Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Geosynthetics in Antarctica: Performance of a composite barrier

system to contain hydrocarbon-contaminated soil after three years in
the field*,**
R.S. McWatters a, *, R.K. Rowe b, D. Wilkins a, T. Spedding a, D. Jones b, L. Wise a, J. Mets a,
D. Terry a, G. Hince a, W.P. Gates c, d, V. Di Battista b, M. Shoaib b, A. Bouazza c, I. Snape a
a
Antarctic Conservation and Management, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
b
GeoEngineering Centre at Queen's-RMC, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
d
Institute for Frontier Materials, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An overview of the design and performance of geosynthetics in composite barrier systems for biopiles
Received 6 July 2015 used to remediate hydrocarbon-contaminated soil at Casey Station, Antarctica, is presented. Seven
Received in revised form instrumented biopiles were constructed over three field seasons. To minimize the risk of hydrocarbon
24 May 2016
migration to groundwater, composite barrier systems were used (each using different combinations of
Accepted 30 May 2016
geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes (GMB), and geotextiles
Available online 13 June 2016
(GTXs)). One biopile used a co-extruded geomembrane (HDPE with an ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH)
core). The liner system was subject to a combination of coupled phenomena that could interact and affect
Keywords:
Biopiles
the GMBeGCL composite barrier performance. The exposure conditions involved potential freezeethaw
Cold regions engineering cycling, hydrationedesiccation cycles, cation exchange, direct and diffusive exposure to hydrocarbons.
Geomembranes The effect of these phenomena was investigated by monitoring GCL and GMB sacrificial coupons. GCL
GCL coupons were placed between the main GCL component and the main geomembrane component of the
Hydration composite liner and GMB coupons placed between the main GMB sheet and the GTX protection layer.
Remediation Coupons were exhumed from the biopiles each year. The exhumed GCL field moisture content values
ranged from 162% to 22%. After three (3) years in the field, GCL coupons that had undergone at least one
hydration/desiccation cycle showed no significant change in swell index values or fluid loss values. The
measured hydraulic conductivity of exhumed GCL coupons from Biopiles 1 and 2 (3
1011 m s1) was
within the expected range and not significantly different from the values for virgin GCL. GMB coupons
exhumed after three years from Biopiles 1 and 2 showed no significant change in oxidative induction
time (OIT), melt flow index or tensile properties. Diffusion tests were performed as an index test for
establishing the performance of the GMBs as a diffusive barrier to hydrocarbons, with permeation pa-
rameters for BTEX contaminants ranging from Pg ¼ 0.9e9.2
1013 m2 s1 for the exhumed GMB (with
values depending on the contaminant and GMB). These values were similar to the parameters obtained
for virgin GMBs and there was no significant change with field exposure, with GMBs appearing to be
performing well.
Crown Copyright © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* 1. Introduction
This paper is a modified and expanded version of a paper by McWatters et al.
(2014) initially presented at the 7th International Congress on Environmental
Geotechnics (7ICEG), Melbourne, Australia, 10e14 November 2014. Any material
from the earlier paper is reproduced here with the permission of the ICEG com-
mittee.
**
N. Touze-Foltz acted as Editor for the review of this paper.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 6232 3150.
E-mail address: rebecca.mcwatters@aad.gov.au (R.S. McWatters).
Hydrocarbon contaminated soil from two separate fuel spills
that occurred in 1999 and 2012 underwent remediation at Aus-
tralia's Casey Station, Antarctica (66170 S 110 310 E). The remedi-
ation approach for both sites required an initial economic
assessment of techniques suitable for Antarctic conditions that met
the Australian government clean-up obligations under the Protocol

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.001
0266-1144/Crown Copyright © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
674 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
on Environmental Protection of the Antarctic Treaty (Sa nchez and
McIvor, 2007). An integrated, three stage, remediation strategy
was developed for these sites. The first stage was to control off-site
migration of contaminants on or in groundwater by installing
permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) (Mumford et al., 2013). The
second stage involved the excavation of contaminated soil from the
fuel spill sites and placement in seven biopiles, constructed over
the austral summer seasons of 2011e13 (Fig. 1). The biopile site
(Fig. 2) is located 200 m from the coastline and is 28e30 m above
sea level. The site slopes from the bottom of Fig. 2 to the sea visible
in the upper third of the photo.
The biopiles are so called because they were designed to
optimise the management of soil conditions to enhance biodeg-
radation of fuel by native microorganisms present in the Ant-
arctic soil (Winsley et al., 2012). The process was enhanced by
nutrient addition to the soil, installation of aeration/extraction
systems, leachate recirculation and yearly mechanical aeration.
Airborne migration during remediation was minimised using a
geotextile (GTX) cover system over the biopiles. When the soil is
adequately remediated, the third stage will involve returning the
soil for reuse on-station in building foundations or road con-
struction subject to an appropriate human health and environ-
mental risk assessment.
The biopiles required a base composite barrier system capable of
withstanding the dry and cold Antarctic environment (daily
average temperature ranges from 5  C at the warmest in summer
and 34  C in winter (BOM, 2016)), to contain contaminated soil
above the uncontaminated ground surface, and to protect the sur-
rounding soil, melt water and groundwater areas. This barrier
system is the focus of this paper. The base barrier system design
was developed based on the authors' experience gained from
municipal solid waste landfills (Rowe et al., 2004b; Rowe, 2005,
2012) and Canadian Arctic barriers (Bathurst et al., 2006; Rowe
et al., 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010; Kalinovich et al., 2008, 2012;
Paudyn et al., 2008). Six biopiles were designed with a
Fig. 1. Remediation site showing: fuel tank (source of the 1999 fuel spill), contaminant flow direction, upper and lower PRBs, seven biopiles and test plot. Black upper covers shown
are GTX2 or GTX4 (see Table 1).
(Photo after Lucieer and Wilkins, 2014; reproduced with permission).
geosynthetic composite barrier system using geosynthetic clay
liners (GCL), high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes
(GMB) and GTXs (Fig. 2). The seventh biopile was designed using a
GCL, co-extruded GMB, and GTXs. The co-extruded GMB has an
inner ethyl vinyl alcohol (EVOH) barrier covered on either side with
HDPE. This study represents the first documented field site using
this novel GMB and ultimately the performance will be compared
with the other GMBs used on site.
GCLs are manufactured liners and a good option for barriers in
sites where access to low permeability soil (e.g., clay) is unavailable,
such as Antarctica. When the bentonite layer is well hydrated
(degree of saturation > 70%) and under a confining load, GCLs can
be an excellent advective, and a modest diffusive, barrier to hy-
drocarbon contaminant migration (Rowe et al., 2004a, 2005, 2006).
Hydration is achieved through uptake of moisture from the un-
derlying subsoil (Beddoe et al., 2011; Rayhani et al., 2011; Chevrier
et al., 2012). However, the coarse granular subgrade, extreme cold
ambient temperatures, high winds and arid climate of Antarctica
provides challenges for effective hydration of the GCL to provide a
good hydraulic barrier, and hence containment.
A composite barrier system comprised of (from bottom up) a
GCL, GMB and GTX (protection layer) provides a superior hydraulic
and diffusive barrier in contrast to a single liner (e.g., Rowe, 1998,
2005, 2012). The emphasis on robust protection is especially
important in the Antarctic, where the environmental risks are high
because the ecosystem is sensitive and unique and soil health re-
covery is difficult (Winsley et al., 2012). A barrier to provide
containment for hydrocarbons-contaminated fuel, water (leachate)
and soil, must minimize advective and diffusive transport of con-
taminants. In the present context, advective transport is the
migration of contaminants with a hydraulic gradient from the
leachate level in the biopile to the free draining underlying granular
soil. The GMB represents the primary barrier to advection with the
GCL minimizing leakage through any holes in the GMB (e.g., Rowe
et al., 2004b; Rowe, 2005, 2012). Diffusion is the net movement of
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
Fig. 2. Installation of GTX protection layer over GMB2 in BP6. GMB sacrificial coupons are placed above the intact GMB liner. GCL sacrificial coupons are show in small photo
showing intact GCL. Grey lower covers GTX1 on Biopiles 1e4 are shown in the background.
molecules under a concentration gradient. An intact barrier system,
free from holes, seams or flaws, can still allow diffusive migration of
contaminants (e.g., Rowe, 1998; Shackelford, 2014). The GMB and
GCL work together to minimize the diffusive flux through the
composite liner.
Currently, there is no archival literature regarding the perfor-
mance of GCLs in Antarctic environments, including the effect of
freezeethaw cycling on the hydration of the GCL. Published
research in cold region applications is limited to a composite bar-
rier system employed to contain a Jet A-1 fuel spill at a site in the
Canadian Arctic (Bathurst et al., 2006; Rowe et al., 2007, 2008;
Hosney and Rowe, 2014). Bathurst et al. (2006) demonstrated
success using GCLs in a barrier system to contain hydrocarbon
contaminated soil at an Arctic field site. There has been no research
on GCL performance in the Antarctic and none specifically
regarding interactions of Special Antarctic Blend (SAB) diesel with
the various components of GCLs.
HDPE GMBs provide an excellent advective barrier to contami-
nants in the absence of holes or when used in a composite liner.
These polymeric liners have good resistance to chemicals and
modest permeability to the diffusion to most hydrocarbons
(Sangam and Rowe, 2001; Islam and Rowe, 2009; Rowe et al., 2011).
Co-extruded GMBs have significantly decreased permeation pa-
rameters and can therefore provide an improved barrier to aro-
matic hydrocarbons over standard HPDE GMBs (McWatters and
Rowe, 2010, 2015). The service life of a GMB is related to degra-
dation of the polymer indicated by a decrease in critical perfor-
mance properties that occurs over time and is accelerated with
high temperatures and exposure to UV or strong oxidants (Rowe
and Sangam, 2002). The optimal service life of HDPE GMBs can
be in excess of 150 years, however, high temperature operating
environments can severely limit the long-term performance of
these liners (Rimal and Rowe, 2009; Rowe et al., 2007, 2011). In cold
regions, it is anticipated that the optimal service life will be ach-
ieved. To establish the performance of the GMB, and subsequent
predictions for its service life, physical, mechanical and diffusive
properties need to be assessed. Laboratory-controlled freezeethaw
cycling tests showed changes in physical and mechanical properties
of GMBs (Hsuan et al., 1997, 2013). In the Arctic, Rowe et al. (2010)
showed that the GMB used to contain hydrocarbon-contaminated
soil was unchanged after 7 years with respect to crystallinity,
675
tensile properties and index tests. To date, there has been no
research into GMB performance in the Antarctic and the in-
teractions between the GMB and SAB diesel.
This paper reports the first use and study of geosynthetics in
field applications in Antarctica. This study is also the first reported
field example of using a co-extruded 1.5 mm HDPE/EVOH/HDPE
GMB in a barrier system to contain hydrocarbon contaminated soil
in the world. Investigations into the effect of the design on the field
performance provide scientifically valuable information for the
management of contaminated sites in Antarctica. This research will
also provide valuable information for designing with geosynthetics
in remote locations where costs and logistical constraints require
efficient systems with minimal maintenance and where sensitive
environments require high confidence.
The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the
geosynthetic composite barrier system used in the seven biopiles as
well as the first data relating to the performance of liner materials
that have been used in Biopiles 1 and 2 for three years at Casey
Station, Antarctica. Thus, first, it documents the physical, chemical,
hydraulic, and diffusive properties of the GCL and GMBs used in
biopiles. Second, it presents the first assessment of the performance
of sacrificial GCL and GMB coupons exhumed after three years.
Consideration is given to the effects of an arid climate, freezeethaw
cycling, and potential exposure to the diesel-contaminated soil and
leachate. Properties examined include mass of bentonite per unit
area, swell index, fluid loss, hydraulic conductivity, and moisture
content of the GCL; tensile properties and oxidative induction time
(OIT) for the GMB; and diffusion properties of aromatic hydrocar-
bons through the GMB. The paper allows inferences to be drawn
about the performance of the intact GCL and GMB composite bar-
rier system in each biopile. Finally, some site-specific issues are
discussed and recommendations made for future research.
2. The biopiles
2.1. Construction of composite barrier system
Biopiles 1e5 were constructed between the austral summer
months of January to March 2011. Biopile 6 was constructed late
January 2012 and Biopile 7 in late January 2013. Adjustments were
made to the design each year, based on experience and on-site
676 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685

