$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
At the test site, historical CH contamination has been highest within the central well cluster (MW-25-MW-30) and near Sherman Road (Fig. 5). In 1983, large portions of contamination were removed from the landfill site (North of the test site) and additional excavation occurred in 2001. CH concentrations have decreased after source removal particularly near the former pits (Sherman Road), but a persistent plume continues to exist in the central well cluster region. Seasonal rains are known to transiently increase CH concentrations and residual contamination desorbs for soils27. Soils in the area are primarily former dredge sands. A possible interference with the described method could exist if ancient carbonate rocks are present, and groundwater pH is very low (<~5). This could lead to carbonate dissolution and an ancient signal in CO2 generated. No significant CaCO3 are known in the area, nonetheless, cations and pH were measured and subjected to regression and principal components analyses (PCA). The primary concern was that low pH might promote calcium carbonate (CaCO3) dissolution, which could bias radiocarbon analysis (ancient carbonate rocks could provide ancient CO2 if dissolved by acidic waters). Na+ content was marginally higher at the Southern side of the site (closest to the ocean), but no values were in a range indicating significant seawater intrusion. Calcium ion concentrations ranged from 8.0 to 58 mg L-1. Carbonate dissolution was not indicated when relating calcium ion concentration to pH (r2 < 0.3). PCA bi-plots did not indicate strong loadings with any variable. Between-well differences also did not indicate carbonate dissolution (Fig. 6). This conformational analysis should be considered critical when adapting the methodology to new sites — particularly those with regional geology indicating significant carbonate rock formations.
CO2 production rates ranged from 0 to 34 mg CO2 d-1. CO2 production was lowest in the central well cluster in the region where historical contamination was highest (Fig. 5). CO2 production in well MW-01 (background well — not shown, but ~500 meters Northwest of the main well cluster) was the very high at 31 mg CO2 d-1). Duplicate respiration analyses had standard errors ranging from 0.03 to 6% CO2 and averaged less than 1% (0.98). The two, 2-week periods dry season measurements were averaged for subsequent calculations. Respiration measurements did not vary considerably between individual 2-week periods. Between period respiration standard error ranged from <1 to 51% but averaged 13% (Table 1). Respiration averaging allowed calculating a single CH volume removed during a one-month period. The background well (MW-01) had a radiocarbon age of 1,280 years before present (ybp) or 85 percent modern (pMC) — within a common range for aged soil organic matter26. This well's value was used as background for the isotopic mixing model. Again, because sampling was limited to one-month total, two back-to-back periods during the same season were used to "represent" the dry season — generally thought to be the most stagnant conditions and thus conservative for extrapolated estimates. As with DIC production rates, radiocarbon measurements were similar between individual 2-week periods. The standard error between periods ranged from 0.25 to 18% and averaged 6%. CO2 radiocarbon ages ranged from ~34 to 85 pMC or ~1,340 to 8,700 ybp (Table 1). MW-27 and MW-32, suspected of being compromised by pump leaking had modern radiocarbon values and were thus confirmed as compromised. These samples were not included in further analysis.
Previous reports were used for groundwater hydraulic and CO2 solute properties to develop the ZOI model26,27 (Table 2). Weather data (2007, 2011 and 2012) from the CIMIS San Diego station (Station ID 184) were used to estimate the aquifer recharge rate. Tidal data over the same time period from the NOAA San Diego Station (Station ID: 9410170) were used to define boundary conditions. The model calibration assumed a steady hydraulic gradient and constant CO2 collection rates. Supplemental simulations varying average CO2 collection rates and initial background CO2 coupled with a 10% hydraulic gradient increase aided in parameterizing the model. A supplemental simulation using the average CO2 collection rate showed an approximately 46% increase in the estimated background CO2 (i.e., increased from 6.5 to 9.5 g m-3) if the collection rate changed from 0.00530 (+10%) to 0.00434 g hr-1 (-10%) over the 2-week collection period (Table 3). Assumptions for the ZOI model included negligible CO2 production attributable to CH degradation during the collection period and the uniform initial CO2 distribution to develop the final simulation (Fig. 7). The CO2 reaction rate may be underestimated for the study site.
Using CO2 production rate, CO2 attributable to CH degradation, and estimates from the ZOI model, the mass CH removal at each well per unit time was calculated. Data from Table 1 was used with the two end-member mixing model (eq (1)) to solve for fpet at each well. Because the site is only known to CH contamination and no other CO2 source was found within or near the site, CH degradation is assumed as the main contribute of CO2. The fpet ranged from 1 to 60% over the site (Table 4). The proportion was converted to carbon basis and multiplied by the CO2 production rate to calculate CH degradation rate (Table 4). Using the ZOI volume (Table 3), contaminant degradation rate per unit time and volume was determined (Table 4). This value ranged between 0 to 32 mg C m-3 d-1 (Table 4). CH degradation was lowest in regions of highest historical CH contamination (MW-25 - MW-30). At wells near the site periphery (near Sherman Road), the highest CH degradation was measured. CO2 production was higher in these areas, while fpet indicated significant CH turnover (Fig. 8).

Figure 1. Sealing and preparing recirculation pumps. Sealing recirculation pumps for field deployment.

