It has been almost 20 years since Einarson and Mackay published an article about pollutant mass flux and mass discharge. The paper provided a general framework for a more advanced and more meaningful characterization and management of contaminated aquifers based on groundwater fluxes., management of contaminated aquifers is commonly risk-based, predominantly relying on contaminant concentration. Despite being acknowledged for some time in the broader contaminated land industry, mass flux concepts and measurements remain under-applied. That’s why we have bundled our knowledge and experience together in two instantly recognizable site applications.
How the iFLUX technology delivers clear results for our clients
The iFLUX passive flux meter will provide direct information on the contaminant flux (viz. the contaminant charge expressed as flow over time) and the groundwater flow (direction and velocity). Our iFLUX technology can be used as a monitoring tool over a fixed period. But the applications are much broader, as it can be used for remediation design or during an ongoing remediation to optimize remediation operations.
Below, we present two cases which give you a clear example of the outcome and the potential added value of iFLUX measurements for your clients:
1. Gaining insights about soil remediation in a chemical plant
Soil & groundwater are heavily contaminated with mainly aromatic hydrocarbons at the site of this active chemical plant. Remediation is necessary to remove NAPLs and stop the off-site migration. The remediation is focused on in-situ contaminant removal in the source areas. In the meantime active measures are required to stop further off-site migration of the contamination at the site boundary. The initial design was based on a hydraulic barrier at the site boundary in the soil layers representing the highest contaminant mass.
2. Defining a correct plume axis in a residential environment
Two dry cleaners located in a residential, urban environment are located close to each other and have been identified as sources for chlorinated solvent contamination. Groundwater analyses have identified a heterogenous distribution of PCE and degradation products TCE, DCE and VC. Delineation is difficult due to the limited availability of accessible locations in the city centre. The groundwater contaminant plume is only roughly delineated. The most relevant migration source, nor the main migration path of the plume couldn’t be determined.