Table 1
Geosynthetics used in the barrier system of biopiles and test plot.

Biopile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Test plot

Installation Date 1/2011 1/2011 2/2011 2/2011 3/2011 1/2012 1/2013 1/2012

Dimension External (m) 20
7 20
7 19
7 19
7 11.5
7 25
7 25
7 4
4

Internal (m) 18
5 18
5 17
5 17
5 9.5
5 23
5 23
5 e

Cover system GTX top GTX2 GTX2 GTX2 GTX2 GTX2 GTX4 GTX4 GTX2
GTX bottom GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX2 GTX3 e

Leachate system Installed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Cont. soil Max. height (m) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.3
Avg. stress (kPa) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 1

Separator GTX GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 GTX1 e

Aeration system Installed Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Protection layers Screened soil (m) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.2
GTX GTX GTX GTX GTX GTX GTX GTX GTX

Composite barrier system MT (above GMB) 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 e

GMB GMB1 GMB2 GMB1 GMB1 GMB1 GMB2 GMB3 GMB1
GCL GCL1 GCL1 GCL2 GCL1 GCL1 GCL3 GCL4 GCL2/3

Subsoil MT (below GCL) 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 e

Note: GTX1 ¼ Bidim A64 (GeoFabrics, Australia); GTX2 ¼ Propex AS801 (Global Synthetics, Australia); GTX3 ¼ Bidim A34 (GeoFabrics); GTX4 ¼ Bidim A44 (GeoFabrics);
GMB1 ¼ 1.5 mm HDPE (Global Synthetics); GMB2 ¼ 2.0 mm HDPE (Global Synthetics); GMB3 ¼ 1.5 mm co-extruded HDPE/EVOH/HDPE (Raven Industries Ltd., USA);
GCL1 ¼ Elcoseal X2000 with Ebenezer bentonite (GeoFabrics, shipped in 2010); GCL2 ¼ Elcoseal X1000 with Ebenezer bentonite (GeoFabrics, shipped in 2010);
GCL3 ¼ Elcoseal X2000 with Ebenezer bentonite (GeoFabrics, shipped in 2011); GCL4 ¼ Elcoseal X2000 with Trugel bentonite (GeoFabrics, shipped in 2012); MT ¼ number of
monitoring tubes located above, between or below liners within biopile system.

conditions. The month of construction was significant for GCL hy- Different combinations of geosynthetics were used in the
dration, based on the melt water and groundwater available for composite base barrier system for each biopile (Table 1). The barrier
potential hydration of the GCL. Biopiles built late in the season system was designed to contain leachate within the berms. A sys-
experienced less hydration as the ground began to refreeze. tem was designed to monitor migration of contaminants out of the

