Groundwater sampling by transition pumping

Received: 04-May-2022, Manuscript No. PULJEG-22-5003; Editor assigned: 09-May-2022, Pre QC No. PULJEG-22-5003 (PQ); Accepted Date: May 27, 2022; Reviewed: 20-May-2022 QC No. PULJEG-22-5003 (Q); Revised: 24-May-2022, Manuscript No. PULJEG-22-5003 (R); Published: 31-May-2022

Citation: Jones D. Groundwater sampling by transition pumping. J Environmental Geol. 2022; 6(3):33-35.

This open-access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits reuse, distribution and reproduction of the article, provided that the original work is properly cited and the reuse is restricted to noncommercial purposes. For commercial reuse, contact reprints@pulsus.com

Abstract

A two-phase well purging method has recently been developed for groundwater sampling, with a high-flow rate pumping phase followed by low-flow rate purging and sampling. The high pumping rate causes rapid well decline and increases aquifer hydraulic gradients. The stressed flow field is maintained after switching to a low pumping rate to prevent the water in the well casing from migrating downwards and biassing the collected samples. The determination of the pumping switch time and the transition time interval available for groundwater sampling are two practical challenges that are crucial for using such a sampling approach.

Keywords

Sampling soil; Sampling water; Hydrogeological; Microbial Degradation; Hydraulic

Introduction

The impacts of wellbore storage on the correlation between switch Ttime and transition time interval are investigated using this and Pa- -padopoulos solutions. We propose that the transition time interval is simply related to the switch time by putting critical constraints on the resulting solutions. A later switch time results in a longer transition time interval, according to the findings. The purpose of creating groundwater sampling protocols is to gather samples that accurately reflect real-world hydro geochemical conditions. The vertical flow of stagnant water in the borehole, which is driven by a vertical head gradient, and the aquifer water, which is driven by a horizontal head gradient in the aquifer, are commonly separated in pumped groundwater samples. However, stagnant water in wells may not accurately reflect aquifer hydro geochemical conditions, especially for well casing water above the good screen, which is exposed to the atmosphere and may undergo physicochemical and biological changes such as organic pollutants volatilization, oxygen dissolution, and microbial degradation. As a result, an effective groundwater sampling method must limit vertical good flow, which can skew the results.

The "High-Stress Low-Flow" (HSLF) methodology was recently proposed as a new groundwater sampling method. It entails a two-phase well purging process, with a high initial pumping flow rate followed by a low flow rate for purging and sampling. Because of the high purge rate in Phase 1, the goal drawdown level for a low flow sampling extraction rate is deeper than the steady-state drawdown level. Phase 2 is a low-flow purge rate that is used to accomplish stability and then sampling.

The good drawdown lowers or the water level in the well rises during Phase 2. As a result, there is no vertical flow down to the screen, and the sample collected is 100% formation water. This method combines the benefits of both methods of purging a well stated above, as well as EPA rules to use low flow sampling in an extremely stressed field. The HSLF method relies on groundwater sampling using the transition time interval between two pumping rates. Although numerical approaches and analytical solutions have been used in proof-of-concept research the hydraulic behaviour in the transition time interval has not been completely investigated More particular, earlier research has identified a critical transition time when the pumping water is 100% formation water, but the time window for maintaining this behaviour is unclear and not explored. Changing the pumping rate at the essential time produces no temporal window at all because the pumping water will only be representative of groundwater at that moment before being skewed instantly. Some fundamental problems about how to use this technique in field practice remain unanswered. The first question is how long can a groundwater sampling effective time interval last? Since the sample representativeness of low flow rate sampling during Phase 2 is usually determined by the sample stabilization criteria, i.e., three consecutive samples with similar measurements of water-qualityindicator parameters such as pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, electrical conductance, and oxidation/reduction potential, the approach can only be feasible if a reasonably long time interval, say half an hour, can be created for groundwater Amplitude. The second question is when to change the pumping rate. Because of the increased pumping rate in Phase 1, an earlier transition time is reco-mended to reduce the amount of investigation-derived wastewater. The switch time and the transition time interval are connected, hence these two problems are not independent. This modelling study aims to answer these questions and provide a more comprehensive and practical knowledge of the HSLF approach's use. We want to provide equations and a graphical tool that can forecast the transition time interval with different switch times. A key switch time with a sufficiently large transition time interval can be customised and identified, during which the good drawdown decreases and the influent entering the good screen zone is 100% formation water. Furthermore, because of its complex and implicit structure, the original drawdown solution for the HSLF technique fails to produce a direct and easy result of the transition time interval and can only be solved numerically. To show and examine the changeover period, a new analytical solution for drawdown behaviour is proposed. To further understand how the switch time and transition time interval fluctuate under different hydrogeologic circumstances, a sensitivity analysis is performed. The generated analytical solution and the nearly linear relationship between the switch time and the sampling interval make the HSLF approach particularly effective in field applications. We explore some crucial assumptions in addition to the idealised hydrogeologic conditions for deriving the analytical solution. First, the aquifer water ratio is used to determine sample representativeness; the sample is considered unbiased if the influent into the good screen zone is 100% formation water. In other words, the analytical derivation and numerical simulation do not include solute transport inside the wellbore. This assumption may not be correct at first when well storage water is deemed unrepresentative. Second, the study and results ignore the negative casing water effect stated in Section 3, seepage or diffusion over the well and aquifer boundary, and the pumping intake position's impact. Third, compared to fully-penetrating monitoring well in a homogeneous, constrained aquifer, complex hydrogeologic and well conditions (partially-penetrating or additional head loss) may provide distinct characteristics of the aquifer water ratio behaviour and related changeover time interval. Nonetheless, the current study confirms the efficacy of the HSLF technique and gives an excellent, practicable strategy for developing and improving a specific sample plan in more complex settings.

