Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/ultras
Abstract
The soil-flushing method enhanced by ultrasonic waves is a new technique that potentially can become an effective method for
in situ remediation of the ground contaminated by NAPL hydrocarbons. This study investigated the effectiveness of ultrasound
enhancement in the soil-flushing method for a range of conditions involving soil type, soil density, flushing rate, and sonication
power. The study was conducted in the laboratory using specially designed and fabricated equipment. The test results indicated that
the rate of contaminant extraction increased considerably with increasing sonication power up to the level where cavitation oc-
curred. The effectiveness of sonication-enhanced soil-flushing can be expressed as a function of ðD10 Þ2 i, in which D10 is the effective
grain size, and i is the hydraulic gradient.
Ó 2003 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Keywords: Ultrasound; Ground contamination; Soil-flushing method; In situ remediation; Laboratory testing; NAPL hydrocarbons; Stress waves
Petroleum hydrocarbons are commonly found in the Available information about sonication effects on
ground in urban and suburban areas due to possible extraction of NAPL hydrocarbon from porous media is
leakage of gasoline, motor oils, and diesel fuel from limited and piecemeal. Surguchev [8] and Simkin [7]
underground storage tanks. The polluted ground needs attributed the increased extraction of oil (hydrocarbons)
to be cleaned in order to avoid potential hydrocarbon to a decrease for water and an increase for oil in the
contamination of ground water aquifer. Currently, there relative phase permeability due to stress waves. For soils
are different remediation methods, e.g. replacement, with low permeability, Cleveland and Garg [1] reported
pump-and-treat, vapor extraction, and flushing meth- that ultrasonic excitation can suspend fine particles to
ods. However, a method that can be effective and also which the contaminants are strongly sorbed. The fine
economical for a broad range of field conditions is not particles subsequently can then be removed by flushing
yet available. water through the soil. Also, Reddi and Challa [5], and
For development of an effective ground remediation Reddi and Wu [6] presented that ultrasonic waves can
method, there has been considerable research focusing increase not only the mobility of NAPL ganglia but the
on the technique of enhancing soil-flushing method. porosity of the soil as well, resulting in a decrease in
Although there are data showing that ultrasonic waves viscosity and buoyant pressure.
are capable of removing non-aqueous phase liquid Only a few studies are available on the effectiveness of
(NAPL) hydrocarbons from soils, a methodology for using acoustic waves to enhance contaminant extraction
evaluating the effectiveness of sonication is yet to be in soil-flushing method. Ellen et al. [2] reported a 30%
developed. It is with this objective in mind that this increase in contaminant extraction due to acoustic ex-
study was undertaken. citation. They hypothesized that acoustic waves can
overcome the capillary force on contaminants in a soil
by alternating over- and under-pressures which produce
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-31-330-6417; fax: +82-31-336- pulling and pushing actions to contaminant droplets.
9705. Thus, large contaminant droplets can be broken into
E-mail address: younguk@mju.ac.kr (Y.U. Kim). smaller droplets. These smaller droplets can be flushed
out more easily. Another study by Iovenitti et al. [4] to flush contaminants out of the soil sample. The de-
reported a 6–26% improvement in contaminant extrac- aired water reservoir was connected to a water tap.
tion. The sonication device was a 500 W-Ultrasonic Pro-
The available information reviewed above shows that cessor manufactured by Heat Systems Ultrasonics. The
ultrasonic waves could increase percolation rate and Processor was calibrated by the manufacturer. The en-
facilitate removal of entrapped contaminants. The de- tire apparatus was composed of a generator, a con-
gree of enhancement varies with many factors, such as verter, an acoustic horn, and a flat tip as shown in Fig.
