1887
Volume 67, Issue 8
  • E-ISSN: 1365-2478

Abstract

ABSTRACT

We discuss a strategy capable of a quantitative long‐term monitoring of water saturation and volume variation of light non‐aqueous phase liquids in the soil. The goal was reached monitoring a controlled sand cell contaminated with classical gasoline over 124 days, using geophysical methods such as electrical resistivity tomography, induced polarization and ground penetrating radar. We show that empirical relations, linking the water saturation to the physical parameters measured as resistivity from electrical resistivity tomography and travel time from georadar with advanced processing, are good tools for this purpose. The consistence of the proposed process is validated by both good overlap of results carried out from electrical resistivity tomography and georadar and theoretical models simulating the actual experiment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12809
2019-05-31
2020-06-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AdepelumiA.A., SolankeA.A., SanusiO.B. and ShallangwaA.M.2006. Model tank electrical resistivity characterization of LNAPL migration in a clayey‐sand formation. Environmental Geology50, 1221–1233.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agencia Nacional do Petroleo (ANP)‐Portaria N8 2
    Agencia Nacional do Petroleo (ANP)‐Portaria N8 2 , 2002.
  3. ArchieG.E.1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristic. Petroleum Transactions, AIME142, 54–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ArpsJ.J.1953. The Effect of Temperature on the Density and Electrical Resistivity of Sodium Chloride Solutions. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BanoM., LoefflerO. and GirardJ.F.2009. Ground penetrating radar imaging and time‐ domain modelling of the infiltration of diesel fuel in a sandbox experiment. C.R. Geoscience341, 846–858.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BermejoJ., SauckW.A. and AtekwanaE.A.1997. Geophysical discovery of a new LNAPL plume at the Former Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda, Michigan. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation17, 131–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. BertollaL., PorsaniJ., SoldovieriF., CatapanoI.2014. GPR‐4D monitoring a controlled LNAPL spill in a masonry tank at USP. Brazilian Journal of Applied Geophysics103, 237–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. BurazerM. and BowenM.2012. Geo electrical signature of long term hydrocarbon contamination in Serbia. International Journal of Science and Research3, 942–949.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CarcioneJ.M., SerianiG. and GeiD.2003. Acoustic and electromagnetic properties of soils saturated with salt water and NAPL. Journal of Applied Geophysics52, 177–191.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CassidyN.J.2007. Evaluating LNAPL contamination using GPR signal attenuation analysis and dielectric property measurements: practical implications for hydrological studies. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology94, 49–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ClineP.V., DelfinoJ.J. and RaoP.S.C.1991. Partitioning of aromatic constituents into water from gasoline and other complex solvent mixtures. Environmental Science and Technology25, 914–920.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. CONCAWE
    CONCAWE . 2003. European oil industry guideline for risk‐based assessment of contaminated sites. Report no. 3/03, appendix 4.
  13. CozzarelliI., HermanJ. and BaedeckerM.1995. Fate of microbial metabolites of hydrocarbons in a coastal plain aquifer: the role of electron acceptors. Environmental Science and Technology29, 458–469.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1989. Ground‐penetrating radar for high‐resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy. Geophysical Prospecting37, 531–551.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. DeceusterJ. and KaufmannO.2012. Improving the delineation of hydrocarbon‐impacted soils and water through induced polarization (IP) tomographies: a field study at an industrial waste land. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology137, 25–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. deGroot‐HedlinC. and ConstableS.C.1990. Occam's inversion to generate smooth, two‐dimensional models from magnetotelluric data. Geophysics55, 1613–1624.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DeRyckS.M.1994. Monitoring a controlled LNAPL spill. MSc Thesis, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
  18. DeRyckS.M., RedmanJ.D. and AnnanA.P.1993. Geophysical monitoring of a controlled kerosene spill. Proceedings, Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, April 1993. San Diego, CA, pp. 5–20.
