Geochemical and Hydrogeological Impacts of a Wood Particle Barrier Treating Nitrate and Perchlorate in Ground Water
Abstract
Detailed distribution of nitrate (NO 3 ) adjacent to a permeable reactive layer comprising coarse wood particles with high hydraulic conductivity ( K ∼ 1 cm/s) showed that ground water converged into the layer, allowing treatment of aquifer zones located up to 1.1 m below the bottom of the layer. NO 3 ‐N of 6 to 99 mg/L was highly attenuated (generally <0.1 mg/L) within the first third of the 4‐m‐wide reactive layer. Hydraulic retention time estimates based on borehole dilution velocity values indicated a nitrate reaction rate of approximately 10 mg N/L/d at the ground water temperature of 10°C. In addition to denitrification, sulfate reduction, reductive dissolution of ferric and manganic oxyhydroxide minerals, and calcite dissolution likely occurred within the layer. The plume water continued to evolve in the downgradient area, where geochemical modeling suggested that CO 2 degassing likely occurred, resulting in pH increase and possibly the precipitation of calcite, siderite, and rhodochrosite. At a distance of 4 to 6 m downgradient, the plume water had returned to a composition similar to the upgradient ground water, but with lower NO 3 , SO 4 , and Ca concentrations. The reactive layer was also successful in treating trace quantities (∼1 μg/L) of perchlorate (ClO 4 ) present in the aquifer. The wood particle layer used in this study was of low cost and was simple to install and maintain; thus larger scale aquifer remediation could be feasible, particularly at sites where nitrate contamination occurs at shallow depths.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There have also been issues with biofouling, gas build up, and clogging.
“There have also been issues with biofouling, gas build up, and clogging (Robertson et al., 2007).”
From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2007
Cites
Nitrate removal from groundwater using a denitrification wall amended with sawdust: field trial
Schipper, L., & Vojvodić‐Vuković, M. (1998) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq1998.00472425002700030025x · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Schipper, L. A., Barkle, G. F., Hadfield, J. C., Vojvodic-Vukovic, M., & Burgess, C. P. (2004) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0169-7722(03)00157-8 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Use of vegetable oil in a pilot-scale denitrifying barrier
Hunter, W. J. (2001) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0169-7722(01)00137-1 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Denitrifying bioreactors—an approach for reducing nitrate loads to receiving waters
Schipper, L. A., Robertson, W. D., Gold, A. J., Jaynes, D. B., & Cameron, S. C. (2010) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.04.008 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
“Several studies have used model simulations to provide nsight into the nature of groundwater flow in and around reactive arriers considering a variety of geometries and permeability charcteristics (Benner et al., 2001; Robertson et al., 2005b, 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNitrate removal rates in woodchip media of varying age
Robertson, W. D. (2010) · Ecological Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.01.008 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Self-citationNitrate removal rates in a 15-year-old permeable reactive barrier treating septic system nitrate
Robertson, W. D., Vogan, J. L., & Lombardo, P. S. (2008) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6592.2008.00205.x · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Self-citationLong-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall
Long, L. M., Schipper, L. A., & Bruesewitz, D. A. (2011) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.005 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
- Authors
- Robertson, W. D., Ptacek, C. J., & Brown, S. J.
- Venue
- Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 85-95
- ISSN
- 1069-3629 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6592
- OpenAlex
- W2147932923
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Geochemistry and Petrology › Groundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
- Keywords
- permeable reactive barrier, nitrate removal, perchlorate removal, groundwater remediation, denitrification, sulfate reduction, reductive dissolution, calcite dissolution, CO2 degassing, siderite, rhodochrosite, hydraulic retention time, geochemical modeling
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