UPSOIL D6.3 Final

UPSOIL - SUSTAINABLE SOIL UPGRADING
BY DEVELOPING COST EFFECTIVE, BIOGEOCHEMICAL

REMEDIATION APPROACHES
DEELLIIVVEERRAABBLLEE D6.3
F
FIIE
EL
LD
DT
TE
ES
ST
TIIN
NG
GO
OF
FT
TH
HE
EN
NE
EW
WF
FE
EE
ED
DB
BA
AC
CK
K
D
DR
RIIV
VE
EN
NR
RE
EM
ME
ED
DIIA
AT
TIIO
ON
NA
AN
ND
DC
CL
LO
OS
SIIN
NG
G
R
RE
ES
SU
UL
LT
TS
SE
EV
VA
AL
LU
UA
AT
TIIO
ON
NR
RE
EP
PO
OR
RT
T
Project funded by the European Commission

Seventh Framework Programme
2009-2012
Version Final, 19/11/ 2012

Dissemination level
PU
PP
RE
CO
Public
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Effective, Biogeochemical Remediation Approaches
Project co-funded by the EC

within the Seventh Framework Programme
(2009-2012)
Deliverable Administration & Summary
D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and closing
evaluation report.
Due 09-2012 Date 11-2012
Final
1
Katarzyna Samborska , Rafa Ulaczyk1, Micha Szot1, Adam
Worsztynowicz1, Mariusz Kalisz1, Janusz Krupanek1, Ole Stubdrup2, Jose
Capon3, Pedro Avellanosa3, Enrique Muoz4 and Nerea Otaegi5
1 IETU, 2 EJLSKOV, 3 GEOCISA, 4 RDS, 5 TECNALIA
Nerea Otaegi
D6.4 and D6.5 have been joined into the present deliverable D6.3 Testing
of the new feedback driven remediation in field tests and closing results
evaluation report - Public. This document gathers all the information from
the field tests where feedback driven remediation has been carried out and
provides the last conclusions and results evaluation, thus previous field
descriptions provide the basis for the final results evaluation.
-
No & name
Status
Author(s)
Editor
DoW
Comments
Document workflow
Released
Recommended
Endorsed
Submitted
Version
01
02
Final
Date
Date
Date
Date
Nerea Otaegi
Nerea Otaeig
Date
01-09-2102
01-10-2012
19-11-2012
Author
N.O. et al.
N.O. et al.
N.O. et al.
19-07-2012
19-11-2012
Document history
Description
Draft sent to WP6 partners for comments
Draft_version 2, incorporation of WP6 partners comments
Final
Disclaimer
The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the
information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk
and liability.
The document reflects only the authors views and the Community is not liable for any use that may
be made of the information contained therein.
D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

closing evaluation report
Page 2 of 84


(2009-2012)
Table of contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................ 5
1. WP6 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 6
1.1
WP6 Objective ......................................................................................... 6
1.2
Overview: Introduction to the deliverable ................................................. 9
2. Flanders test site results ............................................................................... 11
2.1
Geological hydrogeological background ............................................. 11
2.2
Contaminants of concern ....................................................................... 12
2.3
Placement of new wells .......................................................................... 13
2.4
ISCO Treatment pilot test design and implementation ........................... 13
2.5
Flanders feedback driven remediation ................................................... 14
3. Poland Test Site results ................................................................................ 32
3.1
Historical activities and geographical context ......................................... 32
3.2
Geology and hydrogeology .................................................................... 33
3.3
Previous Site Investigations ................................................................... 34
3.4
Contaminants of Concern ...................................................................... 34
3.5
ISCO Treatment pilot test design and implementation ........................... 34
3.6
Feedback driven remediation ................................................................. 37
4. Spain test site results .................................................................................... 43
4.1. Historical activities and geographical context ......................................... 43
4.2. Geology and hydrogeology .................................................................... 43
4.3. Previous Site Investigations ................................................................... 44
4.4. Contaminants of Concern ...................................................................... 44
4.5. WP6 Site Investigation ........................................................................... 44
4.6. ISCO Treatment pilot test design and implementation ........................... 53
4.7. Design and implementation of improvement injection equipment .......... 65
4.8. Previous data interpretation ................................................................... 69
4.9. Spain feedback driven remediation ........................................................ 70
5. Using feedback remediation approaches compared to conventional ones ... 82
6. Suggestions on improvements ...................................................................... 84

closing results evaluation report
Page 3 of 84


(2009-2012)
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1: Flanders test site - Changes in pH and Tre - Graphs
ANNEX 2: Flanders test site - Changes in pH and Tre 2D plot maps
ANNEX 3: Flanders test site - Changes in modelled contaminants - Graphs
ANNEX 4: Flanders test site - Changes in measured contaminants 2D plot maps
ANNEX 5: Polish test site - Changes in field parameters- Graphs
ANNEX 6: Polish test site - Changes in field basic parameters- 2D plot maps
ANNEX 7: Polish test site - Example of 3 different alarm settings for the pH factor
ANNEX 8: Spanish test site - Hydrogeological study: groundwater levels
ANNEX 9: Spanish test site - Basic parameters results from the soil analytical
tests
ANNEX 10: Spanish test site - Organic and inorganic analytical tests results in
supernatant and in soil
ANNEX 11: Spanish test site - Treatment results increasing the amount of oxidant
ANNEX 12: Spanish test site - Soil analytical test results
ANNEX 13: Spanish test site - Groundwater samples analytical results
ANNEX 14: Spanish test site - Manually measured basic parameters - Graphs
ANNEX 15: Spanish test site - Automatic real time measured basic parameters Graphs
ANNEX 16: Spanish test site- - Automatic real time measured basic parameters
2D contour plots (maps)

Page 4 of 84


(2009-2012)
Executive summary
Following UPSOILs aim, Work package 6 (WP6 Feedback driven remediation) main
objective is to significantly optimise the process performance of any type of soil and
groundwater in situ remediation by following a feed-back driven approach, thus
improving the cost-effectiveness and reducing the time frame of the active restoration
measures. This has been done adopting a dynamic work approach, with enough flexibility
to adapt the process control in real time as new monitoring information becomes
available. With this new methodology the remediation process is the consequence of a
series of steps, linked between them in a continuous loop, so that it follows a constant
evolution as new data become available, leaving the old concept of static remediation
behind. The main stages of this loop are four:
the key geochemical parameters real time monitoring,
the numerical modelling,
feedback instructions setting (alarms)
and of course the in situ remediation itself.
The feedback driven remediation has been tested at three different sites where different in
situ treatments have been applied: Flanders site, with BTEX and CAHs (treatment: in situ
chemical oxidation with permanganate), Poland site, with TPHs (treatment: in situ
chemical oxidation with persulphate) and the Spain site with CAHs (treatment: in situ
chemical oxidation with persulphate).In all cases the advantages from using the feedback
driven remediation were clear. These were some of the identified benefits:
Improved understanding of the natural processes: the status of the soil and
groundwater before and after the treatment is clearly understood. Thus, it is possible
to identify areas where natural biodegradation is likely to happen following an injection
phase. It also allows calculating the real groundwater flow direction and velocity, which
can be very useful when defining the in situ remediation strategy.
Improved understanding of the treatment itself:
o The new methodology provides the oxidant distribution in the ground and
groundwater during and after the injection both vertically and horizontally,
o It also provides information on the oxidant distribution times.
o It helps defining those areas where the oxidation process seems to be finished
due to the full consumption of the oxidant/contaminant or it has never
happened.
Improved treatment efficiency: the feedback driven remediation allows setting alarms
indicating the exceeding of real-time measured parameters above or below the preinjection status which can considerably reduce the treatment time and cost.

Page 5 of 84


(2009-2012)
1. WP6 INTRODUCTION
1.1
WP6 Objective
The concept of UPSOIL is that for the enhancement of cost-effective sustainable

remediation of contaminated soil on a European scale, three optimisation dimensions
need to be addressed:
1. COST: the cost effectiveness of remediation
should be significantly increased as compared to

current practices,
2. TIME: the technologies employed should allow
fast release of sites for urban/industrial or
ecological redevelopment,
3. SUSTAINABILITY: the technologies employed
should ensure that there are no pending (postremediation) liability issues and that soil
functions are maintained or restored.
TIME
SUSTAINABILITY
COST
The projects aim is to make the required breakthrough in in-situ (bio) chemical
remediation for organic contaminants, by developing robust technologies for fast, costeffective, integrated source zone and plume treatment that result in both allowable (risk)
levels and maximal use of the natural soil rehabilitation potential at a longer term.
This will be achieved by the smart coupling of technologies and the development of new
frontier technologies, whereby:
soil structure, properties and functions are integral factors in selecting the type of
remedial treatment,
side-effects of treatment, for example at multi-contaminant sites, on overall risk are
taken into account,
active remediation (chemical or biological) is designed in such a way that the
natural attenuation potential is fully utilized and stimulated,
the injected remedial agent is better targeted at the location/distribution of the
contaminant within the soil,
modelling and dynamic monitoring of the remediation progress are used in realtime to allow feed-back driven remediation developed in WP6
reactant species are developed that are more selective towards the contaminant
and less degrading towards the soil matrix,
Indicators are developed that diagnose whether viable microbial soil populations
are present and that microbial dynamics are such that the natural attenuation
capacity of the soil has been restored.
Page 6 of 84


(2009-2012)
Following UPSOILs aim, Work package 6 (WP6 Feedback driven remediation) main
objective is to significantly optimise the process performance by following a feed-back
driven remediation approach, thus improving the cost-effectiveness and reducing the
time frame of the active restoration measures. This has been done by following a dynamic
work approach, with enough flexibility to adapt the in situ process control in real time as
new monitoring information becomes available.
If a feedback driven remediation methodology had to be represented graphically, it would
follow the scheme shown in the Figure 1.1. According to it, the remediation process is the
consequence of a series of steps, linked between them in a continuous loop, so that the
remediation process follows a constant evolution as new data become available, leaving
the old concept of static remediation behind. Combining the remediations design and its
control is the key to the implementation of a new technique as cost-effective and userfriendly. The main stages of this loop are four: the key geochemical parameters real time
monitoring, the numerical modelling tool, feedback instructions and in situ injection works
design. In the numerical modelling, data of UPSOIL cases and other resources is used to
obtain the relationship between effectiveness of various ISCO technologies and process
conditions and different system parameters, enabling to predict remediation effectiveness
under specific contaminated soil conditions. This will be very important information
supporting post-UPSOIL market applications.
All these phases of work are described explicitly in the first deliverable D6.1 Setting of
new remediation technologies operational requirements and analysis of the application
domain, whereas D6.2 Mathematical model and software components for defining the
behaviour of the soil recovery process and predicting further data acquisition and analysis
requirements provides an accurate description of the modelling tool as well as the
feedback instructions that follow.
As a result, a new automated monitoring system and a geochemical modelling
tool have been developed and tested at three cases study sites (Flanders, Poland
and Spain), in order to acquire, store and analyse the parameters during different
types of ISCO (in situ chemical oxidation) treatments.

Page 7 of 84

IN SITU
BIOCHEMICAL
REMEDIATION
FEED BACK
INSTRUCTIONS

(2009-2012)
KEY PARAMETERS
REAL TIME
MONITORING
NUMERICAL
MODELLING TOOL
Figure 1.1: Feedback driven remediation scheme

According to the DoW, WP6 is divided into the following tasks:
Task 6.1. Setting of site-specific remediation objectives and analysis of the application
domain, where the whole sensory infrastructure is defined,
Task 6.2. Computational characterisation of the defined model,
Task 6.3. Design of a monitoring and data analysis system,
Task 6.4. Implementation of the system,
Task 6.5. Validation and final conclusions.
In addition, the following deliverables were initially planned within WP6, each of them
being coincident with the end of each task. In this way, each deliverable is a summary of
the main works undertaken for each of the tasks:
D6.1: Internal shared database/confidential: setting of new remediation technologies
operational requirements and analysis of the application domain (Month 09),
D6.2: Software/confidential: initial mathematical model for defining the behaviour of
the soil recovery process and foresees further data acquisition and analysis
requirements (Month 15),
D6.3: Prototype/confidential: Definition of the architectural and component-level
specifications design (Month 18),
D6.4: Internal report/confidential: Testing of the prototype of the system in field tests
(Month 36),
D6.5: Public report: Closing evaluation report ensuing successful results and final
conclusions (Month 36).
Page 8 of 84


(2009-2012)
As works progressed, tasks (and associated deliverables) have been regrouped into
single but more extensive ones taking into account the following criteria:
Task 6.2 Computational characterisation of the defined model and Task 6.3 Design of
a monitoring and data analysis system: These two tasks (and associated deliverables
D6.2 and D6.3) have been joined into a single task and deliverable D6.2
Mathematical model and software components for defining the behaviour of the soil
recovery process and predicting further data acquisition and analysis requirements
(confidential), where the new numerical geochemical modelling is described in detail,
including its mathematical software code as indicated in Task 6.2 and its full list of
components defined in Task 6.3. By combining these two tasks a more complete and
accurate picture of the new geochemical model is obtained, from its computational and
component level point of view.
Task 6.4 Testing of the prototype of the system in field tests and Task 6.5 Validation
and final conclusions: These two tasks (and associated deliverables D6.4 and D6.5)
have been joined into the present deliverable D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback
driven remediation and closing results evaluation report - Public. This document
gathers all the information from the field tests where feedback driven remediation has
been carried out and provides the last conclusions and results evaluation, thus
previous field descriptions provide the basis for the final results evaluation. See next
section for more information.
D6.2 + D6.3 D6.2
D6.4 + D6.5 D6.3
1.2
Overview: Introduction to the deliverable
As previously indicated, deliverable D6.3 Testing of the new feedback driven remediation
in field tests and closing results evaluation report is closely related to both Task 6.4 and
Task 6.5 (from DOW). Its main objective is that of describing the results from the field
feedback driven remediation tests, the final conclusions and providing closing
results evaluation.
In terms of results evaluation, this is carried out under the UPSOIL concept point of view,
that is, in terms of cost, time and sustainability efficiency. Accordingly, data of UPSOIL
cases and other resources will be used to obtain the relationship between the
effectiveness of various technologies and process control practices. Conventional
practices will be compared to the newly developed feedback driven remediation
methodology.
The new designed practice has been implemented and tested in three test sites (Flanders,
Poland and Spain); each of them with different geological background as well as pollution
Page 9 of 84


(2009-2012)
conditions. This has allowed the parameters fine-tuning and optimising category-specific
models.
According to the main objective, the following partial tasks have been defined:
1. Flanders test site works description and results evaluation
2. Poland test site works description and results evaluation
3. Spanish test site works description and results evaluation
4. Overall results evaluation and conclusions
5. Using feedback driven remediation compared to conventional practices
6. Suggestions of improvements and future applications

Page 10 of 84


(2009-2012)
2. Flanders test site results

The site, selected for the pilot scale test, is located in the Flanders coastal area. The exact
location of the site is currently subject to confidentiality. The south part of the site is
situated less than 10 meters from a quay wall. This wall delimits the site from a large
surface water body. The entire area around the test site is an industrial area. The terrain is
flat, partially paved. The test area is a so called EX zone, resulting in specific safety
directions and restrictions regarding activities in the area.
Until 2001 a warehouse for non-hazardous (no soil polluting) goods was located on the
site. In 2002 a company started its current activities. Since 2002 the main activity on the
site has been storage of hazardous products.
During the Flanders test site, both WP6 and WP4 technologies and practices were put in
practice, as part of the interconnectivity strategy defined in the initial stages of the project.
2.1
Geological hydrogeological background
The following geological layers have been identified at the site:

Top layer of slightly clayey sand with admixture of construction debris thick
approximately 2.7 m;
Layer of Quaternary sediments formed by shelly clayey sands locally with clay lenses
and admixture of underlying sand thick approximately 4.5 m;
Tertiary Lilo formation formed by shelly clayey coarse sands altering towards the basis
to very sandy clays. Lilo formation is thick approximately 7 m at the site.
Tertiary fine-grained sands (very low clayey) of Kattendijk formation thick
approximately 11 m;
A bedrock formed by Tertiary clays of Boom formation at a depth of approximately 25
m below ground level (bgl).
In October 2010, a series of site investigation works were undertaken by specialist
partners from the Consortium including groundwater level measurements and sampling.
According to these works, groundwater water levels were as follows: the highest
groundwater level was encountered at 1, 09 m below ground level and the deepest at 1,
80 m below ground level, in the only well screened to the deeper aquifer zone. The
groundwater flows generally to the docks, in Southern direction and its composition is
naturally brackish.
Basic field parameters measured in the sampled wells were as follows:

Page 11 of 84


(2009-2012)
Table 2.1. Basic field parameters before the ISCO treatment

In general, measured general site baseline or background conditions were as follows:
Gw level: 1.30 1.50m bgl. Low variation (No rain data available for the site).
pH: 6.5 7.3.
ORP: Variable but negative values (-30 to -300 mV). Reductive conditions.
EC (electric conductivity): Very variable, some wells around 1500 2000 S/cm, and
others around 7000 8000 S/cm (probably brackish water influence in some b
screening wells).
Soluble oxygen (O2): ca 1 mg/L. Values between 4 % and 25 %.
GW temperature: 12 13C.
Chlorides: Variable, from 117 up to 2380 mg/l.
DOC: Very variable, between 110 up to 3610 mg/l.
Ecotoxicity-H30: Ca 65.
2.2
Contaminants of concern
Reportedly, until 2001 the site was not contaminated or any contamination was unknown.
The area of the feedback driven remediation test is located at an access road to the
loading/unloading zone of various chemicals from/to ships and tank cars to/from
aboveground storage tanks and further adjacent to an open storage area of various drums
and containers.
From previous investigations following information were obtained: A BTEX contamination
was found until 7 m below ground level (bgl) and a contamination of chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons (CAHs) was found until max. 25 m bgl (i.e. the impervious clay layer).
Highest detected concentrations in groundwater of the most dominant compounds of
BTEX and CAHs were ethylbenzene at 3600 g/l, dichloromethane at 2800 g/l and
cis-1,2-dichloroethene at 1600 g/l. The concentrations of heavy metals in the soil were
moderate and ranged between below detection limit up to 190 mg/kg dw.

Page 12 of 84


(2009-2012)
In the investigations (exploratory and descriptive) no NAPL or DNAPL were detected. The
concentrations in groundwater were judged not of that size that a DNAPL could be
expected.The impermeable clay layer (+/- 25 m bgl) was considered as a worst-case
vertical delineation of contamination.
2.3
Placement of new wells
Based on results from the pre-MIP investigation and the outcome of samplings of old
wells, the locations for drilling new monitoring wells and individual filter depths were
determined. A total of 14 monitoring wells were installed in October 2010 in two sub-areas
called MIP1 area and MIP3 area; MIP1 area consisted of 6 wells and MIP3 area of 8
wells. The design of each sub-area was performed in order to obtain good evaluation of
the planned full scale MIP-IN injection and its impact of oxidant on the different
contaminants.
2.4
ISCO Treatment pilot test design and implementation
Permanganate was found to be the best site-specific oxidant for all pollutants in the
Flanders site except for dichloromethane. In mutual agreement with all partners,
permanganate was chosen as oxidant for the pilot test. NaMnO4 (RemOx L ISCO
Reagent, Carus) was used in the pilot test. Based on a worst-case calculation, an injection
concentration of 164-221 kg/m NaMnO4 was calculated. A lower injection concentration
of 83 kg/m NaMnO4 was used in the full scale test. This lower concentration was chosen
based on health and safety considerations. Furthermore, a high injection concentration
will result into vertical density-driven transport of the injection fluid and subsequent loss of
the injection fluid into a deeper zone.
In terms of basic parameters variation, when sodium permanganate is used in an ISCO
treatment, according to literature it is possible to anticipate the following variations:
Temperature increase: due mainly to higher injected liquid temperature compared to
the deep groundwater one.
pH variation uncertain: the pH variation will depend on the type of contaminants as
well as other electron scavengers present in the subsoil.
ORP increase: the ORP is expected to increase following the oxidant injection.
EC increase: the EC is expected to increase following the oxidant injection.
The full scale ISCO field test of the new innovative probe system, called MIP-IN and
developed under UPSOIL WP4, was conducted during the period 15th 18th of March
2011 at the selected site in Flanders.
After an initial pre-test of the system at site using tap-water the full-scale test of the MIPIN system was conducted in three pre-defined points using the degradative agent
permanganate. The points were called MIP-IN1, MIP-IN2 and MIP-IN3. The next Figure
Page 13 of 84


(2009-2012)
shows placement of the three points (red rings), placement of surrounding monitoring
wells/MW, information about MW-screen depth intervals (in parenthesis below well name)
and distance (large red) from nearest injection point. In this report, the MIP-IN1 area and
MIP-IN2 area are names used for two separate areas (right cluster of wells resp. left
cluster of wells in next figure). Additionally, the MIP-IN3 area corresponds to a small local
area around the MIP-IN3 spot, see next figure.
Figure 2.1. Location of the three MIP-IN injection points (Red-yellow rings), the monitoring
wells (MW) with screen intervals in parenthesis below well name and distance with large
red numbers.
2.5
Flanders feedback driven remediation
During the Flanders test site the feedback driven remediation approach was tested, in
particular, the newly developed real time monitoring system was put in practice for the first
time under real conditions, the numerical modelling was specifically adapted to the real
site conditions and injection works and feedback instructions were set (although it was not
able to put then into practice).
Real time monitoring
Key basic parameters real time monitoring was performed with the aim of having a realtime control on the oxidant dispersion underground. These automatic measurements have
been part of the works carried out in the Flanders site shared between two different
UPSOIL work packages, WP6 and also WP4. The real time measurements carried out at
the Flanders test site were performed by means of a full monitoring system: a total of 6
multiparametric loggers, see next Figure 2.2, were placed in MIP-IN1 area and 4
Page 14 of 84


(2009-2012)
temperature loggers in MIP-IN2 area at different depths (Table 2.1, Table 2.2 and Figure
2.3).The installation covered both the horizontal and vertical extent of the oxidant
distribution underground:
Figure 2.2. Picture of multiparametric logger: Ec, Temp, ORP and pH. INW Acquista
series. Picture shows logger being introduced in the MW1B well at the Flanders site
Figure 2.3. Flanders site injection and full scale test map. (Left, dark green rectangle;
MIP-IN2 area): Marked in green are each of the six wells in the MIP-IN2 area equipped
with a multiparameter logger;(Right, red rectangle; MIP-IN1 area): Marked in red are the
wells where the temperature loggers were placed (the MIP-IN1 area includes the MIP-IN1
injection spot and the MIP-IN3 injection spot).

