume response. SUBJECT TERMSField characterization; Metric identification; DNAPL; SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:No classified information

show abstract

“…This difficulty has contributed to the apparent failure of many of the DNAPL source removal technologies to achieve cleanup goals (10,(15)(16)(17). Even when sources can be located and accessed, the ability of source removal technologies to improve groundwater quality and reduce overall plume management costs is controversial (18)(19)(20)(21). Modeling and limited data suggest that even removing more than 90% of the source will not reduce concentrations in groundwater (18).…”

Section: Nature Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%