Time‐Lapse Electrical Geophysical Monitoring of Amendment‐Based Biostimulation

Biostimulation is increasingly used to accelerate microbial remediation of recalcitrant groundwater contaminants. Effective application of biostimulation requires successful emplacement of amendment in the contaminant target zone. Verification of remediation performance requires postemplacement assessment and contaminant monitoring. Sampling-based approaches are expensive and provide low-density spatial and temporal information. Time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is an effective geophysical method for determining temporal changes in subsurface electrical conductivity. Because remedial amendments and biostimulation-related biogeochemical processes often change subsurface electrical conductivity, ERT can complement and enhance sampling-based approaches for assessing emplacement and monitoring biostimulation-based remediation. Field studies demonstrating the ability of time-lapse ERT to monitor amendment emplacement and behavior were performed during a biostimulation remediation effort conducted at the Department of Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO) Yard, in Brandywine, Maryland, United States. Geochemical fluid sampling was used to calibrate a petrophysical relation in order to predict groundwater indicators of amendment distribution. The petrophysical relations were field validated by comparing predictions to sequestered fluid sample results, thus demonstrating the potential of electrical geophysics for quantitative assessment of amendment-related geochemical properties. Crosshole radar zero-offset profile and borehole geophysical logging were also performed to augment the data set and validate interpretation. In addition to delineating amendment transport in the first 10 months after emplacement, the time-lapse ERT results show later changes in bulk electrical properties interpreted as mineral precipitation. Results support the use of more cost-effective surface-based ERT in conjunction with limited field sampling to improve spatial and temporal monitoring of amendment emplacement and remediation performance.

[1]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Object-Based Inversion of Crosswell Radar Tomography Data to Monitor Vegetable Oil Injection Experiments , 2004 .

[2]  T. Günther,et al.  Three‐dimensional modelling and inversion of dc resistivity data incorporating topography – II. Inversion , 2006 .

[3]  C. Davis,et al.  Microbial growth and biofilm formation in geologic media is detected with complex conductivity measurements , 2006 .

[4]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Using time-lapse electrical geophysics to monitor subsurface processes , 2008 .

[5]  Kamini Singha,et al.  Moment inference from tomograms , 2007 .

[6]  Andrew Binley,et al.  Evaluation of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) integrity using electrical imaging methods , 2003 .

[7]  H. Vereecken,et al.  Imaging and characterisation of subsurface solute transport using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and equivalent transport models , 2002 .

[8]  F. Day‐Lewis,et al.  Monitoring engineered remediation with borehole radar , 2007 .

[9]  John M. Zachara,et al.  Imaging high stage river‐water intrusion into a contaminated aquifer along a major river corridor using 2‐D time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography , 2013 .

[10]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Improved hydrogeophysical characterization and monitoring through parallel modeling and inversion of time-domain resistivity andinduced-polarization data , 2010 .

[11]  Frederick D. Day-Lewis,et al.  Time‐lapse imaging of saline‐tracer transport in fractured rock using difference‐attenuation radar tomography , 2003 .

[12]  Frederick D. Day-Lewis,et al.  Combined interpretation of radar, hydraulic, and tracer data from a fractured-rock aquifer near Mirror Lake, New Hampshire, USA , 2006 .

[13]  D. Fennell,et al.  Comparison of Butyric Acid, Ethanol, Lactic Acid, and Propionic Acid as Hydrogen Donors for the Reductive Dechlorination of Tetrachloroethene , 1997 .

[14]  Abelardo Ramirez,et al.  Electrical resistance tomography during in-situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savannah River Site , 1995 .

[15]  Alberto Villa,et al.  An experiment of non‐invasive characterization of the vadose zone via water injection and cross‐hole time‐lapse geophysical monitoring , 2007 .

[16]  P. Glover,et al.  Nature of surface electrical conductivity in natural sands, sandstones, and clays , 1998 .

[17]  W. Keys.  Borehole Geophysics Applied to Ground-Water Investigations , 1989 .

[18]  K. Singha,et al.  Imaging hyporheic zone solute transport using electrical resistivity , 2009 .

[19]  R. Lytle,et al.  Investigation of fracture flow paths using alterant geophysical tomography , 1986 .

[20]  Douglas LaBrecque,et al.  Monitoring an underground steam injection process using electrical resistance tomography , 1993 .

[21]  Andrew Binley,et al.  High‐resolution characterization of vadose zone dynamics using cross‐borehole radar , 2001 .

[22]  Andreas Kemna,et al.  Geophysical monitoring of coupled microbial and geochemical processes during stimulated subsurface bioremediation. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  J. Nitao,et al.  Electrical resistivity tomography of vadose water movement , 1992 .

