Direct-push geochemical profiling for assessment of inorganic chemical heterogeneity in aquifers

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

Volumn 69, Issue 3-4, 2004, Pages 215-232

  Schulmeister, Marcia K ^a,c   Healey, John M ^a   Butler Jr , James J ^a   McCall, G Wesley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b Geoprobe Systems Inc   (United States)

^c EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical heterogeneity; Direct push geochemical profiling; Discrete depth; Hydrochemical; Redox gradient

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL MODIFICATION; GROUNDWATER GEOCHEMISTRY; HEAT TREATMENT; IMPURITIES; PH EFFECTS; REACTION KINETICS;

INORGANIC GROUNDWATER CHEMISTRY; ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS;

AQUIFERS;

CHLORINE; GROUND WATER; INORGANIC COMPOUND; IRON; MANGANESE; NITROGEN; OXYGEN;

ANALYTICAL METHOD; AQUIFER; GROUNDWATER; HETEROGENEITY; HYDROCHEMISTRY;

ANALYTIC METHOD; AQUIFER; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CONTAMINATION; ELECTROPHORETIC MOBILITY; GEOCHEMISTRY; PH; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; OXIDATION-REDUCTION; SOIL; WATER; WATER POLLUTANTS; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 1542719061     PISSN: 01697722     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2003.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. American Public Health Association Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 1971;American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard practice for expedited site characterization of vadose zone and ground water contamination at hazardous waste contaminated sites. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 1998;D-6235-98 ASTM, Conshohocken, PA.
3. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard guide for direct-push water sampling for geoenvironmental investigations. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 04.09, Soil and Rock II. 1999;D6001 ASTM, Conshohocken, PA.
4. Azadpour-Keeley A., Keeley J.W., Russell H.H., Sewell G.W. Monitored natural attenuation of contaminants in the subsurface: processes. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 20(2):2001;97-107.
5. Baedecker M.J., Cozzarelli I.M., Eganhouse R.P., Siegel D.I., Bennett P.C. Crude oil in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer: III. Biogeochemical reactions and mass balance modeling in anoxic ground water. Applied Geochemistry. 8:1993;569-586.
6. Barcelona, M.J., Gibb, J.P., Miller, R.A., 1983. A guide to the selection of materials for monitoring well construction and ground-water sampling. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 327, Champaign, Illinois.
7. Barcelona M.J., Holm T.R., Schock M.R., George G.K. Spatial and temporal gradients in aquifer oxidation-reduction conditions. Water Resources Research. 25(5):1989;991-1003.
8. Bjerg P.L., Christensen T.H. Spatial and temporal small-scale variation in groundwater quality of a shallow sandy aquifer. Journal of Hydrology. 131(1-4):1992;133-149.
9. Borden R.C., Gomez C.A., Becker M.T. Geochemical indicators of bioremediation. Ground Water. 33(5):1995;180-189.
10. Brun A., Engesaard P. Modelling of transport and biogeochemical processes in pollution plumes: literature review and model development. Journal of Hydrology. 256(3-4):2002;211-227.
11. Burton J.C., Walker J.L., Aggarwal P.K., Meyer W.T. Argonne's expedited site characterization: an integrated approach to cost- and time-effective remedial investigations. Proceedings of the 88th Annual Meeting and Exposition of the Air and Waste Management Association, San Antonio, Texas. 1995;1-27 Air and Waste Management Association, Philadelphia, PA.
12. Butler Jr., J.J., Healey, J.M., Zheng, L., McCall, W., Schulmeister, M.K., 1999. Hydrostratigraphic characterization of unconsolidated alluvial deposits with direct-push sensor technology. Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-40, 30 pp. Also available at: http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Hydro/ Publications/OFR99_40/index.html.
13. Butler J.J. Jr., Healey J.M., McCall G.W., Garnett E.J., Loheide S.P. II Hydraulic tests with direct-push equipment. Ground Water. 40(1):2002;25-36.
14. Chapelle F.H., McMahon P.B., Dubrosky N.M., Fujita R.F., Oaksford E.T., Vroblesky D.A. Deducing the distribution of terminal electron-accepting processes in hydrologically diverse systems. Water Resources Research. 3(2):1995;359-371.
15. Church P.E., Gvanato G.E. Bias in ground-water data caused by well bore flow in long screen wells. Ground Water. 34(2):1996;262-273.
16. Cirmo C.P., McDonell J.J. Linking hydrologic and biogeochemical controls on nitrogen transport in near-stream zones of temperate-forested catchments: a review. Journal of Hydrology. 199(1-2):1997;88-120.
