 |
View Cart | Login |
|
|
|
Reduce the Concentrations of the following Contaminants:Ivey-sol formulation have been developed that work on a broad range of soil and groundwater contaminants. These include, but are not limited to the follow examples:
|
Advantages & Features
Contaminant Sorption
Generally speaking, the lower the water solubility of a contaminant the greater it’s sorption to soil, sediments, and bedrock. Sorption will limit the ‘availability’ of contaminants for in-situ or exsitu remediation including bioremediation. Process DescriptionThe addition of Ivey-sol® to the substrate (in-situ or ex-situ) can aid in the controlled de-sorption of the contaminants making them more ‘available’ for treatment. Ivey-sol® makes the contaminants more miscible in the aqueous-moisture phase allowing for their improved mass recovery and/or improved treatment by many other remediation techniques. Surfactant enhanced remediation involves the use of surfactant formulations to selectively desorb and dissolve target contaminates from the solid to liquid phase. In addition, the surfactants lower the surface tension of water from 72 dynes to <30 dynes increasing the wetting and permeability properties of water in fine grain soil (i.e., clay and silt) and bedrock fractures. The surfactants affect the sorption of HOC at the solid-liquid interface (i.e., the surface–H2O–NAPL interface). As a result, the surfactants increase the contaminate miscibility and improved ‘availability’ for rapid and cost effective treatment. When HOC (hydrophobic organic compounds) like petroleum product, are absorbed on a soil grain, water alone will not remove it from the surface. This is a function of the hydrophobic characteristics of the HOC, which repels the water at its surface and its inherent low water solubility. With the addition of Ivey-sol® surfactants, the Ivey-sol® hydrophobic grouping is repelled by the water but attracted to the HOC on the surface. At the same time, the Ivey-sol® hydrophilic grouping is attracted to the water molecules. These opposing forces loosen the HOC from the surface of the soil matrix and suspend it in the water phase. Once dissolved, the suspended HOC is more ‘hydraulically-available’ for Pump and Treatment (P&T), more ‘bio-available’ to the microbial population present, and more ‘chemically-available’ for oxidation or reduction reactions. Once liberated in low concentration in a ‘surfactant-aqueous HOC’ microscopic outward appearance, it is more ‘available’ for treatment by most, if not all, forms of in-situ and ex-situ remediation treatment technologies. The mechanism of how Ivey-sol functions is shown below.
Remediation ProcessesIvey-sol® makes the de-sorbed contaminants more ‘Hydraulically Available’ for extraction by Pump and Treatment; more ‘Bio Available’ for Bioremediation (In-situ or Ex-situ); and by increasing the dissolved aqueous-phase contaminant concentration, it improves their ‘Chemical Availability’ for Oxidative and or Reductive treatment (In-situ & Ex-situ). As such, Ivey-sol® can be effective as a ‘stand alone’ technology, or used to improve other remediation techniques (i.e., Bioremediation, Chemical Oxidation, Pump & Treatment, Reductive Dechlorination, etc.) Three Ivey-sol® application processes were developed for enhancing in-situ and ex-situ air, soil and groundwater site remediation. They described below with illustrations to aid understanding.
Application CostsTypical costs savings for in-situ and ex-situ remediation applications typically ranges between 25 to 50% or more over when compared to many alternative remediation options. The actual costs (in-situ/ex-situ) will vary from site to site depending on soil type, concentration and type of contamination, site hydrogeology, availability of resources, and the regulatory land use clean-up objectives that need to be achieved. Significant time and cost savings are realized given most in-situ P&T sites would take 5 to 7 years or more to remediate, but with Ivey-sol® applications are usually complete in less than 12 months. Many bioremediation F3 and F4 projects that are anticipated to take >2 to 3 years can be completed in <6 to 12 months. The cost and time saving that may be experienced from combining Ivey-sol with other remediation technology is often significant as the synergistic benefits that each technology brings to each other is often much greater than the parts. The purchase and application of Ivey-sol products (Ivey-sol 103, Ivey-sol 103 Modified, Ivey-sol 106, Ivey-sol 106 Modified, Ivey-sol 108, and Ivey-sol 109) for in-situ or ex-situ SER, SEB, and or SEO of average petroleum contaminated sites will generally run between $6.00 to $12.00 CAD (+/-) per ton in Canada. This would be the typical cost to an environmental consultant and or contractor. It would not include non Ivey-sol product project costs. |
Client Testimonials
|
Awards & NominationsIn December 2007, Ivey International Inc., was awarded the Bronze Medal from the Environmental Business Journal for projected growth during 2007 of 250% to 300%. Other highlights of 2007 included winning a Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award and expanding the business into southeast Asia and Australia. In February 2007, Ivey International Inc., had earned the prestigious 2006 North American Frost & Sullivan Technology Innovation Award for their Ivey-sol Remediation Technology. In December 2006, Ivey International Inc., was awarded the Technology Merit Award Remediation from the Environmental Business Journal In March 2005, Ivey International Inc. was Nominated for a National GLOBE Award for Corporate Innovation and Application. In October of 2004, Ivey International Inc. was a Finalist for a National CUI Environmental Brownfield Award. |
 |
Download this Case Study |
In-Situ Case Study
|
LNAPL Remediation |
||||||
   
|
|||||||
|
Download this Case Study |
Ivey-sol ® Surfactant Enhanced Soil Washing Technology Overview and Project Experience
Ivey-sol surfactant enhanced soil washing is an ex-situ SER treatment technology which removes hazardous substances from contaminated soil and solids such as clay, silt, sand and gravel, drilling cuttings and drilling mud. The process (Figure 1-1) involves the introduction of the contaminated soil into a treatment chamber, which contains Ivey-sol and water liquid medium. The soil is then mixed or agitated to ensure effective contact between Ivey-sol surfactants and the absorbed 'surface bound' contamination. Upon contact, the Ivey-sol surfactants liberate the contamination to the aqueous water phase (i.e., dissolves them). Following the treatment, the soil and water are easily separated to yield clean soil (Figure 1-2) that can be re-used on-site, and contaminated effluent water which is then separated for further treatment on-site.