Page 15 of 84


(2009-2012)
MONITORING WELL DEPTH

PARAMETERS
MW1A
Filter from 3.0 to 4.0 mbgl
Temp, ORP, pH, EC
MW1B
Temp, ORP, pH, EC, Pressure, DO
MW1C
Temp, ORP, pH, EC
MW2
Temp, ORP, pH, EC
MW3
Temp, ORP, pH, EC
MW4
Temp, ORP, pH, EC
Table 2.2. Wells in which multiparameter loggers were installed.
MONITORING WELL DEPTH
PARAMETERS
MW5A
Temperature
MW5B
MW6B
MW7B
Table 2.3. Wells in which NEURTEK SterilDisc industrial temp loggers were installed.
All loggers were memory fitted, allowing the visualization of the chemical parameter
variations with time. Furthermore, a telemetry system was placed on site, so that
measured data by the loggers could be real-time read in an office located about 100
metres to the North of the injection and logging area.
The monitoring system was based on automatically multilogger measurements at a
determinate rate, sent via wireless (ZigBee based technology) to a remote/host PC, and
from this, to external PCs by Internet.
Due to safety issues related to the Flanders MIP-IN test site, classified as an ex-situ 1
safety zone, also called EX zone (extreme safety rules because of petrol storing tanks
presence), the initially designed wireless system was not allowed to run fulltime, unless
permanent (24h/day) personnel vigilance was performed with an explosimeter. Hereby,
only limited test for sending the wireless data was performed (3 days testing against
several months proposed). This test was run together with the MIP-IN injection tasks, and
only when presence in the field of personnel related to these tasks. The aim of this test
was to check the validity of the idea/system.
An installation at the site of any alternative full time wireless system, needed to
accomplish with all the safety requirements specifically for the site. This point was beyond
the scope of this work. In addition, budget and time needed for fulfilling these
requirements at this special site were not affordable: encapsulation of the devices, new
design validated by a certification agency for EX/ATEX fulfilling, etc.

Page 16 of 84


(2009-2012)
Finally, the multilogger and temp logger data were stored on internal flash type memories
for full time after they were installed, and only a short demonstration was done by the
wireless system during the injection tasks.
Monitoring calendar, storage capability and logger batteries determined the logger
measurement and storage program (rate, parameter, star and finishing dates, etc.), which
were easily adjusted in all the loggers:
- The multiparametric loggers were measuring and recording a data set every 15
minutes, i.e. 96 readings/day, between the 15/03/2011 and the 10/05/2011(during two
months), and until 31/05/2011 for the MW1A logger. Multiparametric loggers started
measuring the day before injection in the MIP-IN2 spot and two days before the
injection started in the MIP-IN1 spot (Figure 2.3).
- The temperature loggers measured continuously every 15 minutes, starting the
15/03/2011 @ 18:00 pm until the 18/03/2011 @ 12:00 am. Logging in the monitoring
wells started some hours before the oxidant was injected in the nearby MIP-IN1
injection spot, in order to know the environmental background for at least a short
previous period. In addition, the loggers were established and in equilibrium with the
matrix, checking their functioning, etc.
Most of the loggers run until 6th of April, except one of them which functioned until 10th of
May. All the data were stored in the internal logging memory and saved for its evaluation;
so, the period of logging comprised in all the cases the period of study T0 T1 T2.
Together with the usual measurements, a checking plan was proposed as a quality control
for the pilot test and after pilot test status of loggers.
This program was based on several verifications/calibrations. This checking was proposed
to be coincident with the sampling events (T0, T1, etc.), or answering to particular real
time detected events, or anomalous readings. Before the full scale oxidant injection test
(ISCO), there was no time to do enough background testing regarding any negative
effects from the oxidant on the loggers and their outputs.
In Figure 2.4 the link is given between automatic monitoring system activity period,
groundwater sampling events and the oxidant injection.

Page 17 of 84


(2009-2012)
Injection works
15-18/03/2011
T1:
22-Mar-2011
T2:
06-Apr-2011
T0:
23-Feb-2011
Automatic monitoring system

activity period
Figure 2.4. Link between the automatic monitoring system activity period, groundwater
sampling events and the oxidant injection.
The observation of the changes on parameters measured by any system (visual remarks,
manual data and loggers), and the magnitude of these changes, have been of particular
interest for the following reasons:
Tracking the oxidant helped for modelling of the remediation: flux speed, depth, ROI,
etc.
Help to understand the importance of influence of the oxidant injection over a
determined soil/water matrix: Was there any reaction with matrix and/or degradation of
pollutants degradation and in such case, what were the extents?
In the case of the loggers, it has been considered that the clue is to observe the variability
of the parameters against the oxidant arrival more than the final value measured.
Interpretation will consider not only the magnitude of the change but also the time factor
(flashy, long term, etc.). However, chemical parameters variation that can be exclusively
related to a particular type of operation is difficult to assess, particularly because of the
sampling works disturbance.
In order to better understand the changes occurred in the different parameters recorded, a
Change will be considered to any relevant variation larger than the ranges listed for the
following parameters. These variations have been arbitrarily set above the accuracy levels
of the loggers and taking into account TECNALIA previous similar experiences. They are
not to be used in a strict manner for data interpretation but as a supporting tool.
o pH > 2
o EC > 5000 S/cm
o ORP > 100 mV
o Temp > 4C
o Pressure > 1 psi

Page 18 of 84


(2009-2012)
In summary, each basic parameter evolution at the Flanders test site can be defined as
follows.
Electrical Conductivity (EC)
In general there is a first, initial increase and decrease of EC minutes after the injection 2
around MIP-IN1 area. Spatially, there is an initial, sudden increase in well MW1A, slightly
initial increase in MW1B, MW2, and MW4, and no variation at all in wells MW1C and
MW3. According to this, and assuming that the EC increase is due to the oxidant arrival,
the oxidant distribution underground reaches well MW1-A, Figure 2.5, whereas for the rest
of wells there is not a clear picture. Sampling works have a clear effect on this parameter,
increasing it. In all wells, at the end of the monitoring period, the EC seems stabilized
(with no further changes) but remaining higher than baseline, initial conditions. In some
wells, initial values are high, due to a possible brackish water effect, such as in well MW3.
Oxidant arrival
Figure 2.5. EC and Temp variation in well MW1-A (EC in red).

pH factor
In general terms this parameter shows an initial, rapid increase and then rapid decrease
coincident with other parameters variations and probably associated to the oxidant arrival
to remain steady or in a continuously increasing trend. Sampling events have a clear
effect on it, by decreasing its value a magnitude of 1 to 2. The reason for these pH
changes during sampling works is not clear.
The ORP and the pH show clearly their inverse relation: when the pH decreases, the ORP
increases, Figure 2.6.

Page 19 of 84

Oxidant
arrival?

GW sampling
(2009-2012)
GW sampling
Figure 2.6. pH, ORP and Temp variation in well MW1-A (Temp in blue, ORP in green, pH
in red; Oxidant: Oxidant arrival).
Temperature
As a difference to other parameters, temperature was measured both around MIP1 (MIPIN2) and MIP3 (MIP-IN1) area. In general, it has a similar initial behaviour to that of the
EC but no so flashy, increasing and decreasing in a more steady way. Initial temperature
conditions are sometimes reached one month after the injection works. Sampling events
have small to none influence on this parameter. In some wells, there is no variation on this
parameter at all: MW1C and MW3, whereas in well MW6B (around MIP3 area)
temperature increases +8C from initial conditions (!). Temp variations seem to be local,
with no external influence (pipes, etc.), due to reaction oxidant/matrix. However, they can
also be due to the injected liquid higher temperature (surface temp.) than that of the deep
groundwater.
Figure 2.7. EC and Temp variation in well MW1-A (EC in red).

Redox potential (ORP)
Like the rest of parameters, the ORP initially increases fast to drop and stay steady all the
time after, probably due to the effect of the oxidant arrival, so more oxidizing conditions
than the initial ones remain. This enhanced oxidizing conditions can last from few days
Page 20 of 84


(2009-2012)
(3 days in MW3, 4 days in MW2 and 10 days in MW1B, the latter see Figure 2.8) until 2
months in MW1A. However, sometimes the ORP increases not enough to overcome
natural reducing conditions: this is the case in MW1C (deepest well in all) or MW4 where
the ORP does not increase. Sampling works have a clear effect on this parameter,
increasing it. As the pH increases there is a rapid decrease in the ORP value, exemplified
in Figure 2.8. The ORP variation in well MW3 is not well understood. Is it because of
sampling? This is the only upgradient well to the injection point.
Oxidant arrival
Enhanced oxidizing conditions due to
oxidant influence
Figure 2.8. ORP, pH and Temp variation in well MW1B (ORP in green, pH in red)
Pressure
In general, when no intrusion is done in the groundwater system the pressure does not
show significant changes (no tidal influence or other water intrusions). However, total
pressure clearly drops during GW sampling events showing water table lowering of even
3.0 metres (from 22psi to 17psi). From the starting until the end of the logging period,
three sampling events are identified, the first one being coincident with the injection works,
Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9 Pressure variation (blue line) in well MW5-A.

General outcome from the real time monitoring
In general, based on outcome of the multiloggers, there can be seen two types of changes
during the monitoring: 1/ flashy change and 2/ long term change. The first one (flashy or a
sudden change) may in most cases be linked to the oxidant arrival and its effects, in few

Page 21 of 84


(2009-2012)
minutes or maximum hours. The second one (long term change) is linked to larger time
frames, related to changes in the environment and probable pollutants degradation.
Figure 2.10 shows an example of flashy response and long term responses. As can be
seen, the injection in nearby MIP-IN2 spot (17/03) suddenly gives major increases in both
temperature and EC (T +6C, EC +50000 S/cm) in monitoring well MW1A. The injection
was performed between 11:43 oclock and 16:15 oclock in MIP-IN2. The horizontal
distance between this injection spot and MW1A was 1.0 m. The flash response occurred
within 15 minutes after the injection started. This fast response may indicate, for example,
existence of an open fissure (more or less open connection in the ground/soil) between
the injection point and the well, not least based on the low hydraulic conductivity that was
found from the slug test in this well (Section 5.5). The parameters afterwards return to
near baseline conditions: flashy response. Sampling events resulting in small peaks may
be due to logger manipulation and punctual change of natural conditions during sampling
of groundwater for lab analysis.
Long term observation shows a system trend towards stabilization after the first big peak
or oxidant impact at 17/03. While temperature drops to baseline values, EC remains
higher than initially, but in a continuous descend trend: long term change.It has not yet
been possible to verify changes in these parameters associated to contaminant
degradation, but evaluation of further sampling/analysis of groundwater and soil may,
together with existing data, facilitate better understanding.
Figure 2.10. Logging results from MW1A (16/03/2011-06/04/2011) 3-4 m bgl. Left axis
and blue graph: Temp.; right axis and red graph: EC.
Evaluation of the data set gathered form the loggers (data collected each 15 minutes), can
give valuable information about which wells at any determined depth that are affected by
the oxidant arrival, and when exactly that change happened, and therefore, when the
oxidant arrived. Data set evaluation can help definitively, if parameters are well chosen, to
trace the oxidant. Following final remarks were concluded from the investigations:
Page 22 of 84


(2009-2012)
Oxidant movement on the ground and groundwater can be spatially and timely traced
by real time measuring loggers.
Sampling campaigns do have a clear impact on the parameters behaviour. It is
important to have a clear control on them.
Detection of compounds degradation by oxidants by loggers is a lot more difficult to
perform than tracing the oxidant, nevertheless, some available data collected from
loggers and sampling can help us to understand if this degradation is occurring.
Additional laboratory analyses, more comparative tests between logged data, lab and
field manual data must be done and alternative loggers should be sought to
complement existing sensors in order to improve the interpretation.
Effect of oxidants on loggers and their measurement values must be evaluated
through the full project.
Numerical modelling
The Flanders site was the only one (of three UPSOIL sites) where a full combined
monitoring-modelling system was tested. The full combination of monitoring and modelling
means, that the system included:
a) Real-time monitoring system as described in the previous section (Real time
monitoring);
b) Periodical monitoring campaigns;
c) Simulation of the injection process (transport of the oxidant);
d) Simulation of chemical reactions during the injection and in the post-injection phase;
e) And finally use of all above to present, predict the remediation performance and to
inform about unexpected or desired status of groundwater.
The rest of the UPSOILs study cases (Polish, Spanish) included all steps mentioned
above, except the simulation of chemical reactions (step d) (see chapters: Error! No se
encuentra el origen de la referencia.. Error! No se encuentra el origen de la
referencia.; Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.. Error! No se
encuentra el origen de la referencia.). The reason of exclusion of chemical modelling
for Polish and Spanish site can be found together with the detailed description of
modelling system in Appendix 2 (Modelling tool and feedback system description).
Generally, the modelling tool is embedded in the Microsoft Excel 2010 spreadsheet and
coupled with monitoring data visualization tool-kit and PhreeqC geochemical model. The
coupling is based on programming scripts written using Excel built-in Visual Basic editor
and Python language. This chapter includes the monitoring/modelling results only,
therefore, see Appendix 2 for more technical details.
The simulation has been performed for 6 observation boreholes: MW1A, MW1B, MW1C,
MW2, MW3 and MW4 situated as it is shown on Fig. 2.11.

Page 23 of 84


(2009-2012)
Fig 2.11 Monitoring wells and injection point location in the numerical model (size of points
are proportional to the depth of screens)
The injection started on the 17th March 2011 at 10.30 AM, thus this point of time has been
set up as the beginning of the simulation. In the following figure (Figure 2.12) one might
find the detailed information concerning the performed injection. As it is shown the
assumed concentration of permanganate was 1000 mg/L, pH of injected liquid was set up
to 7 and value of ORP (oxidation-reduction potential) was fixed to 15.
The latter is the result of occurring of manganese in a form of MnO 4 ions, which in the
model represents the oxidant. Other important parameters include the geometry of the
model and the duration of the post-injection phase.

Page 24 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure. 2.12 Models inputs regarding the injection process

The results presented in following subsections were calculated in a feedback case
scenario. The principles of approach are described in the Appendix 2: Modelling tool and
feedback system description.The feedback means that the flow velocity was estimated on
the basis of the oxidant arrival into the monitoring well and used in numerical simulations
together with real-time measured temperature, pH and pE at the beginning of injection
process. In addition, what should be kept in mind, the input values for the model have
been distance averaged to represent the injection area between monitoring wells instead
of representing the monitoring wells only.
Basic parameters: modelled versus real time measured
In the monitoring well MW1, i.e. 1.13 m from the injection point, the analysis of pH
changes during the injection of permanganate indicates that the influx of oxidant causes
an imminent increase of pH followed by a rapid decrease in both predicted and measured
values. Hence, in the considered study case, modelled value of pH reached value of 9.2.
On the contrary, in MW4, i.e. 2,94 m from the injection point, similar behaviour is noted in
the modelled version, whereas no variation occurs in the measured one.
For the modelled pH value, within both distances (approx. 1 and 3 m from the injection
point) the decreasing tendency has been observed from 19th March, i.e. 2 days after the
injection. However, in more distant borehole, values of pH showed some fluctuations. In
turn from 25th May, in the 3 meters distant monitoring well the drop in values of pH is very
noticeable, what may indicate that the intensity of reaction between oxidant and COCs is
totally reduced. There are no measured pH values in that last period.

Page 25 of 84


(2009-2012)
Moreover, within the distance of 1 m from the injection point, pH is also decreasing but
there is no very visible drop which might be interpreted as the total consumption of the
oxidant.
The changes in modelled temperature values for two observation boreholes are
contrasting, in point MW4 which is located ca. 3 m from the injection point temperature is
gradually decreasing, whilst in point MW1A situated about 1 m from the injection well the
temperature is increasing after a significant fall just after the injection. However, generally
the temperature is quite high and oscillates in both wells between values of 15 and 18
during the whole monitored phase.
In contrast, measured temperature increases just after the injection in both MW1 and
MW4 (about 6C in the first monitoring well). Probably mainly due to higher injected liquid
temperature compared to the deep groundwater one (See Annex 1 graphs and Annex 2
maps).
pH facts - model versus real measurements summary:
Measurements indicated the significant up-rise in pH, up to 11 in the borehole
MW1A 5 days after the injection (Fig. M1 A). The higher values of pH (between 7
and 9) covered the area from the borehole MW1 towards MW2 about the fortnight
after the injection (Fig. M1 B). The last sampling campaign (May) indicates the
drop in pH (Fig. M1 C).
Model indicated the up-rise in pH value up to 9.2, the maintained high level of pH
in both boreholes (the more distant and the closer to the injection well) to half of
May, and a critical drop in pH in the more distant well almost to the initial
background value (Fig. A1; Fig. A2).
Temperature facts - model versus real measurements summary:
Measurements indicated relatively high temperature just after the injection, first
sampling campaign brought the highest value of temperature in borehole MW1B,
up to 16.20C (Fig. M2 A), two weeks after the injection temperature stayed high,
varied from 16 to over 180C (Fig. M2 - B) and in May in the area adjacent to the
injection temperature dropped to 140C, but remained high in the most southern
part of the studied area (Fig. M2 C).
Model indicated high temperature during the simulation varying between 14 and
180C (Fig. A3; Fig. A4).
Contaminants of Concern: modelled versus real time measured
In relation to changes in concentrations of COCs, as one might notice, in almost all cases
the rebound of contaminants has been observed. The modelled benzene concentrations
are drastically dropping just after the injection although almost immediately are increasing
to the level exceeding initial values Fig. B1). In the closer distance to the injection point,
Page 26 of 84


(2009-2012)
this increase is also observed but after almost one-month long plateau phase (Fig. B2). In
case of well MW1 modelled concentrations are comparable to measured ones.
In case of toluene concentrations, the simulation yields that the rebound of contaminant is
very high. For more distant borehole increases in concentration of both toluene and
benzene are overlapping in time. In borehole MW1A modelled and observed
concentrations are comparable
The last analysed compound is ethyl benzene. Its concentrations bounce back in the
area more distant from the injection. The modelled rebound reaches the observed level
but it is retarded in regard with the loggers based observation for 10 days. In the borehole
MW1A the rise in ethyl benzene concentrations is not noticeable in the case of modelling
results. In the data from sampling campaigns it is also negligible
See Annex 3 for modelled graphs and Annex 4 for real measured maps.
Benzene facts - model versus real measurements summary:
Measurements indicated low concentrations of this compound few days after the
injection almost on the entire area with one exception, the borehole MW4, where
concentrations were about 5 g/L (Fig. O1 A Annex 4). The fortnight after the
injection, benzene concentrations were still low in the centre of the studied area
but the smooth increase one might notice in the northern part (Fig. O1 B Annex
4). It may be a result of the lateral inflow of the contaminants from the source of
pollution. In the last sampling campaign the slight rebound can be observed in the
area around boreholes MW1A, MW1B and MW2. Relatively high concentrations
were still observed in the borehole MW4 (Fig. O1 C Annex 4).
The model indicated rebound of benzene in the area most adjacent (Fig. B2
Annex 4) as well as distant (Fig. B1 Annex 3) from the injection point. The
simulated rebound in the more distant well is however 10 times higher than the
initial concentrations, while measurements pointed out two times higher
concentrations of benzene. Nevertheless in the closer well the calculated and
observed rebound levels are comparable, and even the point in time when the rise
in COC occurred is consistent.
Toluene facts - model versus real measurements summary:
Measurements indicated slightly increased and dispersed concentrations of
toluene just after the injection (Fig. O2 A Annex 4) and the decrease in the
concentrations of toluene during the next two sampling campaigns on the almost
entire study area (Fig. O2 B, C Annex 4). High concentration of this pollutant
has been observed only in the northern part what can be explained by the lateral
inflow of contaminant from its source.
The model indicated quick rebound effect just after the injection in both the closer
(Fig. B4) and the more distanced well (Fig. B3 Annex 3). It can be confirmed by
the observed dispersed cloud of contaminants mentioned above. This rebound
Page 27 of 84


(2009-2012)
was followed by the drop to levels close to 0. Afterwards, modelled curves of

concentrations show the increase: in case of the more distant borehole MW4
during first days of April (Fig. B3 Annex 3) and in the case the closer well at the
beginning of June (Fig. B4 Annex 3). In the latter well the rebound effect is
comparable to the observed.
Ethyl benzene facts -model versus real measurements summary:
Measurements indicated very high concentration of ethyl benzene on the south,
and relatively low within the rest of analysed area just several days after the
injection (Fig. O3 A Annex 4). Two weeks after the event the tendency has
been upturned, while the concentrations of ethyl benzene remained low in the
centre (Fig. O3 B Annex 4). During the last monitoring campaign in the vicinity
of both boundaries southern and northern, amount of ethyl benzene increased but
the area adjacent to the injection has not been affected by the rebound of pollutant
(Fig. O3 C Annex 4).
The model indicated stable and low concentrations of ethyl benzene in the area
situated in the vicinity of the injection well (Fig. B6 Annex 3). The model pointed
out the rebound in the more distant well (Fig. B5 Annex 3), however the
modelled rebound wave is retarded of about 10 days in comparison to the last
sampling campaign.
Feedback instructions
The whole concept of feedback system included in the modelling tool is described in the
Upsoil deliverable D6.2 Description of the mathematical model and software components
for defining the behaviour of the soil recovery process and predicting further data
acquisition and analysis requirements. The main concept of the feedback-driven
approach is to establish the thresholds for the physical and chemical parameters (pH, pE,
temperature) which may indicate the unexpected effects of the injections (failure/danger)
depending on the type of oxidant (Figure 2.13A ). A code written in Python imports to the
spreadsheets graph data recorded by loggers together with ranges typical for the
oxidation process (Figure 2.13C). When values of measured parameters exceed threshold
values defined by the user, the alarm message is displayed and sent to the specified
recipient as an e-mail message (Figure 2.13B). The message includes names of
parameters, values, date and time of exceeding.

