Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> Indigo Tnsulfonate Method (Bader and Hoigne, 1982) MTBE and ozonation <br /> products were identified using a Hewlett Packard gas chromatograph (Model <br /> 6890) and mass spectrometer (Model 5973) A laboratory gas chromatograph <br /> ' (IIN-U Mudel 320 with capillary column) was used for quick inspection of MTBE <br /> removal during testing <br /> ' Results. Figure 2 represents the results obtained under laboratory conditions (gas <br /> flow = 6 0 Uhr) MTBE is rapidly degraded by nucrobubbie ozone injection <br /> The results are presented as ozone residual in the aqueous phase, compared to <br /> ozone dosage, to enable comparison with previous literature results The rate of <br /> decay is similar to that previously reported by Karpel vel Leitner, et al (1994) In <br /> the bench-scale testing, ozone nucrobubbles appeared effective in reducing <br /> ' MTBE concentrations to beyond 90% of onginal levels The rate of removal was <br /> sensitive to ozone concentration, pressure, and iron silicate content <br /> 16 <br /> ' DB • <br /> • <br /> LLJ 06 \ <br /> F— <br /> U 64 <br /> U • <br /> ' 92 _ <br /> ' DO <br /> 0 2 4 fi 8 ib 12 14 <br /> APPLIED OZONE (mmollL) <br /> ' FIGURE 2 MTBE removal with exposure to microbubble ozone dunng <br /> beach-scale semi-batch testing. <br /> FIELD TESTING <br /> Field testing for MTBE removal in groundwater was performed at two <br /> ' different sites (1) a source region of a gasoline spill at an automotive service <br /> station, with aromatic (BTEX) cgntammated soil andground water, and (2) at the <br /> forefront of a solely MTBE plume upgradient of a water supply well Leading <br /> ' portions of gasoline spill plumes often have MTBE separating from other fuel <br /> constituents because it is very soluble and tends to not be adsorbed to soils The <br /> rate of removal could be compared with other sites where aromatic fractions have <br /> been treated (Kerfoot, 1998) <br /> 1 <br />