Mapping and monitoring dense non-aqueous phase liquid source zone by fused surface and cross-borehole electrical resistivity tomography.

Abstract

Effective characterization of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source zones is crucial for remediating polluted sites. DNAPL often reside as residuals or pools within high-permeability lenses and above impermeable layers due to soil heterogeneity, gravity, and capillary barriers. Given the high cost of drilling, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) techniques-including surface ERT and cross-borehole ERT, are commonly used for DNAPL source zone mapping and monitoring. However, the low spatial resolution of ERT increases uncertainty in source zone investigations. This study proposes a method for improving DNAPL mapping and monitoring by fusing surface and cross-borehole ERT data. Sandbox experiments were conducted to simulate a heterogeneous DNAPL source zone, employing both ERT methods for static mapping and dynamic monitoring. Reflective light imaging (RLM) was used to visualize DNAPL migration and provide saturation data, allowing for the quantification of ERT's effectiveness in characterizing DNAPL distribution. The results indicate that individual ERT methods face significant challenges in DNAPL source zone mapping due to background interference. Surface ERT alone tends to underestimate the extent of deeper DNAPL source zones. However, fusing surface and cross-borehole ERT results in a complementary enhancement of vertical spatial resolution, thereby improving the characterization of DNAPL source zones. The fusion of static and time-lapse ERT data substantially enhances DNAPL source zone mapping and monitoring capabilities. By calculating the ratio of the ERT-monitored area to the actual area using resistivity change contours (5 %, 10 %, 15 %), it was found that fusing surface and cross-borehole ERT data improved monitoring resolution by 50.48 % compared to surface ERT alone and by 22.95 % compared to cross-borehole ERT. Principal component analysis (PCA) was effective in fusing time-lapse data, while the weighted average method (WAM) outperformed PCA for static resistivity data fusion.