Cited by 46Groundwater and Isotope GeochemistryEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsGroundwater flow and contamination studies

Geochemical and Hydrogeological Impacts of a Wood Particle Barrier Treating Nitrate and Perchlorate in Ground Water

Robertson, W.D., Ptacek, C.J., Brown, S.J.·2007·Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2007.00140.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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