Cited by 181Environmental remediation with nanomaterialsGroundwater flow and contamination studiesPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies

Performance evaluation of a permeable reactive barrier for remediation of dissolved chlorinated solvents in groundwater

Vogan, J.L., Focht, R.M., Clark, D.K., Graham, S.L.·1999·Journal of Hazardous Materials

Abstract

A pilot-scale permeable reactive barrier (PRB) consisting of granular iron was installed in May 1995 at an industrial facility in New York to evaluate the use of this technology for remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in groundwater. The performance of the barrier was monitored over a 2-year period. Groundwater velocity through the barrier was determined using water level measurements, tracer tests, and in situ velocity measurements. While uncertainty in the measured groundwater velocity hampered interpretation of results, the VOC concentration data from wells in the PRB indicated that VOC degradation rates were similar to those anticipated from laboratory results. Groundwater and core analyses indicated that formation of carbonate precipitates occurred in the upgradient section of the iron zone, however, these precipitates did not appear to adversely affect system performance. There was no indication of microbial fouling of the system over the monitoring period. Based on the observed performance of the pilot, a full-scale iron PRB was installed at the site in December 1997.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00033-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If a denitrification wall has a lower hydraulic conductivity than the aquifer, the plume will be rerouted under or around the wall, rendering it ineffective.

    “The desired wall location must be investigated to determine the hydraulic gradient and the depth and extent of NO 3 plumes under all seasonal changes, because if the wall has a lower hydraulic conductivity than the aquifer, the plume will be rerouted under or around the wall rendering it ineffective (Schipper et al., 2004;Vogan et al., 1999).”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Vogan et al., 1999

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vogan, J. L., Focht, R. M., Clark, D. K., & Graham, S. L.
Corresponding author
Vogan, J.L.
Venue
Journal of Hazardous Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-08
Volume
68
Issue
1-2
Pages
97-108
ISSN
0304-3894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983871797
Cited by
181
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hazardous Materials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Waterloo
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Keywords
permeable reactive barrier, granular iron, chlorinated volatile organic compounds, groundwater remediation, groundwater flow velocity, tracer tests, carbonate precipitation, microbial fouling
MeSH terms
Carbonates, Equipment Design, Fresh Water, Hydrocarbons, Chlorinated, Iron, Permeability, Pilot Projects, Chemical Precipitation, Rheology, Solubility, Solvents, Water Movements, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Water Pollution, Chemical, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review