17. Cordry K. Ground water sampling without wells. Proceedings of the National Water Well Association, Sixth National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Monitoring. 1986;262-271 National Water Well Association, Columbus, OH.
18. Dean J. Lange's Handbook of Chemistry. 12th ed. 1979;McGraw-Hill, New York.
19. Drever J.I. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters. 3rd ed. 1997;Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
20. Farrar J.A. Research and standardization needs for direct-push technology applied to environmental site characterization. Morgan J.H. Sampling Environmental Media. ASTM Special Technical Publication. vol. 1282:1996;93-107 ASTM, Philadelphia, PA.
21. Geoprobe Systems, 2001. Vertical profiling made easy with Geoprobe's groundwater profiler. Product Bulletin No. PBGP0701: Groundwater Profiler. Kejr, Salina, KS.
22. Hall, J., 1998. Nitrate in a confined alluvial aquifer, Douglas County, Kansas. MSc Thesis, University of Kansas. 110 pp.
23. Harper M.P., Davison W., Tych W. Temporal, spatial, and resolution constraints for in-situ sampling devices using diffusional equilibrium: dialysis and DET. Environmental Science and Technology. 31(11):1997;3110-3119.
24. Hem J.D. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics of natural waters. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper. 2254:1985;82.
25. Hurt K.L., Beck F.P., Wilson J.T. Implications of subsurface heterogeneity at a potential monitored natural attenuation site. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 21(3):2001;59-62.
26. Jacobs J.A., Kram M., Lieberman S. Direct-push technology sampling methods. Lehr J. Standard Handbook of Environmental Science, Health, and Technology. 2000;11.151-11.163 McGraw Hill, New York.
27. Jiang, X., 1991. A field and laboratory study of the scale dependence of hydraulic conductivity. MSc Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
28. Kidwell, J., 1999. Nitrate distribution and reduction in a semi-confined alluvial aquifer: Geohydrologic Experimental and Monitoring Site (GEMS), Douglas County, Kansas. MSc Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
29. Langmuir D. Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry. 1997;Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
30. McCall W., Butler J.J. Jr., Healey J.M., Lanier A.A., Sellwood S.M., Garnett E.J. A dual-tube direct-push method for vertical profiling of hydraulic conductivity in unconsolidated formations. Environmental and Engineering Geoscience. 8(2):2002;75-84.
31. McElwee, C.D., Butler Jr., J.J., 1995. Characterization of heterogeneties controlling transport and fate of pollutants in unconsolidated sand and gravel aquifers, final report. Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-16. Lawrence, KS.
32. McVay, E., 2000. Geochemical denitrifying and nitrifying characteristic of a nitrate-contaminated alluvial aquifer, Northeastern Kansas. MSc Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
33. Nimick, D.A., von Guerard, P., 1998. Science for watershed decisions on abandoned mine lands: review of preliminary results. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Report 98-297, Denver, CO. 70 pp.
34. Norris R. Overview of papers: historic perspective on the development of the slow-release concept. Koenigberg S., Norris R. Accelerated Bioremediation Using Slow Release Compounds: Selected Battelle Conference Papers, 1993-1999. 1999;xxi-xxviii Regenisis Bioremediation Products, San Clemente, CA.
35. Pitkin S.E., Cherry J.A., Ingleton R.A., Broholm M. Field demonstration using the Waterloo profiler. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 19(2):1999;122-131.
36. Puls R.W., Paul C.J. Multi-layer sampling in conventional monitoring wells for improved estimation of vertical contaminant distributions and mass. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 25(1-2):1997;85-111.
37. Robbat A. Jr. A guideline for dynamic workplans and field analytics: the keys to cost-effective site characterization and cleanup. Meyers A. The Encyclopedia of Environmental Analysis and Remediaton. 1998;1674-1687 Wiley, New York.
38. Ronen D., Magaritz M., Gvirtzman H., Garner W. Microscale chemical heterogeneity in groundwater. Journal of Hydrology. 92(1-2):1987;173-178.
39. Ronen D., Magaritz M., Levy I. An in-situ multilevel sampler for preventive monitoring and study for hydrochemical profiles in aquifers. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 7(4):1987;69-74.
40. Ryan M.C., MacQuarrie K.T.B., Harman J., McLellan J. Field and modeling evidence for a stagnant flow zone in the upper meter of sandy phreatic aquifers. Journal of Hydrology. 233(1-4):2000;223-240.
