Time filter

Source Type

Billerica, MA, United States

Hadnagy E.,University of New Haven | Gardner K.H.,University of New Hampshire | Chesner W.H.,Chesner Engineering | Justus H.,Chesner Engineering | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Soils and Sediments | Year: 2014

Purpose: In situ sediment treatment technologies can be more economical alternatives than dredging and ex situ treatment; however, their development and application had been hindered due to uncertainties associated with the homogeneity of amendment delivery and mixing and the concern of contaminated sediment resuspension and amendment release into the water column. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subaqueous amendment delivery and mixing efficiency of a novel pilot scale in situ sediment remediation system addressing these concerns. Materials and methods: The in situ sediment treatment system consisted of a hydraulically operated steel casing that provided contained conditions for amendment delivery and mixing to occur and the mixing tool housed by this casing. The mixing tool consisted of a hollow vertical shaft with horizontal mixing blades. The device was capable of delivering amendments to subaqueous sediments during continuous mixing in the downward or upward vertical direction. Activated carbon was used as a tracer to evaluate the efficiency of reagent delivery and mixing. The delivery and mixing system operation was defined by the following parameters: mixing speed, vertical descent or ascent speed, mixing time, total processing time, sediment mixing depth, activated carbon slurry injection volume, pumping flow rate for activated carbon, and pumping pressure for activated carbon. Results and discussion: Better amendment yield recoveries were observed at lower added activated carbon volumes, at higher mixing speeds, at lower pump flow rates, in case of thicker mixed sediment zones, and at horizontal locations closer to the center shaft. In general, poor amendment recoveries could be attributed to the limited capacity of the sediment pore space to accommodate the activated carbon slurry. Better recoveries close to the shaft might have occurred due to the fact that the amendment delivery pressure was not controlled and therefore was not constant through each reagent delivery port. The reagent stayed within the enclosure of the device, indicating that contained mixing conditions were achieved. The majority of the suspended sediment settled out fairly quickly from the overlying water column within the enclosure. Conclusions: The in situ remediation system showed potential in terms of successful amendment delivery and mixing into subaqueous sediments. Lower doses of activated carbon were mixed in more efficiently due to the limited availability of pore capacity and issues with powdered activated carbon retention in the sediment. The demonstration took place in sediments with large sand and gravel fractions; sediments containing larger silt and clay fractions are likely to behave differently in terms of sediment resuspension. © 2014, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Discover hidden collaborations