Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I: BACKGROUND
By Charles D. Shackelford, 1 Associate Member, ASCE,
and David E. Daniel, 2 Member, ASCE
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
The design of earthen barriers for the containment of buried wastes tra-
ditionally has been based on the assumption that the hydraulic conductivity
controls the rate of leachate migration. However, recent field studies have
indicated that diffusion is the controlling mechanism of solute transport in
many fine-grained soils [e.g., Goodall and Quigley (1977), Desaulniers et
al. (1981, 1982, 1984, 1986), Crooks and Quigley (1984), Quigley and Rowe
(1986), Quigley et al. (1987), and Johnson et al. (1989)]. As a result, it is
becoming necessary to evaluate the migration of chemicals through earthen
barriers due to diffusion.
While the measurement of the hydraulic conductivity of fine-grained soils
is relatively common practice for geotechnical engineers, the measurement
of diffusion coefficients is not. In fact, the concept of diffusion may be
unfamiliar to many geotechnical engineers. In addition, the literature abounds
with a wide variation in the terminology associated with the study of dif-
fusion in soils. Variable terminology can lead to considerable confusion, and
an enormous amount of time can be spent in attempting to sort out the de-
tails.
This paper is the first of two papers describing the process of diffusion
in soils. The intent of this paper is to familiarize the geotechnical engineer
with background information required for the measurement and evaluation
of diffusion coefficients for use with the design of waste containment bar-
riers. The specific objectives of this paper are to present the equations used
to describe diffusion of solutes in soil, to discuss the factors affecting dif-
fusion coefficients, to clarify some of the variability in the terminology as-
'Asst. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523.
2
Assoc. Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.
Note. Discussion open until August 1, 1991. Separate discussions should be sub-
mitted for the individual papers in this symposium. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on April
26, 1990. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117,
No. 3, March, 1991. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/91/0003-0467/$1.00 + $.15 per
page. Paper No. 25602.
467
STEADY-STATE DIFFUSION
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
D
RTk0
° = J^ W
and
RT
(5)
°o = T^T
468
52.8 93.1
F~ 14.7 Li + 10.3
cr 20.3 Na + 13.3
Br 20.8 K+ 19.6
rHCO _ 20.4 Rb + 20.7
3 11.8 Cs + 20.5
NO3_" 19.0 Be 2+ 5.98
sor 10.6 Mg 2+ 7.05
cof 9.22 Ca2+ 7.92
— — Sx2* 7.90
— — Ba 2+ 8.46
— — Pb 2+ 9.25
— — Cu 2+ 7.13
^ — Fe2+» 7.19
— — Cd2+* 7.17
— — Zn 2+ 7.02
— .— Ni 2+ * 6.79
— — Fe 3+ * 6.07
— .— Cr3^ 5.94
— — Al 3+ " 5.95
"Values from Li and Gregory (1974).
HC1 33.36
HBr 34.00
LiCl 13.66
LiBr 13.77
NaCl 16.10
NaBr 16.25
Nal 16.14
KC1 19.93
KBr 20.16
KI 19.99
CsCl 20.44
CaCl2 13.35
BaCl2 13.85
42
KCI
4- NaCl (b)
NaCl
FIG. 1. Diffusion Cells for Different Diffusion Systems: (a) Self-Diffusion; (h) Tracer
Diffusion; (c) Salt Diffusion; (d) Counterdiffusion [after Shackelford (1988)]
in most systems. The case of salt diffusion [Fig. 1(c)] best represents most
practical field problems involving containment of waste by earthen barriers.
Diffusion in Soil
Solutes diffuse at slower rates in soil than in free solution because the
pathways for migration are more tortuous in soil. Also, diffusive mass fluxes
are less in soil than in free solution because solid particles in soil occupy
some of the cross-sectional area. These effects are illustrated schematically
in Fig. 2.
472
the bulk water. In addition, Porter et al. (1960) and van Schaik and Kemper
(1966) added a factor, 7, to account for exclusion of anions from the smaller
pores of the soil. Anion exclusion can result in compacted clays and shales
when clay particles are squeezed so close together that the diffuse double
layer of ions associated with the particles occupies much of the remaining
pore space (Freeze and Cherry 1979; Drever 1982). The process is also known
as salt filtering, ultrafiltration, or membrane filtration (McKelvey and Milne
1962; Hanshaw and Coplen 1973; Mitchell 1976; Freeze and Cherry 1979;
Drever 1982). Berner (1971) states that anion exclusion may occur in natural
deposits when the average porosity of the soil has been reduced to 0.3. An-
ion exclusion may also be operative in highly unsaturated soils and in rel-
atively small pores where the available cross-sectional area of flow is re-
duced (Olsen and Kemper 1968).
Eq. 8 can be modified to account for these additional effects, or
dc
J = -DOTOCYG — (9)
dx
Since in most cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the effects
of geometry (T), fluidity (a), and anion exclusion (7) in soil diffusion stud-
ies, it seems best to define a single factor that accounts for all of them. Nye
(1979) has done this by defining the "impedance f a c t o r , " / , as
ft = Ta7 (10)
Olsen et al. (1965) included the volumetric moisture content, 6, into the
definition of the "tortuosity factor" and called it the "transmission factor,"
t„ or
tr = T0178 (11)
dc
J = -D0t, — (13)
dx
The similarity in the forms of Eqs. 8, 12, and 13 should be noted. Due to
this similarity, many researchers report tortuosity factors, T, when they may
in effect be measuring impedance factors,/-, or transmission factors, tr. For
this reason, it seems more appropriate to define an "apparent tortuosity fac-
tor," Ta, in which is included not only the actual, geometric tortuosity, T,
but also all other factors, which may be inherent in its measurement, in-
473
dc
J = - £>0T„e — (14)
dx
J = -D*9 — (16)
dx
Eq. 16 can be utilized to determine effective diffusion coefficients of chem-
ical species, D*, diffusing in soil from experimental results. After D* is
determined, the apparent tortuosity factor can be calculated from Eq. 15
using an appropriate value for the free-solution diffusion coefficient. Some
typical values for Ta reported in the literature are presented in Table 3.
