Article
Comparison of Eh and H2 Measurements for Delineating Redox Processes in a Contaminated Aquifer
Corresponding author telephone (803) 750-6116; fax: (803) 750-6181; e-mail: Chapelle@dsccmb.er.usgs.gov.
U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, SC.
U.S. Geological Survey, Lansing, MI.
University of Michigan.
National Center for Integrated Bioremediation Research.
Abstract
Measurements of oxidation−reduction potential (Eh) and concentrations of dissolved hydrogen (H2) were made in a shallow groundwater system contaminated with solvents and jet fuel to delineate the zonation of redox processes. Eh measurements ranged from +69 to −158 mV in a cross section of the contaminated plume and accurately delineated oxic from anoxic groundwater. Plotting measured Eh and pH values on an equilibrium stability diagram indicated that Fe(III) reduction was the predominant redox process in the anoxic zone and did not indicate the presence of methanogenesis and sulfate reduction. In contrast, measurements of H2 concentrations indicated that methanogenesis predominated in heavily contaminated sediments near the water table surface (H2
7.0 nM) and that the methanogenic zone was surrounded by distinct sulfate-reducing (H2
1−4 nM) and Fe(III)-reducing (H2
0.1−0.8 nM) zones. The presence of methanogenesis, sulfate reduction, and Fe(III) reduction was confirmed by the distribution of dissolved oxygen, sulfate, Fe(II), and methane in groundwater. These results show that H2 concentrations were more useful for identifying anoxic redox processes than Eh measurements in this groundwater system. However, H2-based redox zone delineations are more reliable when H2 concentrations are interpreted in the context of electron-acceptor (oxygen, nitrate, sulfate) availability and the presence of final products [Fe(II), sulfide, methane] of microbial metabolism.
View: Full Text HTML | Hi-Res PDF
Tools
-
Add to Favorites
-
Download Citation
-
Email a Colleague -
Permalink
Order Reprints
Rights & Permissions
Citation Alerts
History
- Published In Issue November 27, 1996
- Received for review March 18, 1996
Revised manuscript received July 11, 1996
Accepted July 23, 1996
Cart



