Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation - Revision history

Admin at 01:58, 28 April 2022

2022-04-28T01:58:15Z

Admin at 16:02, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T16:02:42Z

Admin at 15:58, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:58:15Z

Admin at 15:58, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:58:13Z

Admin at 15:57, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:57:23Z

Admin at 15:54, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:54:32Z

Admin at 15:48, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:48:40Z

Admin at 15:45, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:45:14Z

Admin at 15:37, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:37:25Z

Admin at 15:28, 6 December 2018

2018-12-06T15:28:39Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) is commonly added as a slowly fermentable substrate to stimulate ''in situ'' anaerobic bioremediation.  This article summarizes information about EVO transport in the subsurface, consumption during anaerobic bioremediation, and methods for effectively distributing EVO throughout the target treatment zone.
 <div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 '''Related Article(s):'''
 *[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic |Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
@@ Line 10: / Line 7: @@
-'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):''' [[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]
+'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 [[File:Borden3w2 Fig4.png|thumbnail|Figure 4. Effect of volume scaling factor (SFV) and mass scaling factor (SFM) on volume contact efficiency for a moderately heterogeneous aquifer with well spacing approximately equal to row spacing<ref name = "Borden2008">Borden, R.C., Clayton, M., Weispfenning, A.M., Simpkin, T. and Lieberman, M.T., 2008. Development of a design tool for planning aqueous amendment injection systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Arlington, Virginia. ESTCP Project ER-0626. [[media:2008-Borden-Development_of_a_design_tool_for_injections.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. ]]
-Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]].
+Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> ([[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]]) is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>.
 Once the well spacing and injection volumes are selected, there are two basic approaches to injecting emulsions: (1) injection of a small volume of more concentrated emulsion (typically 10 to 20% oil by volume) followed by additional chase water to distribute the emulsion throughout the formation; or (2) continuous injection of a more dilute emulsion (typically 0.5 to 2% oil by volume).  Numerical modeling results indicate that the two approaches are both effective in distributing emulsion<ref name= "Borden2007a"/> and the choice should be based on personal preferences and site logistics.  In all cases, the concentrated emulsion should be diluted with enough water to reduce the viscosity to near that of water, reducing injection pressures.  After emulsion injection is complete, clean water should be injected at the end to push mobile oil out away from the injection point to reduce well fouling with bacteria and oil.

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 [[File:Borden3w2 Fig4.png|thumbnail|Figure 4. Effect of volume scaling factor (SFV) and mass scaling factor (SFM) on volume contact efficiency for a moderately heterogeneous aquifer with well spacing approximately equal to row spacing<ref name = "Borden2008">Borden, R.C., Clayton, M., Weispfenning, A.M., Simpkin, T. and Lieberman, M.T., 2008. Development of a design tool for planning aqueous amendment injection systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Arlington, Virginia. ESTCP Project ER-0626. [[media:2008-Borden-Development_of_a_design_tool_for_injections.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. ]]
-Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]] from here.
+Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]].
 Once the well spacing and injection volumes are selected, there are two basic approaches to injecting emulsions: (1) injection of a small volume of more concentrated emulsion (typically 10 to 20% oil by volume) followed by additional chase water to distribute the emulsion throughout the formation; or (2) continuous injection of a more dilute emulsion (typically 0.5 to 2% oil by volume).  Numerical modeling results indicate that the two approaches are both effective in distributing emulsion<ref name= "Borden2007a"/> and the choice should be based on personal preferences and site logistics.  In all cases, the concentrated emulsion should be diluted with enough water to reduce the viscosity to near that of water, reducing injection pressures.  After emulsion injection is complete, clean water should be injected at the end to push mobile oil out away from the injection point to reduce well fouling with bacteria and oil.

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 [[File:Borden3w2 Fig4.png|thumbnail|Figure 4. Effect of volume scaling factor (SFV) and mass scaling factor (SFM) on volume contact efficiency for a moderately heterogeneous aquifer with well spacing approximately equal to row spacing<ref name = "Borden2008">Borden, R.C., Clayton, M., Weispfenning, A.M., Simpkin, T. and Lieberman, M.T., 2008. Development of a design tool for planning aqueous amendment injection systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Arlington, Virginia. ESTCP Project ER-0626. [[media:2008-Borden-Development_of_a_design_tool_for_injections.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. ]]
-Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]] from here.
+Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]] from here.
 Once the well spacing and injection volumes are selected, there are two basic approaches to injecting emulsions: (1) injection of a small volume of more concentrated emulsion (typically 10 to 20% oil by volume) followed by additional chase water to distribute the emulsion throughout the formation; or (2) continuous injection of a more dilute emulsion (typically 0.5 to 2% oil by volume).  Numerical modeling results indicate that the two approaches are both effective in distributing emulsion<ref name= "Borden2007a"/> and the choice should be based on personal preferences and site logistics.  In all cases, the concentrated emulsion should be diluted with enough water to reduce the viscosity to near that of water, reducing injection pressures.  After emulsion injection is complete, clean water should be injected at the end to push mobile oil out away from the injection point to reduce well fouling with bacteria and oil.