Page 28 of 84


(2009-2012)
A) ranges for physico-chemical

parameters expected during ISCO
actions
B) Sender, receiver of an
alarm message and the email server name
C) Exceedances
of pH, temp. or Eh
expected during the ISCO
Figure 2.13. Simple e-mail alarm system, informing about the conditions unexpected
during the ISCO (A- ranges for physico-chemical parameters expected during ISCO
actions; B- Sender, receiver of an alarm message and the e-mail server name; CExceeding of pH, temp. or Eh expected during the ISCO)
In Figure 2.13 (above) the effect of executing of the alarm action for the pH dataset for
well MW1A can be noticed. The same data analysis might be carried out for each logger
and each parameter. Below, the whole set of plots generated after running the alarm
mode is shown, data are pertained to the borehole MW2 (Fig.2.14).

Page 29 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 2.14. Borehole MW2 alarm system for each parameter

Page 30 of 84


(2009-2012)
All alarm events have been arranged in one table (Fig. 2.15) summarising different types
of alarms and presenting short analysis concerning points wherein the oxidation might
have been performed successfully. This type of alarm report can be sent via e-mail as
shown below.
Figure 2.15. The e-mail form the UPSOIL alarm system

Page 31 of 84


(2009-2012)
3. Poland Test Site results
Wegleniec
test site
Figure 3.1. Wegliniec site location.
3.1
Historical activities and geographical context
The Upsoil test site is located in Western part of Poland, approximately 15 km from the
Polish-German border between Bolesawiec (Poland) and Grlitz (Germany), in Wgliniec
town. Situation and general overview of the investigated area is presented in the Figure
3.2.
The site is located in a railroad yard and comprises a railway refuelling station and
locomotives cleaning area which was contaminated with TPH, mainly diesel oil. The site is
owned by Polish railways PKP and it is scheduled to be redeveloped in future along with
modernization of the rail line linking Poland and German railway system. On the site a
fuelling station was operating, starting from early seventies. The fuelling operations were
ended in 2000 year.

Page 32 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 3.2. Wegliniec site location and contaminants plume
3.2
Geology and hydrogeology
The investigated area is placed in former peat bog, which was covered by 2-4 m of
anthropogenic fill in order to create the railroad yard (added at top of the peat/clay layers).
The composition of the fill is heterogeneous and contains: coarse sand, gravel, and
somewhere brown finer sand. Thus, at the contaminated site itself in the source area,
there are 3-4 layers: anthropogenic fill, followed by peat and/or clay, and finally natural
sand. Farther to the north, the anthropogenic fill is deeper and the contamination is found
within this fill layer. To the east of the site, essentially two layers are present: an upper
brown sand more rich in organic matter followed by sand that is very light in colour.
According to the lithological profiles the water table is 1,2 1,5 m above the level of the
peat formation. The area is drained by small brook which is slightly contaminated with
hydrocarbons. The drainage is retarded in the railway area because the brook goes
through a pipe. During the preliminary Upsoil inventory performed in March 2010, source

Page 33 of 84


(2009-2012)
zone with 5-70 cm of pure oil phase was investigated, as well as plume area with floating
fuel film layer or dissolved contaminations (Fig. 3.2).
3.3
Previous Site Investigations
Between 1997 and 2001 a soil survey was conducted. 20 monitoring wells were installed
in the upper 5-8 meters with sampling of soil, monitoring of the groundwater and
measuring TPH concentrations. Investigations conducted at the site resulted in delineation
of contamination and a subsequent in-situ remediation which was carried out in 2003 and
was based on multiphase vacuum extraction technique. In the remediation project 89
extraction wells were installed in a tight grid-like pattern. These wells were joined with
submerged pipes lying about 30 cm below the ground level. After 4 months of pumping it
was concluded that this remediation project was not successful due to clogging of the
filters, and multiphase vacuum extraction was aborted.
3.4
Contaminants of Concern
The Wgliniec site was selected for the UPSOIL-project as it is representative for a large
number of TPH-contaminated sites throughout Europe with respect to the type of site with
a partly anthropogenic soil profile. Studies have also proved heavy contamination of soil
profile by residual oil phase. The main objective of the field study was the combination of
biochemical techniques of remediation, linked with real-time automatic monitoring as a
basis for process feedback and adjustment.
3.5
Oxidant selection
The oxidant was selected on the basis of soil samples in batch treatments. Peat samples
from Wgliniec site were much more reactive than the other types of soils treated,
especially when using permanganate as the oxidant. In general, with equivalent oxidant
concentrations, oxidant consumption is slightly faster or equally fast (fill sample) for
permanganate than for persulphate. However, the overall degradation of diesel
contaminant and soil organic matter seems similar for both oxidants in all sample types.
The opposite effect that these two oxidants have on soil pH is evident: more alkaline
conditions arise from permanganate treatment, while persulphate leads to soil
acidification. Permanganate treatment further leads to the accumulation of manganese
oxides, creating a long-term buffer for maintaining a high oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) in the soil. The products of persulphate treatment reaction are dissolved sodium or
potassium ions, and dissolved sulphate, which usually will be transported away from the
treated site with the lateral flow.

Page 34 of 84


(2009-2012)
The addition of ferrous iron appeared to have no significant effect on the oxidation
process for the Wgliniec samples, although at least for the solutions at 5% and 10% of
persulphate saturation the iron concentration used was in the range for which activation
effects are reported. Probably, the presence of iron and other transition metals in the soil
already provided similar activation. The percarbonate treatment of the pure product
demonstrates that here, similar to treatment with Fentons reagent, the oxidation process
is not prolonged. For selected samples, the effect of Fentons on TPH degradation is
limited, however, it is similar to that of permanganate and persulphate.
The heterogeneity of the soil samples with respect to natural organic matter content and
contaminant content is expected to complicate a quantitative interpretation of the
experimental results. Biodegradation results indicated that nutrient amendment is required
for bioremediation to occur and that degradation rates are increased under incubation at a
higher temperature. The persulphate was selected for the following reasons:
expected activation by ferrous constituents present in the soil,
to secure low risk of the chemical treatment lower intensity of reaction and no
release of gases,
no soil disturbance for example manganese dioxides accumulation.
Chemical oxidant concentration determination
The concentration of oxidants was determined on a basis of laboratory results performed
for the Wgliniec samples and based on the practitioners experience. 10% persulphate
solution was determined as the optimal for the field test.
Injection points: number, location and depth.
In preparation of the pilot design, with prior complex examination of hydraulic conductivity,
porosity, and soil matrix composition a 5x5m area was established as a testing field
situated downstream of the site contamination source zones (Fig. 3.2). In this area
dissolved contaminations are present, partially together with residuals of a fuel film and
bottom soil profile heavily saturated with oil phase. The pilot test concept was developed
in detail by the team led by Deltares with WUR, IETU and POWIZ engagement.
The testing field has regular form of a 5x5m square (Figure 3.3). The layout of the test site
was based on field observations made during the initial sampling. As primary boreholes,
four wells were installed in the 2nd quarter of 2011 for a recognition and controlling of
boundary conditions of the experiment (wells from T-1 to T-4). The installation of the
anticipated injection well (We-1) and the observation wells (C-1 to C-4) was conducted in
the 3rd quarter of 2011 (Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia..3).
Swamp tests carried out on the site, confirmed poor permeability (mainly) in central area
of the plot. The lowest permeability was observed for the We-I well, which was designed
initially as the injection point. Basing on the observations during wells installation, and on
Page 35 of 84


(2009-2012)
subsequent hydraulic conductivity measurements the pilot area was redesigned.

Additional monitoring wells were installed (wells C-5 to C-10) in the 4th quarter of 2011
and, considering the observed soil profiles within the pilot area, the injection point was
shifted from We-1 to C-1 well. The injection well and all monitoring wells have 1-meter
long filter screens. All screens are placed at the top of the peat layer which is typically
between 2.7 and 3.0 m below the ground level at the pilot location.
Figure 3.3. Wegliniec pilot test layout

Geological profile of the test site is determined as approximately 3 m of anthropogenic fill
(embankments, gravel, sand, debris) including top soil layer, confined by endogenic peat
layer considered as a very low permeable zone (k <110-8 m/s). Within highly
contaminated zones, hydraulic conductivity drops dramatically from the average value
representative for the anthropogenic layer being in range 5610-4 [m/s] down to 1,73,710-7 [m/s] (due to heavy saturation with residual oil phase). It fosters preferential
groundwater flow paths and differentiate flow rate in the field. Pollution is characterised
with average concentrations of mineral oil:
0,5 5 mg/l in groundwater,
10 200 mg/kg in soil, and
1-12 g/kg in soil with residual phase (5 g/kg in average).
Basic parameters of the test site are:
25 m2 area
2.8 m depth
70 cubic meters.
Water table varies from 1.6 to 1.8 m below surface level. Geological cross-sections of the
pilot area are presented on Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5.

Page 36 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 3.4. Wegliniec pilot test cross-section T1-T3
Figure 3.5.Wegliniec pilot test cross-section T4-T2
3.6
Feedback driven remediation
The monitoring system in the Polish site included two types of automatic loggers:
waterproof pH-meter CP-401
waterproof multifunction meter CX-461
Waterproof pH-METER CP-401
The date of calibration of each pH electrode stored by the meter, with possibility of
signalling moment when next calibration should be done.
Calibration of the pH electrode : 1 5 points
Used for accurate pH, temperature and redox potential measurements.
The results and calibration data are stored in non-volatile memory.
Page 37 of 84


(2009-2012)
Automatic detection of buffer solutions, their values may be changed by the user in
the given range.
Automatic correction of the pH sample solution value changes, along with the
temperature changes for NIST
Automatic evaluation of the of electrodes condition.
Automatic or manual temperature compensation.
Waterproof multifunction meter CX-461

The meter is designed for accurate measurements of : pH, redox potential (mV),
conductivity, salinity, TDS, dissolved oxygen, atmospheric pressure and
temperature.
Calibration of the pH electrode in 1 5 points.
Automatic detection of buffer solutions, their values may be set by the user.
Automatic correction of the pH sample solution value changes along with the
temperature changes for NIST standards.
Automatic control of the electrodes condition.
In the conductivity measurement function:
Works with conductivity cells equipped with platinum electrodes.
Calibration by entering the constant K in range 0.0119.999 cm-1 or in buffer
solution.
Wide range of coefficient 010 % / C chosen depending on the measured
solution.
Possibility of changing the reference temperature.
Automatic calculation of conductivity into salinity in NaCl or KCl on the basis of the
actual characteristics instead of a constant coefficient, what greatly increases
accuracy.
Possibility of defining the TDS with entering the TDS coefficient in range 0.2 1.0.
In the atmospheric pressure measurement function:
Possibility of continuous observation of atmospheric pressure value on the meters
screen.
In the dissolved oxygen measurement function:
Automatic calculation of atmospheric pressure influence on dissolved oxygen
measurement value.
Automatic transfer of the salinity measured in the conductivity mode to the oxygen
measurement mode with calculation of its influence on the oxygen content value.
1 or 2 point oxygen sensor calibration.
The multimeter device CP-401 was used for measurement of ORP, which did not required
calibration of the ORP electrode. The CX-461 multimeter measured pH and conductivity
(EC). Calibration of the pH electrode was done with the use of bufer solutions with pH
values 4, 7 i 9 (3 calibration points). Calibration of the EC electrode was performed
without standard solution. It was based on constant value K of the conductometric probe
(electrode) the values are provided by the producer. Calibration was done twice. The
first was carried out on the 5th of May 2012 with 70 days validity and the last was
Page 38 of 84


(2009-2012)
performed on the 9th of August 2012 with 70 days validity just before during the third
injection of nutrients.
Installation of sensors in field test site
Four wells (C-6, C-7, C-8, C-9) surrounding the injection well C-1, and one well (C-10)
located downstream of the injection point were designed as dedicated for automatic
loggers installation. Loggers were installed in January 2012 (Fig. 3.6). Each monitoring unit
consists of the ORP probe and the multiparameter probe (for pH, EC, pressure,
temperature measurement).
Figure 3.6. Wegliniec pilot test site - logging units installation

Numerical modelling
The Polish site included the test of tool coupling monitoring and modelling systems. For
this site the combination of monitoring and modelling means, that the system included:
a) Real-time monitoring system;
b) Simulation of the injection process (movement of the oxidant);
c) And finally use of all above to present, predict the remediation performance and to
Similarly to the Spanish site and in contrast to the Flanders site this test was carried
without the simulation of chemical reactions during the injection and in the post-injection
Page 39 of 84


(2009-2012)
phase. The reason is the difference in reactants occurring and oxidant used in the sites.
For each reactant and oxidant the reaction database in model have to be specifically
modified. Such modifications can be done on case by case basis. In UPSOIL project the
general approach was devised and tested only for one typical case study represented by
Flanders site. For Wgliniec and Spanish site additional extensive work would have been
required to establish reaction database.
The detailed description of modelling system can be found in Appendix 2 (Modelling tool
and feedback system description). Generally, the modelling tool has a form of Microsoft
Excel 2010 spreadsheet coupled with monitoring data and PhreeqC geochemical model.
The coupling is based on programming scripts written using Excel built-in Visual Basic
editor and Python language. For the Spanish site the use of PhreeqC model was limited to
the calculation of the oxidant movement between the injection point and monitoring wells.
However, the model still includes all functions of monitoring data visualisation and alarm
features.
Basic parameters evolution
Since the beginning of April 2012, continuous data logging had been carried. The field
experiment was designed as a test with two injections of chemical oxidant (typical for
ISCO approach), and nutrient injection after the chemical oxidation phase.
Field experiment started on May 8th 2012, at about 1 PM, when 0.550 m3 of a 10%
persulphate solution was injected in C-1 well. The propagation of the injected chemical
oxidant was observed in wells C-6 to C-10 with in-situ loggers. The loggers automatically
logged temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and ORP at a 5 minute interval. Other
monitoring wells were controlled manually for the same parameters on the basis of an
individual monitoring scheme for each well depending on the distance to the injection
point and the groundwater flow direction. Groundwater within the pilot area was also
monitored for TPH to enable an assessment of the effect of the oxidant injection. After the
monitoring period of 41 days, on June 19th 2012, at about 1 PM the second persulphate
injection was done with 0,770 m3 volume of 10% persulphate solution. During 24 hours
after the 2nd injection started, readings from loggers were stored in 60(s) interval.
The injection flow rate of oxidant solution [dm3/min] was measured. Subsequently, logging
interval was shifted to 5 min and 15 min in the following days. The monitoring scheme was
similar to that of the first injection. 50 days after the second injection the pH had risen to
levels suitable for the injection of nutrients with visible lowering of the ORP indicating end
of the chemical phase. The active phase of the pilot spanned 91 days (3 months). On the
day 90th, on August 6th, 2012 approximately 0,150 m3 of NPK nutrient was injected. The
logged data were matched with 20 campaigns of groundwater sampling for lab analyses
(TPH, TOC, DOC, nutrients concentrations), as well as twice soil profile sampling and
microbial activity research. All field activities were adjusted basing on the continuous
Page 40 of 84


(2009-2012)
automatic data logging, which gave feedback about remediation performance and a basis
for further on site decisions. The result of real-time monitoring is presented in the Annex 5.
Numerical modelling results and feedback instructions
The most valuable feedback from the monitoring-modelling system include:
1) Maps showing:
o the status before the injection (useful for the assessment of upper and
lower boundaries for each monitored parameter);
o distribution of the oxidant during the injection and in the first phase of
remediation (rapid changes in real-time measured parameters);
o areas where the oxidation process seems to be finished and successful or
not successful in the in the post-injection phase of remediation.
2) Alarms indicating the exceeding of real-time measured parameters (pH, Eh,
temperature) above or below the pre-injection status.
The first of above mentioned feedbacks is presented and described below. A set of 2D
maps were prepared using the visualization tool developed in the framework of the Upsoil
project. Maps had been prepared at 4 hours intervals at the day before the injection and in
the first phase after each injection campaigns. Less frequent maps were prepared in the
post-injection phase, when the groundwater status change was assumed to be much
slower. The conductivity, just before the first injection of persulphate, was in a range of
300-600 S/cm. The highest values were observed in wells C6, C7 and C8. After the
injection the conductivity increased rapidly within a radius of approximately 1 m diameter
with the highest influence in wells C6, C7 and C8. The lower change in well C9 suggests
the lower hydraulic conductivity to the east of the injection area. Lower increase in the well
C10 indicates that the radius of influence is less than 2 m in the direction of natural
groundwater flow (Fig. 1 Annex 6). The radius of influence after the first injection was
confirmed by the pH changes (Fig. 2 Annex 6). Before the injection pH was almost
constant (approx. 6,8) in all wells.
After the injection pH changed in all wells except the C10 (the well 2-meters distant from
the injection point). The biggest change during the first days was observed in wells C7
and C9 (pH=3). Lower intensity of the oxidation within the C9 well area suggested by
mentioned above changes in conductivity is contradicted by pH 2D plots. The changes in
pH suggest that in the well C9 the oxidation is similarly intensive as in the rest of wells
closest to the injection point (C6, C7 and C8). Considering the changes in two of
monitored parameters (conductivity, pH) it can be stated that the first injection caused an
effect only in the closest surroundings of the injection point. The second injection (19th of
June, 13PM) ensured that the oxidation took place in the whole analysed area. 2D plots
indicate changes in pH in all monitoring wells including the most distant C10 (Fig. 3
Annex 6).

Page 41 of 84


(2009-2012)
The second feedback, alarms indicating the exceedances of real-time measured

parameters above or below the pre-injection status is presented on Fig. 1 Annex 7. The
presented example of pH alarms indicates that the ISCO operator will be informed about:
- pH decreasing in well C6 constantly below the threshold value after the first injection,
- pH decreasing in well C7 periodically below the threshold value after each injection,
- pH decreasing in well C10 constantly below the threshold value after the second
injection,

Page 42 of 84


(2009-2012)
4. Spain test site results
Spain Test site
Figure 4.1. Spanish site location.
4.1.
Historical activities and geographical context
The facility where has been developed this investigation is located in a coastal area in the
South of the Iberian Peninsula, and is operational for over 40 years using some chemical
products, developing several chlorinated compounds, including Dichloromethane,
Trichloromethane (Chloroform) and 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene Dichloride EDC).
The most likely source of contamination was located in the zone of initial treatment of
process water and is currently out of order.
4.2.
Geology and hydrogeology
The site is based on detritic quaternary materials with fluvial-marine origin, made of silts
and sands deposited by surface water courses that due to its low hydraulic gradient,
transports mainly suspended matter, making large sludge amounts. Locally, subsoil is
composed, from top to bottom, by fine sands and medium-grained bio-sandstones. Grain
size according to DIN 4022 (3,30 m depth) gives a composition of 95,5% sands and 4,5%
fine particles. Porosity is 35,10%.
Groundwater is a mixture of fresh and salt water, given the proximity to several rivers,
streams and lakes, as well as the proximity of the sea. There are several aquifers in this
Page 43 of 84


(2009-2012)
area; on the one hand a shallow free aquifer, with a thickness of 10-20 m; otherwise some
confined aquifers by layers of fine material, below 20-22 m. Groundwater level is located
between 4,30 - 9,00 m (it depends on which area); Transmissivity is very variable,
reaching maximum values at regional level in excess 10-2 m2/s.
4.3.
Previous Site Investigations
Several years ago GEOCISA carried out various studios to define environmental status of
selected location. This works included the implementation of 21 drillings along the whole
plot. These drillings were installed as piezometers to take GW samples and to analyze
them. These studios allowed knowing contaminants present in GW and its concentrations.
This is how was selected a micro area inside whole plot to develop UPSOIL project. This
micro area is the most affected zone, where chlorinated hydrocarbons are greater
presence. Apart from environmental information, theses studios allowed knowing several
hydrogeological parameters, such as porosity, hydraulic conductivity and GW flow
velocity.
4.4.
Contaminants of Concern
The site is located nearby the sea, based on a homogeneous soil, consisting mainly of
sands with some silt. High concentrations of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons have been
detected in groundwater samples from SU-1 & SU-2. Also, the source of contamination
has been identified upstream of these points. The main contamination source is out of
order now and it was the raft of initial treatment of process water. The highest
concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbons (Trichloromethane, Tetrachloromethane &
1,2-Dichloroethane) were detected in SU-1, nearby source of contamination. Also there
have been other compounds, such as 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, Vinyl Chloride & 1,1Dichloroethylene.
It might be occurring natural attenuation of existing compounds, because complete chains
of Chloromethanes (Tetrachloromethane, Trichloromethane and Dichloromethane) &
Chloroethanes (Tetrachloroethane, Trichloroethane, Dichloroethane and Vinyl Chloride)
have been detected in groundwater.
4.5.
WP6 Site Investigation
Drilling and soil sampling works

The first campaign to stake out new wells was held in study area on March 28, 2011
taking into account existing infrastructure. Drilling works were carried out from March 28 to
April 4, 2011.

