Cited by 160Environmental remediation with nanomaterialsSoil and Water Nutrient DynamicsGroundwater flow and contamination studies

Nitrate removal rates in a 15-year-old permeable reactive barrier treating septic system nitrate

Open access
Robertson, W.D., Vogan, J.L., Lombardo, P.S.·2008·Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation

Abstract

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have gained popularity in recent years as a low‐cost method for ground water remediation. However, their cost advantage usually requires that these barriers remain maintenance free for a number of years after installation. In this study, sediment cores were retrieved from a pilot‐scale PRB consisting of a sand and wood particle (sawdust) mixture that has been in continuous operation for 15 years treating nitrate from a septic system plume in southern Ontario (Long Point site). Reaction rates for the 15‐year‐old media were measured in dynamic flow column tests and were compared to rates measured in year 1 using the same reactive mixture. Nitrate removal rates in the 15‐year‐old media varied, as expected, with temperature in the range of 0.22 to 1.1 mg N/L/d at 6 °C to 10 °C to 3.5 to 6.0 mg N/L/d at 20 °C to 22 °C. The latter rates remained within about 50% of the year 1 rates (10.2 ± 2.7 mg N/L/d at 22 °C). Near the end of the year 15 column test, media particles >0.5 mm in diameter, containing most of the wood particles, were removed from the reactive media by sieving. Nitrate removal subsequently declined by about 80%, indicating that the wood particles were the principal energy source for denitrification. This example shows that some denitrifying PRBs can remain maintenance free and be adequately reactive for decades.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2008.00205.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Robertson et al. (2008) took cores from the denitrification wall and then ran NO3- through them in a lab; a full field sampling was not undertaken.

    “Robertson et al. (2008) took cores from the denitrification wall and then ran NO 3 -through them in a lab; a full field sampling was not undertaken.”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2008

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The only decadal study of NO3 removal in a denitrification wall was performed in Canada, which showed continued effectiveness in NO3 removal after 15 years.

    “The only decadal study of NO 3 removal in a denitrification wall was performed in Canada, which showed continued effectiveness in NO 3 -removal after 15 years (Robertson et al., 2008).”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2008

    The Introduction describes 15 years of monitoring at a barrier in southern Ontario, and Long-Term Barrier Performance reports relatively complete nitrate removal over that period. But the Introduction says “few if any decadal studies” were available; it does not establish that this was the only one. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Denitrification walls have been shown to be effective for removing NO3- from groundwater through denitrification for up to 15 years in Canada.

    “They have been shown to continue to remove NO 3 -for 7 years (Robertson et al., 2000;Schipper and Vojvodic-Vukovic, 2005), 9 years (Moorman et al., 2010), and in the only decadal study, up to 15 years (Robertson et al., 2008).”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2008

  • The Canada denitrification wall constructed from 20% sawdust mixed with soil still removed NO3 after 15 years, with near-complete NO3 removal over time.

    “The only other decadal study to date demonstrated that a denitrification wall constructed in Ontario, Canada from 20% sawdust mixed with soil (Robertson and Cherry, 1995) still removed NO 3 -after 15 years (Robertson et al., 2008).Input NO 3 -concentrations in the Canada wall ranged from <2 mg N L -1 up to 100 mg N L -1 over the 15 years of performance and the wall achieved near-complete NO 3 -rem”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2008

  • Robertson et al. (2008) found that denitrification walls were still effective after 15 years, and a denitrification wall constructed in Canada was effective after 15 years.

    “Moorman et al. (2010) and Robertson et al. (2008) which found that denitrification walls were still effective after 9 years and 15 years respectively.”

    From Long-term nitrate removal in a denitrification wall (2011) · cites this paper as Robertson et al., 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [34]34. Vogan, J.L. 1993. The use of emplaced denitrifying layers to promote nitrate removal from septic effluent. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Water- loo, Ontario, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robertson, W. D., Vogan, J. L., & Lombardo, P. S.
Venue
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
65-72
ISSN
  • 1069-3629 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6592
OpenAlex
W2130047935
Cited by
160
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
5.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
Keywords
permeable reactive barrier, nitrate removal, denitrification, sawdust, groundwater remediation

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