whether there was no rapid increase in the Cr(VI) concentration after the dosing was
concluded. The Cr(VI) concentrations in the groundwater decreased approximately
24 days after the sodium metabisulfite infiltration was concluded. Thereafter, there
was an increase in the Cr(VI) concentration in well HV-22 (rebound effect); this was
probably due to the consumption of sodium metabisulfite and release of Cr(VI) from
the source zones that still remained contaminated (amount of infiltrated agent was
limited).
References
Amonette JE, Szecsody JE, Schaef HT, Templeton JC, Gorby YA, Fruchter JS (1994) Abiotic
reduction of aquifer materials by dithionite: a promising in-situ remediation technology. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland
Fruchter JS, Cole CR, Williams MD, Vermeul VR, Amonette JE, Szecsody JE, Istok JD, Humphrey
MD (2000) Creation of a subsurface permeable treatment zone for aqueous chromate contamination using in situ redox manipulation. Ground Water Monit Rem 20(2):66–77. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2000.tb00267.x
Graham MC, Farmer JG, Anderson P, Paterson E, Hillier S, Lumsdon DG, Bewley RJF (2006)
Calcium polysulfide remediation of hexavalent chromium contamination from chromite ore
processing residue. Sci Total Environ 364(1–3):32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.
11.007
Henderson T (1994) Geochemical reduction of hexavalent chromium in the Trinity Sand aquifer.
Groundwater 32(3):477–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1994.tb00665.x
Palmer CD, Puls RW (1994) Natural attenuation of hexavalent chromium in groundwater and soils.
EPA/540/5-94/505
Schindewolf U (1976) Taschenbuch der Abwasserbehandlung fur die metallverarbeitende
Industrie, Band 1: Chemie. Von L. Hartinger. Carl Hanser Verlag, München-Wien 1976.
1. Aufl., 404 S., 187 Abb. u. 72 Tab., Ln., DM 96. Chem Ing Tech 48(12):1221–1221.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.330481228
US EPA (2000) In situ treatment of soil and groundwater contaminated with chromium. Technical
resource guide. Cincinnati, Ohio
64
J. Němeček et al.
concluded. The Cr(VI) concentrations in the groundwater decreased approximately
24 days after the sodium metabisulfite infiltration was concluded. Thereafter, there
was an increase in the Cr(VI) concentration in well HV-22 (rebound effect); this was
probably due to the consumption of sodium metabisulfite and release of Cr(VI) from
the source zones that still remained contaminated (amount of infiltrated agent was
limited).
References
Amonette JE, Szecsody JE, Schaef HT, Templeton JC, Gorby YA, Fruchter JS (1994) Abiotic
reduction of aquifer materials by dithionite: a promising in-situ remediation technology. Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, Richland
Fruchter JS, Cole CR, Williams MD, Vermeul VR, Amonette JE, Szecsody JE, Istok JD, Humphrey
MD (2000) Creation of a subsurface permeable treatment zone for aqueous chromate contamination using in situ redox manipulation. Ground Water Monit Rem 20(2):66–77. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2000.tb00267.x
Graham MC, Farmer JG, Anderson P, Paterson E, Hillier S, Lumsdon DG, Bewley RJF (2006)
Calcium polysulfide remediation of hexavalent chromium contamination from chromite ore
processing residue. Sci Total Environ 364(1–3):32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.
11.007
Henderson T (1994) Geochemical reduction of hexavalent chromium in the Trinity Sand aquifer.
Groundwater 32(3):477–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1994.tb00665.x
Palmer CD, Puls RW (1994) Natural attenuation of hexavalent chromium in groundwater and soils.
EPA/540/5-94/505
Schindewolf U (1976) Taschenbuch der Abwasserbehandlung fur die metallverarbeitende
Industrie, Band 1: Chemie. Von L. Hartinger. Carl Hanser Verlag, München-Wien 1976.
1. Aufl., 404 S., 187 Abb. u. 72 Tab., Ln., DM 96. Chem Ing Tech 48(12):1221–1221.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.330481228
US EPA (2000) In situ treatment of soil and groundwater contaminated with chromium. Technical
resource guide. Cincinnati, Ohio
64
J. Němeček et al.