Thomas E. McHugh, Charles J. Newell, Lila M. Beckley, David T. Adamson, George E. DeVaull, Matthew A. Lahvis
{"title":"预测地下水修复时间框架:特定地点的时间监测结果可能无法预测未来的表现","authors":"Thomas E. McHugh, Charles J. Newell, Lila M. Beckley, David T. Adamson, George E. DeVaull, Matthew A. Lahvis","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>At contaminated sites, groundwater monitoring results are commonly used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to predict remediation timeframes. If results are predictive, then there should be a strong positive correlation between attenuation rates for the first half of a temporal monitoring record and attenuation rates for the second half of the same record. We utilized the GeoTracker database to evaluate the power of historical groundwater monitoring results to predict future attenuation rates. For two data sets (petroleum and chlorinated solvent), we found a small negative correlation between the first-order concentration vs. time attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record: benzene—correlation coefficient (r) = −0.11, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)—r = −0.12, trichloroethene (TCE) = −0.12. For each data set, a small negative correlation between the first-order attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record was also observed for a subset of monitoring records exhibiting the best model fits (R<sup>2</sup> > 0.8), a subset with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) positive attenuation rate for the first half of the monitoring record. For the TCE data set, this negative correlation was also observed for a subset of monitoring records with no change in site remedy during the monitoring period (r = −0.22). Our analysis suggests that the historical concentration vs. time attenuation rate for a contaminant at an individual site or monitoring well is a poor predictor of the future rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":55081,"journal":{"name":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","volume":"43 4","pages":"92-103"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwmr.12609","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forecasting Groundwater Remediation Timeframes: Site-Specific Temporal Monitoring Results May Not Predict Future Performance\",\"authors\":\"Thomas E. McHugh, Charles J. Newell, Lila M. Beckley, David T. Adamson, George E. DeVaull, Matthew A. Lahvis\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gwmr.12609\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>At contaminated sites, groundwater monitoring results are commonly used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to predict remediation timeframes. If results are predictive, then there should be a strong positive correlation between attenuation rates for the first half of a temporal monitoring record and attenuation rates for the second half of the same record. We utilized the GeoTracker database to evaluate the power of historical groundwater monitoring results to predict future attenuation rates. For two data sets (petroleum and chlorinated solvent), we found a small negative correlation between the first-order concentration vs. time attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record: benzene—correlation coefficient (r) = −0.11, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)—r = −0.12, trichloroethene (TCE) = −0.12. For each data set, a small negative correlation between the first-order attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record was also observed for a subset of monitoring records exhibiting the best model fits (R<sup>2</sup> > 0.8), a subset with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) positive attenuation rate for the first half of the monitoring record. For the TCE data set, this negative correlation was also observed for a subset of monitoring records with no change in site remedy during the monitoring period (r = −0.22). Our analysis suggests that the historical concentration vs. time attenuation rate for a contaminant at an individual site or monitoring well is a poor predictor of the future rate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"92-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwmr.12609\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12609\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"WATER RESOURCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12609","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Forecasting Groundwater Remediation Timeframes: Site-Specific Temporal Monitoring Results May Not Predict Future Performance
At contaminated sites, groundwater monitoring results are commonly used (quantitatively or qualitatively) to predict remediation timeframes. If results are predictive, then there should be a strong positive correlation between attenuation rates for the first half of a temporal monitoring record and attenuation rates for the second half of the same record. We utilized the GeoTracker database to evaluate the power of historical groundwater monitoring results to predict future attenuation rates. For two data sets (petroleum and chlorinated solvent), we found a small negative correlation between the first-order concentration vs. time attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record: benzene—correlation coefficient (r) = −0.11, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)—r = −0.12, trichloroethene (TCE) = −0.12. For each data set, a small negative correlation between the first-order attenuation rate observed during the earlier part of the monitoring record and the later part of the monitoring record was also observed for a subset of monitoring records exhibiting the best model fits (R2 > 0.8), a subset with a statistically significant (p < 0.05) positive attenuation rate for the first half of the monitoring record. For the TCE data set, this negative correlation was also observed for a subset of monitoring records with no change in site remedy during the monitoring period (r = −0.22). Our analysis suggests that the historical concentration vs. time attenuation rate for a contaminant at an individual site or monitoring well is a poor predictor of the future rate.
期刊介绍:
Since its inception in 1981, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® has been a resource for researchers and practitioners in the field. It is a quarterly journal that offers the best in application oriented, peer-reviewed papers together with insightful articles from the practitioner''s perspective. Each issue features papers containing cutting-edge information on treatment technology, columns by industry experts, news briefs, and equipment news. GWMR plays a unique role in advancing the practice of the groundwater monitoring and remediation field by providing forward-thinking research with practical solutions.