[24]  Evan K. Nyer.  In situ treatment technology , 2000 .

[25]  R. Versteeg,et al.  Calcite precipitation dominates the electrical signatures of zero valent iron columns under simulated field conditions. , 2009, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[26]  A. Binley,et al.  Cross-hole electrical imaging of a controlled saline tracer injection , 2000 .

[27]  Frederick D. Day-Lewis,et al.  Monitoring groundwater‐surface water interaction using time‐series and time‐frequency analysis of transient three‐dimensional electrical resistivity changes , 2012 .

[28]  Trevor Rowe,et al.  Web-accessible scientific workflow system for performance monitoring. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Andrew Binley,et al.  ERT monitoring of environmental remediation processes , 1996 .

[30]  Roelof Versteeg,et al.  Efficient electrical hydrogeophysical monitoring through cloud-based processing, analysis, and result access , 2013 .

[31]  Estella A. Atekwana,et al.  Biogeophysics: A new frontier in Earth science research , 2009 .

[32]  Niklas Linde,et al.  3D crosshole ERT for aquifer characterization and monitoring of infiltrating river water , 2011 .

[33]  O. Olsson,et al.  BOREHOLE RADAR APPLIED TO THE CHARACTERIZATION OF HYDRAULICALLY CONDUCTIVE FRACTURE ZONES IN CRYSTALLINE ROCK1 , 1992 .

[34]  D. Lesmes,et al.  Influence of pore fluid chemistry on the complex conductivity and induced polarization responses of Berea sandstone , 2001 .

[35]  David Goldberg,et al.  Well Logging for Physical Properties: A Handbook for Geophysicists, Geologists, and Engineers, 2nd Edition , 2001 .

[36]  Lanbo Liu,et al.  Marine electrical resistivity imaging of submarine groundwater discharge: sensitivity analysis and application in Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts, USA , 2010 .

[37]  Stephen K. Park,et al.  Monitoring leaks from storage ponds using resistivity methods , 1991 .

[38]  Susan S. Hubbard,et al.  Monitoring Vadose Zone Desiccation with Geophysical Methods , 2013 .

[39]  Clifton C. Casey,et al.  Geophysical Monitoring of a Field‐Scale Biostimulation Pilot Project , 2006, Ground water.

[40]  Lee Slater,et al.  Controls on induced polarization in sandy unconsolidated sediments and application to aquifer characterization , 2003 .

[41]  Susan S. Hubbard,et al.  Low-frequency electrical response to microbial induced sulfide precipitation , 2005 .

[42]  A. Binley,et al.  Detecting Leaks from Environmental Barriers Using Electrical Current Imaging , 1997 .

[43]  Partha S. Routh,et al.  A field comparison of Fresnel zone and ray-based GPR attenuation-difference tomography for time-lapse imaging of electrically anomalous tracer or contaminant plumes , 2007 .

[44]  S. Gorelick,et al.  Saline tracer visualized with three‐dimensional electrical resistivity tomography: Field‐scale spatial moment analysis , 2005 .

[45]  André Revil,et al.  Relationship between self‐potential (SP) signals and redox conditions in contaminated groundwater , 2003 .

[46]  Frederick D. Day-Lewis,et al.  Geoelectrical measurement and modeling of biogeochemical breakthrough behavior during microbial activity , 2009 .

[47]  A. Binley,et al.  Vadose zone flow model parameterisation using cross-borehole radar and resistivity imaging , 2001 .

[48]  André Revil,et al.  Groundwater redox conditions and conductivity in a contaminant plume from geoelectrical investigations , 2004 .

[49]  David P. Lesmes,et al.  Electrical‐hydraulic relationships observed for unconsolidated sediments , 2002 .

[50]  Andrew Binley,et al.  Applying petrophysical models to radar travel time and electrical resistivity tomograms: Resolution‐dependent limitations , 2005 .

[51]  Estella A. Atekwana,et al.  In-situ apparent conductivity measurements and microbial population distribution at a hydrocarbon-contaminated site , 2004 .

[52]  Lee Slater,et al.  Exploring the Geophysical Signatures of Microbial Processes: AGU Chapman Conference on Biogeophysics; Portland, Maine, 13–16 October 2008 , 2009 .

[53]  John Turner,et al.  State of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean climate system , 2009 .

[54]  M. Eppstein,et al.  Optimal 3-D traveltime tomography , 1998 .

[55]  V. Naudet,et al.  A sandbox experiment to investigate bacteria‐mediated redox processes on self‐potential signals , 2005 .