Fig. 3. BP1 elevation view and plan view showing exterior and interior dimensions, composite barrier system layers (GCL, GMB, GTX), the GMB and GCL sacrificial coupons,
exhumed coupons and monitoring tubes (thicknesses not to scale in elevation view).
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685 677

biopile using monitoring tubes (Fig. 2) placed below the GCL in the
subgrade and within the protection layer soil directly above the
GMB. Fig. 3 shows the elevation view and plan view of the BP1
design.
2.1.1. Subgrade
Following levelling of the granular subgrade, the monitoring
tubes were placed on the subgrade at the desired locations (e.g., as
shown for Biopile 1 in Fig. 3). Since the Antarctic subsoil at the
Casey site was mostly crushed rock and was classified as gravel with
cobbles, the potential to hydrate the GCL due to direct moisture
suction from the subgrade was limited. GCLs provide an excellent
hydraulic barrier when the bentonite between the carrier and cover
geotextiles is well hydrated by taking up moisture from the subsoil
(Bouazza, 2002; Rowe et al., 2004b). Therefore, given the less-than
optimal subgrade on site, the subgrade was pre-conditioned by
wetting with potable water to the maximum extent possible prior
to GCL installation.
2.1.2. GCL
The GCLs was placed above the subgrade and over the berm and
anchor trenches (Fig. 2). The GCL products and the initial properties
(e.g., mass per unit area, mineralogy, hydraulic properties, etc.) used
for the different biopiles are listed in Table 2. All the GCLs used were
needle-punched, thermally locked and contained powdered sodium
bentonite (85% < 75 mm). Three GCLs (GCL1, GCL3 and GCL4) were
scrim reinforced and nominally the same. GCL1 was used the most
extensively onsite (i.e., for Biopiles 1, 2, 4 and 5). GCL2, selected as a
comparator GCL for use in Biopile 3, had a woven carrier GTX. While
GCL3 and GCL4 were nominally the same as GCL1, they were shipped
to the Antarctic in subsequent seasons and had slightly different
properties to GCL1 based on differences in bentonite source/
composition. Sacrificial coupons of the same GCL as used in a given
biopile were placed over the GCL and attached to cords that would
allow extraction at selected monitoring times (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3).
Specimens for testing were taken from the centre of each coupon to
avoid edge-effects and loss of bentonite that may have extruded
during compression and retrieval.
2.1.3. GMB
GMBs were installed directly above the GCL layer. Sacrificial
coupons of the same GMB as used in a given biopile were placed
over the GMB and attached to cords that would allow extraction at
selected monitoring times (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3). The three different

Table 2
Properties of needle punched, thermally treated GCLs used in biopiles at Casey Station.

Parameter ASTM GCL1 GCL2 GCL3 GCL4

Avg. total mass/areaa (g/m2)

Measured D5993 5509 4771 4814 4889
MARVb 4350 4380 4350 4350

Avg. bentonite mass/area (g/m2)

Measured D5993 4828 3997 4023 4467
MARVb 3700 4000 3700 3700
Bentonite type Type I Type I Type II Type III
Type Powdered Powdered Powdered Powdered
% smectite 79 79 82 74
% carbonate 2 2 1.5 <1
CEC MBe (cmol/kg) 100 100 100 95
CEC Bae (cmol/kg) 98 98 98 100

Exchangeable cations (% total CEC)

Na D7503 90 90 90 84
K 2 2 2 3
Ca 1 1 1 1
Mg 7 7 7 12

Carrier GTXc
Type D5993 SRNW W SRNW SRNW
Massb (g/m2) 498 126 498 498

Cover GTXc
Type D5993 NW NW NW NW
Massb (g/m2) 276 299 276 276

Hydraulic conductivityd, k (m/s) D5887 3.6
1011 3.4
1011 3.1
1011 3
1011
2
1011
Swell index (mL/2 g), range D5890 16e32 16e21 16e33 30.5e31
Swell index (mL/2 g), mean (SD) 24 (8) 21 (6) 22 (9) 30.7 (0.3)

Fluid loss (mL), mean (SD) D5891 12.8 (0.3) 13.0 (0.14) 11.4 (0.21) 12.7 (1.2)f
Filtrate flux (m3/m2/s) 1.0
106 1.0
106 8.8
107 9.9
107
Filter cake permeability (m/s) 3.6
1011 3.4
1011 4.1
1011 4.7
1011

Liquid limit (%) 602 (120) 602 (120) 602 (120) 493 (98)
Plastic limit (%) 42 (4) 42 (4) 42 (4) 42 (4)

Note: Values given are average except where otherwise indicated. SD ¼ standard deviation. All tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM standards except that air-dried
bentonite was used for swell index tests instead of oven-dried bentonite as specified in ASTM D5890-06 (see text). Fluid loss test was done gravimetrically.
a
At 0% moisture content.
b
Manufacturer's published MARV, minimum average roll value.
c
NW ¼ nonwoven geotextile; SRNW ¼ nonwoven scrim reinforced geotextile; W ¼ woven geotextile; W/P ¼ woven geotextile.
d
At an effective stress of 13 kPa, Kingston ON tap water as permeant.
e
CEC MB ¼ methylene blue method; CEC Ba ¼ X-ray fluorescence of Ba-saturated samples. Both performed at CSIRO Land and Water.
f
Sample loss occurred during mixing.
678 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685

Table 3
Initial properties of GMB.

Property ASTM method GMB1 GMB2 GMB3

Avg. SD Avg. SD Avg. SD

Thickness (m) 1.5 2.0 1.5

Density (kg/m3) D1480 0.950 0.002 0.948 0.002 0.96 e
EVOH content (mol%) 0 0 38

Std-OIT (min) D3895 159 5 141.7 1.3 153 4

HP-OIT (min) D5885 1022 53 635.8 16.6 547 20
Crystallinity (%) E794 61.9 e 66.8 e 47.0 0.8
Melt index (g/10 min) D1238 14.3 1.2 14.9 0.4 24.7 1.2

Tensile properties (machine direction) D6693

Strength at yield (kN/m) 31.5 1.1 44.5 1.4 31.9 1.2
Strain at yield (%) 18 1.2 18.8 0.2 16.7 0.8
Strength at break (kN/m) 52.3 2.4 71.9 4 30.7 1.1
Strain at break (%) 840 15 880 21 480 14

Tensile properties (cross-machine direction)

Strength at yield (kN/m) 31.7 0.75 44.6 0.6 29.6 1.2
Strain at yield (%) 1 0.45 17.6 0.1 17 0.5
Strength at break (kN/m) 53.7 5.0 69.9 3.2 31.2 0.95
Strain at break (%) 920 74 900 19 460 12

NCTL stress crack resistance (h) D5397 >619 >412

SD ¼ standard deviation.

GMBs (denoted GMB1eGMB3) used in the biopiles (Table 1) had
initial thicknesses, tensile properties, standard and high-pressure
oxidative induction time (Std-OIT and HP-OIT), crystallinity, and
melt flow index (MFI) as given in Table 3.
Two different thicknesses (1.5 and 2 mm) of HDPE GMB (GMB1
and GMB2) were used for Biopiles 1e6. These GMBs were provided
as rolls 8 m wide by 70 m long. To eliminate on-site welding, the
dimension of the GMB on the roll determined the overall di-
mensions of the biopile (including the interior width and length of
berms). With the benefit of experience and the consequent greater
confidence in handling GMBs under Antarctic conditions, during
construction of Biopile 7 the 1.5 mm a co-extruded GMB (manu-
factured in 5 m wide panels) was welded on site to create the
desired 9 m-wide Biopile 7 (GMB3). Field testing of this GMB is
running in conjunction with on-going laboratory studies (physical
and permeation testing) at Queen's University (Kingston, ON).
levels throughout each of the biopiles as well as an indication of
nascent microbial activity.
2.1.6. GTX covers
Winds in excess of 200 km/h are experienced at Casey Sta-
tion (BOM, 2014). Thus a GTX cover was placed to prevented
wind-blown migration of contaminated soil to minimise wild-
life and human contact with the contaminated soil. GTXs were
selected (instead of a GMB) because they were permeable to air
thereby allowing air to be drawn through the contaminated soil
and into the aeration extraction system. Different generations of
GTXs and modifications to the cover design were adopted each
year.
3. Experimental program

3.1. Thermal conditions

2.1.4. GTX protection
Given the low stress levels (maximum ~ 26 kPa and Thermocouples were installed to monitor ambient temperature
average ~ 13 kPa vertical stress), a 280 g/m2 needle punched as well as the temperature at the GMB and GCL. Typical results are
nonwoven geotextile (GTX1) was used to protect the GMB from shown in Fig. 4 for Biopile 6 and will be discussed later.
punctures, tears and other damage that could compromise its
physical integrity. Ideally, clean sand is placed over a GTX layer
(Dickinson and Brachman, 2008; Rowe, 2009; Rowe et al., 2013).
Since clean sand was not available on site, the GTX was covered by
0.15 m of screened (passing 50 mm screen) contaminated soil.
Monitoring tubes and a network of slotted PVC aeration pipes were
placed within this protection layer above the GMB (Fig. 3). Samples
were taken each season from these monitoring tubes to monitor
contaminants above and below the composite barrier system.

