Hydraulic Behavior of soil contaminated with Trichloroethylene (TCE)

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 M. Sc. Graduated, Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran

2 Dept. of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran

3 Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

4 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz

Abstract

Abstract:
Background and objectives: Hydraulic conductivity and retention are important characteristics of porous environment in relation to imposed contaminants. Retention curve and hydraulic conductivity are dependent on soil characteristics and soil solution. When Chlorinated pollutants enter to groundwater will contaminate it due to its compounds. Thus preventing them to enter soil and water is crucial to avoid any contamination. In order to investigate the hydraulic behavior of Trichloroethylene in soil, the retention of Trichloroethylene and water were determined. Determining the saturated hydraulic conductivity and estimating the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity by Mualem -van Genuchten, Mualem - Brooks- Corey and Mualem- Kosugi models in the two-phase NAPL-air systems were further objectives of this study.
Materials and methods: In this study, the hydraulic behavior of both Trichloroethylene fluid and water were examined. In order to draw the water and Trichloroethylene retention curves in SiL soil the hanging water column method was used. The constant head method was employed to determine the saturated hydraulic conductivity. The Soil retention parameters for Trichloroethylene and water were obtained based on van Genuchten, Brooks-Corey and Kosugi retention models, using the RETC program. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, for both fluids as a function of Matric potential was obtained based on Mualem -Brooks-Corey, Mualem -van Genuchten and Mualem-Kosugi models. The performances of these models were assessed by some statistics including ME, RMSE, EF, CD and CRM.
Results: The obtained results indicated that in a certain amount of liquid phase, Trichloroethylene has lower retention and larger hydraulic conductivity compared to water in soil. According to lower surface tension and viscosity of Trichloroethylene compared to water, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of Trichloroethylene and water were 136.75 and 94.5 cm/day, respectively. For water, the van Genuchten retention model demonstrated highest EF (0.93) and lowest RMSE (0.018) values compared to Trichloroethylene fluid. The other two models were also provided more efficiency for water than Trichloroethylene. In the case of Trichloroethylene, the van Genuchten and Brooks-Corey models showed highest efficiency. Generally, the accuracy of all three models for Trichloroethylene was less than water.

Conclusion: The validation results of hydraulic models shows that the van Genuchten model provides better prediction for retention in soil compared to Kosugi and Brooks-Corey models in the two-phase air-water and air-Trichloroethylene system. Trichloroethylenefluid according to its higher hydraulic conductivity and lower retention compared to water, if enters to soil would have faster movement to the groundwater as a consequence of high infiltration rate to aquifer.

Keywords

References

1.Adams, K.A. 2000. Investigation into dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) transport and remediation
in vertical fractures. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 66p.
2.Aminian, K., Ameri, S., and Bilgesu, H.I. 2002. A New Approach for Reservoir Characterization. Paper SPE 78710 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, USA.,23-25 October.
3.Becher, H.H. 2001. Soil physical properties of subsoils contaminatedwith light nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs). J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.164: 5. 579-584.
4.Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Papers, Colorado State University, March. 27p.
5.Chatrenour, M., Homaee, M., Asadi Kapourchal, S., and Mahmoodian Shoshtari, M. 2016. Parametric assessment of perchloroethylene hydraulic behavior in a two-phase system. J. Environ. Sci. 14: 1. 29-38. (In Persian)
6.Dane, J., Oostrom, M., and Missildine, B. 1994. Determination of capillary pressure-saturation curves involving TCE, water, and air for a sand and a sandy clay loam. Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA/600/SR-94/005.
7.Homaee, M., Dirksen, C., and Feddes,R. 2002. Simulation of root wateruptake: I. Non-uniform transient
salinity using different macroscopic reduction functions. Agricultural Water Management. 57: 2. 89-109.
8.Kechavarzi, C., Soga, K., and Illangasekare, T.H. 2005. Two-dimensional laboratory simulation of LNAPL infiltration and redistribution in the vadose zone. J. Contaminant Hydrol. 76: 3-4. 211-233.
9.Kosugi, K.I. 1996. Lognormal distribution model for unsaturated soil hydraulic properties. Water Resources Research, 32: 2697-2703.
10.Lenhard, R. 1992. Measurement and modeling of three-phase saturation-pressure hysteresis. J. Contaminant Hydrol. 9: 3. 243-269.
11.Lenhard, R.J., Oostrom, M., and Dane, J.H. 2004. A constitutive model for air-NAPL-water flow in the vadose zone accounting for immobile, non-occluded (residual) NAPL in strongly water-wet porous media. J. Contaminant Hydrol. 71: 1-4. 261-282.
12.Leverett, M.C. 1941. Capillary behavior in porous media. Trans. AIME.142: 341-358.
13.Mualem, Y. 1978. Hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media: generalized macroscopic approach. Water Resources Research. 14: 2. 325-334.
14.Nouri, M., Homaee, M., and Bybordi, M. 2012. Parametric assessment of soil hydraulic functions at presence of Kerosene contaminant. J. Water Soil Resour. Cons. 2: 1. 37-48. (In Persian)
15.Nouri, M., Homaee, M., and Bybordi, M. 2013. Parametric assessment of soil retention at presence of petroleum in three-phase system. J. Water Soil Resour. Cons. 2: 2. 15-24. (In Persian)
16.Nouri, M., Homaee, M., and Bybordi, M. 2014. Quantitative Assessmentof LNAPL Retention in Soil inPorous Media. Soil and Sediment Contamination. 23: 801-819.
17.Parker, J., and Lenhard, R. 1987. A model for hysteretic constitutive relations governing multiphase flow:
1. Saturation-pressure relations. Water Resources Research. 23: 12. 2187-2196.
18.Pennell, K.D., Pope, G.A., and Abriola, L.M. 1996. Influence of viscous and buoyancy forces on the mobilization
of residual tetra chloroethylene during surfactant flushing. Environmental Science & Technology. 30: 4. 1328-1335.
19.Shirazi, M.A., and Boersma, L. 1984.A Unifying Quantitative Analysis of Soil Texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J.48: 1. 142-147.
20.Van Geel, P., and Roy, S. 2002. A proposed model to include a residual NAPL saturation in a hystereticcapillary pressure-saturation relationship. J. Contaminant Hydrol. 58: 1. 79-110.
21.vanGenuchten, M.T. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44: 5. 892-898.
22.Vanapalli, S.K., Nicotera, M., and Sharma, R.S. 2008. Axis translation and negative water column techniques for suction control. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. 26: 6. 645-660.
23.Walser, G.S., Illangasekare, T.H., and Corey, A.T. 1999. Retention of liquid contaminants in layered soils. J. Contaminant Hydrol. 39: 1-2. 91-108.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 26, Issue 3
September and October 2019
Pages 207-220

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics