Air distribution in the Borden aquifer during in situ air sparging

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

Volumn 67, Issue 1-4, 2003, Pages 113-132

  Tomlinson, D W ^a,c   Thomson, N R ^a   Johnson, R L ^b   Redman, J D ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT   (United States)

^d Sensors and Software   (Canada)

Author keywords

Air distribution; Air sparging; Geophysics

Indexed keywords

BOREHOLES; DEPOSITION; GROUND PENETRATING RADAR SYSTEMS; HYDRAULICS; MECHANICAL PERMEABILITY; NEUTRON LOGGING; SAND; SPRAYING; STRATIGRAPHY;

INJECTION FLOW;

AQUIFERS;

AIR; AIR ANALYSIS; AQUIFER; ARTICLE; CANADA; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GAS PERMEABILITY; HYDRAULIC PERMEABILITY; PERMEABILITY; PIEZOELECTRICITY; POLLUTION; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOIL; SURFACE PROPERTY; VOLATILIZATION; WATER FLOW; WATER POLLUTANT; WATER SUPPLY; WATER TABLE;

EID: 0242522965     PISSN: 01697722     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7722(03)00070-6     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Battelle, 2001. Air sparging guidance document. Prepared for the US Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. NFESC Technical Report TR-2193-ENV. 119 pp.
2. Bouwer H., Rice R.C. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources Research. 12(3):1976;423-428.
3. Brooks R.H., Corey A.T. Hydrulic properties of porous media. Hydrol. Pap. vol. 3:1964;Civ. Eng. Dep., Colo. State Univ. Fort Collins.
4. Daily W., Ramirez A. Electrical resistance tomography during in-situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savannah River Site. Journal of Applied Geophysics. 33:1995;239-249.
5. Daniels D.J. Surface-Penetrating Radar. 1996;The Institution of Electrical Engineers, London, England. 300 pp.
6. Ellis V. Well Logging for Earth Scientists. 1987;Elsevier, New York, NY. 532 pp.
7. Gilson E.W., Redman J.D., Pilon J., Annan A.P. Near surface applications of borehole radar. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Keystone, Colorado, April 28-May 2. 1996;545-554 Environmental and Geophysical Engineering Society, Denver, Colorado.
8. Hearst J.R., Nelson P.H. Well Logging for Physical Properties. 1985;McGraw-Hill, New York. 571 pp.
9. Ji W., Dahmani A., Ahlfeld D.P., Lin J.D., Hill E. III Laboratory study of air sparging: air flow visualization. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 13(4):1993;115-126.
10. Johnson P.C., Johnson R.L., Neaville C., Hansen E.E., Stearns S.M., Dortch I.J. An assessment of conventional in situ air sparging tests. Ground Water. 35:1997;765-774.
11. Johnson R.L., Johnson P.C., Johnson T.L., Thomson N.R., Leeson A. Diagnosis of in situ air sparging performance using transient groundwater pressure changes during startup and shutdown. Bioremediation Journal. 5(4):2001;299-320.
12. Kueper B.H., Frind E.O. An overview of immiscible fingering in porous media. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 2:1988;95-110.
13. Kueper B.H., Frind E.O. Two-phase flow in heterogeneous porous media: 2. Model application. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 2:1991;95-110.
14. Leeson A., Hinchee R.E., Headington G.L., Vogel C.M. Air channel distribution during air sparging: a field experiment. Hinchee R.E., Miller R.N., Johnson P.C. In Situ Aeration: Air Sparging, Bioventing, and Related Remediation Processes. 1995;215-222 Battelle Press, Columbus, OH.
15. Lundegard P.D., LaBrecque D. Air sparging in a sandy aquifer (Florence, Oregon, USA): actual and apparent radius of influence. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 19:1995;1-27.
16. Lundegard P.D., LaBrecque D. Geophysical and hydrologic monitoring of air sparging flow behavior: comparison of two extreme sites. Remediation. Summer:1998;59-71.
17. MacKay D.M., Freyburg D.L., Roberts P.V., Cherry J.A. A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: 1. Approach and overview of plume movement. Water Resources Research. 22(13):1986;2017-2029.
18. McKay D.J., Acomb L.J. Neutron moisture probe measurements of fluid displacement during in situ air sparging. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 16(4):1996;86-94.
19. Redman J.D., Gilson E., Kunert M., Pilon J., Annan A.P. Borehole radar for environmental applications: selected case studies. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Department of Geoscience and Technology, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, September 1996. 1996;433-438.
20. Schima S., LaBrecque D.J., Lundegard P.D. Monitoring air sparging using resistivity tomography. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 16(2):1996;131-138.
21. Sudicky E.A. A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer: spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in the dispersion process. Water Resources Research. 22(13):1986;2069-2082.
22. Thomson N.R., Johnson R.L. Air distribution during in situ air sparging: an overview of mathematical modeling. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 72:2000;265-282.
23. Topp G.C., Davis J.L., Annan A.P. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurements in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resources Research. 16(3):1980;574-582.
24. Turcke M.A., Kueper B.H. Geostatistical analysis of the Borden aquifer hydraulic conductivity field. Journal of Hydrology. 178(1-4):1996;223-240.
25. Williamson P.R. A guide to the limits of resolution imposed by scattering in ray tomography. Geophysics. 56:1991;202-207.
26. Wolf S.H., Celia M.A., Hess K.M. Evaluation of hydraulic conductivities calculated from multiport-permeameter measurements. Ground Water. 29(4):1991;516-525.
27. Woodbury A.D., Sudicky E.A. The geostatistical characteristics of the Borden aquifer. Water Resources Research. 27(4):1991;533-546.