Comparative meta-analysis and experimental kinetic investigation of column and batch bottle microcosm treatability studies informing in situ groundwater remedial design

Abstract

A systematic comparison was performed between batch bottle and continuous-flow column microcosms (BMs and CMs, respectively) commonly used for in situ groundwater remedial design. Review of recent literature (2000–2014) showed a preference for reporting batch kinetics, even when corresponding column data were available. Additionally, CMs produced higher observed rate constants, exceeding those of BMs by a factor of 6.1 ± 1.1 standard error. In a subsequent laboratory investigation, 12 equivalent microcosm pairs were constructed from fractured bedrock and perchloroethylene (PCE) impacted groundwater. First-order PCE transformation kinetics of CMs were 8.0 ± 4.8 times faster than BMs (rates: 1.23 ± 0.87 vs. 0.16 ±0.05 d−1, respectively). Additionally, CMs transformed 16.1 ± 8.0-times more mass than BMs owing to continuous-feed operation. CMs are concluded to yield more reliable kinetic estimates because of much higher data density stemming from long-term, steady-state conditions. Since information from BMs and CMs is valuable and complementary, treatability studies should report kinetic data from both when available. This first systematic investigation of BMs and CMs highlights the need for a more unified framework for data use and reporting in treatability studies informing decision-making for field-scale groundwater remediation.

Autonomous screening of groundwater remediation technologies in the subsurface using the In Situ Microcosm Array (ISMA)

“…Additionally, with flowthrough columns, it is also possible to determine amendment lifetimes by tracking contaminant rebound in column effluent. These amendment lifetimes provide an additional metric for estimating cleanup times [34].…”