A range of professional, regulatory, public, and commercial organisations have long recognised the necessity for trustworthy ground-water sampling protocols. Over the previous four decades, the technical foundation for the utilisation of selected sampling methodologies for environmental chemistry investigations has been developed for surface water applications. Ground-water quality monitoring programmes, on the other hand, have distinct needs and objectives that are fundamentally different from those of prior investigations. For accurate identification and assessment of subsurface contamination situations, sampling must cause minimal disruption of geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions. Many of the more troublesome chemical constituents of concern have field-proven well construction, sampling, and analytical techniques for ground water sampling at this time. Acceptance of these procedures and standards, on the other hand, will have to wait for more thorough documentation and strong agency recommendations for programme execution monitoring. The time and expense required to characterise actual subsurface conditions limit the technologies that can be used. Because the technical foundation for documented, dependable drilling, sample collecting, and handling methods is still being developed, any ground-water inquiry should include diligent efforts to record technique performance under real-world situations. The elements of effective ground-water sampling for routine applications are covered in this guide. This is not to downplay the current research into specialised sampling or in situ sample collection technologies. However, it is critical to understand the fundamentals of trustworthy sample collecting and processing so that more complicated approaches can be developed and applied based on high-quality data.

Techniques for High Hydraulic Conductivity Wells

Surge blocking, bailing, and pumping are all effective development techniques for generally productive wells. A surge block is a plunger device that fits into the good casing loosely. It is yanked up and down violently, forcing water to rush in and out of the good screen. The well must be pumped after surging to eliminate particles carried into the good screen and casing. Surge blocks have not been widely used for monitoring well progress. However, in shallow wells less than 15.17 m (50 ft) deep, the surge block can be controlled efficiently by hand if it is sized to fit loosely in the monitoring well [0.64-cm (14" total clearance].

Transducers of pressure

Only in the last four to five years have pressure transducers been employed to monitor wells. Their use, on the other hand, has advantages over steel tape and electric drop lines. The transducer can be dropped into a monitoring well to a known distance below the measurement point, and it measures the height of water above it by indicating the amount of pressure applied to it. To get the depth of the water, subtract this quantity of "submergence" from the depth below the measuring point where the transducer is positioned. Transducers are very useful for measuring the water level in a well during pump or slug tests. During the test, the transducer is left in the well and sends a continuous record of water level data to a strip chart or digital recording device. Because of their relatively high cost, permanent installation of transducers into individual wells is usually not warranted.

The creation of accurate sample techniques for ground-water quality monitoring is a complex, programmed process that must be tailored to the monitoring effort's specific goals. The monitoring program's longterm aims and information requirements must first be properly understood. The various factors that can alter the outcomes of chemical analyses from the monitoring programme can be addressed once these issues have been identified. The goal should be to acquire hydrologic and chemical data that accurately depict in situ hydrologic and chemical conditions while developing the sampling protocol. The protocol should offer the relevant data for successful monitoring programme management with a high degree of trust, thanks to appropriate quality assurance guidelines and quality control techniques. Techniques that are simple but effective Simple procedures that reduce the disruption of the subsurface and samples at each stage of the sampling endeavour should be prioritised. A monitoring programme should be planned in stages, with information collected during the exploratory or early stages of the programme. Information gathered during the program's development should be used to fine-tune the basic programme design. The long-term costs of producing the essential hydrologic and chemical data should be considered at all stages of protocol development. These long-term expenses are many orders of magnitude more than the costs of planning, well building, sample and field equipment purchases, and data collection start-up. It's also worth remembering that, regardless of the extra care and expenditures of advanced sampling and analytical techniques, high-quality data cannot be produced from a badly designed and implemented monitoring programme.