Figure 2. NaOH traps prepared for field deployment. 120 ml serum bottles with NaOH trap added and crimp sealed.

Figure 3. Field setup. Wire routed to outfitted wells (left), trap deployed at a well (upper right), and solar power distribution system (lower right). Wells are outfitted in the field with collection systems (including wiring, power distribution, and pump/traps).

Figure 4. Modified well caps showing gas recirculation lines. This figure shows well caps modified with gas inlet and return lines.

Figure 5. Historical chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination (µg L-1). This figure shows the historical chlorinated hydrocarbon contamination at the test site.

Figure 6. PCA bi-plot showing no co-correlation between dissolved cations and pH. This figure shows a bi-plot of the PCA scores and loadings created from hydrogeological data (pH and cations) for the test site.

Figure 7. Calibrated ZOI model for the average CO2 collection rate (0.0048 g m-3). The calibrated background CO2 concentration was 6.5 g m-3, and the ZOI threshold concentration was 6.18 g m-3 (solid black line). Longitudinal and transverse diameters of the ZOI were 2.28 m and 0.72 m, respectively. Depth of the ZOI was 0.12 m. Modified from 18. This figure shows a graphical representation of the ZOI model in 3 dimensions.

Figure 8. Contaminant degradation rate per unit time per unit area. Modified from 18. This is the interpolated degradation rate for CH over the study site over the time period sampled.

Video 1. Development of ZOI using MT3DMS23 - MODFLOW simulation (right click to download). Download, install, initialize and create simulation for the ZOI.
| Well | δ13C
(‰VPDB) | Δ14C
(‰) | Conventional Age
(ybp) | Percent Modern C
(pMC) |
| MW-01 | -34 | -147 | 1280 | 85 |
| MW-21 | -28 | -663 | 8730 | 34 |
| MW-25 | -23 | -153 | 1340 | 85 |
| MW-26 | -25 | -298 | 2845 | 70 |
| MW-27 | -18 | N.D.* | N.D.* | N.D.* |
| MW-28 | -25 | -190 | 1695 | 81 |
| MW-30 | -35 | -254 | 2365 | 75 |
| MW-32 | -20 | N.D.* | N.D.* | N.D.* |
| MW-34 | -32 | -283 | 2670 | 72 |
| MW-35 | -25 | -598 | 7320 | 40 |
| MW-38 | -32 | -354 | 3515 | 65 |
| MW-41 | -28 | -232 | 2125 | 77 |
| MW-42 | -23 | -482 | 5280 | 52 |
| *N.D. No data - pump leaking |
Table 1. CO2 isotope measurements and conversions. CO2 Stable isotope and radiocarbon measurements and conversions to units used in the manuscript.
| Parameter | Units | Value |
| Hydrology | | |
| Hydraulic Conductivity | ml hr-1 | 0.44 (aquifer) |
| 10 (well) |
| Porosity (aquifer) | | 0.48 (aquifer) |
| 0.99 (well) |
| Bulk Density | g cm-3 | 1.4 |
| Specific Yield | cm3 cm-3 | 0.2 |
| Hydraulic Gradient | m m-1 | 0.015 |
| CO2 Solute Transport | | |
| Diffusion Coefficient | m2 hr-1 | 5.77 x 10-5 |
| Longitudinal | m | 6.1 |
| Dispersivity |
| Horizontal Transverse | m | 0.61 |
| Dispersivity |
| Vertical Transverse | m | 0.061 |
| Dispersivity |
| Soil Gas CO2 | % | 0.56 |
Table 2. ZOI model parameters. Parameters used in the ZOI model and simulations.
| Collection Rate Level | Collection Rate | Background Concentration | ZOI Size |
| Longitudinal | Transverse | Depth | Volume |
| (g/hr) | (g/m3) | (m) | | | (m3) |
| Maximum | 0.0131 | 17.6 | 2.47 | 0.77 | 0.13 | 0.193 |
| Average | 0.0048 | 6.5 | 2.28 | 0.72 | 0.12 | 0.176 |
| Minimum | 0.0003 | 4 | 2.16 | 0.68 | 0.11 | 0.149 |
Table 3. ZOI model outputs. Model outputs for the ZOI. This table describes the three-dimensional volume for the ZOI.
| Well | fpet
(%) | Contaminant degradation rate
(mg C d-1 ±10%) | Contaminant degradation per unit time and volume
(mg C m-3 d-1 ±15%) |
| MW-01 | 0 | N.A. | N.A. |
| MW-21 | 60 | 5.6 | 32 |
| MW-25¥ | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| MW-26 | 18 | 0.18 | 1 |
| MW-28 | 5 | 0.017 | 0.098 |
| MW-30 | 12 | 0.34 | 1.9 |
| MW-34 | 16 | 0.1 | 0.58 |
| MW-35 | 53 | 3.6 | 20 |
| MW-38 | 24 | 1.4 | 8.1 |
| MW-41 | 10 | 0.44 | 2.5 |
| MW-42 | 39 | 1.7 | 9.8 |
| N.A. Not applicable – MW-01 used as the background (e.g., no contamination) |
| ¥Assumed to be purely equilibrium-driven (e.g., no respiration) |
Table 4. Scaled contaminant degradation estimates. Estimates for contaminant degradation per unit time and unit volume for sampled wells.