Page 44 of 84


(2009-2012)
The new wells P-1001 and P-1002 were drilled by rotation, with continuous soil recovery
for lithological description, organoleptic characteristics and hydrocarbons saturation
degree, with drilling diameter 101 mm. A total of 15 m were drilled (Fig. 4.2).
Figure 4.2: Location of drillings.
The Second camping was carried out in March 2012 (19-27) and 46 lineal meters were
drilling implementing five drillings, four of them 9 m depth (MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5)
and one of them 10 m depth (MW-6).
Drilling was carried out by dry rotation extracting a continuous unaltered sample, from GW
table until maximum depth reached in each well, which was directly introduce in a PVC
pipe, in order to preserve ground natural characteristics. The diameter of each drilling was
101 mm. The location of each well is shown in this image (Fig. 4.3):
Figure 4.3: Location of monitoring wells.
All drilling works were supervised by a qualified technician from GEOCISA, making
lithological and organoleptic description, photographic report and registering
characteristics observed during drilling and installation of piezometers, and making sure
that each phase of works were properly done.

Page 45 of 84


(2009-2012)
Volatile Organic Compounds Measurement

During soil continuous extraction, VOCs concentration was measured at one meter
intervals (Head Space technique), by using a portable photoionizator (PID), 1,2Dichloroethene calibrated in a range from 0 ppm to 2000 ppm. The Table below shows
the results obtained in both campaigns:
Table 4.1. Head Space VOCs (ppm).
DEPTH
P-1001*
P-1002*
MW-1
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
0,5
0,0
0,0
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
1,5
0,0
12,6
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
2,5
0,0
4,7
413
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
3,5
0,0
179
>2000
>2000
>2000
>2000
(m)
*Portable photoionizator PHOTOVAC, model 202, with internal code 24.063, n-Hexane calibrated.
Soil sampling
In March 2011, during first campaign drilling works, GEOCISA tried to take undisturbed
soil samples from 5,5 m to 7,5 m in each piezometers. As expected, there were big
problems taking samples just below groundwater level, due to soil composition. It was a
very sandy soil, so when we tried to collect samples, borehole walls dropped down once
and again, so it was very difficult to take the soil samples properly, therefore we couldnt
take the quantity required.
Table 4.2: Soil samples (March 2011).
WELL
SOIL SAMPLE DEPTH (m)
P-1001
5,50-6,10
6,10-7,00
7,00-7,20
7,20-7,30
7,30-7,40
7,40-7,50
P-1002
5,50-5,94
5,94-6,50
6,50-6,90
6,90-7,20
7,20-7,50
These soil samples were labelled and kept refrigerated until delivery to VITO.
In March 2012 during second campaign field work, when GW table was detected, drilling
was carried out using PVC pipe. It was possible putting inside drilling battery the PVC pipe
and at the end, an especial tool designed to retain sandy soil drilled (Fig. 4.4, 4.5).

Page 46 of 84

Figure 4.4: PVC pipe inside drilling battery.

soil.

(2009-2012)
Figure 4.5: Tool designed for retain sandy
During seven days (19-27 March, 2012) were collected nineteen soil samples, from GW
table to maximum depth reached in each drilling. Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.6 show soil samples
collected in each drilling, indicating the range of depth of each one.
Table 4.3: Soil samples (March 2012).
WELL
SOIL SAMPLE DEPTH (m)
MW-1
5,20-6,00
6,00-7,20
7,20-8,20
8,20-9,00
MW-3
5,20-6,20
6,20-6,50
6,5-7,5
7,5-8,00
MW-4
4,80-6,00
6,00-7,30
7,30-8,80
MW-5
4,80-6,00
6,00-7,00
7,00-7,70
7,70-9,00
MW-6
4,80-6,00
6,00-7,30
7,30-8,4
8,40-10,00
Figure 4.6: Soil sample MW-1 from 8,20 m to 9,00 m.
MW-6 soil samples were labelled and kept refrigerated until delivery to VITO. The rest of
samples were delivered to GEOCISA laboratory.

Page 47 of 84


(2009-2012)
Wells installation
Each drilling was installed to use it as monitoring well. P-1001 and P-1002 wells was
cased with PVC pipe DN 2, using blind pipe in the first 5,5 meters and slotted pipe with
filter of 0,5 mm in the rest, filter section being confronted with contaminated soil.
Table 4.5: Constructive characteristics of piezometers (March 2011).
WELL
DEPTH (m)
SLOTTED PIPE (m)
BLIND PIPE (m)
P-1001
7,50
From 5,50 to 7,50
From 0,00 m to 5,50 m
P-1002
7,50
From 5,50 to 7,50
From 0,00 m to 5,50 m
The rest of wells were cased with slotted PVC pipe DN 2 from 0,5 m below GW table to
2,5 m below GW table (MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5), and from 0,5 m below GW table to
3,5 m below GW table in MW-6. The rest of drilling was piped with blind pipe. Each one
was provided with a bottom plug, and well ring space was filled with selected siliceous
gravel, particle size 3 to 6 mm, sealing first meters with bentonite. Next table shows
constructive characteristics of each piezometer:
Table 4.6: Constructive characteristics of piezometers (March 2012).
WELL
DEPTH (m)
SLOTTED PIPE (m)
MW-1
9,00
From 5,00 to 8,00
MW-3
9,00
From 5,00 to 8,00
MW-4
9,00
From 5,00 to 8,00
MW-5
9,00
From 5,00 to 8,00
MW-6
10,00
From 4,00 to 9,00
BLIND PIPE (m)

From 0,00 m to 5,00 m
From 8,00 m to 9,00 m
From 0,00 m to 5,00 m
From 8,00 m to 9,00 m
From 0,00 m to 5,00 m
From 8,00 m to 9,00 m
From 0,00 m to 5,00 m
From 8,00 m to 9,00 m
From 0,00 m to 4,00 m
From 9,00 m to 10,00 m
After wells installation, all of them were pumped with a whale pump during 15 minutes,
extracting approximately 0,15 m3. This fact assures that GW of each well is representative
of aquifer and allows increasing the influence effective ratio of each well.
Topographic survey
Once all wells were installed (28/03/2012) topographic survey was carried out for all
existing wells in study area, a total of eight wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5,
MW-6, P-1002, SU-2). It permits to establish piezometry of the zone.According to the
information obtained, GW table is situated between 4,49 m in MW-1 and 4,69 m in MW-3.
The table below illustrates measures of GW and piezometry levels in each well:
Page 48 of 84


(2009-2012)
Table 4.7: GW and Topography levels (28/03/2012).

INCREMENTAL
PIEZOMETRY
WELL
DEPTH (m)
GW LEVEL (m)
MW-1
9,00
100,129
4,49
95,639
MW-2 (=P-1001)
7,50
100,000
4,63
95,370
MW-3
9,00
100,009
4,69
95,319
MW-4
9,00
100,029
4,60
95,429
MW-5
9,00
100,021
4,60
95,421
MW-6
10,00
99,998
4,64
95,358
P-1002
7,50
100,044
4,59
95,454
SU-2
7,50
100,072
4,57
95,502
COORDINATE (m)
LEVEL (m)
GW sampling and in situ parameters measurement

Preliminary groundwater sampling was fulfilled in late May 2011 and consisted of
collecting groundwater samples from three wells: SU-2, P-1001 and P-1002. The depth of
groundwater sampling was 6.5 meter below surface. Sampling procedure was performed
according to low-flow and low draw-down procedure. Groundwater was collected from
wells using a peristaltic pump and new polyamide pipe. Groundwater was pumped at a
flow rate below 0,3 litres per minute. Prior to collecting groundwater samples, wells were
purged for more than 30 minutes. Groundwater table was measured at the beginning and
the end of each sampling event. Flow rate and groundwater table measured are shown in
table below:
Table 4.8: Pumping Flow Rate & Groundwater Head (26/05/2011).
PARAMETER
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
INITIAL
FINAL
INITIAL
FINAL
INITIAL
FINAL
Pumping Flow Rate (l/min)
0,30
0,24
0,29
0,28
0,26
0,23
GW head (m below surface)
3,95
3,95
3,85
3,87
3,89
3,89
During groundwater purging, were measured following field parameters: temperature, pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen and salinity. Next table shows the results:
Table 4.9: Groundwater Results for In Situ Measured Parameters (26/05/2011).
PARAMETER
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
INITIAL
FINAL
INITIAL
FINAL
INITIAL
FINAL
T (C)
22,2
22,9
24,8
24,7
25,2
25,3
pH (units)
6,3
5,2
6,7
6,5
6,8
6,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
4472
4756
5340
5425
5350
5109
Disolved Oxygen (ppm)
0,8
4,4
5,7
4,4
6,3
7,3
Salinity (units)
2,4
2,6
2,9
2,8
2,9
2,7

Page 49 of 84


(2009-2012)
The second GW sampling campaign was carried out on May 2012 and consisted of
collecting groundwater samples from five wells: MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5 and MW-6
(MW-1 was flooded).
During groundwater sampling were measured these parameters: temperature, pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, Redox potential and suspended solids. The results are
shown in this table:
PARAMETER
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
T (C)
22,8
21,3
22,0
22,4
21,5
pH (units)
6,8
7,3
7,1
6,86
7,3
Conductivity (S/cm)
3760
3750
3440
2030
3200
3,1
8,1
3,8
11,8
1,4
Redox potential (mV)
-13,9
-80,0
-53,4
-82,4
-106,1
Suspended solids (mg/l)
1890
1900
1670
1020
1600
Next GW sampling campaign, the third one, was carried out in the middle of May 2012
and three samples were collected: MW-4, MW-5 and MW-6. The rest of wells could not be
sampled due to the peristaltic pump stop working. The measures of in situ parameters are
shown in next table:
PARAMETER
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
T (C)
24,9
24,5
22,8
pH (units)
7,2
7,2
7,4
Conductivity (S/cm)
3680
4300
3500
3,2
3,3
2,7
-51,0
-80,9
-104,9
Suspended solids (mg/l)
1840
2160
1760
The fourth GW sampling campaign was fulfilled in June 2012 (16/06/2012). On that
occasion, were collected samples from all existing wells: MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4,
MW-5 and MW-6. However, in situ measurement equipment was temporary not available.
The last GW sampling campaign before injections was carried out in July 2012
(19/07/2012). As before, were collected samples from all existing wells: MW-1, MW-2,
MW-3, MW-4, MW-5 and MW-6 but in situ parameters could not be measure due to the
necessary equipment was temporary not available.
General Hydrological study and GW levels
There have been carried out several campaigns to measure GW levels. This campaign
allowed defining the hydrogeological performance of the location and the study area. The
Page 50 of 84


(2009-2012)
first campaign was carried out in November 2011 in four existing wells near study area:
SU-1, SU-2, SU-3 and SU-4 (Table 4.12, Fig. 4.7).
Table 4.12: GW levels existing wells (16/11/2010).
WELL
GW LEVELS (m)
SU-1
4,35
SU-2
4,32
SU-3
6,70
SU-4
4,35
STUDY AREA
Figure 4.7: Piezometry in study area (November 2011).
In February 2012 was also developed a complete measurement of GW levels (21

drillings). This information enabled to define piezometry of whole location. It is shown in
the image below (Fig. 4.8):
The map was based on the data presented in the Annex 8. Measurements were carried
out in two times to check the tidal cycle in the whole location. The results showed that do
not exist tidal effects.
GW levels
Since the beginning, once was decided the selected location, has been carried out various
measures of GW levels. In The Annex 8 appear the results obtained in different dates.
Once pumped monitoring wells, after 24 hours to assure water levels were stable, were
measured GW levels in each well using an interface probe. The same day was measured
GW level in the rest of the wells installed in study area (SU-2, P-1002) previously. The
Annex 8 shows the information obtained. The day the injections began, were measured
GW levels in study area. The results are also shown in Annex 8.
Page 51 of 84


(2009-2012)
STUDY AREA
Figure 4.8: Whole plot piezometry (February 2012).
Microscale Hydrogeological Study

All the campaigns carried out in study area have allowed setting out its hydrogeological
behaviour. Several tests developed in different piezometers allowed setting some
parameters, such as GW flow velocity and direction, hydraulic conductivity, porosity,
density, transmissivity and permeability. This data from study area has been used to
define a representative physical model (Table 4.13).
Table 4.13: Hydrological parameters.
PARAMETERS
VALUE
GW Flow direction
WS-W
GW Flow velocity (m/day)
1,10*10
Hydraulic conductivity
1,29*10
-3
-3
Transmissivity (m /day)
515,85
Permeability (m/day)
16,71
The resultant GW flow direction is shown the image below (Fig.4.19), towards the
SouthWest:

Page 52 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.9: GW flow direction (28/03/2012).
4.6.
Oxidant selection
The oxidant selection is based on the test results that have been provided in
DELIVERABLE 5.3: INTERNAL REPORT ON EVALUATION OF A FIELD TESTING
(DL5.3A). The tests were performed by VITO with groundwater samples from well SU-2,
sampled by Geocisa in November 2010. These are the main conclusions:
Chemical reductants:
A part of the pollutants present at the Spanish site can be degraded by ZVI. However, the
higher chlorinated compounds are being transformed into lower chlorinated compounds
that can accumulate. This is especially true for the chlorinated methanes. As such, the
zerovalent iron approach can only lead to a partial solution for the Spanish site.
Chemical oxidants:
Only activated persulphate was found to have a significant impact on all mentioned
pollutants. The use of activators is not being tested and examined in WP5 in respect to
packing of reagents. Therefore, a new experiment was performed with the aim to
evaluate if and to which extend, the aquifer material can act as activator for the
persulphate. However, no clear contribution of the aquifer was obtained.
General conclusion
Based on the test results, included in DL5.3A, it is confirmed that the pollutant mix present
at the Spanish site is challenging. With exception of activated persulphate, none of the
tested reagents is able to reduce the whole pollutant mixture.

Page 53 of 84


(2009-2012)
Chemical oxidant concentration determination

Oxygen soil matrix demand
Once characterization soil samples were completed, GEOCISA decided continuing the
work with the most contaminated soil sample: MW-3 7,50-8,00 m (see section 4.8).
Three samples of this portion of soil were taken to add Sodium Persulphate in three
different concentrations: high (30 g/kg), medium (15 g/kg), low (9 g/kg). These samples
were left to settle for 48 hours before carried out analytical tests. The results of these
analyses are shown in the table below:
Table 4.14: Soil analytical tests: MW-3.
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND /
CONCENTRATION
INITIAL
LOW (9 g/kg)
MEDIUM (15 g/kg)
HIGH (30 g(kg)
Soluble sulphates (%)
0,02
0,06
0,12
0,16
Supernatant Persuphate (g/l)
0,03
0,07
0,18
Dicloromethane (mg/kg)
19
2,6
0,38
<0,01
Tricloromethane (mg/kg)
3,0
0,26
0,11
<0,01
Tetracloromethane (mg/kg)
0,03
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Trichloroethylene (mg/kg)
0,03
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
1,2-Dichloroethane (mg/kg)
0,16
0,01
<0,01
<0,01
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (mg/kg)
0,04
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Others VOCs (mg/kg)
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
The results obtained in analytical tests lead to these conclusions:

Increasing the portion of Sodium Persulphate in soil samples decrease the
concentration chlorides compounds. These compounds are totally eliminated with high
concentration of Sodium Persulphate (30 g/kg).
In the same way, increasing Sodium Persulphate concentration in soil samples
increase Soluble sulphates too.
Analysing Sodium Persulphate supernatant we can see that:
- Low concentration (9 g/kg) is the equivalent of 2,25 g/l. In this case,
supernatant is 0,03 g/l.
- Medium concentration (15 g/kg) is the equivalent of 3,75 g/l. with this
concentration supernatant is 0,07 g/l.
- High concentration (30 g/kg) is the equivalent of 7,50 g/l, with supernatant of
0,18 g/l.
The main conclusion is practically all Sodium Persulphate add to soil samples is used to
oxidize chlorides compounds.

Page 54 of 84


(2009-2012)
Batch test (Degradation test)

After determinate oxidative demand of soil and select optimal Sodium Persulphate
concentration to attack organics chlorides compounds present in the soil in a reasonable
time ensuring the absence of a high concentration of supernatant, GEOCISA laboratory
decided the best Sodium Persulphate concentration to continuing to work was 20 kg/kg.
The initial premise of this work is to add to selected soil sample (MW-3 7,50-8,00 m):
1. 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate (15 g Sodium Persulphate in 500 ml distillate water)
Inorganic part: Add to 20 g soil sample 13,3 ml of solution with 30 g/l Sodium
Persulphate and distillate water until a total of 100 ml.
Organic part: Add to 2 g soil sample 1,3 ml of solution with 30 g/l Sodium Persulphate
and mineral water until a total of 10 ml.
2. 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash (KOH) 1% (10 g KOH in 1 l
distillate water)
Persulphate, 0,13 ml od Potash 1% and distillate water until a total of 100 ml.
Organic part: Add to 2 g soil sample 1,3 ml of solution with 30 g/l Sodium Persulphate,
0,013 ml of Potash 1% and mineral water until a total of 10 ml.
3. 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 2% (20 g KOH in 1 l distillate
water)
Persulphate, 0,13 ml od Potash 2% and distillate water until a total of 100 ml.
Organic part: Add to 2 g soil sample 1,3 ml of solution with 30 g/l Sodium Persulphate,
0,013 ml of Potash 2% and mineral water until a total of 10 ml.
GEOCISA laboratory prepared a battery of samples to carry out following tests in different
times:
- pH, conductivity, temperature and redox potential readings after 6 hours, 12 hours, 2
days, 4 days in supernatant of two samples with 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate and 20
g/kg of activated Sodium Persulphate with Potash 1% and 2%.
- Analyze in triplicate pH, conductivity, temperature, redox potential and Sodium
Persulphate supernatant after 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks in supernatant of
samples. Besides, in soil samples are going to analyze chlorides, sulphates, organic
matter, sodium and potassium. This parameters will be measure in soil sample without
additives, with 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate, and 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate with
Potash 1% and 2%.
The results of the inorganic analysis carried out in supernatant of untreated soil samples
are shown in the tables presented in Annex 9. The results of the tests carried out adding
20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate to soil samples are presented in the same Annex, as well as
the results of the tests carried out adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with
Potash 1% to soil samples and those of the tests carried out adding 20 g/kg Sodium
Page 55 of 84


(2009-2012)
Persulphate activated with Potash 2% to soil samples. The evolution of each parameter is
shown in Figures 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12.
pH
10
8
Soil without additives
6
Soil+Sodium Persulphate 20g/kg

Soil + Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg + KOH 1%
Soil + Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg + KOH 2%
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (hours)
Figure 4.10: Evolution of pH over time (MW-3 7,50-8,00m).

Conductivity (S/cm)
250
200
Time Soil without additives
150
Soil + Soldium Persulphate 20 g/kg

Soil+ Sodium Persulphate 20g/kg+KOH 1%
Soil+Sodium Persulphate 20g/kg+KOH 2%
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Time (hours)
Figure 4.11: Evolution of Conductivity over time (MW-3 7,50-8,00m).

Redox Potential (mV)
300
250
200

Soil + Soldium Persulphate 20 g/kg
150

100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Time (hours)
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 4.12: Evolution of Redox Potential over time (MW-3 7,50-8,00m).