2.1.5. Contaminated soil

Contaminated soil was placed within each biopile in 0.5 m
lifts with an excavator. The final height of each biopile was
1.5 m. Soil samples were taken for analysis for total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nutri-
ents and the genetic signature of any existing microbial com-
munities at soil placement heights of 0.0 m (protective layer of
contaminated soil), 0.5 m, 1.0 m and 1.5 m. These samples Fig. 4. Temperature plotted for ambient, GMB and GCL layers in BP6 from 2012 to
established an initial profile of hydrocarbon contamination 2015.
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
Fig. 5. (a) Retrieving GMB coupon; (b) Exhumed GMB coupon; (c) Retrieving GCL coupon; (d) Retrieved GCL coupon; and (e) subsampling GCL coupon for testing.
3.2. Sacrificial GCL and GMB coupons
Since the biopiles were purpose built to remediate diesel
contaminated soils, it was essential to be able to investigate the
performance of the GCL and GMB liners without compromising the
integrity of the barrier system. The approach adopted used sacri-
ficial GCL and GMB coupons (0.5 m
0.5 m), placed above their
respective intact GCL and GMB liners, during construction (Fig. 3) as
indicated in the previous section. Each summer field season,
selected GCL and GMB coupons were exhumed from each biopile
(Fig. 5). Because the GCL coupons were located on top of an intact
GCL (which is hydrated from the subsoil), and below the GMB
(preventing moisture ingress from above), it was expected that the
coupon would have lower moisture content than the underlying
intact GCL, and would represent a worst-case condition in terms of
GCL hydration and performance against hydrocarbon transport. It
was also expected that the GCL coupons would provide an impor-
tant representation of any exposure of the GCL to hydrocarbons
diffusing through the GMB. Fig. 5e shows sub-sampling (as per
ASTM D6072) of an exhumed GCL coupon in which portions were
collected for hydraulic conductivity, moisture content, swell index
and hydrocarbon content. Because GMB coupons were located on
top of an intact GMB liner within the biopiles and therefore
potentially exposed to hydrocarbon-contaminated leachate on both
the top and bottom surfaces, some GMB properties could be
affected and the coupons were expected to give more conservative
results than the actual intact GMB liner.
4. Analytical methods
4.1. GCL properties
Upon GCL coupon retrieval 4e5 (5e10 cm2) specimens were
weighed for wet mass. The dry weights then were obtained after
oven-drying (ASTM D5993) and the moisture content deduced.
Swell index tests were performed according to ASTM D5890
except that the soil was only air died rather than oven dried
and the mass used in the test was adjusted, allowing for the
water content of the air dried samples, to give 2 g of powdered
dry bentonite. The fluid loss tests were conducted as specified in
ASTM D5891 with the exception of using a gravimetric deter-
mination of filtrate flux. Pre-weighed vessels were used to collect
filtrate after 7.5 and 30 min under 690 kPa applied pressure
through hardened, ash-less filter paper. At 30 min, the filter press
was disassembled and filter cake was analysed for thickness, wet
mass and dry mass. The hydraulic conductivity on GCL samples
was measured using a flexible wall permeameter under falling
head/rising tail conditions according to ASTM D5084 using water
under a confining stress of 13 kPa to approximate the overburden
stress of the 1.5 m of contaminated soil. Specimens were pre-
hydrated under 13 kPa stress prior to the tests. Tests were
679
conducted until the infloweoutflow ratio was consistently be-
tween 0.85 and 1.15 and the volume change of the specimen had
ceased. The initial properties of all the GCLs are given in Table 2.
Of particular note is the high variability of the Swell Index for
GCL1eGCL3 with the Ebenezer bentonite, which complicates
interpretation of cation exchange in the field. Far more consistent
results were obtained for GCL4 with Trugel bentonite.
4.2. GMB properties
4.2.1. Index properties
Specimens from exhumed GMB coupons awaiting analysis
were stored at 18  C to store GMBs at temperatures below
typical exposure temperature, which ranges from 0  C to 15  C
at the biopile site (Fig. 4). The oxidative induction time (OIT) was
evaluated using standard OIT (Std-OIT) and high pressure OIT
(HP-OIT) measured as per ASTM D3895 and ASTM D5885,
respectively. Std-OIT was obtained used a differential scanning
calorimeter (DSC) at 200  C under a pressure of 35 kPa. HP-OIT
was obtained using a DSC at 150  C under a pressure of
3500 kPa. The degree of crystallinity was evaluated according to
ASTM E794 using a DSC. The melt flow index (MFI) was evaluated
following ASTM D1238 at a load of 2.16 kg. The tensile properties
of a GMB (yield strength and strain and break strength and
strain) were obtained as per ASTM D6693. The initial properties
of all the GMBs are given in Table 3.
4.2.2. Diffusive properties
The diffusive properties of GMBs, specific to volatile aromatic
hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
(BTEXs)) are often used to establish the performance of GMBs as
a diffusive barrier. These properties are specific to GMB (type,
polymer, thickness), contaminant type and temperature. These
properties change with ageing and testing can give an indication
of the performance of the GMB. The basic equations describing
diffusive transport through a GMB have been reported in many
previous papers and are not repeated here (e.g., see Sangam and
Rowe, 2001).
Diffusion or permeation through a GMB occurs in three steps:
adsorption, diffusion and desorption (Park and Nibras, 1993;
Sangam and Rowe, 2001), where contaminants partition between
the source (contaminated water) and the surface of the GMB, then
move through the GMB and finally, partition out of the GMB to the
receptor (e.g., clean water). To establish these diffusive parameters
for a GMB, laboratory diffusion tests were conducted where the
partitioning coefficient, Sgf (), was calculated based on the con-
centration in the GMB, cg (kg m3) and the concentration in the
source, cf (kg m3). The equilibrium Sgf that is reached between
water and GMB is analogous to the partitioning that occurs be-
tween air and water as described by a relationship analogous to
Henry's law: cg ¼ Sgfcf. The diffusion coefficient, Dg (m2 s1) is
680 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685

Table 4
Properties of exhumed GCL coupons.

GCL Location Year exhumed MGCL (g/m2) mclay (g/m2) wc %(SD) Swell index (mL/2 g) (SD) Fluid loss (mL) (SD)

GCL1 Virgin e 5509 (435, n ¼ 5) 4828 (435, n ¼ 5) 12.6 24 (8, n ¼ 11) 12.4 (0.3, n ¼ 2)
BP1 3 5454 (828, n ¼ 4) 4680 (828, n ¼ 4) 162 (6, n ¼ 4) 22.8 (n ¼ 2) 11.2 (n ¼ 1)
BP2 3 4536 (543, n ¼ 6) 3761 (543, n ¼ 6) 22 (1, n ¼ 4) 20.7 (9, n ¼ 3) 12.2 (0.9, n ¼ 2)
BP4 3 5149 (652, n ¼ 6) 4375 (652, n ¼ 6) 66 (37, n ¼ 4) 21.2 (8, n ¼ 3) 11.4 (n ¼ 1)
BP5 3 5002 (543, n ¼ 6) 3762 (543, n ¼ 6) 157 (11, n ¼ 4) 23 (5, n ¼ 2) 11.0 (n ¼ 1)

GCL2 Virgin e 4771 (559, n ¼ 5) 3997 (559, n ¼ 5) 12 21 (6, n ¼ 4) 13. (0.1, n ¼ 2)

BP3 3 5646 (456, n ¼ 6) 5248 (456, n ¼ 6) 154 (23, n ¼ 4) 22 (6, n ¼ 3) 11.0 (n ¼ 1)

GCL3 Virgin e 4814 (465, n ¼ 5) 4023 (465, n ¼ 5) 10.4 (7, n ¼ 5) 22 (9, n ¼ 3) 11.4 (0.2, n ¼ 1)
BP6 2 4649 (787, n ¼ 6) 3949 (787, n ¼ 6) 22 (2, n ¼ 4) 21.3 (10, n ¼ 3) 13.1 (n ¼ 1)

