Pump-and-treat (P&T) vs groundwater circulation wells (GCW). Which approach delivers more sustainable and effective groundwater remediation?

Pump-and-treat (P&T) is commonly used to remediate contaminated groundwater sites. The scientific community is currently engaged in a debate regarding the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of P&T for groundwater remediation. This work aims to provide a quantitative comparative analysis of the performance of an alternative system to traditional P&T, to support the development of sustainable groundwater remediation plans. Two industrial sites with unique geological frameworks and contamination with dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) and arsenic (As) respectively, were selected for the study. At both locations, attempts were made for decades to clean up groundwater contamination by pump-and-treat. In response to persistently high levels of pollutants, groundwater circulation wells (GCWs) were installed to explore the possibility of accelerating the remediation process in unconsolidated and rock deposits. This comparative evaluation focuses on the different mobilization patterns observed, resulting variations in contaminant concentration, mass discharge, and volume of extracted groundwater. To facilitate the fusion of multi-source data, including geological, hydrological, hydraulic, and chemical information, and enable the continuous extraction of time-sensitive information, a geodatabase-supported conceptual site model (CSM) is utilized as a dynamic and interactive interface. This approach is used to assess the performance of GCW and P&T at the investigated sites. At Site 1, the GCW stimulated microbiological reductive dichlorination and mobilized significantly higher 1,2-DCE concentrations than P&T, despite recirculating a smaller volume of groundwater. At Site 2, As removal rate by GCW resulted generally higher than pumping wells. One conventional well mobilized higher masses of As in the early stages of P&T. This reflected the P&T's impact on accessible contaminant pools in early operational periods. P&T withdrew a significantly larger volume of groundwater than the GCW. The outcomes unveil the diverse contaminant removal behavior characterizing two distinct remediation strategies in different geological environments, revealing the dynamics and decontamination mechanisms that feature GCWs and P&T and emphasizing the limitations of traditional groundwater extraction systems in targeting aged pollution sources. GCWs have been shown to reduce remediation time, increase mass removal, and minimize the significant water consumption associated with P&T. These benefits pave the way for more sustainable groundwater remediation approaches in various hydrogeochemical scenarios.