HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Berisford, Y. C. Articles by Bayer, C. L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Berisford, Y. C. Articles by Bayer, C. L. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Berisford, Y. C. Articles by Bayer, C. L. Related Collections Ground Water Quality Remediation Water Pollution

Use of Mini-Sprinklers to Strip Trichloroethylene and Tetrachloroethylene from Contaminated Ground Water

^a Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories, Pesticide and Hazardous Wastes Laboratory, Univ. of Georgia, 2300 College Station Road, Athens, GA 30605
^b U.S. Forest Service, Savannah River Site, P.O. Box 700, New Ellenton, SC 29809
^c Bechtel Savannah River Inc., Bldg. 730-2B, Aiken, SC 29808

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. General layout of the field test area (not drawn to scale). White arrows indicate the flow of water from the mixing tank to mini-sprayer, single black arrows indicate flow of water from the riser to the mixing tank, and double black arrows indicate flow in a bypass loop that was used to mix the water in the tank. Refer to Fig. 2 and 3 for enlargements of the sample collection columns and method of compositing.

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Location of sample collector columns and method of compositing samples. Water from the bottles at the same height (1.22 or 0.61 m) and distance (i.e., those indicated on the same circle in the diagram) from the riser were composited. For example, water from all T bottles on the 2.44-m circle were composited into one bottle and water from all B bottles on that same circle were composited into another bottle.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Design of a sample collection column.

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Field setup for testing the loss of dissolved concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) during sample compositing or from exposure to air for 60 min. For illustration purposes, bottles are illustrated as black or white; however, in the actual field test, all bottles were 1-L amber glass. Bottles on the lab carts were capped until sampled. Bottles on the collector columns were uncapped throughout the 60-min test period.

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Effect of compositing on dissolved concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Within each group, bars with the same letters are not significantly different from each other (n = 6 for noncomposited samples; n = 3 for composited samples; SAS PROC GLM, Duncan's multiple range test, = 0.05).

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Effect of exposing contaminated water to air in bottles for 60 min. In the exposed groups, the collection bottles were open during the experiment. Bars with the same letters are not significantly different from each other (SAS PROC GLM, Duncan's multiple range test, = 0.05).

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison of dissolved concentrations (µg L-1) of trichloroethylene (TCE) in water sampled every 15 min from faucets at the beginning and end of the waterline.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Comparison of dissolved concentrations (µg L-1) of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in water sampled every 15 min from faucets at the beginning and end of the waterline.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Stability of trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in the polyethylene irrigation pipe (waterline). The first test of each mini-sprinkler was begun before 1000 h; the second tests were begun after 1127 h. Within each test, bars with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (SAS PROC ANOVA, Duncan's multiple range test, = 0.05).