GCL4 Virgin e 4889 (543, n ¼ 5) 4467 (543, n ¼ 5) 12 30.7 (0.3, n ¼ 3) 12.7 (1.2, n ¼ 2)
BP7 1 4806 (759, n ¼ 6) 4406 (759, n ¼ 6) 182 (39, n ¼ 4) 28.5 (4.5, n ¼ 3) 11.2 (0.4, n ¼ 2)

n ¼ number of samples analyzed.

obtained from the relationship between the diffusive mass flux, f The double compartment stainless steel cells were used for the
(kg m2 a1) through the GMB, the cg, the concentration of diffusion tests have been previously described in McWatters and
contaminant in the GMB and the distance parallel to the direction Rowe (2010, 2015). A control test is run to ascertain mass loss of
of transport, z, as described by Fick's first law: containments to the cell apparatus over the sampling period. The
source is filled with a dilute aqueous solution of BTEX (25 mg mL1).
dcg dc dc Temperature was maintained at 23 ± 1  C. Samples were taken
f ¼ Dg ¼ Sgf Dg f ¼ Pg f (1)
dz dz dz from the source and receptor periodically and analyzed by Purge &
Fick's second law: Trap-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Results are fitted
with theoretical values using the finite layer analytical model
vcg v2 cg (POLLUTE v.7; Rowe and Booker, 2004).
¼ Dg 2 (2)
vt vz
5. Results and discussions
describes the change in contaminant concentration in the GMB
with time t. The general index properties are presented in Table 4 for the GCL
The final stage of desorption is the reverse of the first stage and coupons exhumed from each biopile in 2014, after three years for
also related to the Sgf value if the receiving medium is the same as BP1e5, two years for BP6 and one year for BP7. A more detailed
the source medium (Sangam and Rowe, 2001). The partitioning and examination of properties was restricted to samples from BP1 and
diffusion coefficients are used to calculate the overall permeation BP2 and, for these samples, the hydraulic conductivity of GCL
coefficient, Pg (m2 s1), for the GMB: coupons (Table 5) and physical and diffusive properties of GMB
coupons (Tables 6 and 7) are reported and discussed.
Pg ¼ Sgf Dg (3)
5.1. Assessment of sacrificial GCL coupons

Table 5 Table 4 shows key physical (mass per unit area, swell index) and
Hydraulic properties of GCL coupons exhumed after three years exposure in the hydraulic (fluid loss) properties of GCLs coupons exhumed in 2014.
biopile.

GCL Location Initial moisture content, Hydraulic conductivity, 5.1.1. Mass per unit area
wc (%, SD) k (m2/s) The results for mass per unit area of the entire GCL and the
GCL1 Virgin 13% (0.8%, n ¼ 5) 4.0
1011 (1.3
1011, bentonite are all consistently above the manufactures' stated
n ¼ 4) minimum average roll value. Some coupons specimens show
BP1 162% (6%, n ¼ 4) 3.1
1011 (n ¼ 1) higher average mass of bentonite, mclay, values (>4500 g/m2 for BP1
BP2 22% (1%, n ¼ 4) 3.0
1011 (n ¼ 1)
and BP3) than others (<3800 g/m2 for BP2 and BP5) with the others
n ¼ number of samples analyzed. having intermediate values (from 3800 to 4500 g/m2 for BP4, BP6

Table 6
Properties of GMB coupons after three years exposure in the biopile.

Property GMB1 GMB2

Virgin SD BP1 SD Virgin SD BP2 SD

Std-OIT (min) 159 5 144 2.5 142 1.3 154 7.2

HP-OIT (min) 1022 53 1026 636 17 728 7
Crystallinity (%) 61.9 e 66.8 e
Melt index (g/10 min) 14.3 1.2 14.8 0.97 14.9 0.4 14.7 1.1

Tensile strength (machine direction)

Strength at yield (kN/m) 31.5 1.1 33.2 1.5 44.5 1.4 39.7 2.4
Strain at yield (%) 18 1.2 19 1.1 18.8 0.2 17.1 1.4
Strength at break (kN/m) 52.3 2.4 54.7 3.2 71.9 4 55.8 2.8
Strain at break (%) 840 15 840 25 880 21 840 15
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685 681

Table 7
Partitioning, diffusion and permeation coefficients of virgin GMBs and from exhumed coupons in BP1 and BP2 after three years exposure in the biopile.

Contaminant Virgin GMB Exhumed coupon from: BP1 (GMB1), BP2 (GMB2)

Sgf () Dg
1013 (m2 s1) Pg
1013 (m2 s1) Sgf () Dg
1013 (m2 s1) Pg
1013 (m2 s1)

GMB1 Benzene 35 2.4 0.8 40 2.5 1.1

Toluene 145 2.2 3.2 145 2.2 3.2
Ethylbenzene 475 1.6 7.6 450 1.4 6.8
m&p-Xylenes 525 1.5 7.9 515 1.4 7.2
o-Xylene 450 1.5 6.8 450 1.4 6.3

GMB2 Benzene 35 2.6 0.9 35 2.6 0.9

Toluene 165 2.2 3.6 165 2.2 3.6
Ethylbenzene 525 1.8 9.5 525 1.6 8.4
m&p-Xylenes 575 1.7 9.8 575 1.6 9.2
o-Xylene 500 1.6 8 500 1.5 7.5

and BP7). This is likely due to the variation in mclay values that some extent, the variability in hydration can be expected to arise
occurs within one roll of GCL and from one roll to another rather from differences in the grain size distribution and initial moisture
than any field changes. content of the subsoil below the GCL since it has been previously
shown that GCL hydration is highly dependent on the initial
moisture content of the foundation soil (Rayhani et al., 2011;
5.1.2. Gravimetric moisture content
Chevrier et al., 2012). However the hydration at this site is further
All biopiles coupons experienced an increase in moisture con-
complicated by higher melt water flow in the subgrade below some
tent from original values listed in Table 4, but by substantially
biopiles (e.g., BP1) than others (e.g., BP2). This snow melt water
different amounts. The moisture content of the GCL specimens
wetted the subgrade in the summer and allowed the overlying GCL
from the coupons exhumed in 2014 (Table 4) are expected to be
to draw up water from water flowing through the underlying gravel
lower than actual GCL moisture contents in the intact liner because
during the period of snow melt and to subsequently retain that
the sample coupons were located above the main GCL liner.
moisture. Thus while the GCL coupons from BP1 (162%), BP3 (154%),
Notwithstanding this expectation, BP1 (162%), BP3 (154%), BP5
BP5 (157%) and BP7 (182%) had high water contents, the GCL cou-
(157%) and BP7 (182%) had mean water contents above 150% and
pons from BP2 (after three years) and BP6 (after two years) had
indicate that the underlying GCL was well hydrated (degree of
mean gravimetric water contents of 22% indicating very little
saturation > 85% at 13 kPa). The subgrade below BP1 and BP2 at the
moisture uptake and/or retention from the underling gravel. For
time of construction is shown in Fig. 6. The subgrade was variable
BP4 (after three years) the mean moisture content of 66%
with areas of relatively coarse gravel and minimal sand size ma-
(SD ¼ 37%) indicated partial (and variable) hydration of the un-
terial (Fig. 6b) and other areas where the subgrade was more well
derlying GCL. Biopiles BP2, BP4 and BP6 were located in drier areas
graded and contained more sand size and some silt particles
that experience less melt water flow.
(Fig. 6c). This alone could be expected to affect the relative hydra-
The photos in Fig. 7 and X-rays in Fig. 8 show differences be-
tion at different locations with the hydration of GCL placed on the
tween BP1 and BP2 for the same GCL (GCL1). At a moisture content
subgrade shown in Fig. 6c expected to be better than for GCL placed
of 162% the specimen in Figs. 7a and 8a is well hydrated with a good
on the subgrade shown in Fig. 6b, other things being equal. Thus, to

