Surfactant Remediation Field Demonstration Using a Vertical Circulation Well

Abstract

A field demonstration of surfactant‐enhanced solubilization was completed in a shallow unconfined aquifer located at a Coast Guard Station in Traverse City, Michigan. The primary objectives of the study were: (1) to assess the ability of the vertical circulation well (VCW) system for controlling chemical extractants added to the subsurface; and (2) to assess the behavior of the surfactant solution in the subsurface, with a goal of maximum surfactant recovery. A secondary objective was to demonstrate enhanced removal of PCE and recalcitrant components of a jet fuel. The analytical results showed that the surfactant increased the contaminant mass extracted by 40–fold and 90–fold for the PCE and jet fuel constituents, respectively. The surfactant solution demonstrated minimal sorption (retardation) and did not precipitate in the subsurface formation. In addition, the VCW system was able to capture in excess of 95% of the injected surfactant solution. Additional field testing and full‐scale implementation of surfactant‐enhanced subsurface remediation should be performed.

Influence of a Nonionic Surfactant (Triton X-100) on Contaminant Distribution between Water and Several Soil Solids

“…Although surfactants effectively remove excess nonaqueousphase organic liquids (NAPLs) or solids from water (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) or from soil-water mixtures (10)(11)(12), applications of surfactants to systems where contaminants are subsaturated may yield disparate results, depending on the system condition (13)(14)(15)(16). In the former case, i.e., when a large excess mass of contaminant(s) (e.g., NAPL) exists with a soil or a natural solid, the relatively small amount of the surfactant sorbed is unable to produce a significant change in the overall contaminant uptake, while the surfactant in water may readily enhance the solubilization of the excess contaminant.…”

In Situ, Field Scale Evaluation of Surfactant Enhanced DNAPL Recovery Using a Single-Well, Push-Pull Test

“…Experimental systems have included well-to-well tests with sheet-pile enclosures (Fountain et al, 1996;Fountain et al, 1995) and without sheetpile enclosures (Smith et al, 1997) as well as vertical recirculation wells (Knox et al, 1997). Although these approaches provide useful pilot-scale information they are typically expensive and logistically complicated.…”

“…Linear relationships between log K m and log K ow have been reported for a variety of anionic and nonionic surfactants and many chlorinated aliphatic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and chlorinated aromatic compounds (Edwards et al, 1991a;Jafvert et al, 1994;Valsaraj and Thibodeaux, 1989;West, 1992). Based on a field investigation of the ability of a diphenyl oxide disulfonate surfactant (DOWFAX 8390) to enhance the solubility of residual tetrachloroethene, Knox et al (1997) concluded that laboratory solubilization experiments should be designed to replicate in-situ field conditions as closely as possible in order to provide usable results. Thus, the utility of batch solubilization experiments for predicting enhanced NAPL solubilization in-situ is not clear.…”

A Pilot Study for Remediation of Groundwater by Surfactant -Enhanced Soil Flushing

“…These studies showed that aqueous surfactant solutions significantly enhanced the removal of PCE and/or TCE from soil and groundwater. The surfactant-enhanced soil flushing (SESF) extracts contaminants from aquifer matrices using a liquid medium such as aqueous surfactant solution (Joshi and Lee, 1996;Knox et al, 1997;Feng et al, 2001). Extractive efficiency of surfactant solution for PCE and/or TCE was seven to ten times greater than that which could be obtained by flushing and/or washing with water alone (Lee and Cody, 2001c).…”

“…24 Discussion until : 2016 However, the removal of HOC from groundwater using pure water by in-situ soil flushing is quite ineffective due to its low solubility and hydrophobicity. SESF appears to be effective in removing HOC from contaminated groundwater (Knox et al, 1997;Deshpande et al, 2000). When selecting a surfactant for groundwater remediation, one must consider the environmental conditions of contaminated aquifer.…”