soil type, soil density, flow rate, temperature, wave fre- 1. The generator (or power supply) converted the con-
quency, energy level, and others. Since nearly every ventional 60 Hz AC at 120 V to a 20 kHz electrical
available study focused only on limited specific condi- energy at approximately 1000 V. The high-frequency
tions without a systematic investigation for a broad electrical energy was fed to the converter to transform
spectrum of the various influencing factors, a method- the energy to mechanical vibration. The vibrator was
ology is not yet available for evaluating the effectiveness tuned to vibrate at 20 kHz. The acoustic horn and flat
of ultrasonic waves. Such a methodology is essential in tip amplified the longitudinal vibration of the converter.
the practical application of using stress waves to en-
hance the effectiveness of soil-flushing. 3.2. Test soils and contaminant
chamber. The soil specimen was then saturated with because cavitation takes power away from the field.
water; the water level was maintained at the top of the Therefore, cavitation can reduce the effective sonication
soil specimen. The soil specimen was then subjected to power in the soil. Note that it may be a sudden drop
ultrasonic waves at 20 kHz frequency. Under the action rather than a smooth curve shown. A similar cavitation
of ultrasonic waves, the clean water was allowed to flow effect on oil flow through sandstone was also reported
upward through the soil specimen under a specified by Fairbanks and Chen [3]. They observed cavitation at
hydraulic gradient. The effluent was collected in a 500 100 W sonication power. The lower sonication power
ml Polypropylene cylinder. The effluent in the cylinder for their case was probably because of their smaller test
was allowed to stand overnight for gravitational segre- samples which had a diameter of 7.3 cm and a height of
gation of oil from water. The volumes of the separated 0.5–2.0 cm.
water and oil were then measured. The influence of hydraulic condition was investigated
under 100 W sonication power using three levels of
hydraulic gradient––i ¼ 1:6, 5.5, and 13.0. The test re-
4. Influence factors sults for Ottawa sand are shown in Fig. 3, which pre-
sents the percent contaminant removal as a function of
Numerous factors may influence the effect of soni- hydraulic gradient for both with and without sonication
cation on oil removal. Major factors investigated were conditions. It is seen that the percent contaminant re-
sonication power, hydraulic condition, and soil prop- moval decreases with increasing hydraulic gradient. This
erty. The effect of sonication power on oil removal was can be explained below with a note that increasing hy-
investigated only for Ottawa sand specimens that were draulic gradient will increase discharge velocity and flow
prepared at 0.67 and 0.55 void ratios and subjected to rate, other factors being equal.
1.60 and 5.50 hydraulic gradients. Fig. 2 presents the Before the contaminant can be flushed out of the soil,
graphical relations between percent contaminant re- the soil/contaminant bond must be broken first. Inside
moval and sonication power for 5 PV (pore volume) the soil mass, the contaminant is either trapped within the
water flow volume. It is seen that, for a constant void pore space formed by the interlocked soil particles or
ratio and hydraulic gradient, the percent contaminant adsorbed on the surface of individual particles or both.
removal increases with increasing sonication power to a Regardless of the nature of the bond, the breakdown of
maximum around 100 W then decreases. The contami- the contaminant/soil bond is a time-dependent process.
nant removal at 140 W is about equal to that around 75– For slower flushing, the percolating water has longer
85 W, corresponding to a loss factor of about 1.8. The time to interact with the soil/contaminant system. As a
drop in contaminant removal beyond about 100 W can result, the slow flushing water is more efficient to remove
be attributed to the effect of cavitation. When cavitation the contaminant than the fast flushing as observed from
occurs, the sound pressure level at a distance drops, the experiment.
50
65
45 Ottawa Sand
e=0.67
60
e=0.55
e=0.67
Contaminant Removal (%)
40
Contaminant Removal (%)
e=0.55
55
45
30
e=0.55, i=1.60 40
e=0.67, i=1.60
25
e=0.67, i=5.5
35
Without Sonication
20
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Ultrasonic Po wer (W ) Hydraulic Gradient
Fig. 2. Ultrasonic power (W) vs. contaminant removal (%). Fig. 3. Percent contaminant removal vs. hydraulic gradient.
542 Y.U. Kim, M.C. Wang / Ultrasonics 41 (2003) 539–542
50
5. Summary and conclusions
Contaminant Removal (%)