Field Application of the Combined Membrane‐Interface Probe and Hydraulic Profiling Tool (MiHpt). Issue 2 (22nd April 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: McCall, Wesley; Christy, Thomas M.; Pipp, Daniel; Terkelsen, Mads; Christensen, Anders; Weber, Klaus; Engelsen, Peter
• Is Part Of: Ground water monitoring & remediation. Volume 34:Issue 2(2014)
• Page Start: 85
• Page End: 95
• Publication Date: 2014-04-22
• Subjects: Groundwater -- Periodicals; Groundwater -- Purification -- Periodicals; Wellhead protection -- Periodicals; Hydrogeology -- Periodicals; 553.790286
• DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12051
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1069-3629

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="gwmr12051-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p id="gwmr12051-para-0008">The Membrane‐Interface Probe and Hydraulic Profiling Tool (MiHpt) is a direct push probe that includes both the membrane interface probe (MIP) and hydraulic profiling tool (HPT) sensors. These direct push logging tools were previously operated as separate logging systems for subsurface investigation in unconsolidated formations. By combining these two probes into one logging system the field operator obtains useful data about the distribution of both volatile organic contaminants (VOCs) and relative formation permeability in a single boring. MiHpt logging was conducted at a chlorinated VOC contaminated site in Skuldelev, Denmark, to evaluate performance of the system. Formation cores and discrete interval slug tests are used to assess use of the HPT and electrical conductivity (EC) logs for lithologic and hydrostratigraphic interpretation. Results of soil and groundwater sample analyses are compared to the adjacent MiHpt halogen specific detector (XSD) logs to evaluate performance of the system to define contaminant distribution and relative concentrations for the observed VOCs. Groundwater profile results at moderate to highly contaminated locations were found to correlate well with the MiHpt‐XSD detector responses. In general, soil sample results corresponded with detector responses. However, the analyses of saturated coarse‐grained soils at the site proved to be unreliable as demonstrated by high RPDs for duplicate samples. The authors believe that this is due to pore water drainage observed from these cores during sampling. Additionally, a cross section of HPT pressure and MiHpt‐XSD detector logs provides insight into local hydrostratigraphy and formation control on contaminant migration.</p> </abstract>