 |
 |
| Fig. 1-1: Schematic of a typical soil washing process (actual process will vary from system to system) | Fig. 1-2: Ivey-sol soil washing: pre and post treated soil from an industrial SER soil washing process |
Project Experience
Refinery Site (>5000 Tons) |
Waste Oil Contaminated Site (>1000 Tons) |
Oil and Gas Project Site (>500 Tons) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contaminated soil with a baseline concentration of 40,000 ppm (4%). Ex-situ Ivey-sol Soil Washing SER Process achieved applicable soil remediation site objectives. Project data set provided below showing pre and post soil washing remediation results with time based sample analysis. |
Contaminated soil with a baseline mid-range hydrocarbon concentration of 4,500 ppm. Ex-situ Ivey-sol Soil Washing SER Process exceeded applicable soil remediation site objectives for the commercial site. Date shows time based results to show how rapid treatment was. | Project involved Ivey-sol soil washing of approximately 550 tons of F3 and F4 contaminated soils at >20,000 ppm. Reduced the soil contamination by between 78-100%. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Note: CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment. From CCME Soil and Water Clean-up Guideline Parameters. |
Note: VH = Volatile Hydrocarbons LEPH = Light Extractable Hydrocarbons HEPH = Heavy Extractable Hydrocarbons VPH = Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (From BC Environment Soil and Water Clean-up Guidelines) |
Note: CCME = Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment. From CCME Soil and Water Clean-up Guideline Parameters. |
|
Download this Case Study |
Ivey International Inc., Monroe, Connecticut, USA
Facts
|
|
|
Download this Case Study |
Surfactant Enhanced In-situ Remediation of DNAPL Impacted Soil and Groundwater - Montreal Refinery Case Study
Ivey International Incorporated, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada) BEAUDOIN Martin (Sanexen Environmental Services Inc., Varennes, Québec, Canada)
Abstract: A Montreal chemical refinery reduced the dichlorobenzene and other dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) impacts on the soil and groundwater where a railway line is adjacent to an above ground storage tank farm. Ivey-sol® surfactant mixtures were injected three times during a two week pilot test, into a series of in-situ wells. The soil and groundwater matrix experienced an induced partial vacuum of 75 mm Hg (mercury). Recovery well water samples were analyzed for concentrations of specific DNAPL (Chlorobenzene and Dichlorobenzenes) and BTEX (benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and toluene) solvent “compounds of concern”. Groundwater recovery flow rates were documented and recovered mass estimates were calculated. Compared to projected baseline conditions and efforts, the surfactant enhanced in-situ remediation efforts in this case study, resulted in a significant incremental increase in the recovered mass of the DNAPL and BTEX “compounds of concern”, which had impacted the soil and groundwater. The mass recovery increased by over 500% for the DNAPL compounds, plus an additional 50% of DNAPL mass recovered as free product. Compared to the results of three years of earlier efforts by others, the client was quoted as finding this approach to be a “rapid and cost effective method to achieve site clean up.”
Introduction
At a Montreal area chemical refinery, commercial activities dating back to the 1950s resulted in multiple reported releases of dichlorobenzenes and other dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) and BTEX solvent (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) “compounds of concern” associated with the chemical storage, transportation, and handling activities. These compounds impacted the soil and groundwater on the site where a railway line is adjacent to an above ground storage tank farm. Previous efforts to address DNAPL impacts at the refinery had not been satisfactory. Beneath the site, a groundwater aquifer is connected to a municipal potable water supply well.