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 [[File:Borden3w2 Fig4.png|thumbnail|Figure 4. Effect of volume scaling factor (SFV) and mass scaling factor (SFM) on volume contact efficiency for a moderately heterogeneous aquifer with well spacing approximately equal to row spacing<ref name = "Borden2008">Borden, R.C., Clayton, M., Weispfenning, A.M., Simpkin, T. and Lieberman, M.T., 2008. Development of a design tool for planning aqueous amendment injection systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, Arlington, Virginia. ESTCP Project ER-0626. [[media:2008-Borden-Development_of_a_design_tool_for_injections.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>. ]]
-Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>.
+Designing an effective and efficient injection system is challenging due to the trade-offs between cost and performance.  In general, closer well spacing with more oil and more distribution water will improve contact efficiency, but also increase costs.  There are also trade-offs between costs for injection point installation and labor for fluid injection.  Increasing the separation between injection wells will reduce the number of wells, reducing drilling costs.  However, a larger well spacing can also increase the time required for injection, increasing labor costs.  An Excel spreadsheet-based <u>[[:Media:Emulsion_Design_Tool_Dec08.xls|design tool]]</u> is available to assist in developing efficient and effective injection systems<ref name= "Borden2008"/><ref>Weispfenning, A.M. and Borden, R.C., 2008. A design tool for planning emulsified oil‐injection systems. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies & Techniques, 18(4), pp.33-47. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20180 doi: 10.1002/rem.20180]</ref>. See [Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|users guide]] and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|readme]] from here.
 Once the well spacing and injection volumes are selected, there are two basic approaches to injecting emulsions: (1) injection of a small volume of more concentrated emulsion (typically 10 to 20% oil by volume) followed by additional chase water to distribute the emulsion throughout the formation; or (2) continuous injection of a more dilute emulsion (typically 0.5 to 2% oil by volume).  Numerical modeling results indicate that the two approaches are both effective in distributing emulsion<ref name= "Borden2007a"/> and the choice should be based on personal preferences and site logistics.  In all cases, the concentrated emulsion should be diluted with enough water to reduce the viscosity to near that of water, reducing injection pressures.  After emulsion injection is complete, clean water should be injected at the end to push mobile oil out away from the injection point to reduce well fouling with bacteria and oil.
@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 *[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Environmental-Restoration/Groundwater-Plume-Treatment/Protocol-for-Enhanced-In-Situ-Bioremediation-Using-Emulsified-Edible-Oil Protocol for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Using Emulsified Edible Oil]
 *Emulsion Design Tool Kit: [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Dec08.xls|Design Tool]], [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|Users Guide]], and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|Readme]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 6 December 2018
Line 136:		Line 136:
	*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Environmental-Restoration/Groundwater-Plume-Treatment/Protocol-for-Enhanced-In-Situ-Bioremediation-Using-Emulsified-Edible-Oil Protocol for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Using Emulsified Edible Oil]		*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Environmental-Restoration/Groundwater-Plume-Treatment/Protocol-for-Enhanced-In-Situ-Bioremediation-Using-Emulsified-Edible-Oil Protocol for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Using Emulsified Edible Oil]
	*Emulsion Design Tool Kit: [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Dec08.xls\|Design Tool]], [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf\|Users Guide]], and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf\|Readme]]		*Emulsion Design Tool Kit: [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Dec08.xls\|Design Tool]], [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf\|Users Guide]], and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf\|Readme]]
		+	[[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf]]

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 *[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/ER-200221/ER-200221 Edible Oil Barriers for Treatment of Chlorinated Solvent- and Perchlorate-Contaminated Groundwater]
 *[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Environmental-Restoration/Groundwater-Plume-Treatment/Protocol-for-Enhanced-In-Situ-Bioremediation-Using-Emulsified-Edible-Oil Protocol for Enhanced In Situ Bioremediation Using Emulsified Edible Oil]
-*Emulsion Design Tool Kit: [[:Media:Emulsion Design Tool Dec08.xls|Design Tool]], [[:Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|Users Guide]], and [[:Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|Readme]]
+*Emulsion Design Tool Kit: [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Dec08.xls|Design Tool]], [[Media:ER-0626-Emulsion Users Guide.pdf|Users Guide]], and [[Media:Emulsion Design Tool Readme.pdf|Readme]]