Fig. 6. Subgrade prior to placement of GCL in January 2011 (a) BP1 and BP2, (b) close up of gravel in BP1, (c) BP1 showing some of the more well graded subgrade after wetting.
682 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
Fig. 7. GCL coupons extracted from (a) BP1 with moisture content of 162% (hydrated in
the field and maintained hydration) and (b) BP2 with moisture content of 22% (hy-
drated in the field and subsequently lost moisture as evidenced by the desiccation
cracks in bentonite).
bentonite gel (shows white in X-ray due to attenuation of the
X-rays) whereas the specimen shown in Figs. 7b and 8b shows
evidence of having been hydrated sufficiently to have formed a gel
and then dried and desiccated (the intact dried bentonite show
grey and the desiccation cracks show as black in the X-ray). These
differences are a result of the different hydrating conditions and the
potential for drying at BP1 and BP2.
The type of GCL (i.e., GCL1 or GCL2) with a scrim reinforced
nonwoven or a woven rested on the subgrade did not affect hy-
dration when there was ample water with both GCLs being well
hydrated at BP1 and BP3 (Table 4).
Fig. 9a and b shows that the cross-sections through GCL coupons
from BP1 (GCL1: 162% moisture content) and BP5 (GCL1: 157%
moisture content) are very similar and there is a good bentonite gel
at the time the coupon was recovered. In contrast, Fig. 9c, a coupon
from BP6 (GCL3: 22% moisture content) shows powdered bentonite
that does not appear to have hydrated in the field in the two years
since it was placed. This is in contrast to GCL1 in BP2 shown in
Fig. 7b which, has the same water content of 22%. These two GCLs
specimens have had a very different hydration history. The spec-
imen in Fig. 9c has never hydrated significantly while that in Fig. 7b
has been well hydrated but has then experienced moisture loss to
22%.
In summary, since the coupons will only be able to hydrate after
the intact liner below is sufficiently hydrated, the fact that BP1, BP3,
BP5 and BP7 coupons were well-hydrated, implies that the un-
derlying GCL was well hydrated. These biopiles are located in areas
of higher saturation of the soil foundation. BP2 and BP4
Fig. 8. High resolution radiographs (from a 1 kV Faxitron X-ray imaging cabinet) of GCL coupons extracted from: (a) BP1 with moisture content of 162% (hydrated in the field and
maintained hydration), and (b) BP2 with moisture content of 22% (hydrated in the field and subsequently lost moisture as evidenced by the desiccation cracks in bentonite).
Locations from which hydraulic conductivity specimen was taken are shown by dashed circles.
Fig. 9. Photos taken immediately after extraction of GCL coupons from (a) BP1 with
moisture content of 162%; (b) BP5 with moisture content of 157%; and (c) BP6 with
moisture content of 22% (the presence of powdered bentonite indicates that this GCL
sample has not hydrated significantly in the field).
experienced less melt water movement and for these coupons to
have hydrated and subsequently lost moisture, the intact liner must
have been sufficiently hydrated to develop a gel in the coupons
before the underlying GCL then lost moisture (possibly due to air
movement through the unsaturated gravel subsoil or possibly due
to loss of moisture to ice lens formation below the GCL), perhaps
driving suction in the reverse direction by taking water from the
coupons themselves, causing desiccation. However, while there
were some relatively dry to very dry coupons, in most cases the
GCLs had hydrated, and maintained hydration, at >150% water
content and at >70% degree of saturation. More research is needed
to better understand these conditions of optimum hydration for the
GCL and to avoid desiccation.
5.1.3. Swell index
The exhumed coupon swell index data is difficult to interpret
due to the high initial variability for GCL1eGCL3 (Tables 2 and 4).
Average values for GCL1 extracted from BP1, 2, 4 and 5 are all
slightly less than the average of the virgin samples but in all cases
there is a wide range of results and a high standard deviation. Thus,
it does not appear that there is a statistically significant change in SI
for the exhumed coupons relative to the virgin GCL. For GCL2, the
average SI of the exhumed coupons from BP3 (22 mL/2 g) is
marginally higher than that of the virgin samples (21 mL/2 g), but
no statistically significant change in SI can be assigned to exposure
of the GCLs. GCL1 and GCL2 both have “Type I” bentonite (Ebe-
nezer) and were manufactured at around the same time in 2010;
the main difference is the carrier geotextile. GCL3 has the same
structure at GCL1 and also has Ebenezer bentonite, but was
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
manufactured a year later than GCL1 so has been classified as
having “Type II” bentonite to reflect differences in the bentonite
source/processing between years. The average SI of the virgin GCL3
(Type II bentonite) of 22 mL/2 g lies between the 24 mL/2 g for GCL1
and 21 mL/2 g for GCL2 which both have Type I bentonite. Given the
large standard deviations in each case there does not appear to be a
statistically significant difference between the Type I and Type II
bentonites based on SI (Table 4) or mineralogy (Table 2). For GCL3,
the average SI of the exhumed coupons from BP6 (21 mL/2 g) is
marginally lower than that of the virgin samples but again there is
no statistically significant change in SI.
GCL4 has Type III (Trugel) bentonite, which was far more
consistent in terms of SI values than either Type I & II (Ebenezer)
bentonite. The exhumed coupons of GCL4 from BP7 after one year
(when exhumed in 2014) had an average SI of 28.5 mL/2 g
compared to the virgin value of 30.7 mL/2 g. This suggests a
possible decrease in SI, although given the standard deviation of
the initial data one cannot conclude that the difference is statically
significant. In short there is no clear evidence for a significant
change in SI following 1e3 years field exposure for any of the
exhumed GCL coupons.
5.1.4. Fluid loss properties
All GCL coupons yielded similar fluid loss values to the virgin
bentonite regardless of in-field history, and are similar to those
reported elsewhere (Liu et al., 2013, 2014). None of the samples
tested had fluid loss greater than the required maximum value of
15 mL. This suggests that there has not been a significant change in
the hydraulic conductivity of the GCL in three years exposure.
5.2. Assessment of BP1 and BP2 sacrificial GCL coupons
5.2.1. Hydraulic conductivity
Specimens were taken from the well-hydrated BP1 (Fig. 8a) and
the desiccated BP2 (Fig. 8b) GCL1 coupons and hydraulic conduc-
tivity tests were conducted using water (Kingston, Ontario tap water
with ~40 ppm Ca2þ) as the permeant (Table 5). Two tests on virgin
GCL1 yielded an average hydraulic conductivity of 4
1011 m s1.
The average swell index of this same GCL1 was 24 mL/2 g. The hy-
draulic conductivity obtained for the well-hydrated exhumed BP1
specimen was 3.1
1011 m s1 while that for the desiccated BP2
specimen was essentially identical at 3.0
1011 m s1. These results
are very consistent with the fluid loss results. The latter k result
shows that the desiccated GCL (SI ¼ 20.7 mL/2 g) had the capacity to
swell on hydration and heal the desiccation cracks (Figs. 7b and 8b)
at the relatively low (13 kPa) effective stress. This suggests that after
3 field seasons the hydraulic performance of GCL1 was uncompro-
mised by the Antarctic environment and any minor effects of cation
exchange, hydrationedehydration or/and freezeethaw cycling of
the GCL over the period of time examined.
The electrical conductivity of the surface melt waters at the
biopile site averaged 280 mS/cm, while the biopile leachates were
880e2100 mS/cm. These levels are a result of nutrient amendments
added to the hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Thus, the use of tap
water as the permeant for these tests was justified. Future research
will examine the hydraulic conductivity using hydrocarbon-
contaminated leachate as the permeant although at the low con-
centrations in leachate (controlled by the solubility limit) the effect
is likely small.
5.3. Assessment of BP1 and BP2 sacrificial GMB coupons
Table 6 shows key physical properties of GMBs coupons
exhumed from BP1 and BP2 in 2014. Table 7 shows diffusive
properties for the sample coupons.
683
5.3.1. Oxidative induction time
The Std-OIT values for exhumed GMB1 (from BP1) and GMB2
specimens (from BP2) were slightly higher than values obtained for
the virgin GMB1, however the differences reflect natural variability
in sheet materials and there was no trend of a decrease with time
that would be evident if there was significant OIT depletion. Like-