  19. EckbergD.K. and SunadaD.K.1984. Nonsteady three‐phase immiscible fluid distribution in porous media. Water Resources Research20, 1891–1894.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. ErskineA., GreenH. and HeathcoteJ.1998. Review of LNAPL Monitoring Techniques in Groundwater. Environment Agency.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. GiannopoulosA.1997. The investigation of transmission‐line matrix and finite‐difference time‐domain methods for the forward problem of ground probing radar. D. Phil thesis, Department of Electronics, University of York, UK.
  22. KaufmannO. and DeceusterJ.2007. A 3D resistivity tomoghraphy study of a LNAPL plume near a gas station at Brugelette (Belgium). Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics12, 207–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KechavarziC., SogaK. and IllangasekareT.H.2005. Two‐dimensional laboratory simulation of LNAPL infiltration and redistribution in the vadose zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology76, 211–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. KunzK.S. and LuebbersR.J.1993. The Finite Difference Time Domain Method for Electromagnetics. CRC Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LesmesD.P. and FriedmanS.P.2005. Relationships between the electrical and hydrogeological properties of rocks and soils. In: Hydrogeophysics (eds Y.Rubin and S.S.Hubbard), p. 532. Springer, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LuciusJ.E., OlhoeftG.R., HillP.L. and DukeS.K.1989. Properties and hazards of 108 selected substances. U.S. Geological Survey, Open‐file Report 89–491, 538 pp.
  27. McNaugthonC.H., MosqueraJ.D., EndresA.L. and FreitasJ.G.2010. Monitoring of sequential gasoline‐ethanol releases using high frequency ground penetrating radar. Proceedings of the XIII International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, pp. 581–586.
  28. OlhoeftG.R.1986. Direct detection of hydrocarbon and organic chemicals with ground penetrating radar and complex resistivity. Proceedings of National Water Well Association/API Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water, Ohio, pp. 284–305.
  29. OrlandoL.2001. Detection and analysis of LNAPL using the instantaneous amplitude and frequency of ground‐penetrating radar data. Geophysical Prospecting50, 27–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. OrlandoL. and SlobE.2009. Using multicomponent GPR to monitor cracks in a historical building. Journal of Applied Geophysics67, 327–334.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. PettinelliE., Di MatteoA., BeaubienS.E., MatteiE., LauroS.E., GalliA., et al. 2013. A controlled experiment to investigate the correlation between early‐time signal attributes of ground‐coupled radar and soil dielectric properties. Journal of Applied Geophysics101, 68–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. RedmanJ.D., DeRyckS.M. and AnnanA.P.1994. Detection of LNAPL pools with GPR: theoretical modelling and surveys of a controlled spill. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Kitchener, Ontario, June 1994, pp. 1283–1294.
  33. RochaM.S. and Simoes‐MoreiraJ.R.2005. A simple impedance method for determining ethanol and regular gasoline mixtures mass contents. Science Direct84, 447–452.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SasakiY.1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospection40, 453–464.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. SauckW.A.1999. A model for the resistivity structure of LNAPL plumes and their environs in sandy sediments. Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 151–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. SauckW.A., AtekwanaE.A. and NashM.S.2016. High electrical conductivities associated with an LNAPL plume imaged by integrated geophysical techniques. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics2, 203–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SchwartzN. and FurmanA.2011. Electrical properties of NAPL contaminated unsatured soils. EGU General Assembly Conference, p. 14870.
  38. SchwartzN., HuismanJ.A. and FurmanA.2012. The effect of NAPL on the electrical properties of unsaturated porous media. Geophysical Journal International188, 1007–1011.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. TafloveA. and HagnessS.C.2005. Computational Electrodynamics. Artech House.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. TestaS.M. and WinegardnerD.L.1989. Restoration of Petroleum‐Contaminated Aquifers. Lewis, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. WarrenC., GiannopoulosA. and GiannakisI.2016. gprMax: Open source software to simulate electromagnetic wave propagation for Ground Penetrating Radar. Computer Physics Communications209, 163–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. ZaitsevB.D., TeplykhA.A., BorodinaI.A., KuznetsovaI.E. and VeronaE.2017. Gasoline sensor based on piezoelectric lateral electric field excited resonator. Ultrasonics80, 96.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12809
Loading
/content/journals/10.1111/1365-2478.12809
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error