Page 56 of 84


(2009-2012)
The tables presented in Annex 10 show the results of the organic and inorganic analytical
tests carried out in supernatant and in soil:
1) Soil without additives
2) Soil + Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg
3) Soil + Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg + KOH 1%
Improvement actions
Soil+20 mg/kg dichloromethane
The analytical results obtained have allowed know the decrease of chlorides in soil
without additives. This fact have led the laboratory to propose an improvement action: to
prepare a soil sample with 20 mg/kg of dichloromethane to test the selected concentration
of Sodium Persulphate is enough to eliminate chlorides at the desired time.
To this prepared soil sample (soil+20 mg/kg dichloromethane) will added 20 g/kg Sodium
Persulphate, and 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 1% and 2%. The
results will be measured after 24 hours.
Table 4.15: Results of improvement action: soil + 20 mg/kg dichloromethane.
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
Dichloromethane
(mg/kg)
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
No additive
20
Sodium Persulphate
20 g/kg
<0,01
Soil+170 mg/kg dichloromethane+120

tetrachloromethane
mg/kg
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 20
Persulphate 20
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
<0,01
<0,01
trichloromethane+16
mg/kg
Considering in the Spanish site the pollution in GW is more relevant than in soils,
GEOCISA decided to carry out another improvement action: to check the efficacy of
proposed treatment in soils doped with chlorides.
To soil sample MW-3 (6,5-7,5m) had been added 170 mg/kg dichloromethane, 120 mg/kg
trichloromethane and 16 mg/kg tetrachloromethane (this situation is similar to add a
humidity of 20% from MW-5 GW to soil MW-3).
The results obtained show that 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate is not enough to oxide a high
concentration of chlorides. GEOCISA has detected the relationship between chlorides
pollution and oxidant necessary to attack the chlorides is lineal, so it would be necessary
a 10 times higher oxidant dose.
Page 57 of 84


(2009-2012)
Table 4.16: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m doped with chlorides (1 day).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
Dichloromethane
(mg/kg)
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additive
Sodium Persulphate
20 g/kg
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 20
Persulphate 20
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
167
135
151
147
123
102
107
108
16
14
16
16
Table 4.17: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m doped with chlorides (2 days).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
Dichloromethane
(mg/kg)
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additive
Sodium Persulphate
20 g/kg
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 20
Persulphate 20
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
156
134
140
141
118
98
107
106
16
14,6
15,9
15,5
Table 4.18: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m doped with chlorides (1 week).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
Dichloromethane
(mg/kg)
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additive
Sodium Persulphate
20 g/kg
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 20
Persulphate 20
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
160
112
135
121
109
68
89
78
15
8,7
10
10
The evolution of chlorides is shown in Figures 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15.

Page 58 of 84


(2009-2012)
Dichloromethane (mg/kg)
180
160
140
Time Soil without additives
Soil+Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg
120

100
80
60
0
Time (days)
Figure 4.13:. Evolution of dichloromethane degradation over time.

Trichlorometane (mg/kg)
120
100
Soil+Sodium Persulphatet 20 g/kg

Soil+Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg+KOH 1%
80
60
0
Time (days)
Figure 4.14. Evolution of trichloromethane degradation over time.

Tetrachlorometane (mg/kg)
20
18
16
14
12

10

8
6
4
2
0
0
Time (days)
Figure 4.15. Evolution of tetrachloromethane degradation over time.

Page 59 of 84


(2009-2012)
Treatment increasing the amount of oxidant

It was prepared a larger quantity of sample with 200 g/kg soil (instead of 20 g/kg) and it
was activated with a larger quantity of KOH. The results obtained are shown in the tables
and graphs presented in the Annex 11.
Final Conclusions
The tests carried out to check the efficacy of Sodium Persulphate as oxidant in soils
contaminated with chlorinated solvents have enabled to establish following conclusions:
The most effective treatment to oxidize chlorides in soil in less time is achieved adding
only Sodium Persulphate to contaminated soil.
The results obtained after 1 week of treatment show the oxidation with Sodium
Persulphate and Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 1% are similar. The
treatment with Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 2% is no so good in this
time, maybe because with this additive soil pH increase and the oxidation is
slower.
The most effective dose to degrade chlorides depends on initial chlorides
concentration in contaminated soil.
The evaluation concludes that 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate are effective to treat
soil with 30 g/kg chlorides concentration in only 1 day (MW-3 7,50-8,00 m).
If the soil has 10 times more chlorides concentration, 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate
can degrade 40% of total chlorides concentration in 1 week.
As the relationship between chlorides concentration and Sodium Persulphate
needed to oxidize them is lineal, with 200 g/kg Sodium Persulphate we could
degrade between 300 mg/kg and 12 mg/kg in only 1 day.
Previous works with Online monitoring system
Prior to the start of the field works loggers were calibrated and programmed in Tecnalia
laboratories in order to assure their proper functioning and accuracy. In order to carry out
the calibration of the loggers, some previous tolerance ranges were set (see next table)
under which the sensor calibration is considered acceptable. Tolerance rates were based
on TEcnalia experince on control of the quality of measurement systems, accreditation
procedures (ENAC), and calibration data and checking sheet enclosed by the loggers
provider (INW).
Parameter Tolerance rates:
Temperature 2,5%
Conductivity 5%
pH 5%
ORP 3%
Page 60 of 84


(2009-2012)
Installation of sensors in field test site

On 12 July 2012 were installed the sensors that allow to measure in continuous several
parameters in GW, such as electrical conductivity, pH, ORP, pressure and temperature. A
total of three sensors were installed in the six monitoring wells existing, one of them with
capacity to measure pressure. In MW-1 (located upstream) and MW-3 were installed two
of them, and the last one was installed downstream, in MW-4, selecting the sensor that
measure pressure (Fig. 4.17, 4.18)).
Figure 4.17: Multiparameter smart sensors.
Figure 4.18: Preparation of sensors.
All loggers are connected to a wireless communication card. Loggers have to be placed in
wells saturated zone, and the com. card outside the well and inside a water protection cover
(Fig. 4.19, 4.20). When loggers are submerged and the batteries correctly inserted in the
communication cards, the data will be sent automatically. In the Spanish site, all sensors
were located 7 meters below the surface. This depth ensures all the sensors are in contact
with GW (GW table is located about 4,5 meters depth) and allows GW sampling.
Figure 4.19: Com.card in MW-3.
Figure 4.20: MW-4.
The system installed allows data transferring from loggers to a nearby PC. This PC has to
be connected to internet. The gateway is the device in the system that receives data from
the communication cards. The gateway has to be connected to a router (Fig. 4.21, 4.22).
Page 61 of 84


Figure 4.21: Gateway and router installed.
(2009-2012)
Figure 4.22: PC.
Once all the devices are connected, the SCADA software is the tool where data from
loggers are recorded (Fig. 4.23).
Figure 4.23: SCADA software.
Numerical modelling
The Spanish site included the test of tool coupling monitoring and modelling systems. For
this site the combination of monitoring and modelling means, that the system included:
a) Real-time monitoring system;
b) Simulation of the injection process (movement of the oxidant);
c) And finally use of all above to present, predict the remediation performance and to

Page 62 of 84


(2009-2012)
Similarly to the Polish site and in contrast to the Flanders site this test was carried without
the simulation of chemical reactions during the injection and in the post-injection phase.
The reason is the difference in reactants occurring and oxidant used in all sites. For each
reactant and oxidant the reaction database in the model have to be appropriately
modified. These modifications would have required additional work to prepare chemical
reaction databases with appropriate parameterisation. .
The detailed description of modelling system can be found in Appendix 2 (Modelling tool
and feedback system description). Generally, the modelling tool has a form of Microsoft
Excel 2010 spreadsheet coupled with monitoring data and PhreeqC geochemical model.
The coupling is based on programming scripts written using Excel built-in Visual Basic
editor and Python language. For the Spanish site the use of PhreeqC model was limited to
the calculation of the oxidant movement between the injection point and monitoring wells.
However, the model still includes all functions of monitoring data visualisation and alarm
features.
The model includes 6 monitoring wells: MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-6 (Fig.
24). However, Only three of them were equipped with loggers collecting in the real-time
the information about: temperature, conductivity, pH and redox potential.
Figure 4.24: Monitoring wells included in the model

Page 63 of 84


(2009-2012)
Real-time data were collected for:

MW-1
o By sensors TS3, CT3 (till 14:00-14:30, 24.07.2012)
o By sensors TS1, CT1 (since 14:00-14:30, 24.07.2012)
MW-3
o By sensors TS2, CT2
MW-4
o By sensors TS1, CT1 (till 14:00-14:30, 24.07.2012)
o By sensors TS3, CT3 (since 14:00-14:30, 24.07.2012)
For the simplification all the data collected for MW-1 have sensors names unified to TS1,
CT1 and the data for MW-4, unified to TS3, CT3. The data for all 3 wells were collected
since the 12th of July 2012 till the injection day (24th of July). After the injection the realtime monitoring was continued in:
MW-3 till the 28th of July and
MW-4 till the 11th of September.
The sample of the data availability is shown on the picture below (Fig.4.25).
Figure 4.25. The real-time data availability for the monitoring-modelling system for the
Spanish site (logged pH example)
Data from all the period of 12.07.2012-11.09.2012 were used to feed the monitoringmodelling system, to visualise the remediation progress and to get the information about
unexpected (alarming) groundwater conditions.
All results are described in the section 6 Spain feedback driven remediation.

Page 64 of 84

4.7.

(2009-2012)
Design and implementation of improvement injection equipment
Before the beginning of field works in contaminant Spanish site, several tests were
developed to prove the efficacy of the injections. These tests were carried out in the
installations of GEOCISA. Portable injection equipment has been developed from a
standard geotechnical recognition machine. This injection equipment is recommended for
using in cohesive or granular ground with a high level pollution and statically penetrable.
Elaboration of the decontaminant dissolution
The first step in the process is the elaboration of the decontaminant dissolution, designed
to eliminate the pollution existing in the ground and GW. In this case has been used water
in the injections. In the mobile plant there is a zone to prepare the decontaminant
dissolutions (Fig. 4.26).
MIX TANK
ZONE TO PREPARE
DISSOLUTIONS
Figure 4.26. Preparing oxidant solution

To facilitate the preparation of dissolutions a mechanical agitation tool has been made in
GEOCISA (Fig. 4.27).

Page 65 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.27. Preparing oxidant solution detail of agitation tool

Storage of decontaminant dissolution
Once dissolution is ready, it is sent to a storage tank using an auxiliary pump. This
storage tank is situated above injection pump (Fig. 4.28).
MIX TANK
CIRCULATION
OF THE
PRODUCT
STORAGE TANK
AUXILIARY PUMP
Figure 4.28. Mixing and storage tank

Automated injection pump
The main element of the portable equipment is the water injection propeller pump (brand
Orbit, model E22). This worm-screw system allows regulating rate of injections (Fig. 4.29).
Page 66 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.29: Injection propeller pump.
For control and automation of the pump has been installed a flow meter and a digital
pressure cell, both connect to a control unit where can be displayed by a software. In the
control unit can be controlled the intensity of the pump motor, keeping required flow and
pressure. Besides, in the unit control can be modified all the parameters of the injections.
Injection circuit- penetration equipment- injectors
From the pump, with required pressure and flow, decontaminant dissolution flows for the
static penetration of the ground (Fig. 4.30).
FLOW
FLOW
Figure 4.30: Injection circuit detail
Decontaminant dissolution will be inserting in the ground using injector points. Each one
has three concentric lines with nozzles for every 30 degrees. GEOCISA has made
nozzles with different diameters to avoid high pressures when dissolution is inserted in the

Page 67 of 84


(2009-2012)
ground, so can be controlled possible breaking of the terrain and preventing dissolution
surfacing (Fig. 4.31).
=10mm
=8mm
=5mm
=3mm
Figure 4.31: Injectors detail
The penetration process of the injector and rod is controlled in the control unit of the
penetration equipment (TG 63-150). This equipment allows controlling in real time
penetration velocity and the stresses necessary to keep this velocity (Fig. 4.32).
Figure 4.32: Penetration equipment.
Work description
To test the viability of the portable injection equipment, several previous tests were carried
out in the installations of GEOCISA. Technicians of GEOCISA carried out two injections

Page 68 of 84


(2009-2012)
tests during two days, 5-6 July 2012, using water as dissolution. Both injections reached 3
meters depth, and were injected 189 litres in the first one and 368 litres in the second one.
Conclusions of the previous works
All previous testing carried out by GEOCISA with portable injection equipment has been
successfully, showing the viability of this equipment developed from a standard
geotechnical recognition machine. This transformation has been possible developing
numerous changes, such as new components and technological improvements.
The injections were carried out reliably, controlling and registering in real time all the
parameters related with injections. The design of the portable equipment allows
programming the main parameters of injections: flow, penetration speed, maximum
pressure from which terrain will break.
When the equipment reaches this maximum pressure, it will react automatically
decreasing established flow avoiding possible breaking of the terrain. It assures maximum
optimization of injections.
4.8.
Previous data interpretation
Soil Samples characterization

In March 2011 were collected eleven soil samples during drilling of P-1001 and P-1002
(Fig. 4.33).
Figure 4.33. Location of P-1001 and P-1002 (31/03/2012).
These samples were delivered to VITO, where were carried out the analytical test. The
results are provided in DELIVERABLE 5.3: INTERNAL REPORT ON EVALUATION OF A
FIELD TESTING (DL5.3A).

Page 69 of 84


(2009-2012)
In March 2012 during drilling of MW-1, MW-3, MW-4, MW-5 and MW-6, were collected
nineteen soil samples, from GW table to maximum depth reached in each drilling (9-10
m). MW-6 soil samples were labelled and kept refrigerated until delivery to VITO. The rest
of samples were delivered to GEOCISA laboratory, where were carried out different
analytical tests in three samples of each drilling. The results are shown in the tables
presented in the Annex 12.
GW analysis timing and results (before and after treatment)
Sampling of GW had been carried out during the process by RDS, following the work
methodology explained in section 4.5 of this document (GW sampling and in situ
parameters measurement). Once the injections had been completed, were carried out
three GW sampling campaigns with the objective of checking chloride evolution in GW.
The campaigns were developed 48 hours, 72 hours and 30 days after injections. During
GW sampling was measured in situ parameters in monitoring wells. The results obtained
in these campaigns are represented in following points. All the tables summarizing GW
analytical results from the different sampling campaigns carried out before and after the
injection are presented in Annex 13.
4.9.
Spain feedback driven remediation
Injection works description and other data

At the end of July 2012, during four days, were carried out preliminary tests and injections
in the Spanish site.
Previous tests
On July 23rd, with the main objective of knowing soil behaviour in Spanish site, were
implemented several injections into the ground.
The injections were carried out with water in an area adjacent to study area to determinate
the optimum flow and pressure to work with the portable equipment. These injections
were also used to determinate the resistance of the ground.
Sodium Persulphate Injections
Based on the positive results of previous campaigns, were initiated the injections following
the same methodology and using the same equipment. The first step was to elaborate the
specific decontaminant dissolution designed for Spanish site: 300 g/l Sodium Persulphate.
The portable equipment has a special area to elaborate this dissolution, where there are
two mix tanks with a capacity of 1000 litres (see page 78 of this document). The addition
of the product was carried out progressively taking into account all basic safety standards
(Fig. 4.34).
Page 70 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.34: Elaboration of dissolution.
Once the dissolution was finished, with the different injectors available GEOCISA decided
to use the injector with diameter of 8mm. This nozzle has enabled to have an appropriated
volume of product with a correct pressure injection (Fig. 4.35).
The injections of Sodium Persulphate in the Spanish site began on July 24 th and were
carried out over three days. The first day, the injection point selected was IW-2, where
were injected a total of 2.454 litres with a flow between 40 and 60 l/min and a maximum
pressure of 10 bar (hydro-fracturing pressure of ground).
The dissolution injected was 22,5% between 4,6 m and 5 m depth (about 600 l), and 10%
between 5 m and 6,2 m (about 1800 l). The injection began at 16:55 h and finalized at
20:30 h.
At the end of this day, were observed an excessive wear of injection circuit metallic
elements, most probably due to the oxidizing power of decontaminant products used.
These facts obligated to continue the injections without using the portable equipment. The
second day, July 25th, the injections were carried out using a hose to avoid an excessive
deterioration of the equipment.

Page 71 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.35/4.36: Portable equipment in the Spanish site.
Figure 4.37/4.38: injections carried out using a hose.

Page 72 of 84


(2009-2012)
This day were injected a total of 4000 litres of 22,5% dissolution distributed in two
monitoring wells: MW-2 where were injected 2000 litres in 38 minutes 13:18h-13:36h,
16:15h-16:35h, and MW-5 where were injected the same volume but in 90 minutes
12:30h-13:15h, 14:05h-14:50h. The flow rate was approximately 50 l/min in MW-2, and
22 l/min in MW-5.
The third and last day of injections, July 26th, were injected a total of 4000 litres of 22,5%
dissolution distributed in the same monitoring wells: MW-2 where were injected 2000 litres
in 45 minutes 9:45h-10:05h, 11:00h-11:25h, and MW-5 where were injected the same
volume but in 95 minutes 10:10h-10:55h, 11:30h-12:20h. The flow rate was
approximately 45 l/min in MW-2, and 20 l/min in MW-5.
Basic parameters evolution during field testing before and after treatment
Before injections were measured in situ parameters in study area. These measures
coincided with GW sampling. The results obtained are shown in point GW sampling and in
situ parameters measurement of this document.
During injections were measured in situ parameters in monitoring wells. The results
obtained are shown in the table below:
Table 4.19: In situ GW parameters during injections.
PARAMETERS
WELLS
DATE
HOUR
MW-1
MW-2
TEMPERATURE
(C)
pH
DISSOLVED
CONDUCTIVITY
O2 (mg/l)
(S/cm)
REDOX
POTENTIAL
(pHmv)
24,20
6,49
1,75
3576
23,00
6,36
2,11
3704
-77,00
MW-3
24/07/2012
Auto Logging
MW-4
12:00h
Auto Logging
MW-5
23,60
6,33
2,84
4086
-89,00
MW-6
22,90
6,58
1,30
2800
-79,00
MW-1
MW-2
23,40
6,73
0,75
3437
-63,00
MW-3
24/07/2012
Auto Logging
MW-4
18:50h
Auto Logging
MW-5
23,20
6,50
1,16
3992
-84,00
MW-6
22,70
6,75
0,64
2759
-103,00
MW-1
25,00
2,70
2,30
30500
534,00
22,80
6,45
0,89
3531
36,00
3926
-99,70
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
24/07/2012
Auto Logging
20:20h
Auto Logging
23,00
6,33
0,88

Page 73 of 84


(2009-2012)
PARAMETERS
WELLS
DATE
HOUR
TEMPERATURE
(C)
pH
DISSOLVED
CONDUCTIVITY
O2 (mg/l)
(S/cm)
REDOX
POTENTIAL
(pHmv)
MW-6
22,00
6,48
1,55
3174
-103,00
MW-1
24,00
6,35
0,91
2781
94,00
MW-2
24,00
6,60
0,82
7930
269,70
MW-3
25/07/2012
27,00
6,42
3,30
4039
-55,40
MW-4
9:50h
26,50
6,41
3,40
3923
10,30
MW-5
22,90
6,38
1,29
4089
-98,00
MW-6
22,60
6,43
0,21
3371
-104,00
MW-1
25,1
6,6
3,9
4220
143,5
MW-2
24,4
6,3
3,4
5390
1,5
24,7
6,4
3,8
5280
46,1
MW-5
MW-6
24,5
6,6
2,0
5500
-93,9
MW-1
24,7
6,5
1,0
3070
-5,8
MW-2
25,2
7,1
4,0
33550
370,1
23,9
6,4
3,4
5240
-23,9
23,9
6,4
3,7
5370
-5,3
MW-5
24,9
6,7
6,3
51120
441,3
MW-6
23,4
6,8
4,1
4200
-50,4
MW-1
28,2
5,1
1,2
4790
259,3
MW-2
25,1
6,3
6,3
4680
129,2
24,8
5,9
6,0
3170
-46,9
25,9
6,3
3,8
3520
-16,4
MW-5
26,5
5,9
7,0
6030
245,2
MW-6
25,0
6,6
2,5
2100
-100,5
MW-3
MW-4
MW-3
MW-4
MW-3
MW-4
26/07/2012
27/07/2012
23/08/2012
*Injection point: not measured to avoid measurement equipment damage or decalibration.
The evolution of these parameters measured with a portable multi parameter sensors are
shown in graphics in the Annex 14.
Online monitoring system data
The graphics presented in the Annex 15 show the evolution of different parameters
measured by sensors and registered on line.

Page 74 of 84


(2009-2012)
Numerical model results interpretation

For the Spanish site results from monitoring-modelling tool, which can be used as a
feedback for the remediation process include:
1. Assessment of the background conditions for the oxidation process.
Before the injection at the Spanish site 3 online loggers were installed and could
be used to determine, what levels of basic parameters (pH, Eh, temperature,
conductivity) can occur in natural conditions.
2. Information (in a form of alarms) about the conditions after the injection.
After the injection at the Spanish site only two loggers were collecting the data. It is
not enough to present 2D plots of basic parameters and to point out areas where
the oxidation process is ongoing / finished / successful / not effective enough. The
only way to present the remediation results is in a form of graphs (of pH, Eh,
temperature) eventually with background thresholds assessed in the step 1
described above.
Both of these results types are presented below.
Assessment of the background conditions for the oxidation process
Basing on the information collected by loggers installed in monitoring wells the
assessment of background conditions at the test site was possible. At the Spanish site,
before the injection three loggers were collecting data on pH, Eh, temperature and
conductivity. Loggers were installed in one well upstream MW-1 (operating only till the
injection) and two wells downstream MW-3 and MW-4 collecting data after the injection
(Fig.4.39).
Basing on the data collected before the injection it can be assumed that (see 2D contour
maps in the Annex 16):
- pH at the site is approximately between 5,6 and 7,0, mostly with a lower pH in the
northern area (upstream) and higher or changing values to the south (on the way of
contaminated plume flow). Some of 2D plots presenting the pH interpolation before the
injection are shown below (Fig. 1);
- Eh at the site is approximately between -255 and -380. More oxidising conditions are
in the northern part of analysed area. That confirms naturally ongoing reduction on the
way of contaminated groundwater flow. Examples of 2D Eh plots before the injection
are presented on Figure 2.
- Temperature at the site varies between 22,25 and 24,00 C. Temperature is almost
constant in each monitoring well with the lowest values in MW-4 and the highest in
MW-3. Before the injection the temperature was changing in each well no more than
0,5 C. 2D plots presenting the temperature before the injection is presented on Figure
3.
- Conductivity at the site is approximately between 4350 and 5400 S/cm, with a lower
conductivity in the southern area (upstream) and higher to the north. Some of 2D plots
presenting the conductivity interpolation before the injection are shown below (Fig. 4);
Page 75 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.39. Wells equipped with loggers at the Spanish site (red: logging till the injection,
yellow: logging before and after the injection).

