Handbook of Groundwater Remediation Using Permeable Reactive Barriers 2003
DOI: 10.1016/b978-012513563-4/50018-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field Demonstration of Three Permeable Reactive Barriers to Control Uranium Contamination in Groundwater, Fry Canyon, Utah

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
41
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have been used for decades to promote the in situ passive sequestration of trace metals such as U in shallow, contaminated aquifers (e.g., Naftz et al, 2000). A series of PRBs have been evaluated on three classes of potential materials (phosphate, zero valent iron, and ferric iron) for treatment of U in groundwater (median U concentrations = 840 lg/L) in the aquifer beneath a U-Cu heap leaching and U up-grader site in Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al, 2000). Zero-valent iron foam pellets removed 99.9% of incoming U, whereas amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide mixed with 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) gravel (2% Fe) and pelletized bone-char phosphate each removed over 70% of U from solution.…”
Section: Groundwater Remediation Strategies Based On U Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have been used for decades to promote the in situ passive sequestration of trace metals such as U in shallow, contaminated aquifers (e.g., Naftz et al, 2000). A series of PRBs have been evaluated on three classes of potential materials (phosphate, zero valent iron, and ferric iron) for treatment of U in groundwater (median U concentrations = 840 lg/L) in the aquifer beneath a U-Cu heap leaching and U up-grader site in Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al, 2000). Zero-valent iron foam pellets removed 99.9% of incoming U, whereas amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide mixed with 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) gravel (2% Fe) and pelletized bone-char phosphate each removed over 70% of U from solution.…”
Section: Groundwater Remediation Strategies Based On U Reductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The injection of ferric nitrate into unsaturated sediments at low water content could be accomplished using 1% water content with primarily air injection. A technology similar to this proposed technology has been somewhat unsuccessfully tested at Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al 2002). In that study, solid phase Fe(III) oxides were emplaced in a trench, forming a PRB that would presumably adsorb U(VI) phases, with subsequent dissolution of some of the iron oxides to reprecipitate as mixed Fe-U(VI) oxides.…”
Section: U(vi)/fe(iii) Coprecipitation By Fe(iii) Nitrate Air Injectimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mixture of 85% Na 2 HPO 4 and 15% NaH 2 PO 4 will maintain the pH at 7.5 ± 0.1. Note also that a 3-year field study at Fry Canyon, Utah (Naftz et al 2002), was conducted comparing the uranium remediation performance of ZVI to bone char pellets (phosphate) to amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide. Both the phosphate and amorphous iron oxide barriers showed weak performance, but the ZVI barrier showed relatively efficient uranium removal.…”
Section: Autunite Precipitation By Phosphate Injection (Mist and Foammentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another example is that of uranium, which potentially could be remediated using hydroxyapatite which dissolves and causes a uranium phosphate precipitate to form (Arey et al 1999;Fanizza et al 2013). Instead of using abiotic hydroxapatite directly, less expensive bone meal has been considered (Naftz et al 1998). When used as a permeable reactive barrier, the extent of this precipitation is such that the bone meal needs to be diluted with unreactive phases to avoid clogging the reactive barrier by reducing the permeability drastically (Naftz et al 1998).…”
Section: Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%