In situ remediation of tetrachloroethylene and its intermediates in groundwater using an anaerobic/aerobic permeable reactive barrier

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (34) ◽  
pp. 26615-26622 ◽  
Author(s):  
SheJiang Liu ◽  
QinMing Yang ◽  
YongKui Yang ◽  
Hui Ding ◽  
Yun Qi
Keyword(s):  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
In Situ Remediation ◽  
Reactive Barrier

In-situ remediation of acid mine drainage using a permeable reactive barrier in Aznalcóllar (Sw Spain)

2011 ◽  
Vol 191 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 287-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oriol Gibert ◽  
Tobias Rötting ◽  
José Luis Cortina ◽  
Joan de Pablo ◽  
Carlos Ayora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acid Mine Drainage ◽  
Mine Drainage ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
In Situ Remediation ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Sw Spain ◽  
Acid Mine

scholarly journals Research progress of in-situ remediation of polluted soil and groundwater by electrokinetic and permeable reaction barrier

2020 ◽  
Vol 143 ◽  
pp. 02043
Author(s):  
Shengjie Peng ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Xiaohui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Electrokinetic Remediation ◽  
Green Technology ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Research Progress ◽  
In Situ Remediation ◽  
Technical Problems ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Metal Organic

The combination of electrokinetic remediation and permeable reactive barrier (EK-PRB combined remediation technology) is a new green technology for in-situ removal of soil and groundwater pollutants. This technology combines the advantages of electrokinetic remediation and permeable reactive barrier technology, and can deal with different types of organic and inorganic pollutants. It has the characteristics of convenient installation, simple operation, no secondary pollution, etc., and has broad development and application prospect. This paper introduces the technical principle of EK-PRB, summarizes the latest research results on the remediation of heavy metal, organic matter and nitrate contaminated soil and groundwater by the electrokinetic remediation and PRB. Finally,the technical problems of combinated remediation were pointed out, and development and application direction of this technology was noted.

An Injectable Apatite Permeable Reactive Barrier for In Situ 90 Sr Immobilization

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 28-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince R. Vermeul ◽  
Jim E. Szecsody ◽  
Brad G. Fritz ◽  
Mark D. Williams ◽  
Robert C. Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Reactive Barrier

Evaluation of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) integrity using electrical imaging methods

Geophysics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 911-921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Slater ◽  
Andrew Binley
Keyword(s):  
Geophysical Methods ◽  
Permeable Reactive Barrier ◽  
Electrical Measurements ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Imaging Methods ◽  
Reactive Barrier ◽  
Electrical Imaging ◽  
Granular Iron

The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is a promising in‐situ technology for treatment of hydrocarbon‐contaminated groundwater. A PRB is typically composed of granular iron which degrades chlorinated organics into potentially nontoxic dehalogenated organic compounds and inorganic chloride. Geophysical methods may assist assessment of in‐situ barrier integrity and evaluation of long‐term barrier performance. The highly conductive granular iron makes the PRB an excellent target for conductivity imaging methods. In addition, electrochemical storage of charge at the iron–solution interface generates an impedance that decreases with frequency. The PRB is thus a potential induced polarization (IP) target. Surface and cross‐borehole electrical imaging (conductivity and IP) was conducted at a PRB installed at the U.S. Department of Energy's Kansas City plant. Poor signal strength (25% of measurements exceeding 8% reciprocal error) and insensitivity at depth, which results from current channeling in the highly conductive iron, limited surface imaging. Crosshole 2D and 3D electrical measurements were highly effective at defining an accurate, approximately 0.3‐m resolution, cross‐sectional image of the barrier in‐situ. Both the conductivity and IP images reveal the barrier geometry. Crosshole images obtained for seven panels along the barrier suggest variability in iron emplacement along the installation. On five panels the PRB structure is imaged as a conductive feature exceeding 1 S/m. However, on two panels the conductivity in the assumed vicinity of the PRB is less than 1 S/m. The images also suggest variability in the integrity of the contact between the PRB and bedrock. This noninvasive, in‐situ evaluation of barrier geometry using conductivity/IP has broad implications for the long‐term monitoring of PRB performance as a method of hydrocarbon removal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document