Page 76 of 84


(2009-2012)
Information (alarms) about the conditions after the injection

After the injection only two loggers were collecting data at the Spanish site. Loggers were
installed in monitoring wells MW-3 and MW-4. For the post injection phase an alarm
function was tested using the loggers data from MW-3 and MW-4. As boundary
conditions for alarms the background parameters from the pre-injection phase (described
above) were used (Tab. 4.20). Exceeding of these values are reported in alarm messages
and shown on graphs.
Tab. 4.20. Boundary parameters for the alarm function
Graphs presenting loggers data and boundary values, generated by the alarm tool for
MW-3 well are presented on Figures X, Y and Z. All graphs start with the warm-up period
when loggers installed and calibrated and unstable conditions were observed in
monitoring wells. The warm-up period lasted till the 12th of July. The green line on figures
presents the injection time. For all parameters monitored in MW-3 a change was observed
after the injection and two parameters: pH and Eh exceeded the boundaries what was
reported in the alarm message sent to the test operator. An example of the alarm
message is presented on Figure 4.40, 4.41, 4.42 and 4.43.

Page 77 of 84


(2009-2012)
Figure 4.40. Graph generated by the alarm tool for pH changes in the MW-3 well
Figure 4.41. Graph generated by the alarm tool for temperature changes in the MW-3 well

Page 78 of 84


(2009-2012)
Fig. 4.42. Graph generated by the alarm tool for redox potential changes in the MW-3 well
Parameters listed below exceedrd boundary values:
Alarm, Time;
pH, alarm, abnormal situation (above MAX
(. . .)
value), 2012 -07-10 12:28:44;

value), 2012-07-10 12:34:30;
value), 2012 -07-06 09:13:19;
value), 2012 -07-06 09:16:11;
---For more details, please contact: ulanczyk@ietu.katowice.pl

regards, UPSOIL Team
Fig. 4.43. E-mail message sent by the alarm tool for the MW-3 well
Figures 4.44, 4.45 and 4.46 present loggers data and boundary values, generated by the
alarm tool for MW-4 well. Similarly to the well MW-3 all graphs start with the warm-up
period when loggers installed and calibrated and unstable conditions were observed in
monitoring wells. The warm-up period lasted till the 12th of July. The green line on figures
presents the injection time. For all parameters monitored in MW-4 a change was observed
after the injection and again two parameters: pH and Eh exceeded the boundaries what
was reported in the alarm message sent to the test operator. An example of the alarm
message presenting the exceedances of pH is shown on Figure 4.44.

Page 79 of 84


(2009-2012)
Parameters listed below exceedrd boundary values:

Alarm, Time;
(. . .)
(. . .)
value), 2012-07-24 14:11:28;

value), 2012-07-05 13:00:41;
value), 2012-07-05 13:05:29;
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
value),
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-20
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-23
2012-09-07
2012-09-08
2012-09-08
2012-09-08
14:44:12;
10:53:42;
14:21:30;
21:57:02;
13:58:59;
11:23:05;
06:01:54;
03:09:50;
18:20:07;
21:31:54;
15:05:29;
05:52:35;
08:22:14;
---For more details, please contact: ulanczyk@ietu.katowice.pl

regards, UPSOIL Team
Fig. 4.44. Graph generated by the alarm tool for pH changes in the MW-4 well and an
alarm message sent by the tool for the boundary conditions exceedances

Page 80 of 84


(2009-2012)
Fig. 4.45. Graph generated by the alarm tool for temperature changes in the MW-4 well
Fig.4.46. Graph generated by the alarm tool for redox potential changes in the MW-4 well

Page 81 of 84


(2009-2012)
5. Using feedback remediation approaches compared to

conventional ones
Describing the benefits of using a feedback driven remediation approaches compared to
conventional ones in terms of time, cost and sustainability is particularly difficult as each
project has its own characteristics, challenges and requirements to remediation goal, time
and budget. However, it is possible to guess the most straightforward benefits from using
this new methodology:
Improved understanding of the natural processes
The status of the soil and groundwater before and after the treatment is better understood
when following feedback driven remediation. Both the real time monitoring and the
numerical model provide information on the status of the soil and groundwater before,
during and after the in situ treatment. At this point it is of particular importance the postinjection status of the soil and groundwater, since it will determine the need to go for
additional injections, other type of remediation (bioremediation for instance) or to stop
definitely with the active treatments.
In the case of the Flanders site for example, the numerical model showed that within the
distance of 1 m from the injection point, the pH was decreasing but with no any visible
drop which could be interpreted as the total consumption of the oxidant, i.e. the chemical
oxidation reaction was still active. In the Polish site, considering the changes in two of
monitored parameters (conductivity, pH) it was possible to determine that the first injection
caused an effect only in the closest surroundings of the injection point whereas the
second one ensured that the oxidation took place in the whole analysed area. In the
Spanish site, regarding the information collected by loggers installed in monitoring wells,
the assessment of background conditions at the test site before the injection works was
possible. Loggers data also helped defining the reducing areas associated to the CHCs
contaminants plume.
Tracing the oxidant flow on the ground and groundwater
Evaluation of the data set gathered from the loggers can give valuable information about
which wells at any determined depth are affected by the oxidant arrival, and when exactly
that change happened, and therefore, when the oxidant arrived. Data set evaluation can
help definitively, if parameters are well chosen, to trace spatially and timely the oxidant.
In all the three field cases, the oxidant movement on the ground and groundwater was
traced by means of the real time monitoring. In general, based on outcome of the
multiloggers, there can be seen two types of changes during the monitoring: 1/ flashy
Page 82 of 84


(2009-2012)
change and 2/ long term change. The first one (flashy or a sudden change) may in most
cases be linked to the oxidant arrival and its effects, in few minutes or maximum hours.
The second one (long term change) is linked to larger time frames, related to changes in
the environment and probable pollutants degradation.
Oxidising/reducing areas definition
The most valuable feedback from the monitoring-modelling system includes the possibility
of creating maps with modelled and/or measured basic parameters values. Maps may
show the areas where the oxidation/reduction process seems to be finished and
successful or not successful in the post-injection phase of any kind of remediation.
These 2D contour maps were drawn in all the three case studies (Flanders, Poland and
Spain). In the case of the Polish site for instance, maps had been prepared at 4 hours
intervals at the day before the injection and in the first phase after each injection
campaigns. Less frequent maps were prepared in the post-injection phase, when the
groundwater status change was assumed to be much slower. According to these maps,
the changes in electrical conductivity (EC) suggested that the oxidant moved rapidly within
a radius of approximately 1 m diameter with the highest influence in wells C6, C7 and C8
(close to the injection point). Whereas the lower change in well C9 (to the east of the
injection point) suggested the lower hydraulic conductivity in this area, and the lower
increase in the well C10 indicated that the radius of influence was less than 2 m in the
direction of natural groundwater flow
Improved treatment efficiency alarms setting
Having an improved understanding of both the natural and injection processes as
previously explained indirectly implies better treatment efficiency. Yet, additionally the
feedback driven remediation allows setting alarms indicating the exceeding of real-time
measured parameters above or below the pre-injection status which can considerably
reduce the treatment time and cost.
Alarms were set in the three field cases. However, it is very difficult to estimate the time
and cost gained due to their implementation.

Page 83 of 84


(2009-2012)
6. Suggestions on improvements
From all possible suggestions on improvements, the most important one when
considering the feedback driven remediation is the need for good previous preparatory
works: literature reviews, previous extensive laboratory tests and field manual
measurements, so that the data gathered from both the multiparametric loggers and the
modelling tool can be contrasted and better interpreted and the modelling tool itself can be
fed with realistic and site specific input data.
Additionally, the effect of oxidants on loggers and their measurement values must be
evaluated through the full project duration.

Page 84 of 84
ANNEX 1 Flanders test site

Changes in pH and Tre - Graphs
Fig. A1. Changes in pH values for the MW1 borehole and distance ca. 1 m from the
injection point (Left modelled values; right measured values red line)
Fig. A2. Changes in pH values for the MW4 borehole and distance ca. 3 m from the
injection point (Left modelled values; right measured values red line)
Fig. A3. Changes in temperature values for the MW1 borehole and distance ca. 1 m
from the injection point (Left modelled values; right measured values blue line)
Fig. A4. Changes in temperature values for the MW4 borehole and distance ca. 3 m
from the injection point (Left modelled values; right measured values blue line)

Changes in pH and Tre 2D plot maps
A- Measured values graphical

nd
representation (22 March)
B- Measured values graphical

representation (6th April)
C- Measured values graphical representation (11th May)

Fig. M1. Interpolation of measured pH in the Flanders site

nd

representation (6h April)

Fig. M2. Interpolation of measured temperature in the Flanders site

Changes in modelled contaminants - Graphs
Fig. B1. Changes in modelled benzene concentrations for the MW4 borehole and
distance ca. 3 m from the injection point
Fig. B2. Changes in modelled benzene concentrations for the MW1 borehole and
Fig. B3. Changes in modelled toluene concentrations for the MW4 borehole and
Fig. B4. Changes in modelled toluene concentrations for the MW1 borehole and
Fig. B5. Changes in modelled ethyl benzene concentrations for the MW4 borehole and
Fig. B6. Changes in modelled ethyl benzene concentrations for the MW1 borehole and
Fig. B7. Changes in modelled permanganate concentrations in MW4 borehole, and

Fig. B8. Changes in modelled permanganate concentrations in MW1 borehole, and


Changes in measured contaminants 2D plot maps

nd


Fig. O1. Interpolation of measured benzene concentrations in the Flanders site

nd


Fig. O2. Interpolation of measured toluene concentrations in the Flanders site

nd

C- Maesured values graphical representation (11th May)

Fig. O3. Interpolation of measured ethylbenzene concentrations in the Flanders site
ANNEX 5 Polish test site

Changes in field parameters- Graphs
Fig. 1. Conductivity logged in the Polish site
Fi
g. 2. Temperature logged in the Polish site
Fi
g.3. pH logged in the Polish site
Fig.
4. Oxidation-reduction potential logged in the Polish site

Changes in field basic parameters- 2D plot maps
Fig. 1. Changes of conductivity in the Polish

site before and after the first injection 2012-05-08 13:00 (4-hours intervals)
Fig. 2. Changes of pH in the Polish site before

and after the first injection 2012-05-08 13:00 (4-hours intervals + 1day interval)
Fig. 3. Changes of pH in the Polish site

before and after the second injection 2012-06-19 13:00

Example of 3 different alarm settings for the pH factor
1st injection
2nd injection
C6 well
C7 well
C10 well
1st injection
2nd injection
Fig. 1. Alarm graphs for pH and C6, C7 and C10 wells (Polish test site)
ANNEX 8 Spanish test site

Hydrogeological study: groundwater levels
Table 1: GW levels whole plot (15/02/2012).
WELL
P-4
P-5
P-1001
P-1002
P-CL
P-9
P-10
P-B
P-PA
P-214
P-207
P-206
P-BMB
TIME/ GW LEVEL (m)

13:22h
14:40h
6,82
6,82
13:08h
14:36h
4,49
4,50
13:12h
14:34h
4,54
4,54
13:05h
14:37h
4,52
4,54
13:17
14:31
6,74
6,74
12:08
14:15
6,65
6,66
12:03
14:08
4,32
4,31
12:42h
14:27h
6,65
6,64
12:14h
14:18h
6,27
6,28
12:31h
14:26
6,41
6,41
12:29h
14:25h
6,41
6,41
12:25h
14:22h
6,38
6,38
12:22h
14:21h
6,40
6,40
Table 2: GW levels (March, May, June 2012)

DATE
27/03/2012
27/03/2012
28/03/2012
03/05/2012
15/06/2012
WELL
GW LEVELS (m)
MW-1
4,49
MW-2 (=P-1001)
4,60
MW-4
4,58
MW-5
4,59
MW-6
4,62
P-1002
4,59
SU-2
4,57
MW-1
4,49
MW-2 (=P-1001)
4,63
MW-3
4,69
MW-4
4,60
MW-5
4,60
MW-6
4,64
P-1002
4,59
SU-2
4,57
MW-1
MW-2 (=P-1001)
4,58
MW-3
4,60
MW-4
4,58
MW-5
4,58
MW-6
4,62
P-1002
4,55
SU-2
4,54
MW-1
4,53
MW-2 (=P-1001)
4,68
MW-3
4,71
MW-4
4,68
MW-5
4,68
MW-6
4,72
P-1002
4,66
SU-2
4,64
Table 3: GW levels (28/03/2012).

WELL
GW LEVELS (m)
MW-1
4,49
MW-2 (=P-1001)
4,63
MW-3
4,69
MW-4
4,60
MW-5
4,60
MW-6
4,64
P-1002
4,59
SU-2
4,57
Table 4: GW levels (24/07/2012).

WELL
GW LEVELS (m)
MW-1
4,59
MW-2
4,74
MW-3
4,75
MW-4
4,73
MW-5
4,73
MW-6
4,77

Basic parameters results from the soil analytical tests
Table 1: Soil analytical tests after 6 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
6 hours
pH
8,1
8,1
8,1
8,1
Conductivity (S/cm)
151,2
151,1
151,5
151,2
168,8
169,0
168,9
171,0
Temperature (C)
24,3
24,3
24,3
24,3
Table 2: Soil analytical tests after 12 hours.

COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
pH
8,1
8,1
8,1
8,1
Conductivity (S/cm)
173
174
172
173
201,5
201,3
200,5
200,8
Temperature (C)
25,2
25,2
25,2
25,2
Table 3: Soil analytical tests after 2 days.

COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
2 days
pH
6,9
7,0
7,0
7,0
Conductivity (S/cm)
215
216
217
217
216,2
216,0
216,2
216,1
Temperature (C)
24,4
24,3
24,3
24,3
Table 4: Soil analytical tests after 4 days.

COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
4 days
pH
7,0
7,0
7,0
7,0
Conductivity (S/cm)
250
251
250
250
216,0
216,4
216,2
216,0
Temperature (C)
24,0
24,0
24,0
24,0
Table 5: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate after 6 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
6 hours
pH
8,5
8,4
8,4
8,4
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,95
3,96
3,98
3,98
254,5
254,4
255,0
254,6
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
6 hours
Temperature (C)
24,6
24,6
24,6
24,6
Table 6: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate after 12 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
pH
8,3
8,3
8,3
8,3
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,96
3,96
3,94
3,95
246,9
247,0
246,8
247,0
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,4
25,4
Table 7: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate after 2 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
2 days
pH
7,1
7,1
6,9
7,0
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,98
3,98
3,98
3,99
293,7
293,8
293,5
293,6
Temperature (C)
24,4
24,4
24,3
24,3
Table 8: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate after 4 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
4 days
pH
7,0
6,9
6,9
6,8
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,96
3,97
3,97
3,98
297,0
296,9
297,1
297,0
Temperature (C)
24,0
24,0
24,1
24,1
Table 9: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 1% after
6 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
6 hours
pH
8,8
8,9
8,9
8,9
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,91
3,92
3,93
3,93
245,2
245,8
245,7
245,6
Temperature (C)
24,6
24,6
24,5
24,5
Table 10: Soil analytical tests adding 20 g/kg Sodium Persulphate activated with Potash 1%
after 12 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
pH
8,5
8,5
8,5
8,6
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,96
3,97
3,97
3,98
238,3
238,9
238,2
238,4
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
25,3
after 2 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
2 days
pH
6,5
6,6
6,7
6,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
4,00
4,01
4,01
4,00
306,2
306,0
304,5
304,2
Temperature (C)
24,2
24,3
24,3
24,3
after 4 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
4 days
pH
6,3
6,3
6,4
6,4
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,98
3,98
4,00
4,00
319,5
319,6
318,5
318,3
Temperature (C)
24,0
24,0
24,0
24,0
after 6 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
6 hours
pH
9,3
9,3
9,4
9,3
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,98
3,99
4,01
4,01
225,9
226,5
255,0
224,9
Temperature (C)
24,4
24,4
24,4
24,4
after 12 hours.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
pH
8,9
8,9
9,0
9,0
Conductivity (S/cm)
4,03
4,02
4,02
4,02
221,6
221,6
221,4
221,5
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
12 hours
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
25,3
after 2 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
2 days
pH
6,7
6,7
6,6
6,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,99
4,00
4,02
4,02
301,8
301,9
302,0
302,1
Temperature (C)
24,3
24,3
24,4
24,4
after 4 days.
COMPOUND /
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
CONCENTRATION
4 days
pH
6,4
6,4
6,3
6,3
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,98
3,99
4,01
4,00
311,3
311,3
311,2
311,2
Temperature (C)
23,9
23,9
23,9
23,9

Organic and inorganic analytical tests results in supernatant and in soil
1) Soil without additives
Table 1: Soil analytical tests: MW-3 7,50-8,00 m (1 day).
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 day
pH
8,2
8,2
8,2
Conductivity (S/cm)
200
198
200
186,5
185,9
186,5
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
0,03
0,02
0,03
O.M. (%)
0,04
0,09
0,07
Na (%)
0,30
0,33
0,32
K (%)
0,53
0,55
0,54
Dicloromethane
3,7
3,1
1,5
Tricloromethane
0,43
0,34
0,16
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
0,04
0,04
0,02
Trichloroethane
0,01
0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-
Table 2: Soil analytical tests: MW-3 7,50-8,00 m (1 week).

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
pH
7,6
7,6
7,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
238
238
238
203,1
206,0
206,1
Temperature (C)
24,3
24,3
24,3
0,01
0,01
0,01
O.M. (%)
0,13
0,13
0,13
Na (%)
0,33
0,33
0,33
K (%)
0,57
0,59
0,59
VOCs
Dicloromethane
3,9
1,7
1,2
(mg/kg)
Tricloromethane
0,43
0,20
0,17
Tetracloromethane
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
0,04
0,02
0,0,2
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
1,1,2Trichloroethane
0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
Table 3: Soil analytical tests: MW-3 7,50-8,00 m (2 weeks).

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
2 weeks
pH
7,7
7,8
7,8
Conductivity (S/cm)
225
226
225
201,2
201,3
201,0
Temperature (C)
24,8
24,8
24,7
0,01
0,01
0,01
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,13
0,13
Na (%)
0,34
0,32
0,34
K (%)
0,70
0,64
0,66
Dicloromethane
0,81
0,71
0,64
Tricloromethane
0,10
0,10
0,09
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
0,01
0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
pH
7,6
7,6
7,6
Conductivity (S/cm)
284
286
285
205,5
206,1
205,4
Temperature (C)
28,2
28,2
28,2
0,02
0,02
0,02
O.M. (%)
0,13
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,25
0,21
0.23
K (%)
0,46
0,40
0.41
VOCs
Dicloromethane
2,8
2,1
0,88
(mg/kg)
Tricloromethane
0,38
0,27
0,12
Tetracloromethane
Trichloroethylene
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
1,2-Dichloroethane
0,04
0,03
0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-
2) Soil + Sodium Persulphate 20 g/kg

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 day
pH
7,7
7,7
7,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,92
3,94
3,95
286,6
288,3
287,9
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
Sulphates supernatant
3,55
3,55
3,54
0,10
0,09
0,09
O.M. (%)
0,13
0,13
0,17
Na (%)
0,31
0,32
0,32
K (%)
0,53
0,55
0,54
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
pH
6,7
6,7
6,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,59
3,60
3,60
315,8
316,0
316,1
Temperature (C)
23,8
23,7
23,8
3,43
3,42
3,42
0,07
0,07
0,07
O.M. (%)
0,04
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,41
0,41
0,41
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
K (%)
0,67
0,68
0,66
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
2 weeks
pH
6,4
6,4
6,5
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,76
3,76
3,73
316,8
316,9
315,5
Temperature (C)
24,8
24,9
24,8
3,37
3,33
3,36
0,08
0,07
0,07
O.M. (%)
0,04
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,32
0,42
0,36
K (%)
0,60
0,60
0,60
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-
Table8: Soil analytical tests: MW-3 7,50-8,00 m (3 weeks).

