1887
Volume 7, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Rapid and correct characterizations of contaminant plumes are necessary to plan efficient and economically viable remediations of affected zones. In this context, we have carried out a joint implementation of two geophysical non‐invasive methods and chemical monitoring from wells to characterize an area affected by a hydrocarbon spill caused by a traffic accident involving a transport truck and its trailer. The studied area is situated in Alejo Ledesma, Argentina and has an area of 4350 m2. The geophysical prospecting was carried out through the resistivity and the electromagnetic induction methods. The first method provided precise vertical resistivity sections, which were acquired at representative contaminated/uncontaminated sectors, whereas the second allowed a quick prospecting of the entire area. The chemical procedure consisted of samples obtained from a small number of monitoring wells, which were located at selected positions. We correlated the geophysical interpretations with the chemical data to delimit the zone affected by the spill. The detection and characterization of the contaminated plume by the geophysical methods showed positive results even though a liquid phase was not present at the site. A remediation methodology could be determined from these results. The efficiency of the applied methodology (stabilization/solidification) was also confirmed through these methods.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009020
2009-04-01
2020-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdel AalG.Z., AtekwanaE.A., SlaterL.D. and AtekwanaE.A.2004. Effects of microbial processes on electrolytic and interfacial electrical properties of unconsolidated sediments.Geophysics Research Letters31, L12505. doi:10.1029/2004GL020030
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AtekwanaE.A., SauckW.A. and WerkemaD.D.2000. Investigations of geoelectrical signatures at a hydrocarbon contaminated site.Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 167–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BongiovanniV., BonomoN., de la VegaM., MartinoL. and OsellaA.2008. Rapid evaluation of multifrequency EMI data to characterize buried structures at a historical Jesuit Mission in Argentina.Journal of Applied Geophysics64, 37–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)1983. Method 418.1, Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons by Infrared Spectroscopy.Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastes, Washington DC.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. FarquharsonC.2000. Background for Program EM1DFM, 1D Modelling and Inversion Code for Frequency Domain Measurements. University of British Columbia, Geophysical Inversion Facility (UBC‐GIF).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. FrohlichR.K., BaroshP.J. and BovingT.2008. Investigating changes of electrical characteristics of the saturated zone affected by hazardous organic waste.Journal of Applied Geophysics64, 25–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KhanF. I., HusainT. and HejaziR.2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies.Journal of Environmental Management71, 95–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. OldenburgD.W. and LiY.1994. Inversion of induced polarization data.Geophysics59, 1327–1341.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. OldenburgD.W., McGillivaryP.R. and EllisR.G.1993. Generalized subspace method for large scale inverse problems.Geophysical Journal International114, 12–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. OsellaA., de la VegaM. and LascanoE.2002. Characterization of a contaminant plume due to a hydrocarbon spill using geoelectrical methods.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics7, 78–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ReynoldsJ.M.1997. An Introduction to Applied and Environmental Geophysics. John Wiley Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. SauckW.2000. A model for the resistivity structure of LNAPL plumes and their environs in sandy sediments.Journal of Applied Geophysics44, 151–165
    [Google Scholar]
  13. SauckW., AtekwanaE.A. and BermejoJ.L.1998. Characterization of a newly discovered LNAPL plume at Wurtsmith AFB, Oscoda.11th Annual Meeting EEGS, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 399–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. ShevninV., Delgado RodríguezO.D., MousatovA., Flores HernándezD., Zegarra MartínezH. and RyjovA.2006. Estimation of soil petro‐physical parameters from resistivity data: Application to oil‐contaminated site characterization.Geofísica Internacional45, 179–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. UBC‐GIF2000. DCIP2D. Forward Modelling and Inversion of DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization Data over 2D Structures. University of British Columbia, Geophysical Inversion Facility.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. de la VegaM., OsellaA. and LascanoE.2003. Joint inversion of Wenner and dipole–dipole data to study a gasoline‐contaminated soil.Journal of Applied Geophysics54, 97–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. WonI.J., KeiswetterD.A., FieldsG.R.A. and SuttoL.1996. GEM‐2: A new multifrequency electromagnetic sensor.Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1, 129–137.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009020
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2009020
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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