41. Schulmeister, M.K., 2000. Hydrology and geochemistry of a floodplain margin. PhD Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
42. Schulmeister M.K., Butler J.J. Jr., Whittemore D.O., Birk S., Healey J.M., McCall G.W., Sellwood S.M., Townsend M.A. A new direct-push-based approach for the chemical investigation of stream-aquifer interactions. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs. 33(6):2001;426.
43. Schulmeister M.K., Butler J.J. Jr., Healey J.M., Zheng L., Wysocki D.A., McCall G.W. Direct-push electrical conductivity logging for high-resolution hydrostratigraphic characterization. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 2003;. (in press).
44. Schulmeister M.K., Healey J.M., McCall G.W., Birk S.M., Butler J.J. Jr. High-resolution chemical characterization of an alluvial aquifer. Kovar K., Hrkal Z. Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Modelling: A Few Steps Closer to Reality. IAHS Publication. vol. 277:2003;International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Wallingford, UK. 23(3), 52-62.
45. Schulmeister M.K., Healey J.M., McCall G.W., Birk S.M., Butler J.J. Jr. High-resolution chemical characterization of an alluvial aquifer. Kovar K., Hrkal Z. Calibration and Reliability in Groundwater Modelling: A Few Steps Closer to Reality. IAHS Publication. vol. 277:2003;International Association of Hydrological Sciences, Wallingford, UK. 23(3), 52-62.
46. Siegel S. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 1956;McGraw-Hill Book, New York.
47. Smith R.L., Harvey R.W., LeBlanc D.R. Importance of closely spaced vertical sampling in delineating chemical and microbiological gradients in groundwater studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 7(3):1991;285-300.
48. Smolley M., Kappmeyer J.C. Cone penetrometer tests and hydropunch sampling: a screening technique for plume definition. Ground Water Monitoring Review. 11(1):1991;101-106.
49. Sudicky E.A., Huyakorn P.S. Contaminant migration in imperfectly known heterogeneous groundwater systems. U.S. Natl. Report, Int. Union Geol. Geophys. 1987-1990 Rev. Geophys. 29:1991;240-253.
50. Tillman N., Leonard L. Vehicle mounted direct push systems, sampling tools and case histories: an overview of an emerging technology. Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, Ground Water Management. vol. 17:1993;177-188.
51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators. U.S. EPA 510-B-97-001:1997;EPA Office Underground Storage Tanks, Washington, DC.
52. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Field Applications of In-Situ Remediation Technologies: Permeable Reactive Barriers. U.S. EPA-542-R-99-002:1999;Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington DC.
53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Improving Sampling, Analysis, and Data Management for Site Investigation and Cleanup. U.S. EPA 542/F/01/030a:2001;Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
54. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Using Dynamic Field Activities for On-Site Decision Making: A Guide for Project Managers. EPA/540/F-03/011:2003;U.S. EPA Offices of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/dfa/guidedoc.htm.
55. Vroblesky D.A., Chapelle F.H. Temporal and spatial changes of terminal electron-accepting processes in a petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer and the significance for contaminant biodegradation. Water Resources Research. 30(5):1994;1561-1570.
56. Whittemore D.O. Geochemical differentiation of oil and gas brine from other saltwater sources contaminating water resources: case studies from Kansas and Oklahoma. Environmental Geosciences. 2(1):1995;15-31.
57. Wiedemeier T.H., Swanson M.A., Moutoux D.E., Gordon E.K., Wilson J.T., Wilson B.H., Kampbell D.H., Miller R.N., Hansen J.E., Chapelle F.H. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenuation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water. U.S. EPA 600/R-98/128:1998;National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
58. YSI Incorporated YSI 6-Series Environmental Monitoring Systems Operating Manual. 1998;YSI, Yellow Springs, OH.
59. YSI Incorporated Technical Note: Measuring ORP on YSI 6-Series Sondes: Tips, Cautions, and Limitations. 1999;YSI, Yellow Springs, OH.
60. Zemo D.A., Pierce Y.G., Gallinatti J.D. Cone penetrometer testing and discrete-depth ground water sampling techniques: a cost-effective method of site characterization in a multiple-aquifer setting. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 14(4):1994;176-182.
61. Zemo D.A., Delfino T.A., Gallinatti J.D., Baker V.A., Hilpert L.R. Field comparison of analytical results from discrete-depth ground water samplers. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 15(1):1995;133-141.