wise, the differences between the HP-OIT results for virgin and
exhumed GMB1 were not statistically significant (Table 6). Thus
there does not appear to have been any significant OIT depletion
from GMB1 or any significant Std-OIT depletion from GMB2 during
the three years in the field.
The results for exhumed GMB2 from BP2 are more puzzling with
the exhumed coupon having a higher HP-OIT value than virgin
GMB2. Traditionally, with ageing, the OIT values decrease with time
indicating the first stage of antioxidant depletion is occurring
within the GMB matrix. In this case, the higher field values are
likely due to variability in HP-OIT rather than a real change after
three years since HP-OIT would not be expected to increase with
ageing. Thus there is no sign of ageing after three years in service in
Antarctica. It is consistent with the expectation that the cold tem-
peratures would dramatically slow the ageing process of the
polymer.
5.3.2. Melt flow index
MFI values for exhumed GMB1 specimens from BP1 were not
statistically different from virgin values. Like the HP-OIT, the MFI
values for exhumed GMB2 specimens from BP2 were similar to the
virgin values but again small differences are likely due to variability
from one point in the roll to another rather than a real change after
three years.
5.3.3. Tensile properties of GMB
Table 6 shows results of tensile testing for GMBs coupons from
BP1 and BP2. Consistent with the results above for OIT and MFI, for
GMB1 there is no significant change over the three years of field
exposure. For GMB2 there is an apparent decrease in yield and
break strength and increase in yield and break strain however as
discussed in previous sub-sections again this is likely due to vari-
ability from one point in the roll to another than a real change after
three years.
Fig. 10. Normalized m&p-xylenes concentrations in the source and receptor graph
plotted with time for the first 60 days of a diffusion test for Virgin GMB1 and sacrificial
coupon of GMB1 from BP1.
684 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
5.3.4. Diffusion of BTEX through GMB
Table 7 shows results from BTEX diffusion tests for GMBs
exhumed from BP1 and BP2 in comparison to virgin GMBs. Typical
test results for GMB1 are shown in Fig. 10 where experimental data
is plotted for the decrease in concentration of contaminant (m&p-
xylenes) concentration in the source and the increase in contami-
nant concentration in the receptor. Theoretical curves are also
plotted to match the experimental data. These theoretical fits are
used to calculate the values of partitioning, diffusion and overall
permeation coefficients. The virgin and coupon results follow the
well-established trend of permeation rates from quickest to slowest
being: benzene > toluene > o-xylenes > ethylbenzene > m&p-xy-
lenes. Values for Sgf and Dg are similar between virgin and coupon
results indicating that GMBs are performing as expected as a
diffusive barrier to hydrocarbons. Permeation rates of heavier hy-
drocarbons, that exist in the biopile contaminated soil, would be
much slower than the more volatile and mobile BTEXs.
5.4. Summary of performance of composite barrier system for BP1
and BP2
The results obtained for GCL and GMB coupons as discussed
above suggest that these composite barrier systems are performing
well in Antarctica after three years, despite the challenges of
maintaining hydration in the arid climate (most significantly seen
in BP2). This is the first time sacrificial coupons have been used and
exhumed periodically. This study demonstrates that coupons can
be used as a method for monitoring the performance of an intact
composite liner system.
6. Summary and conclusions
Geosynthetics (GCL, GMB and GTX) were used to construct a
composite barrier system for seven biopiles at Casey Station in
Antarctica and the initial properties were studied to compare with
properties of the exhumed GCL and GMB coupons. Examination of
the GCL and GMB coupons exhumed from the biopiles after three
years showed performance of physical, chemical, hydraulic and
diffusive properties were consistent with initial properties. This
was highlighted by a detailed examination of BP1 and BP2 where
there was no significant change in the physical or diffusive prop-
erties of GMB coupons over three years of field exposure. Across the
seven biopiles, there was a range in GCL hydration showing some
locations where the GCL was well hydrated and some locations
where it was either difficult to adequately hydrate or when hy-
drated to maintain hydration, of the GCL. The hydraulic properties
of the exhumed GCL coupons showed that they are generally per-
forming within the acceptable range for a hydrocarbon barrier. This
is good news in an environment where the arid climate could
potentially compromise the integrity of the GCL hydraulic barrier.
These barrier systems are containing the hydrocarbon contami-
nated soil and leachate and are a vital component of the biopile
system used to remediate hydrocarbon contaminated soil. This
research has provided greater confidence in designing with geo-
synthetics in Antarctica. However, three years' good performance
does not necessarily mean that it will perform well later. On-going
research involves continued monitoring and eventually exhuma-
tion of the entire liner system to confirm the findings reported
herein over a longer time period. Future research could strengthen
this confidence and provide new insights regarding best practices
for designing barrier systems in cold regions and predicting the
service life of those barrier systems.
Barrier systems are not limited to bioremediation applications.
They are required for many different other remediation applica-
tions including temporary containment areas and berms, long-term
storage and landfills. The barrier system is an important incident
risk management tool to contain hazardous or contaminated ma-
terials within the Antarctic. This work feeds into the multi-stage
remediation approach and provides a framework for the overall
clean-up process that must be cost effective, manage risks, and
reduce further impacts to the environment and sensitive ecosys-
tems. Results from these investigations give confidence that the
composite barrier system performed well for up to three years of
service. Results from this study will be used to improve barrier
designs using geosynthetics. Composite barriers provide managers
with another option for treating contaminated sites in Antarctica
and other cold region environments.
Acknowledgements
This is a collaborative project between the Australian Antarctic
Division, the GeoEngineering Centre at Queen's University (Canada)
and Monash University (Australia). This work was conducted under
Australian Antarctic Science grant 1136 and 4036, and insurance
funding. We thank the AAD, Casey Station, other collaborators,
remediation and laboratory teams. We also extend thanks to geo-
synthetic suppliers: Raven Engineered Films, USA; Kurary-EVAL,
USA; GeoFabrics Australasia, Australia; GeoTas, Australia; and
Global Synthetics, Australia. We also extend thanks to the com-
mittee of the ICEG7 for permission to reproduce material from our
original conference paper.
Symbols
cg concentration of compound in geomembrane (g/m3)
cf equilibrium concentration in source reservoir (g/m3)
Dg diffusion coefficient (m2 s1)
f mass flux (g2 s1)
k hydraulic conductivity (m2 s1)
mclay total mass bentonite per unit area (g/m2)
MGCL total mass GCL per unit area (g/m2)
Pg permeation coefficient relative to aqueous phase (m2 s1)
Sgf partitioning coefficient into geomembrane relative to
aqueous phase (e)
z represents the distance parallel to the direction of
transport
wc moisture content (%)
References
ASTM D1238, 2013. Standards Test Methods for Flow Rates of Thermoplastics by
Extrusion Plastometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D3895, 2014. Standard Test Method for Oxidative-induction Time of Poly-
olefins by Differential Scanning Calorimetry. ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA.
ASTM D5084, 2010. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Conduc-
tivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D5885, 2004. Standard Test Method for Oxidative-induction Time of Poly-
olefins by High-pressure Differential Scanning Calorimetry. ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D5887, 2009. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Index Flux through
Saturated Geosynthetic Clay Liner Specimens Using a Flexible Wall Per-
meameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D5890, 2006. Standard Test Method for Swell Index of Clay Mineral
Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM International, West Con-
shohocken, PA.
ASTM D5891, 2002. Standard Test Method for Fluid Loss of Clay Component of
Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D5993, 2014. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Mass per Unit Area of
Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D6072, 2008. Standard Practice for Obtaining Samples of Geosynthetic Clay
Liners. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D6693, 2004. Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile Properties of
Non-reinforced Polyethylene and Non-reinforced Flexible Polypropylene Geo-
membranes. ASTM International, West Conshohocken. PA.
 R.S. McWatters et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (2016) 673e685
ASTM D7503, 2010. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Exchangeable Com-
plex and Cation Exchange Capacity of Inorganic Fine-grained Soils. ASTM In-
ternational, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM E794, 2012. Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Tempera-
tures by Thermal Analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bathurst, R.J., Rowe, R.K., Zeeb, B., Reimer, K., 2006. A geocomposite barrier
for hydrocarbon containment in the Arctic. Int. J. Geoeng. Case Hist. 1 (1),
18e34.
Beddoe, R.A., Take, W.A., Rowe, R.K., 2011. Water retention behaviour of geo-
synthetic clay liners. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (11), 1028e1038.
Bouazza, A., 2002. Geosynthetic clay liners. Geotext. Geomembr. 20 (1), 3e17.
BOM. 2016. Bureau of Meterology Climate Data [Online]. Available: http://www.bom.
gov.au/climate/data/ (accessed 03.04.16.).
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), May 2014. www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations.
Chevrier, B., Cazaux, D., Didier, G., Gamet, M., Guyonnet, D., 2012. Influence of
subgrade, temperature and confining pressure on GCL hydration. Geotext.
Geomembr. 33, 1e6.
Dickinson, S., Brachman, R.W.I., 2008. Assessment of alternative protection layers
for a GM/GCL composite liner. Can. Geotech. J. 45 (11), 1594e1610.
Hosney, M.S., Rowe, R.K., 2014. Performance of GCL after 10 years in service in the
arctic. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (10).
Hsuan, Y.G., Sculli, M.L., Comer, A.I., 1997. Effects of freezeethaw cycling on geo-
membranes sheets and their seams e part II, cold temperature tensile behavior
and thermal induced cyclic stress. In: P Geosynthetics '97. Long Beach, CA. IFAI,
pp. 201e216.
Hsuan, Y.G., Koerner, R.M., Comer, A.I., 2013. Cold Temperature and Freeethaw
Cycling Behavior of Geomembranes and their Seams (GSI White Paper 28).
Geosynthetic Institute.
Islam, M.Z., Rowe, R.K., 2009. Permeation of BTEX through unaged and aged HDPE
geomembranes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (8), 1130e1140.
Kalinovich, I., Rutter, A., Poland, J.S., Cairns, G., Rowe, R.K., 2008. Remediation of PCB
contaminated soils in the Canadian arctic: excavation and surface PRB tech-
nology. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 53e66.
Kalinovich, I., Rutter, A., Rowe, R.K., Poland, J.S., 2012. Design and application of
surface PRBs for PCB remediation in the Canadian Arctic. J. Environ. Manag. 101,
124e133.
Liu, Y., Gates, W., Bouazza, A., 2013. Acid induced degradation of the bentonite
component used in geosynthetic clay liners. Geotext. Geomembr. 36, 71e80.
Liu, Y., Gates, W.P., Bouazza, A., Rowe, R.K., 2014. Fluid loss as a quick method to
evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners under acidic
conditions. Can. Geotech. J. 51 (2), 158e163.
Lucieer, A., Wilkins, D., 2014. Orthophoto of the Biopiles and Nearby Area at Casey,
Derived from Aerial Photographs Taken with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (10
February 2013-WGS84). Australian Antarctic Data Centre.
McWatters, R.S., Rowe, R.K., 2010. Diffusive transport of VOCs through LLDPE and
two co-extruded geomembranes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (9),
1107e1177.
McWatters, R.S., Rowe, R.K., 2015. Permeation of volatile organic compounds
through EVOH thin-film membranes and co-extruded LLDPE/EVOH/LLDPE
geomembrane. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (2), 1e15.
McWatters, R.S., Wilkins, D., Spedding, T., Hince, G., Wise, L., Snape, I., Jones, D.,
Gates, W., Bouazza, A., Rowe, R.K., 2014. Geosynthetics used in the barrier
systems for remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil in Antarctica. In:
P. 7th Int Con Environ Geotechnics, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 456e463.
Mumford, K., Rayner, J., Snape, I., Stark, S., Stevens, G., Gore, D., 2013. Design,
installation and preliminary testing of a permeable reactive barrier for diesel
fuel remediation at Casey Station, Antarctica. Cold Regions Sci. Technol. 96,
96e107.
685
Park, J.K., Nibras, M., 1993. Mass flux of organic chemicals through polyethylene
geomembranes. Water Environ. Res. 65, 227e237.
Paudyn, K., Rutter, A., Rowe, R.K., Poland, J.S., 2008. Remediation of hydrocarbon
contaminated soils in the Canadian Arctic by landfarming. Cold Regions Sci.
Technol. 53 (1), 102e114.
Rayhani, M.T., Rowe, R.K., Brachman, R.W.I., Take, W.A., Siemens, G., 2011. Factors
affecting GCL hydration under isothermal conditions. Geotext. Geomembr. 29
(6), 525e533.
Rimal, S., Rowe, R.K., 2009. Ageing of HDPE geomembranes in jet fuel A-1. Geosynth.
Int. 16 (6), 482e499.
Rowe, R.K., 1998. Geosynthetics and the minimization of contaminant migration
through barrier systems beneath solid waste. In: Proceedings of the 6th Inter-
national Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, March, 1. Industrial Fabrics As-
sociation International, Roseville, MN, USA, pp. 27e103.
Rowe, R.K., 2005. Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems. 45th
Rankine Lecture. Geotechnique 55 (9), 631e678.
Rowe, R.K., 2009. Long-term performance of leachate collections systems and
geomembrane liners for MSW landfills. GeoAfrica. South Africa, September
2009.
Rowe, R.K., 2012. Short and long-term leakage through composite liners. Can.
Geotech. J. 49 (2), 141e169.
Rowe, R.K., Booker, J.R., 2004. POLLUTE v.7-1D Pollutant Migration through a Non-
homogeneous Soil, © 1983, 1990, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2004. GAEA Environmental
Engineering Ltd.
Rowe, R.K., Sangam, H.P., 2002. Durability of HDPE geomembranes. Geotext. Geo-
membr. 20 (2), 77e95.
Rowe, R.K., Mukunoki, T., Li, M.H., Bathurst, R.J., 2004a. Effect of freezeethaw on the
permeation of arctic diesel through a GCL. In: Mackey, R.E., Maubeuge, K.P.
(Eds.), ASTM Special Technical Publication, 1456 ed., pp. 134e146.
Rowe, R.K., Quigley, R.M., Brachman, R.W.I., Booker, J.R., 2004b. Barrier Systems for
Waste Disposal Facilities. E&FN Spon, Taylor & Francis Books Ltd., London.
Rowe, R.K., Hurst, P., Mukunoki, T., 2005. Permeating partially hydrated GCLs with
Jet Fuel at temperatures from 20  C and 20  C. Geosynth. Int. 12 (6), 333e343.
Rowe, R.K., Mukunoki, T., Bathurst, R.J., 2006. Compatibility with jet A-1 of a GCL
subjected to freezeethaw cycles. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (12),
1526e1537.
Rowe, R.K., Mukunoki, T., Bathurst, R.J., Rimal, S., Hurst, P., Hansen, S., 2007. Per-
formance of a geocomposite liner for containing jet A-1 spill in an extreme
environment. Geotext. Geomembr. 25 (2), 68e77.
Rowe, R.K., Mukunoki, T., Bathurst, R.J., 2008. Hydraulic conductivity to jet-A1 of
GCLs subjected to up to 100 freezeethaw cycles. Geotechnique 58 (6), 503e511.
Rowe, R.K., Rimal, S., Arnepalli, D.N., Bathurst, R.J., 2010. Durability of fluorinated
high density polyethylene geomembrane in the arctic. Geotext. Geomembr. 28
(1), 100e107.
Rowe, R.K., Mukunoki, T., Lindsay, H., 2011. Effect of temperature on BTEX perme-
ation through HDPE and fluorinated HDPE geomembranes. Soils Found. 51 (6),
1103e1114.
Rowe, R.K., Abdelaal, F.B., Brachman, R.W.I., 2013. Antioxidant depletion from an
HDPE geomembrane with a sand protection layer. Geosynth. Int. 20 (2), 73e89.
S
anchez, R.A., McIvor, E., 2007. The Antarctic committee for environmental pro-
tection: past, present and future. Polar Rec. 43, 239e246.
Sangam, H.P., Rowe, R.K., 2001. Migration of dilute aqueous organic pollutants
through HDPE geomembranes. Geotext. Geomembr. 19 (6), 329e357.
Shackelford, C.D., 2014. The ISSMGE Kerry Rowe lecture: the role of diffusion in
environmental geotechnics. Can. Geotech. J. 51 (11), 1219e1242.
Winsley, T., van Dorst, J.M., Brown, M.V., Ferrari, B.C., 2012. Bacteria sequence di-
versity within the domain capturing greater 16S rRNA. Gene Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 78 (16), 5938.