19
Permeable Reactive Barriers
1.5 Conclusion
A PRB fits the concept of a green and sustainable groundwater remediation technology; it is the most green remediation technique after monitored
natural attenuations. PRB, where applicable, is less expensive as compared
to ex situ technology as it involves no operational and maintenance costs.
Reactive materials are frequently waste products (e.g., mulch, saw dust, some
iron ore slags) or are recycled materials (e.g., iron scrap). The performance
and longevity of a PRB is reliant on the design stage as there will be little
or no possibility of correcting the system after construction. Consequently,
detailed high-resolution site characterization such as the nature and extent
of the contaminant plume(s), selection of the reactive material, the hydraulic
design, and the vertical extent of contamination are particularly important
criteria. PRB remediation technology is still evolving with new and innovative reactive materials introduced to treat different contaminants utilizing
innovative new construction methods.
References
Admassu W., Breese T. 1999. Feasibility of using natural fish bone apatite as a substitute for hydroxyapatite in remediating aqueous heavy metals. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 69:187–196.
Ake C.L., Mayura K., Huebner H., Bratton G.R., Phillips T.D. 2001. Development of
porous clay-based composites for the sorption of lead from water. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 63:459–475.
Arey J.S., Seaman J.C., Bertsch P.M. 1999. Immobilization of uranium in contaminated sediments by hydroxyapatite addition. Environmental Science & Technology
33:337–342.
Baciocchi R., Boni M.R., D’Aprile L. 2003. Characterization and performance of granular iron as reactive media for TCE degradation by permeable reactive barriers.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 149:211–226.
Baker M.J., Blowes D.W., Ptacek C.J. 1998. Laboratory development of permeable
reactive mixtures for the removal of phosphorus from onsite waste water disposal systems. Environmental Science & Technology 32:2308–2316. DOI:10.1021/
es970934w.
Barzi F., Naidu R., McLaughlin M.J. 1996. Contaminants and the Australian soil environment, In: R. Naidu et al. (Eds.), Contaminants and the Soil Environment in the
Australasia-Pacific Region, Springer Netherlands. pp. 451–484.
Birke V., Burmeier H., Rosenau D. 2003. Design, construction, and operation of tailored permeable reactive barriers. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Management 7:264–280.
Permeable Reactive Barriers
1.5 Conclusion
A PRB fits the concept of a green and sustainable groundwater remediation technology; it is the most green remediation technique after monitored
natural attenuations. PRB, where applicable, is less expensive as compared
to ex situ technology as it involves no operational and maintenance costs.
Reactive materials are frequently waste products (e.g., mulch, saw dust, some
iron ore slags) or are recycled materials (e.g., iron scrap). The performance
and longevity of a PRB is reliant on the design stage as there will be little
or no possibility of correcting the system after construction. Consequently,
detailed high-resolution site characterization such as the nature and extent
of the contaminant plume(s), selection of the reactive material, the hydraulic
design, and the vertical extent of contamination are particularly important
criteria. PRB remediation technology is still evolving with new and innovative reactive materials introduced to treat different contaminants utilizing
innovative new construction methods.
References
Admassu W., Breese T. 1999. Feasibility of using natural fish bone apatite as a substitute for hydroxyapatite in remediating aqueous heavy metals. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 69:187–196.
Ake C.L., Mayura K., Huebner H., Bratton G.R., Phillips T.D. 2001. Development of
porous clay-based composites for the sorption of lead from water. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A 63:459–475.
Arey J.S., Seaman J.C., Bertsch P.M. 1999. Immobilization of uranium in contaminated sediments by hydroxyapatite addition. Environmental Science & Technology
33:337–342.
Baciocchi R., Boni M.R., D’Aprile L. 2003. Characterization and performance of granular iron as reactive media for TCE degradation by permeable reactive barriers.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 149:211–226.
Baker M.J., Blowes D.W., Ptacek C.J. 1998. Laboratory development of permeable
reactive mixtures for the removal of phosphorus from onsite waste water disposal systems. Environmental Science & Technology 32:2308–2316. DOI:10.1021/
es970934w.
Barzi F., Naidu R., McLaughlin M.J. 1996. Contaminants and the Australian soil environment, In: R. Naidu et al. (Eds.), Contaminants and the Soil Environment in the
Australasia-Pacific Region, Springer Netherlands. pp. 451–484.
Birke V., Burmeier H., Rosenau D. 2003. Design, construction, and operation of tailored permeable reactive barriers. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Management 7:264–280.