Berglund S, Cvetkovic V (1995) Pump-and-treat remediation of heterogeneous aquifers: effects of
rate-limited mass transfer. Groundwater 33:675–685
Birak PS, Miller CT (2009) Dense non-aqueous phase liquids at former manufactured gas plants:
challenges to modeling and remediation. J Contam Hydrol 105:81–98
Brooks RH, Corey AT (1964) Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Paper 3. Civil
Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Brooks M, Annable M, Rao P, Hatfield K, Jawitz J, Wise W, Wood A, Enfield C (2004) Controlled
release, blind test of DNAPL remediation by ethanol flushing. J Contam Hydrol 69
(3–4):281–297
Brown D, Gupta L, Kim T-H, Keith Moo-Young H, Coleman A (2006) Comparative assessment of
coal tars obtained from 10 former manufactured gas plant sites in the Eastern United States.
Chemosphere 65:1562–1569
Brutsaert W (1967) Some methods of calculating unsaturated permeability. Trans ASABE
10:400–404
Burdine NT (1953) Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data. Pet Trans
AIME 198:71–78
Carey GR, McBean, EA (2010a) A mass balance approach for estimating DNAPL source remediation timeframe. In: Proceedings of the 2010 RPIC Federal Contaminated Sites National
Workshop, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Carey GR, McBean, EA (2010b) Back-diffusion and discount rate implications for DNAPL
remediation strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2010 RPIC Federal Contaminated Sites National
Workshop, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Cazaux D, Colombano S, Joubert A, Dumestre A, Lecuelle G (2014) Optimized physical recovery
of DNAPL using upwelling technique and geostatistical analysis at large field scale. In: Ninth
international conference on remediation of chlorinated and recaclitrant compounds. Battelle
Press, Columbus, OH, Number A1; p 5
Charbeneau R (2007) LNAPL distribution and recovery model (LDRM), vol 1: Distribution and
recovery of petroleum hydrocarbon liquids in porous media. Technical report API Publication
4760, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 68 p
Charbeneau R, Beckett RG (2007) LNAPL distribution and recovery model (LDRM), vol 2: User
and parameter selection guide. Technical report API Publication 4760, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC, 115 p
Chen J, Hopmans J, Grismer M (1999) Parameter estimation of two-fluid capillary pressure –
saturation and permeability functions. Adv Water Resour 22(5):479–493
Chen Z, Huan G, Ma Y (2006) Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. Number 978-0-898716-06-1;
531 p
Childs J, Acosta E, Knox R, Harwell J, Sabatini D (2004) Improving the extraction of
tetrachloroethylene from soil columns using surfactant gradient systems. J Contam Hydrol 71
(1–4):27–45
Cohen R, Mercer J (1993) DNAPL site evaluation. Technical report, Edited by USEPA Office of
Research and Development
Colombano S, Havryliuk T (2016) Remediation of hydrocarbon polluted military site, Unit A-3482,
Kiev, Ukraine. The NATO science for peace and security programme. North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Number SPS 984585
Colombano S, Hiez D (2009) La démarche du Plan de Gestion et la gestion en l’absence de valeurs
VCI-VDSS/Exemple : fuite d’hydrocarbures flottants. Journée Technique d’information et de
retour d’expérience de la gestion des sols pollués. Ministère du Développement Durable, Paris,
France
Colombano S, Saada A, Guerin V, Bataillard P, Bellenfant G, Beranger S, Hubé D, Blanc C,
Zornig C, Girardeau I (2010) Quelles techniques pour quels traitements – Analyse coûtbénéfices. Document du Brgm BRGM/RP – 58609 – FR, BRGM – French Geological Survey,
3, avenue Claude Guillemin, 45 060 – Orléans Cedex 2, France. 403 p
140
S. Colombano et al.
rate-limited mass transfer. Groundwater 33:675–685
Birak PS, Miller CT (2009) Dense non-aqueous phase liquids at former manufactured gas plants:
challenges to modeling and remediation. J Contam Hydrol 105:81–98
Brooks RH, Corey AT (1964) Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Paper 3. Civil
Engineering Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Brooks M, Annable M, Rao P, Hatfield K, Jawitz J, Wise W, Wood A, Enfield C (2004) Controlled
release, blind test of DNAPL remediation by ethanol flushing. J Contam Hydrol 69
(3–4):281–297
Brown D, Gupta L, Kim T-H, Keith Moo-Young H, Coleman A (2006) Comparative assessment of
coal tars obtained from 10 former manufactured gas plant sites in the Eastern United States.
Chemosphere 65:1562–1569
Brutsaert W (1967) Some methods of calculating unsaturated permeability. Trans ASABE
10:400–404
Burdine NT (1953) Relative permeability calculations from pore size distribution data. Pet Trans
AIME 198:71–78
Carey GR, McBean, EA (2010a) A mass balance approach for estimating DNAPL source remediation timeframe. In: Proceedings of the 2010 RPIC Federal Contaminated Sites National
Workshop, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Carey GR, McBean, EA (2010b) Back-diffusion and discount rate implications for DNAPL
remediation strategies. In: Proceedings of the 2010 RPIC Federal Contaminated Sites National
Workshop, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Cazaux D, Colombano S, Joubert A, Dumestre A, Lecuelle G (2014) Optimized physical recovery
of DNAPL using upwelling technique and geostatistical analysis at large field scale. In: Ninth
international conference on remediation of chlorinated and recaclitrant compounds. Battelle
Press, Columbus, OH, Number A1; p 5
Charbeneau R (2007) LNAPL distribution and recovery model (LDRM), vol 1: Distribution and
recovery of petroleum hydrocarbon liquids in porous media. Technical report API Publication
4760, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, 68 p
Charbeneau R, Beckett RG (2007) LNAPL distribution and recovery model (LDRM), vol 2: User
and parameter selection guide. Technical report API Publication 4760, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC, 115 p
Chen J, Hopmans J, Grismer M (1999) Parameter estimation of two-fluid capillary pressure –
saturation and permeability functions. Adv Water Resour 22(5):479–493
Chen Z, Huan G, Ma Y (2006) Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media.
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA. Number 978-0-898716-06-1;
531 p
Childs J, Acosta E, Knox R, Harwell J, Sabatini D (2004) Improving the extraction of
tetrachloroethylene from soil columns using surfactant gradient systems. J Contam Hydrol 71
(1–4):27–45
Cohen R, Mercer J (1993) DNAPL site evaluation. Technical report, Edited by USEPA Office of
Research and Development
Colombano S, Havryliuk T (2016) Remediation of hydrocarbon polluted military site, Unit A-3482,
Kiev, Ukraine. The NATO science for peace and security programme. North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, Number SPS 984585
Colombano S, Hiez D (2009) La démarche du Plan de Gestion et la gestion en l’absence de valeurs
VCI-VDSS/Exemple : fuite d’hydrocarbures flottants. Journée Technique d’information et de
retour d’expérience de la gestion des sols pollués. Ministère du Développement Durable, Paris,
France
Colombano S, Saada A, Guerin V, Bataillard P, Bellenfant G, Beranger S, Hubé D, Blanc C,
Zornig C, Girardeau I (2010) Quelles techniques pour quels traitements – Analyse coûtbénéfices. Document du Brgm BRGM/RP – 58609 – FR, BRGM – French Geological Survey,
3, avenue Claude Guillemin, 45 060 – Orléans Cedex 2, France. 403 p
140
S. Colombano et al.