Surfactants are chemicals that act to reduce the bonding forces between certain “compounds of concern”, and the associated soil particles and water matrix to which these compounds are absorbed. A non-ionic surfactant was selected for the application at the site as it will decrease the surface tension of groundwater water. Organic compounds in contact with a non-ionic surfactant, desorbs from soil particles; become more miscible in groundwater water; hydraulically available for recovery; and biologically and chemically available for bioremediation and chemical oxidation remedial applications.
Approach
A laboratory bench scale test was performed to identify baseline water quality and surfactant demand and determine appropriate required materials, equipment and support infrastructure for on-site pilot scale demonstration. Consideration was given to the various relationships between the physical, chemical, and sometimes biological characteristics of the site specific soil, water, and “compounds of concern”, as well as to potentially useful surfactant or other treatment compounds that are equivalently or similarly effective. The evaluation included soil particle surface area; applicable chemical bonding mechanisms; water solubility of the compound of concern; and the target concentration of the surfactant or other treatment chemical. The bench scale testing results were a basis for a preferred surfactant recommendation and supply.
The pilot scale demonstration for the controlled injection of the surfactant water mixture into the subsurface soils and groundwater regimes would be conducted to evaluate surfactant dosing estimates determined in bench scale testing and relative performance, evaluate hydraulic control in the area of interest; document the pumping rate from the recovery well, the partial vacuum induced from the air blower, and changes in concentrations of the “compounds of concern” in the recovery water for full scale application design recommendations.
Site Characterization
In 2007, nine (9) 100 mm diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wells were drilled and installed in the area of interest. Eight (8) of these wells were used for monitoring groundwater conditions. One (1) of these wells was used as a recovery well. Four of the eight monitoring wells were also used for injecting surfactant into the soil groundwater matrix. Located in the center of the injections wells is one (1) groundwater and amendment recovery well. Observations, local regulator environmental goals, and the analytical laboratory results from soil and groundwater samples taken collected for baseline characterization.
The injection wells were advanced to relative depths of 6.14 – 8.40 metres below the surface soil grade with hollow-stem auger drilling technology. The borehole logs document the physical soil conditions encountered. Geological information was characterized from this activity. From the underside of the hard surface at grade, there is a layer of crushed stone (0.0 – 0.6 metres below grade). Below this is a layer of varying thickness of sand fill material with silt and gravel (0.6 – 1.2 / 1.8 metres below grade). Below this is a layer of varying thickness of native silt material with sand and gravel (1.2 / 1.8 – 5.4 / 7.2 metres below grade). Below this is a relatively stiff native glacial till material (5.4 / 7.2 – at least 8.4 metres below grade). Bedrock was not encountered.
Groundwater was encountered and measured (at relative elevations of 0.83 – 3.83 metres below grade). No free phase product was initially encountered.
Based on the past industrial activities, laboratory analysis was made of soil and water samples for mono-aromatic hydrocarbons, including dichlorobenzene DNAPL and BTEX solvents. During the 2007 characterization activities, twenty (20) soil and thirteen (13) water samples were analyzed. This included two (2) duplicate soil samples. The results were tabulated and compared to the local regulator’s applicable environmental goals. Most soil samples had analytical results exceeding some of the regulator environmental goals. This occurred for the BTEX solvents, chlorobenzene, and the dichlorobenzenes, which then became the “compounds of concern” for this case study.
Estimates of groundwater flow rate (2 litres / minute) and hydraulic conductivity (3.2x10–3 cm/s over the initial 110 minutes, and 1.9x10–5 cm/s after 110 minutes) were calculated from a short-term pump test. The more rapid hydraulic conductivity was considered to be associated with a more porous sand and gravel portion of the soil matrix. The lower hydraulic conductivity is considered to be representative of the native glacial till material.
The field equipment included a Redi-Flo 2 pump by Grunfos, water level data loggers in the recovery well and injection well IW-4, and an interface probe to measure relative water elevations in other wells under dynamic pumping conditions.
Surfactant Enhanced Remediation Pilot Test
An in-situ surfactant injection pilot test was conducted to test the feasibility and practicality of a surfactant enhanced remediation of soil and groundwater at this site. The pilot test results regarding both the mass of recovered “compounds of concern”, and the equipment, material, and financial resources used, would influence the conclusions and recommendations about applying this approach on a larger scale, and on a more sustained level of effort.
The surfactant-water mixture was gravity fed into each injection well. Groundwater – amendment mixtures were pumped from the recovery well, located in the center of the monitoring and injection wells as shown in Figure 1 below. Observations, relative groundwater elevations, pumping rates, and analytical laboratory results from samples of the recovered fluid were documented.
Figure 1 presents the relative locations of the injection wells with respect to the central recovery well where the groundwater pumping occurred.