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
pH
6,3
6,3
6,1
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,72
3,72
3,74
308,5
308,4
311,7
Temperature (C)
27,7
27,7
27,8
3,39
3,41
3,42
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
0,08
0,07
0,08
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,34
0,28
0,30
K (%)
0,53
0,50
0,50
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 day
pH
7,7
7,7
7,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,95
3,96
3,98
293,5
296,5
295,3
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
3,51
3,50
3,51
0,09
0,09
0,09
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,32
0,30
0,32
K (%)
0,55
0,52
0,53
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

COMPOUND / DEPTH
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
1 week
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
pH
6,6
6,7
6,6
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,58
3,60
3,60
319,2
319,2
319,1
Temperature (C)
23,5
23,6
23,6
3,41
3,39
3,42
0,09
0,09
0,09
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,47
0,48
0,48
K (%)
0,74
0,76
0,75
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
2 weeks
pH
6,2
6,4
6,4
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,71
3,71
3,73
326,4
326,5
326,2
Temperature (C)
25,0
24,9
25,0
3,42
3,39
3,39
0,08
0,06
0,07
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,34
0,36
0,38
K (%)
0,62
0,64
0,62
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
pH
6,1
6,1
6,1
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,73
3,73
3,74
326,2
326,4
326,6
Temperature (C)
27,6
27,6
27,6
3,36
3,37
3,38
0,07
0,07
0,08
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,34
0,33
0,34
K (%)
0,57
0,56
0,56
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 day
pH
7,9
7,8
7,8
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,96
3,95
3,98
298,5
302,9
301,6
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,3
25,3
3,48
3,46
3,46
0,10
0,10
0,13
O.M. (%)
0,04
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,28
0,29
0,29
K (%)
0,50
0,51
0,50
VOCs
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
(mg/kg)
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
1,1,2-
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 day
Trichloroethane
Others VOCs

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
1 week
pH
6,5
6,5
6,5
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,59
3,58
3,58
321,4
321,5
321,5
Temperature (C)
23,7
23,7
23,7
3,37
3,39
3,37
0,07
0,10
0,10
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,13
0,09
Na (%)
0,42
0,42
0,42
K (%)
0,69
0,68
0,68
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
2 weeks
pH
6,4
6,4
6,3
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,69
3,70
3,69
330,5
330,7
331,6
Temperature (C)
24,9
24,9
24,9
3,38
3,37
3,38
0,06
0,08
0,08
O.M. (%)
0,13
0,13
0,13
Na (%)
0,38
0,42
0,40
K (%)
0,64
0,72
0,68
VOCs
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
(mg/kg)
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
2 weeks
Trichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

MW-3 7,50-8,00 m
COMPOUND / DEPTH
3 weeks
pH
6,0
6,1
5,9
Conductivity (S/cm)
3,74
3,74
3,75
328,6
328,9
328,6
Temperature (C)
27,7
27,7
27,7
3,33
3,35
3,35
0,06
0,06
0,06
O.M. (%)
0,13
0,13
0,13
Na (%)
0,34
0,36
0,32
K (%)
0,59
0,62
0,60
Dicloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tricloromethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Tetracloromethane
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Trichloroethane
< 0,01
< 0,01
< 0,01
Others VOCs
1,1,2-

Treatment results increasing the amount of oxidant
Table 1: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m increasing the amount of oxidant (1 day).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additives
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
g/kg
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
pH
8,2
2,6
9,7
11,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
200
30300
30200
30400
186,5
595,5
335,5
257,3
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,7
25,7
25,7
0,03
0,82
0,97
0,90
163
<0,01
3,9
74
112
1,7
28
69
18
11
11
11
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
Table 2: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m increasing the amount of oxidant (2 days).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additives
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
g/kg
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
pH
8,2
2,7
8,8
10,5
Conductivity (S/cm)
200
29600
29300
29400
186,5
600,0
388,0
329,6
Temperature (C)
25,3
25,5
25,4
25,5
0,03
0,99
0,84
0,86
174
< 0,01
5,2
28
121
1,4
27
53
17,6
9,7
10
10
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
Table 3: Soil sample MW-3 6,50-7,50 m increasing the amount of oxidant (1 week).
COMPOUND / DEPTH
Additives
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
No additives
Sodium
Sodium
Sodium
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
Persulphate 200
g/kg
g/kg + KOH 1%
g/kg + KOH 2%
pH
8,2
3,1
3,4
5,8
Conductivity (S/cm)
200
29100
29400
29200
186,5
578
723
653
COMPOUND / DEPTH
MW-3 6,50-7,50 m
Temperature (C)
25,3
23,4
23,3
23,5
0,03
0,83
0,91
0,85
154
< 0,01
< 0,01
2,4
103
0,11
< 0,01
8,7
21
5,9
6,0
5,7
Tetracloromethane
(mg/kg)
pH
12
10
8
6

0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 1. Evolution of pH over time.

Conductivity ( S/cm)
30000
25000
20000

15000

10000
5000
0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 2. Evolution of Conductivity over time.

750
600

450
Soil+Sodium Persulpahte 200 g/kg
300
150
0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 3. Evolution of Redox potential over time.

Dichloromethane mg/kg
150

100

50
0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 4. Evolution of Dichloromethane potential over time.
Trichloromethane mg/kg
120
100
80

60

40
20
0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 5. Evolution of Trichloromethane potential over time.

Tetrachloromethane mg/kg
20
18
16
14
12

10

8
6
4
2
0
0
Time (days)
Graphic 6. Evolution of Tetrachloromethane potential over time.

Soil analytical test results
Table 1: Soil analytical tests: MW-1.
MW-1
MW-1
MW-1
6,00 m
7,20 m
8,20 m
pH
8,4
8,5
7,9
Conductivity (S/cm)
146
72
257
Temperature (C)
23,6
23,5
23,6
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
O.M. (%)
<0,04
<0,04
<0,04
Na (%)
0,32
0,52
0,52
K (%)
0,55
0,79
0,86
Dicloromethane
<0,01
0,11
8,0
Tricloromethane
<0,01
0,01
4,0
Tetracloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Trichloroethylene
<0,01
<0,01
0,19
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0,01
<0,01
0,25
<0,01
<0,01
0,08
Others VOCs
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Benzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Toluene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Etilbenzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Xylenes
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
GRO (C6-C10)
<20
<20
<20
DRO (C10-C28)
<20
<20
<20
COMPOUND / DEPTH
VOCs
(mg/kg)
VOCs
(mg/kg)
BTEX
C6-C28

MW-3
MW-3
MW-3
6,00-6,50 m
6,50-7,50 m
7,50-8,00 m
pH
8,0
7,7
7,8
Conductivity (S/cm)
177
214
234
Temperature (C)
23,8
24,2
24,2
<0,01
0,03
0,02
O.M. (%)
<0,04
0,09
0,09
Na (%)
0,52
0,48
0,53
K (%)
0,77
0,77
0,77
COMPOUND / DEPTH
VOCs
Dicloromethane
3,4
0,28
19
(mg/kg)
Tricloromethane
2,1
0,02
3,0
Tetracloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
0,03
MW-3
MW-3
MW-3
6,00-6,50 m
6,50-7,50 m
7,50-8,00 m
Trichloroethylene
0,02
<0,01
0,03
1,2-Dichloroethane
0,06
<0,01
0,16
0,03
<0,01
0,04
Others VOCs
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Benzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Toluene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Etilbenzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Xylenes
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
GRO (C6-C10)
<20
<20
<20
DRO (C10-C28)
<20
<20
<20
COMPOUND / DEPTH
BTEX
C6-C28

MW-4
MW-4
MW-4
6,00 m
7,30 m
8,80 m
pH
8,4
8,3
8,1
Conductivity (S/cm)
103
85
97
Temperature (C)
24,0
23,9
23,8
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
O.M. (%)
<0,04
<0,04
<0,04
Na (%)
0,41
0,46
0,49
K (%)
0,70
0,72
0,76
Dicloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Tricloromethane
<0,01
0,01
<0,01
Tetracloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Others VOCs
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Benzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Toluene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Etilbenzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Xylenes
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
GRO (C6-C10)
<20
<20
<20
DRO (C10-C28)
<20
<20
<20
COMPOUND / DEPTH
BTEX
C6-C28

MW-5
MW-5
MW-5
6,00 m
7,70 m
9,00 m
pH
8,7
8,5
8,5
Conductivity (S/cm)
74
164
252
Temperature (C)
23,9
24,0
23,8
0,01
0,01
0,06
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,09
0,04
Na (%)
0,41
0,53
0,55
K (%)
0,73
0,84
0,88
Dicloromethane
<0,01
1,5
2,7
Tricloromethane
<0,01
0,58
1,1
Tetracloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
<0,01
<0,01
0,01
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0,01
<0,01
0,03
<0,01
<0,01
0,02
Others VOCs
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Benzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Toluene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Etilbenzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Xylenes
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
GRO (C6-C10)
<20
<20
<20
DRO (C10-C28)
<20
<20
<20
COMPOUND / DEPTH
BTEX
C6-C28

MW-6
MW-6
MW-6
6,00 m
7,30 m
8,40 m
pH
8,9
8,4
8,7
Conductivity (S/cm)
121
88
92
Temperature (C)
23,8
24,0
24,0
0,01
<0,01
<0,01
O.M. (%)
0,09
0,04
0,09
Na (%)
0,43
0,45
0,40
K (%)
0,81
0,78
0,66
Dicloromethane
0,35
<0,01
<0,01
Tricloromethane
0,07
<0,01
<0,01
Tetracloromethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
VOCs
Trichloroethylene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
(mg/kg)
1,2-Dichloroethane
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Others VOCs
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Benzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Toluene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Etilbenzene
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
Xylenes
<0,01
<0,01
<0,01
GRO (C6-C10)
<20
<20
<20
DRO (C10-C28)
<20
<20
<20
COMPOUND / DEPTH
BTEX
C6-C28

Groundwater samples analytical results
First campaign before injections
Table 1: Groundwater Analytical Results I. COD & BTEX.
COMPOUND
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
COD (mg/l)
500
370
190
Benzene (g/l)
1,0
0,7
0,8
Toluene (g/l)
1,4
0,7
0,7
Ethylbencene (g/l)
0,2
ND
ND
o-Xylene (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
M,p-Xylene (g/l)
0,4
ND
ND
Xylenes (added) (g/l)
0,4
ND
ND
BTEX (added) (g/l)
3,1
1,3
1,6
Table 2: Groundwater Analytical Results II. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

COMPOUND
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
TPH C10-C12 (g/l)
37
23
49
TPH C12-C16 (g/l)
11
15
60
TPH C16-C21 (g/l)
ND
ND
11
TPH C21-C30 (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
TPH C30-C35 (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
TPH C35-C40 (g/l)

TPH C10-C40 (added)
(g/l)
ND
ND
ND
53
44
130
Table 3: Groundwater Analytical Results III. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Compounds.

COMPOUND
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
Trichloromethane (g/l)
120000
120000
61000
Tetrachloromethane (g/l)
15000
19000
70000
1,2-Dichloroethane (g/l)
ND
ND
17000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (g/l)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
(g/l)
(g/l)
Trichloroethylene (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Tetrachloroethylene (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
1,2-Dibromoethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
Bromodichloromethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
Dibromochloromethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
Chloromethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dicloromethane (g/l)
150000
210000
73000
Chloroethane (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
Vynil Chloride (g/l)
ND
ND
ND
COMPOUND
P-1001
SU-2
P-1002
1,1-Dichloroethylene (g/l)
Trans1,2-Dichloroethylene
(g/l)
Cis 1,2-Dichloroethylene
(g/l)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Second campaign before injections

The second GW sampling campaign was carried out on May 2012 and the results are
shown in following tables:
Table 4: Groundwater Analytical Results I. Inorganic parameters and metals.
COMPOUND
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
82
310
190
360
260
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
800
780
730
730
300
Carbonate (mg/l)
Dissolved Sulphate (mg
SO4/l)
Sulphate (SO4-S mg/l S/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
1000
900
760
860
560
340
300
250
290
190
Chloride (mg/l)
590
880
620
880
1400
Calcium (mg/l)
1100
1100
930
1200
890
Sodium (mg/l)
82
120
85
120
220
Potasium (mg/l)
14
26
12
21
17
Magnesium (mg/l)
9,8
20
13
21
37
Manganese (mg/l)
1,0
1,8
1,2
1,9
4,0
Iron (mg/l)
1,8
62
20
83
160
Chromium (mg/l)
0,001
<0,001
<0,001
Conductivity (S/cm)
4100
4700
3700
4600
5100
pH
6,6
6,5
6,6
6,5
6,2

COMPOUND
(g/l)
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
9,4
24
15
17
8,8
TPH C12-C16
<5,0
6,7
<5,0
11
11
TPH C16-C21
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C21-C30
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
TPH C30-C35
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C35-C40
TPH C10-C40
(added)
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<38
39
<38
<38
<38

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
230000
380000
130000
370000
170000
Trichloromethane
200000
265000
140000
250000
92000
Tetrachloromethane
17000
17000
7700
15000
6500
Chloromethane
220
1100
510
1300
2000
COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
1,2-Dichloroethane
1600
2400
990
2300
890
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
970
1600
510
1500
590
1500
2300
1400
2300
8100
2400
3100
1300
2700
520
Trichloroethylene
1500
1700
650
1400
520
Tetrachloroethylene
1300
1500
790
1900
330
Third campaign before injections

The third GW sampling campaign was carried out in the middle of May 2012 and the
results are shown in following tables:
COMPOUND
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
150
260
290
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
750
850
460
Carbonate (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
Dissolved Sulphate (mg SO4/l)
860
1100
570
Sulphate (SO4-S mg/l S/l)
290
370
190
Chloride (mg/l)
680
980
1300
Calcium (mg/l)
900
1200
930
Sodium (mg/l)
80
100
190
Potasium (mg/l)
11
18
17
Magnesium (mg/l)
12
17
32
Manganese (mg/l)
1,1
1,6
3,2
Iron (mg/l)
9,2
64
170
Chromium (mg/l)
<0,001
<0,001
<0,001
Conductivity (S/cm)
3800
4700
4800
pH
6,4
6,3
6,3

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
65
100
76
TPH C12-C16
34
29
26
TPH C16-C21
26
13
11
TPH C21-C30
29
16
14
TPH C30-C35
9,7
11,0
9,0
TPH C35-C40
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
TPH C10-C40 (added)
170
170
140

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
320000
>450000
290000
Trichloromethane
390000
440000
220000
Tetrachloromethane
28000
49000
20000
Chloromethane
<200
750
1300
COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
1,2-Dichloroethane
2400
3100
1600
1000
1400
910
1600
1600
890
1700
2300
650
Trichloroethylene
2200
2500
1300
Tetrachloroethylene
2900
2100
940
Fourth campaign before injections

Next GW sampling campaign was carried out in the middle of June 2012 and the
COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
160
69
130
130
150
160
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
820
770
640
740
670
670
Carbonate (mg/l)
SO4/l)
Sulphate (SO4-S mg/l
S/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
580
930
780
760
850
530
190
310
260
250
280
180
840
550
700
660
740
630
Calcium (mg/l)
960
1000
990
1000
1100
740
Sodium (mg/l)
80
71
79
73
77
74
Potasium (mg/l)
11
9,7
20
9,4
14
10
Magnesium (mg/l)
18
8,0
17
11
13
18
Manganese (mg/l)
4,5
0,99
1,4
1,1
1,5
2,4
Iron (mg/l)
53
1,8
89
3,7
74
150
Chromium (mg/l)
<0,001
<0,001
<0,001
Conductivity (S/cm)
4400
4100
4300
4100
4500
3600
pH
6,4
6,7
6,5
6,6
6,5
6,5

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
3,4
13
19
16
23
14
TPH C12-C16
<5,0
7,1
8,4
8,7
9,3
10
TPH C16-C21
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C21-C30
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
TPH C30-C35
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C35-C40
TPH C10-C40
(added)
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<38
<38
<38
<38
<38
<38

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
420000
48000
140000
79000
160000
70000
Trichloromethane
310000
91000
130000
150000
170000
110000
Tetrachloromethane
4900
2700
4100
5200
6500
210
COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Chloromethane
530
<200
<200
<200
<200
400
1,2-Dichloroethane
2300
1600
1100
860
1200
750
1200
370
510
400
550
290
1500
610
710
790
860
490
1200
450
290
570
490
1200
Trichloroethylene (g/l)
1100
710
830
710
860
530
Tetrachloroethylene
100
1200
950
1100
1100
1100
Fifth campaign before injections

The last GW sampling campaign before injections was carried out in July 2012 and the
COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
150
67
120
130
150
140
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
740
770
570
750
670
670
Carbonate (mg/l)
SO4/l)
S/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
720
910
740
700
810
630
240
300
250
230
270
210
830
600
640
690
750
670
Calcium (mg/l)
860
820
700
820
810
730
Sodium (mg/l)
81
74
75
71
85
74
Potasium (mg/l)
15
10
16
9,8
12
9,2
Magnesium (mg/l)
14
8,3
13
11
14
14
Manganese (mg/l)
3,5
0,98
1,2
1,2
1,3
2,0
Iron (mg/l)
73
1,2
61
2,8
59
91
Chromium (mg/l)
<0,001
<0,001
<0,001
Conductivity (S/cm)
4200
3800
3600
3900
4000
3500
pH
6,5
6,6
6,5
6,6
6,5
6,5

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
4,8
<4,0
38
7,2
23
29
TPH C12-C16
<5,0
6,5
24
<5,0
6,8
25
TPH C16-C21
6,6
<6,0
27
16
<6,0
42
TPH C21-C30
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
23
TPH C30-C35
9,5
<6,0
7,4
<6,0
<6,0
11
TPH C35-C40
TPH C10-C40
(added)
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<38
<38
110
<38
<38
140

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
200000
61000
120000
69000
140000
53000
Trichloromethane
170000
95000
120000
120000
150000
110000
COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Tetrachloromethane
2500
2500
4300
4200
7200
380
Chloromethane
330
<200
<200
<200
<200
230
1,2-Dichloroethane
1500
1900
1200
770
980
630
720
490
410
370
470
280
950
790
570
700
760
680
580
530
450
550
460
<200
Trichloroethylene
610
650
590
570
720
450
Tetrachloroethylene
120
870
510
730
620
680
Following the ISCO injections:

First campaign: 48 hours after injections
The first campaign after injections was carried out on 26 July 2012.
COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
150
6120
640
370
6780
310
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
570
520
1000
970
400
640
Carbonate (mg/l)
SO4/l)
S/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
930
1800
1100
1100
2500
750
310
610
370
350
850
250
500
<5,0
1150
1150
<5,0
1280
Calcium (mg/l)
660
300
1200
1200
520
910
Sodium (mg/l)
420
2100
150
170
5800
230
Potassium (mg/l)
6,8
9,9
25
22
18
17
Magnesium (mg/l)
11
11
15
17
16
21
Manganese (mg/l)
2,0
<0,01
1,3
1,4
<0,01
2,0
Iron (mg/l)
3,9
1,5
8,2
1,2
0,13
71
Chromium (mg/l)
<0,001
<0,001
<0,001
Conductivity (S/cm)
4400
49000
5600
5600
52000
5400
pH
6,7
6,4
6,4
6,4
6,2
6,4

COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12 (g/l)
4,5
80
17
4,0
<4,0
8,1
TPH C12-C16 (g/l)
<5,0
5,5
6,7
14
7,0
<5,0
TPH C16-C21 (g/l)
<6,0
35
<6,0
<6,0
22
<6,0
TPH C21-C30 (g/l)
14
27
<12
13
<12
<12
TPH C30-C35 (g/l)
11
7,2
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C35-C40 (g/l)

TPH C10-C40
(added) (g/l)
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
39
<38
160
<38
41
<38

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
17000
94
>450000
>450000
210
180000
Trichloromethane
74000
1100
>450000
>450000
1600
190000
Tetrachloromethane
500
18
39000
41000
130
29000
Chloromethane
310
2100
810
1000
1900
670
1,2-Dichloroethane
2600
<1,0
5100
3700
<1,0
1300
250
<1,0
2000
1900
<1,0
990
400
<1,0
2300
2200
2,9
1200
<200
<2
4400
4100
2,5
2000
Trichloroethylene
320
<1
2800
2500
<1
1100
Tetrachloroethylene
740
7,3
890
1100
5,2
710
Second campaign: 72 hours after injections

The second campaign after injections was carried out on 27 July 2012.
COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
90
1410
330
370
2260
220
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
610
600
1000
940
510
570
Carbonate (mg/l)
SO4/l)
S/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
810
1100
1100
1000
1900
640
270
370
350
350
620
210
510
53
1170
1190
73
910
Calcium (mg/l)
750
300
1200
1200
550
820
Sodium (mg/l)
120
120
150
170
6700
150
Potassium (mg/l)
6,8
4,6
25
21
16
13
Magnesium (mg/l)
11
6,1
16
17
14
16
Manganese (mg/l)
2,0
<0,01
1,4
1,4
<0,01
1,7
Iron (mg/l)
1,9
0,23
18
8,9
0,056
61
Chromium (mg/l)
0,027
<0,001
<0,001
0,002
Conductivity (S/cm)
3500
28000
5700
5700
37000
4300
pH
6,6
6,6
6,4
6,5
6,3
6,6
Table 20. Groundwater Analytical Results II. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons.

