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±0.05d−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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
