In this paper, four treatment techniques commonly applied to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) removal from soil are compared in column experiments with pure sand containing a residual Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (L-NAPL) contamination. Oxidation is tested through the injection of Fenton reagent, with persulfate, and combined with sparging with the injection of ozone. Surfactant treatment was conducted at low flow rates with Tween80. Sparging was conducted by air injection but at a low flow rate of 1 mL min. Finally several columns were thermally treated at a temperature of 80 °C. The results showed high removal (>90%) for all techniques used, although only thermal treatment on BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes) reached 100% efficiency. The main limiting factors of each technique were: (i) for oxidation, the solubility of the substance limited the removal; (ii) for surfactant both the solubility in the surfactant and the type of surfactant are important; (iii) for sparging, the main factors are contaminant vapor pressure and porous media grain size; (iv) for thermal treatment, the limitation arises from the contaminant vapor pressure and the medium hydraulic conductivity. A comparison with literature data shows that the results are consistent with most of the studies conducted on one technique.

No abstract

This study compared four treatment techniques for the removal of a toluene/n-decane as NAPL (Non Aqueous Phase Liquid) phase mixture in identical 1 cubic meter tanks filled with different kind of sand. These four treatment techniques were: oxidation with persulfate, surfactant washing with Tween80®, sparging with air followed by ozone, and thermal treatment at 80°C. The sources were made with three lenses of 26×26×6.5cm, one having a hydraulic conductivity similar to the whole tank and the two others a value 10 times smaller. The four techniques were studied after conditioning the tanks with tap water during approximately 80days. The persulfate treatment tests showed average removal of the contaminants but significant flux decrease if density effects are considered. Surfactant flushing did not show a highly significant increase of the flux of toluene but allowed an increased removal rate that could lead to an almost complete removal with longer treatment time. Sparging removed a significant amount but suggests that air was passing through localized gas channels and that the removal was stagnating after removing half of the contamination. Thermal treatment reached 100% removal after the target temperature of 80°C was kept during more than 10d. The experiments emphasized the generation of a high-spatial heterogeneity in NAPL content. For all the treatments the overall removal was similar for both n-decane and toluene, suggesting that toluene was removed rapidly and n-decane more slowly in some zones, while no removal existed in other zones. The oxidation and surfactant results were also analyzed for the relation between contaminant fluxes at the outlet and mass removal. For the first time, this approach clearly allowed the differentiation of the treatments. As a conclusion, experiments showed that the most important differences between the tested treatment techniques were not the global mass removal rates but the time required to reach 99% decrease in the contaminant fluxes, which were different for each technique.

No abstract

In situ remediation techniques for groundwater pollution are quite diverse. However, the success of these is often random. The first part of the article will focus, from a literature review and some examples, to determine the parameters that unfortunately lead to a low efficacy of treatment. This point will be supplemented by an analysis of the feedback on treatments at the pilot scale. The limits are generally related to the heterogeneity of the geological formations but also to a poor targeting of the laboratory analyses or to a poor monitoring of the rehabilitation. In a second part we will examine recent progress to maximize the effectiveness of in situ treatments. At first, we emphasize diagnostic techniques that make it possible to target the flow of pollutants. Following a general presentation of innovative techniques, we will particularly present an original technique : the injection of foam to block the porosity of around a source area. Les techniques de réhabilitation in situ des pollutions en nappes souterraines (source ou panache) sont très variées. Cependant le succès de celles-ci est souvent aléatoire. La première partie de la présentation s’attachera, à partir d’une revue bibliographique et de quelques exemples, à déterminer les paramètres qui conduisent souvent à une faible efficacité du traitement. Ce point sera complété d’une analyse du retour d’expérience sur des pilotes de traitement. Les limites sont généralement liées à l’hétérogénéité des formations géologiques mais aussi à un mauvais ciblage des analyses préparatoires ou à des faiblesses dans le suivi de la réhabilitation. Dans une deuxième partie nous examinerons les progrès récents visant à maximiser l’efficacité des traitements in situ. En premier lieu il s’agit de techniques de diagnostic qui permettent de cibler les flux de polluants. Et dans le cadre des techniques innovantes, nous présenterons particulièrement une technique originale : l’injection de mousse permettant de bloquer la porosité du milieu autour d’une zone source.