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
<4,0
<4,0
15
17
7,8
16
TPH C12-C16
<5,0
8,1
<5,0
5,3
11
13
TPH C16-C21
<6,0
9,7
<6,0
<6,0
7,6
<6,0
TPH C21-C30
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
<12
TPH C30-C35
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C35-C40
TPH C10-C40
(added)
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<38
<38
<38
<38
<38
<38

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
21000
1000
>45000
>45000
15000
140000
Trichloromethane
92000
25000
>45000
45000
35000
170000
Tetrachloromethane
700
240
41000
37000
930
14000
Chloromethane
<200
59
690
990
140
660
1,2-Dichloroethane
3100
86
5100
3400
280
1200
290
26
1900
1700
70
830
520
15
2100
1800
140
970
<200
<20
4100
3500
66
1200
Trichloroethylene
560
<10
2600
2000
<10
780
Tetrachloroethylene
1100
<10
830
850
15
700
Third campaign: 30 days after injections

The last campaign after injections was carried out on 23 August 2012.
COMPOUND
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
COD (mg/l)
910
580
880
640
710
180
Bicarbonate (mg/l)
910
580
880
640
710
440
Carbonate (mg/l)
SO4/l)
S/l)
Chloride (mg/l)
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
<5,0
760
1400
710
920
1300
880
250
450
240
310
420
290
800
250
510
490
510
440
Calcium (mg/l)
730
600
1400
1300
720
660
Sodium (mg/l)
85
860
100
300
830
68
Potassium (mg/l)
12
13
8,8
8,1
9,7
Magnesium (mg/l)
13
8,2
16
13
15
14
Manganese (mg/l)
5,00
0,065
2,1
1,5
0,39
1,9
Iron (mg/l)
95
9,6
77
3,3
17
38
Chromium (mg/l)
0,066
0,047
0,0031
0,0039
0,028
0,0057
Conductivity (S/cm)
4300
5000
3400
3800
6200
2300
pH
6,2
6,7
6,4
6,6
6,6
6,8

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
TPH C10-C12
12
4,6
64
6,1
14
6,9
TPH C12-C16
<5,0
<5,0
45
8,5
5,9
<5,0
TPH C16-C21
<6,0
<6,0
37
6,6
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C21-C30
<12
25
67
<12
<12
<12
TPH C30-C35
<6,0
<6,0
35
<6,0
<6,0
<6,0
TPH C35-C40
TPH C10-C40
(added)
<8,0
<8,0
26
<8,0
<8,0
<8,0
<38
<38
280
<38
<38
<38

COMPOUND (g/l)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
Dichloromethane
>450000
10000
250000
45000
94000
56000
Trichloromethane
>450000
83000
310000
180000
210000
160000
Tetrachloromethane
120000
4700
110000
14000
9600
3500
Chloromethane
580
70
460
390
160
290
1,2-Dichloroethane
3700
4900
3800
3200
3200
1400
1800
200
870
410
510
370
1700
370
940
690
1100
500
3100
40
540
<200
410
<200
Trichloroethylene
5200
360
2400
1000
800
650
Tetrachloroethylene
3900
1800
3800
2600
2800
1300

Manually measured basic parameters - Graphs
Temperature (C)
30
29
28
27
MW1 in situ
MW2 in situ
26
MW3 in situ
25
MW4 in situ
MW5 in situ
24
MW6 in situ
23
22
21
20
-90
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
Tim e ( days; - before injection start, + after injection start )
Graphic 1: Evolution of Temperature measured in situ with portable equipment.
pH
7,5
MW1 in situ
MW2 in situ
MW3 in situ
MW4 in situ
6,5
MW5 in situ
MW6 in situ
6
5,5
-90
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
Graphic 2: Evolution of pH measured in situ with portable equipment.
45
Dissolved O2 (mg/l)
10
MW1 in situ
MW2 in situ
MW3 in situ
5
MW4 in situ
MW5 in situ
MW6 in situ
3
0
-90
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
45
Graphic 3: Evolution of Dissolved O2 measured in situ with portable equipment.
Conductivity (uS/cm)
52000
42000
MW1 in situ
MW2 in situ
32000
MW3 in situ
MW4 in situ
22000
MW5 in situ
MW6 in situ
12000
2000
-90
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
0
15
30
45
Graphic 4: Evolution of Conductivity measured in situ with portable equipment.
Redox Potential (mV)

500
400
MW1 in situ
300
MW2 in situ
MW3 in situ
200
MW4 in situ
100
MW5 in situ
0
MW6 in situ
-100
-200
-90
-75
-60
-45
-30
-15
15
30
45
Graphic 5: Evolution of Redox Potential measured in situ with portable equipment.
7/13/2012 12:08:40 AM
Date/Hour
Graphic 2: Evolution of Conductivity in monitoring well MW-1.
7/28/2012 12:33:30 AM
7/27/2012 4:37:53 PM
7/27/2012 8:42:13 AM
7/13/2012 12:08:40 AM
7/27/2012 2:50:12 PM
7/27/2012 1:17:12 AM
7/26/2012 11:43:48 AM
7/25/2012 10:10:46 PM
7/24/2012 3:08:03 PM
7/22/2012 1:49:24 PM
7/22/2012 3:57:36 AM
7/21/2012 9:09:01 PM
7/21/2012 2:23:42 PM
7/21/2012 7:34:34 AM
7/21/2012 12:49:50 AM
7/20/2012 6:01:04 PM
7/20/2012 11:10:53 AM
7/20/2012 4:26:02 AM
7/19/2012 9:37:18 PM
7/19/2012 2:51:57 PM
7/19/2012 8:02:44 AM
7/19/2012 1:08:18 AM
7/18/2012 6:13:38 PM
7/18/2012 11:16:37 AM
7/18/2012 4:31:37 AM
7/17/2012 9:20:46 PM
7/17/2012 2:10:23 PM
7/17/2012 6:39:03 AM
7/16/2012 10:58:27 PM
7/16/2012 3:38:38 PM
7/16/2012 8:37:54 AM
7/16/2012 1:43:27 AM
7/15/2012 6:54:35 PM
7/15/2012 12:09:11 PM
7/15/2012 5:20:21 AM
7/14/2012 10:41:11 PM
Date/Hour
7/27/2012 12:46:45 AM
7/26/2012 4:51:02 PM
7/26/2012 8:55:16 AM
7/26/2012 12:59:45 AM
7/25/2012 5:03:58 PM
7/24/2012 2:26:50 PM
7/23/2012 4:44:48 AM
7/22/2012 8:36:26 PM
7/22/2012 11:08:45 AM
7/22/2012 3:48:01 AM
7/21/2012 7:52:14 PM
7/21/2012 11:55:38 AM
7/21/2012 3:59:45 AM
7/20/2012 8:03:57 PM
7/20/2012 11:56:59 AM
7/20/2012 4:01:05 AM
7/19/2012 8:05:09 PM
7/19/2012 12:08:33 PM
7/19/2012 4:12:30 AM
7/18/2012 8:16:33 PM
7/18/2012 1:04:14 PM
7/18/2012 5:08:04 AM
7/17/2012 9:36:07 PM
7/17/2012 1:39:38 PM
7/17/2012 5:43:24 AM
7/16/2012 9:47:26 PM
7/16/2012 1:51:00 PM
7/16/2012 5:54:48 AM
7/15/2012 9:58:55 PM
7/15/2012 2:02:34 PM
7/15/2012 6:06:23 AM
7/14/2012 10:10:28 PM
Automatic real time measured basic parameters - Graphs
7000
6000
5000
4000
Logger CT2
3000
2000
1000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
Logger CT3
3000
2000
1000
Date/Hour
Graphic 4: Evolution of Redox Potential in monitoring well MW-2.
7/27/2012 9:56:05 PM
7/27/2012 8:25:42 AM
7/26/2012 7:05:10 PM
7/26/2012 5:25:06 AM
7/25/2012 3:59:23 PM
7/25/2012 12:45:22 AM
7/23/2012 3:55:08 PM
7/22/2012 11:57:46 AM
7/22/2012 12:31:25 AM
7/21/2012 1:50:02 PM
7/21/2012 2:26:42 AM
7/20/2012 3:14:47 PM
7/20/2012 4:21:14 AM
7/19/2012 5:51:39 PM
7/19/2012 7:06:08 AM
7/18/2012 8:36:43 PM
7/18/2012 9:46:21 AM
7/17/2012 11:01:30 PM
7/17/2012 12:22:45 PM
7/17/2012 1:30:04 AM
7/16/2012 2:48:39 PM
7/16/2012 3:48:10 AM
7/15/2012 5:07:00 PM
7/15/2012 5:51:02 AM
7/14/2012 7:13:48 PM
7/14/2012 7:52:43 AM
7/13/2012 9:08:43 PM
7/13/2012 10:39:29 AM
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
7/27/2012 9:44:48 PM
7/27/2012 9:43:34 AM
7/26/2012 9:42:39 PM
7/26/2012 9:41:17 AM
7/25/2012 9:40:19 PM
7/24/2012 4:26:44 PM
7/22/2012 11:38:52 PM
7/22/2012 1:01:11 PM
7/22/2012 4:03:22 AM
7/21/2012 10:04:39 PM
7/21/2012 4:01:45 PM
7/21/2012 9:52:42 AM
7/21/2012 3:54:00 AM
7/20/2012 9:51:25 PM
7/20/2012 3:42:41 PM
7/20/2012 9:38:44 AM
7/20/2012 3:30:23 AM
7/19/2012 9:31:33 PM
7/19/2012 3:28:29 PM
7/19/2012 9:29:06 AM
7/19/2012 3:26:28 AM
7/18/2012 9:27:35 PM
7/18/2012 3:18:44 PM
7/18/2012 9:13:43 AM
7/18/2012 3:05:15 AM
7/17/2012 8:59:38 PM
7/17/2012 2:56:31 PM
7/17/2012 8:57:13 AM
7/17/2012 2:54:31 AM
7/16/2012 8:55:36 PM
7/16/2012 2:52:30 PM
7/16/2012 8:53:15 AM
7/16/2012 2:50:37 AM
7/15/2012 8:51:43 PM
7/15/2012 2:48:41 PM
7/15/2012 8:39:52 AM
7/15/2012 2:41:05 AM
7/14/2012 8:38:18 PM
7/13/2012 12:02:54 AM
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Date/Hour
Redox potential (pHmV)
-50
-100
-150
Logger TS2
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
Redox Potential (pHmV)
100
-100
-200
-300
-400
Date/Hour
Graphic 6: Evolution of Redox Potential in in monitoring well MW-4.
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
8/22/2012 5:38:53 AM
8/20/2012 6:52:39 PM
8/19/2012 8:06:25 AM
8/17/2012 9:39:23 PM
8/16/2012 10:52:33 AM
8/15/2012 12:31:25 AM
08/03/2012 18:57
08/02/2012 7:52
7/31/2012 9:25:54 PM
7/30/2012 11:17:02 AM
7/29/2012 1:21:01 AM
7/27/2012 5:27:47 PM
7/26/2012 1:24:43 PM
7/25/2012 6:17:49 AM
7/23/2012 8:23:13 PM
7/22/2012 3:59:05 PM
7/21/2012 3:45:25 PM
7/20/2012 3:30:11 PM
7/19/2012 4:34:47 PM
7/18/2012 5:55:23 PM
7/17/2012 7:06:20 PM
7/16/2012 8:07:36 PM
7/15/2012 8:38:17 PM
7/14/2012 9:39:44 PM
7/13/2012 10:52:14 PM
8/30/2012 1:04:19 PM
8/29/2012 6:25:02 AM
8/27/2012 11:41:31 PM
8/26/2012 4:59:06 PM
8/30/2012 10:11:57 PM
8/29/2012 11:30:11 AM
8/28/2012 12:39:04 AM
8/26/2012 1:54:33 PM
8/25/2012 3:03:47 AM
200
8/23/2012 4:42:10 PM
Graphic 5: Evolution of Redox Potential in in monitoring well MW-1.
8/24/2012 3:44:20 AM
Date/Hour
8/25/2012 10:09:43 AM
8/22/2012 9:01:20 PM
8/21/2012 1:58:59 PM
8/20/2012 7:20:39 AM
8/19/2012 12:54:46 AM
8/17/2012 6:40:49 PM
8/16/2012 12:01:45 PM
8/15/2012 5:36:20 AM
08/04/2012 4:32
08/02/2012 21:18
08/01/2012 14:42
7/31/2012 8:39:45 AM
7/30/2012 2:22:24 AM
7/28/2012 8:33:31 PM
7/27/2012 4:44:36 PM
7/26/2012 4:07:51 PM
7/25/2012 3:11:38 PM
7/23/2012 5:08:09 AM
7/22/2012 6:05:08 AM
7/21/2012 9:17:10 AM
7/20/2012 1:00:09 PM
7/19/2012 5:01:42 PM
7/18/2012 8:55:54 PM
7/18/2012 12:37:28 AM
7/17/2012 4:18:57 AM
7/16/2012 8:05:16 AM
7/15/2012 11:55:43 AM
7/14/2012 3:46:29 PM
7/13/2012 7:55:48 PM
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
200
Redox Potential (pHmV)
100
-100
Logger TS3
-200
-300
-400
Date/Hour
Graphic 8: Evolution of pH in logger TS2.
7/28/2012 1:46:08 AM
7/27/2012 4:39:33 PM
7/27/2012 8:54:27 AM
7/27/2012 12:12:01 AM
7/26/2012 3:53:15 PM
7/26/2012 7:05:46 AM
7/25/2012 10:42:25 PM
7/25/2012 2:28:09 PM
7/25/2012 5:27:10 AM
7/24/2012 7:23:14 PM
7/23/2012 2:52:05 PM
7/22/2012 11:51:57 AM
7/22/2012 1:44:17 AM
7/21/2012 2:47:45 PM
7/21/2012 3:51:07 AM
7/20/2012 4:08:38 PM
7/20/2012 6:31:41 AM
7/19/2012 9:45:56 PM
7/19/2012 10:25:44 AM
7/18/2012 11:52:30 PM
7/18/2012 2:43:10 PM
7/18/2012 5:59:53 AM
7/17/2012 5:41:48 PM
7/17/2012 7:07:49 AM
7/16/2012 9:32:04 PM
7/16/2012 12:26:26 PM
7/16/2012 1:33:51 AM
7/15/2012 2:25:37 PM
7/15/2012 4:34:17 AM
7/14/2012 4:59:26 PM
7/14/2012 7:02:53 AM
7/13/2012 9:08:43 PM
7/13/2012 10:12:38 AM
7/13/2012 12:04:49 AM
7/23/2012 8:14:45 AM
7/22/2012 11:37:55 PM
7/22/2012 2:04:28 PM
7/22/2012 5:19:07 AM
7/21/2012 7:51:15 PM
7/21/2012 11:27:46 AM
7/21/2012 3:20:25 AM
7/20/2012 7:24:35 PM
7/20/2012 12:17:09 PM
7/20/2012 6:12:30 AM
7/19/2012 9:53:37 PM
7/19/2012 1:37:56 PM
7/19/2012 5:45:34 AM
7/18/2012 9:45:49 PM
7/18/2012 1:53:13 PM
7/18/2012 5:25:21 AM
7/17/2012 8:07:47 PM
7/17/2012 11:05:53 AM
7/17/2012 3:59:46 AM
7/16/2012 7:56:04 PM
7/16/2012 12:34:07 PM
7/16/2012 2:46:46 AM
7/15/2012 4:55:28 PM
7/15/2012 9:33:36 AM
7/15/2012 1:49:16 AM
7/14/2012 7:21:29 PM
7/14/2012 1:18:40 PM
7/14/2012 6:43:40 AM
7/14/2012 12:31:51 AM
7/13/2012 5:53:05 PM
7/13/2012 11:56:08 AM
7/13/2012 5:55:47 AM
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
6,4
pH
6,3
6,2
6,1
Logger TS1
5,9
5,8
Date/Hour
6,3
pH
6,2
6,1
Logger TS2
5,9
5,8
5,7
5,6
5,5
5,4
Date/Hour
Graphic 10: Evolution of Temperature in logger TS1.
7/23/2012 6:34:17 AM
7/22/2012 9:39:06 PM
7/22/2012 12:08:27 PM
7/22/2012 5:49:48 AM
7/21/2012 8:41:11 PM
7/21/2012 1:11:34 PM
7/21/2012 6:51:24 AM
7/21/2012 12:27:46 AM
7/20/2012 5:44:43 PM
7/20/2012 11:31:02 AM
7/20/2012 3:42:51 AM
7/19/2012 4:23:15 PM
7/19/2012 8:53:35 AM
7/18/2012 10:58:45 PM
7/18/2012 1:06:10 PM
7/18/2012 3:22:31 AM
7/17/2012 6:35:36 PM
7/17/2012 9:41:22 AM
7/17/2012 4:03:35 AM
7/16/2012 7:48:24 PM
7/16/2012 12:37:59 PM
7/16/2012 4:11:12 AM
7/15/2012 8:22:55 PM
7/15/2012 11:05:46 AM
7/15/2012 3:09:51 AM
7/14/2012 6:50:45 PM
7/14/2012 1:37:52 PM
7/14/2012 7:29:39 AM
7/14/2012 1:10:11 AM
7/13/2012 2:41:12 PM
7/13/2012 6:22:37 AM
7/13/2012 12:50:52 AM
8/30/2012 9:35:03 AM
8/29/2012 6:02:01 AM
8/28/2012 2:34:08 AM
8/26/2012 11:19:08 PM
8/25/2012 7:52:02 PM
8/24/2012 4:24:40 PM
8/23/2012 12:57:10 PM
8/22/2012 9:29:07 AM
8/21/2012 5:49:04 AM
8/20/2012 2:27:11 AM
8/18/2012 10:36:39 PM
8/17/2012 6:58:07 PM
8/16/2012 3:23:38 PM
8/15/2012 12:07:44 PM
08/04/2012 15:22
08/03/2012 8:53
08/02/2012 2:36
7/31/2012 6:33:15 PM
7/30/2012 10:31:00 AM
7/29/2012 2:41:30 AM
7/27/2012 9:41:56 PM
7/26/2012 9:53:12 PM
7/25/2012 10:04:17 PM
7/24/2012 5:04:12 PM
7/23/2012 5:43:11 AM
7/21/2012 10:59:20 PM
7/20/2012 6:23:09 PM
7/19/2012 2:43:19 PM
7/18/2012 9:00:17 AM
7/17/2012 7:19:21 AM
7/16/2012 5:04:55 AM
7/15/2012 3:40:34 AM
7/14/2012 1:02:35 AM
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
25
pH
20
Logger TS3
15
10
Date/Hour
25
Temperature (C)
20
15
Looger TS1
10
Date/Hour
8/30/2012 2:25:04 PM
8/29/2012 3:09:30 PM
8/28/2012 4:35:14 PM
8/27/2012 4:23:53 PM
8/26/2012 2:58:00 PM
8/25/2012 1:14:13 PM
8/24/2012 2:00:28 PM
8/23/2012 3:27:11 PM
8/22/2012 5:16:31 PM
8/21/2012 5:21:45 PM
8/20/2012 7:21:29 PM
8/19/2012 7:38:24 PM
8/18/2012 6:34:48 PM
8/17/2012 4:33:56 PM
8/16/2012 4:44:24 PM
8/15/2012 3:58:20 PM
8/14/2012 2:20:15 PM
08/03/2012 17:19
08/02/2012 5:11
7/31/2012 6:33:15 PM
7/30/2012 1:13:25 AM
7/28/2012 3:11:14 PM
7/27/2012 12:11:11 PM
7/26/2012 4:31:50 PM
7/25/2012 6:33:14 PM
7/24/2012 6:48:00 AM
7/22/2012 8:36:25 PM
7/21/2012 5:27:02 AM
7/19/2012 6:14:42 PM
7/18/2012 7:58:52 AM
7/17/2012 5:01:11 AM
7/16/2012 5:16:26 AM
7/15/2012 5:43:22 AM
7/14/2012 3:28:15 AM
7/13/2012 12:00:59 AM
7/28/2012 2:46:05 AM
7/27/2012 4:53:57 PM
7/27/2012 10:11:09 AM
7/27/2012 2:21:26 AM
7/26/2012 7:05:10 PM
7/26/2012 11:43:48 AM
7/26/2012 4:56:21 AM
7/25/2012 9:44:52 PM
7/25/2012 3:49:47 PM
7/25/2012 1:31:22 AM
7/24/2012 1:17:32 PM
7/22/2012 5:26:45 PM
7/22/2012 6:39:40 AM
7/21/2012 7:01:21 PM
7/21/2012 9:05:39 AM
7/20/2012 6:03:57 PM
7/20/2012 11:04:08 AM
7/20/2012 1:24:41 AM
7/19/2012 1:26:25 PM
7/19/2012 3:54:16 AM
7/18/2012 6:06:54 PM
7/18/2012 8:06:32 AM
7/17/2012 6:58:39 PM
7/17/2012 7:23:11 AM
7/16/2012 9:43:36 PM
7/16/2012 1:24:06 PM
7/16/2012 2:08:23 AM
7/15/2012 3:27:05 PM
7/15/2012 5:04:59 AM
7/14/2012 6:08:29 PM
7/14/2012 9:47:43 AM
7/13/2012 10:56:04 PM
7/13/2012 9:03:38 AM
7/13/2012 12:04:49 AM
25
Temperature (C)
20
15
Logger TS2
10
Date/Hour
25
Temperature (C)
20
15
Logger TS3
10

UPSOIL D6.3 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPSOIL D6.3 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPSOIL - SUSTAINABLE SOIL UPGRADING

BY DEVELOPING COST EFFECTIVE, BIOGEOCHEMICAL

Project funded by the European Commission

Version Final, 19/11/ 2012

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Deliverable Administration & Summary

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

The concept of UPSOIL is that for the enhancement of cost-effective sustainable

should be significantly increased as compared to

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Figure 1.1: Feedback driven remediation scheme

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Overview: Introduction to the deliverable

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

2. Flanders test site results

Geological hydrogeological background

The following geological layers have been identified at the site:

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Table 2.1. Basic field parameters before the ISCO treatment

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Placement of new wells

ISCO Treatment pilot test design and implementation

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Flanders feedback driven remediation

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

MONITORING WELL DEPTH

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

D6.3 Field testing of the new feedback driven remediation and

Sustainable Soil Upgrading By Developing Cost

Project co-funded by the EC

Automatic monitoring system