Comparison of Two Methods for Assessment of In Situ Jet-fuel Remediation Efficiency

被引:0
|
作者
Jirina Machackova
Zdena Wittlingerova
Kvetoslav Vlk
Jaroslav Zima
Ales Linka
机构
[1] Earth Tech CZ,Faculty of Environmental Sciences
[2] Czech University of Life Sciences Prague,undefined
[3] Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic,undefined
[4] Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic,undefined
[5] Technical University Liberec,undefined
来源
关键词
Jet fuel; Petroleum hydrocarbons; Biodegradation activity; Soil sampling; TPH; In situ clean-up efficiency;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In 1997, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) remediation started at a former Air Force Base, which operated from 1940 to 1991. TPH had been released to soil and groundwater at the site by military activities. The TPH was 70% jet fuel and the affected area covered 28 ha. Remediation involved a combination of technologies, including removal of volatile organic compounds using soil vapor extraction and air sparging, free product vacuum recovery and aerobic biodegradation of organics with oxygen supplied by the air sparging system, along with nutrient addition. The primary remedial method was found to be biodegradation, which has removed 93% of the contaminants from the site to date. A significant aspect of the remedial action was performance monitoring, including documentation of remediation efficiency. The goal of the research was to assess the relative accuracy of methods commonly used for monitoring in situ TPH remediation. Two such methods were selected for the research: monitoring change in soil TPH concentration (specified as non-polar extractable substances) and monitoring respiration activity in soil with a subsequent stoichiometric mass balance to estimate the mass of TPH destroyed. The study demonstrated that both of the methods provided comparable results regarding the effectiveness of in situ TPH remediation, despite the fact that their methodologies are very different.
引用
收藏
页码:181 / 194
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of two nutritional assessment methods in gastroenterology patients
    Filipovic, Branka F.
    Gajic, Milan
    Milinic, Nikola
    Milovanovic, Branislav
    Filipovic, Branislav R.
    Cvetkovic, Mirjana
    Sibalic, Nela
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 16 (16) : 1999 - 2004
  • [22] A Comparison of Two Methods for Assessment of Lung Mechanical Parameters
    Palko, Krzysztof Jakub
    BIOCYBERNETICS AND BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, 2009, 29 (03) : 19 - 30
  • [23] Facial Flatness Indices: A Comparison of Two Methods of Assessment
    Chalala, Chimene
    Saadeh, Maria
    Ayoub, Fouad
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL IMAGING SCIENCE, 2020, 10
  • [24] Comparison of two assessment methods for grading hepatic encephalopathy
    Mooney, Scott
    Barakat, Fatma
    Carlson, Meghan
    Oliver, Deanna
    Hilsabeck, Robin
    Perry, William
    Alpert, Elliot
    Hassanein, Tarek
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 130 (04) : A809 - A809
  • [25] Comparison of two nutritional assessment methods in gastroenterology patients
    Branka F Filipovi
    Milan Gaji
    Nikola Milini
    Branislav Milovanovi
    Branislav R Filipovi
    Mirjana Cvetkovi
    Nela ibali
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2010, 16 (16) : 1999 - 2004
  • [26] Assessment of central pulse pressure: Comparison of two methods
    Verbeke, F
    Heireman, S
    Segers, P
    Van Bortel, LM
    JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION, 2004, 22 : S280 - S280
  • [27] A comparison of two feedforward control structure assessment methods
    Petersson, M
    Årzén, KE
    Hägglund, T
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADAPTIVE CONTROL AND SIGNAL PROCESSING, 2003, 17 (7-9) : 609 - 624
  • [28] STUMPS FOR BIOENERGY: COMPARISON OF TWO HARVESTING METHODS AND STUDY OF THE FUEL QUALITY
    Pari, L.
    Gallucci, F.
    Barontini, M.
    Picchi, G.
    Spinelli, R.
    Scarfone, A.
    PAPERS OF THE 22ND EUROPEAN BIOMASS CONFERENCE: SETTING THE COURSE FOR A BIOBASED ECONOMY, 2014, : 221 - 223
  • [29] COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF IN-SITU APOPTOSIS DETECTION IN PANCREATIC ISLETS
    Tina, Ghoraishi
    Alfred, Hing
    Peter, Tran
    Mark, Hicks
    Ling, Gao
    Steve, Faddy
    Scott, Kesteven
    Richard, Allen
    Peter, Macdonald
    Alexandra, Sharland
    IMMUNOLOGY AND CELL BIOLOGY, 2011, 89 (07): : A10 - A11
  • [30] A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS FOR IN SITU HYBRIDIZATION USING PARRAFIN TISSUE SECTIONS
    Marcino, Joe
    Dungan, Chris
    JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH, 2012, 31 (01): : 317 - 318