Literature DB >> 35640423

Estimating biofuel contaminant concentration from 4D ERT with mixing models.

D R Glaser1, R D Henderson2, D D Werkema3, T J Johnson4, R J Versteeg5.   

Abstract

We present the results of a lab-scaled feasibility study to assess the performance of electrical resistivity tomography for detection, characterization, and monitoring of fuel grade ethanol releases to the subsurface. Further, we attempt to determine the concentration distribution of the ethanol from the electrical resistivity tomography data using mixing-models. Ethanol is a renewable fuel source as well as an oxygenate fuel additive currently used to replace the known carcinogen methyl tert-butyl ether; however, ethanol is preferentially biodegraded and a cosolvent. When introduced to areas previously impacted by nonethanol-based fuels, it will facilitate the persistence of carcinogenic fuel compounds like benzene and ethylbenzene, as well as remobilize them to the ground water. These compounds would otherwise be retained in the soil column undergoing active or passive remediation processes such as soil vapor extraction or natural attenuation. Here, we introduce ethanol to a saturated Ottawa sand in a tank instrumented for four-dimensional geoelectrical measurements. Forward model results suggest pure phase ethanol released into a water saturated silica sand should present a detectable target for electrical resistivity tomography relative to a saturated silica sand only. We observe the introduction of ethanol to the closed hydraulic system and subsequent migration over the duration of the experiment. One-dimensional and three-dimensional temporal data are assessed for the detection, characterization, and monitoring of the ethanol release. Results suggest one-dimensional geoelectrical measurements may be useful for monitoring a release, while three-dimensional geoelectrical field imaging would be useful to characterize, monitor, and design effective remediation approaches for an ethanol release, assuming field conditions do not preclude the application of geoelectrical methods. We then attempt to use predictive mixing models to calculate the distribution of ethanol concentration within the measurement domain. For this study we examine four different models: a nested parallel mixing model, a nested cubic mixing model, the complex refractive index model (CRIM), and the Lichtenecker-Rother (L-R) model. The L-R model, modified to include an electrical formation factor geometry term, provided the best agreement with expected EtOH concentrations. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  4D ERT; CRIM; Contaminant concentration estimation; Electrical resistivity tomography; Lichtenecker-Rother; Mixing models

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35640423      PMCID: PMC9383043          DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Contam Hydrol        ISSN: 0169-7722            Impact factor:   4.184


  11 in total

1.  Will ethanol-blended gasoline affect groundwater quality?

Authors:  S E Powers; D Rice; B Dooher; P J Alvarez
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2001-01-01       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Behavior of gasoline pools following a denatured ethanol spill.

Authors:  Cory J McDowell; Timothy Buscheck; Susan E Powers
Journal:  Ground Water       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 3.  Microbial processes influencing the transport, fate and groundwater impacts of fuel ethanol releases.

Authors:  Jie Ma; William G Rixey; Pedro J J Alvarez
Journal:  Curr Opin Biotechnol       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 9.740

4.  Impact of ethanol on the natural attenuation of benzene, toluene, and o-xylene in a normally sulfate-reducing aquifer.

Authors:  Douglas M Mackay; Nicholas R de Sieyes; Murray D Einarson; Kevin P Feris; Alexander A Pappas; Isaac A Wood; Lisa Jacobson; Larry G Justice; Mark N Noske; Kate M Scow; John T Wilson
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Mechanism for detecting NAPL using electrical resistivity imaging.

Authors:  Todd Halihan; Valina Sefa; Tom Sale; Mark Lyverse
Journal:  J Contam Hydrol       Date:  2017-08-19       Impact factor: 3.188

6.  Fuel-grade ethanol transport and impacts to groundwater in a pilot-scale aquifer tank.

Authors:  Natalie L Cápiro; Brent P Stafford; William G Rixey; Philip B Bedient; Pedro J J Alvarez
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2006-11-28       Impact factor: 11.236

7.  Electrical signatures of ethanol-liquid mixtures: implications for monitoring biofuels migration in the subsurface.

Authors:  Yves Robert Personna; Lee Slater; Dimitrios Ntarlagiannis; Dale Werkema; Zoltan Szabo
Journal:  J Contam Hydrol       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.188

8.  Mechanisms affecting the infiltration and distribution of ethanol-blended gasoline in the vadose zone.

Authors:  Cory J McDowell; Susan E Powers
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2003-05-01       Impact factor: 9.028

9.  Complex resistivity signatures of ethanol in sand-clay mixtures.

Authors:  Yves Robert Personna; Lee Slater; Dimitrios Ntarlagiannis; Dale Werkema; Zoltan Szabo
Journal:  J Contam Hydrol       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 3.188

10.  Ethanol effects on the fate and transport of gasoline constituents in the UK.

Authors:  Simon Firth; Beate Hildenbrand; Phil Morgan
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2014-03-15       Impact factor: 7.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.