 Fig. 1 Relative Recovery and Injection Well Locations Within Pilot Application Area |
Field Demonstration Pilot Test Activities
Each injection event was performed by gravity feed of surfactant-water mixture in each injection well followed by recovery of groundwater and surfactant-water mixture. The extracted fluid mixture from the recovery well was transferred to a 1,000 litre storage container, and was appropriately treated to meet local and regulatory discharge requirements. Samples were collected for verification prior to being discharged.
The samples collected during the test were taken before the injection and at three times during the day of each injection event at approximately 7:30 AM, 12:00 PM, and 5:00 PM. |
Pilot Test Results
|
 Fig. 2 Cumulative Dichlorobenzene (DCB) Concentrations from Recovery Well |
Water samples were collected of the surfactant – water – “compounds of concern” mixture that was pumped from the recovery well. The samples were taken before the injection and at three times during the day of each injection at approximately 7:30 AM, 12:00 PM, and 5:00 PM. Twenty-one (21) water samples were collected from the recovery well and analyzed for contaminants of concern. The laboratory methods, certificates, and results are documented for future reference. A tabulated summary was made of the water fluid sample concentration results of the “compounds of concern,” and of the cumulative total mass being recovered. Excerpts are presented in the Figure 3 table. The same table also presents the varying recovery well pumping rates (L/min). For comparison purposes below, the “baseline conditions” (i.e. 11/09/2007 15:15 sample results at a flow rate of 2.4 L /min) are those from before the surfactant has been injected (12/09/2007 7:30). “Baseline conditions” were documented for the groundwater conditions encountered, sampled, and analyzed Calculated estimates were made from the pilot test of the recovered mass of the “compounds of concern.” This was based on multiplying the applicable laboratory sample concentration result (μg/L) by the representative recovery well flow rate (L/min) associated with the time interval (minutes) for which the laboratory sample result is considered to be representative. The recovered cumulative mass of the “compounds of concern” when the surfactant is applied is 2.29 kg. The third surfactant injection contributed the largest portion of mass to this cumulative total. |
 Fig. 3 Analytical Recovery Well Sample Concentration Results for the “compounds of concern” |
Injection Event One (September 12, 2007)
|
Injection Event Two (September 14, 2007)
|
Injection Event Three (September 19, 2007)
|
Lessons Learned
The Figure 3 table pumping rate values demonstrate that the pump equipment used did not operate all of the time. This experience influences the equipment selection decision making on a larger full-scale application. |
Discussion
|
Conclusions and Recommendations
“Compounds of Concern” identified in Figure 3 of this case study, exceeded the applicable environmental goals of the local regulator. The values for individual “compounds of concern” were sometimes more and sometimes less than these cumulative average values.
Continuing the pilot test would have continued the recovery of “Compound of Concern” mass. Some of the individual compound concentrations at the end of the pilot test were greater than the corresponding ones at the beginning of the pilot test.
Compared to projected baseline conditions and efforts, the surfactant enhanced in-situ remediation efforts in this case study, resulted in a significant incremental increase in the recovered mass of the DNAPL and BTEX “compounds of concern”, which had impacted the soil and groundwater at this Montreal area chemical refinery.
Compared to “baseline conditions” the incremental increase in the recovered mass of the DNAPL “compounds of concern” from the recovery well water, with the surfactant enhanced approach demonstrated in the pilot test, is approximately 550%. This is based on the ratio of the mass recovery flux rates (7.6 g / hour with surfactant versus 1.37 g / hour without surfactant). This does not include or account for the recovered 1.3 kg mass of free phase DNAPL product that was recovered on September 11, 2007.
Compared to “baseline conditions” the incremental increase in the recovered mass of the DNAPL “compounds of concern” from the free phase product and recovery well water, with the surfactant enhanced approach demonstrated in the pilot test is 3 kg (= 2.1 + 1.3 – 0.37).
A full scale design of a surfactant enhance remediation application was prepared. Based on the pilot test results, full-scale design would require an increased surfactant concentration. Specifically, surfactant mixture #1, used during the first and third injection events, was more effective than mixture #2, used during the second injection event.
Alternative recovery well pumping equipment will be identified in order to lessen the potential for emulsification to occur (i.e. the highest concentration between the second (September 14) and third (September 17) injection events, as presented in Figure 2 and the Figure 3 Table).
A quote from the Ivey International Inc. client regarding this case study application - “The in-situ application of the Ivey-sol® surfactant technology significantly increased DNAPL and BTEX mass recovery from the impacted soil and groundwater on-site. We were very pleased by these results leading to our recommending a full scale site application as a rapid and cost effective method to achieve site clean up.”
 |
Material Safety Data Sheet - Ivey-sol ® Surfactant Technology |
|