There are several definitions for the effective diffusion coefficient, D*,
besides that of Eq. 15. Some of these definitions for D* are reported in Table
4. Of particular importance is the fact that some investigators have included
6 in the definition of D* while others (including the writers) have not. Cau-
tion should be exercised when interpreting the effective diffusion coefficient
data of various researchers. Errors in interpretation of 50% or more can re-
sult if the appropriate definition of D* is not used.
Definition of Concentration
A few investigators [e.g., Porter et al. (I960)] have defined the solute
concentration in terms of the total volume of soil (i.e., c' = 9c) and rewritten
Eq. 16 in terms of this modified concentration as follows
J = -D* — (17)
dx
where D* is as defined in Eq. 15. When the definition of D* includes the
volumetric water content (i.e., D* = Z>oT„6), Eq. 17 is written as follows
[e.g., Porter et al. (I960)]
J= -Df— (18)
dx
where
„. D*
D$ = — (19)
474
Saturated or
Soil(s) unsaturated T„ Values8 Reference
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(a) MC1 Tracer
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Definition Reference
d) (2)
D* = D 0 T Gillham e t al. (1984)
D* = D0C4T Li and Gregory (1974)
D* = D06T Berner (1971); D r e v e r (1982)
D* = D0Tory8 K e m p e r et al. (1964); Olsen and K e m p e r (1968); N y e (1979)
D* = D 0 T7 Porter e t al. (1960)
D* = A,Tae van Schaik a n d K e m p e r (1966)
Note: D* = effective diffusion coefficient of chemical species; D0 = free-solution dif-
fusion coefficient of chemical species; T = tortuosity factor; a = fluidity or viscosity
factor; y = negative adsorption or anion exclusion factor; and 9 = volumetric water con-
tent.
A g a i n , t h e r e a d e r m u s t b e v e r y careful in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e literature t o d e -
t e r m i n e w h e t h e r E q . 1 6 , 1 7 , o r 18 h a s b e e n u s e d .
TRANSIENT DIFFUSION
Nonreactive Solutes
Fick's first law describes steady-state diffusive flux of solutes. For time-
475
dt dx
where the effective diffusion coefficient is as defined in Eq. 15. Solutions
to Eq. 20 are provided in standard texts on diffusion [e.g., Barrer (1951),
Jost (1960), and Crank (1975)] and heat transfer [e.g., Carslaw and Jaeger
(1959)]. The application of Eq. 20 to problems of practical interest is illus-
trated by Daniel and Shackelford (1988), Quigley et al. (1987), Rowe et al.
(1985), and Shackelford (1989).
Reactive Solutes
Nonreactive solutes are those chemical species that are not subject to
chemical and/or biochemical reactions. The transport of solutes that are sub-
ject to chemical and/or biochemical reactions, known as "reactive solutes,"
can differ substantially from the transport of nonreactive solutes.
Of the numerous types of chemical and/or biochemical reactions that can
affect contaminant concentrations during transport in soil, only adsorption-
desorption (sorption) reactions and radioactive decay are routinely modeled.
Dissolution, precipitation, oxidation-reduction, and ion pairing or complex-
ation reactions typically are not modeled. For nondecaying, reactive solutes
subject to reversible sorption reactions during diffusive transport in soil, Eq.
20 may be modified as follows [e.g., see Bear (1972) and Freeze and Cherry
(1979)]
dc ^ d2c dq'
— = £»* — - — (21)
dt dx2 dt
where q' = the sorbed concentration of the chemical species expressed in
terms of the mass of sorbed species per unit volume of voids (i.e., occupied
by the liquid phase), or
«' = 7 « (22)
dc _ D* d2c
(23)
dt Rd dx2
Rd=l+-KD (24)
476
KP = — • (25)
dc
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Adsorption Isotherms
A plot of the mass of solute sorbed per mass of soil, q, versus the con-
centration of the solute in solution, c, is called an "adsorption isotherm."
Adsorption isotherms typically are determined in the laboratory by perform-
ing batch-equilibrium tests. The procedure for batch-equilibrium tests con-
sists of mixing a known amount of soil and chemical solution in a prede-
termined mixing ratio for a specified time (usually 24 or 48 hours) and at
a constant temperature [usually 20° C (68° F) or 25° C (77° F)]. The total
concentration of the chemical species of interest in the solution is measured
before the solution is added to the soil and the equilibrium concentration is
measured after the mixing is completed. The sorbed concentration is deter-
mined by taking the difference between the two measured concentrations.
The relationship between the sorbed and equilibrium concentration is estab-
lished by repeating the procedure several times with different, initial con-
centrations of the solute. More details concerning batch-equilibrium test pro-
cedures can be found in ASTM standards ES-10-85 and D4319.
In general, sorption isotherms are linear [Fig. 3(a)], concave nonlinear
[Fig. 3(b)], or convex nonlinear [Fig. 3(c)] (Melnyk 1985). Nonlinear ad-
sorption isotherms for soils typically are of the concave type [Fig. 3(b)]. Eq.
23 can be solved for many initial and boundary conditions if the isotherm
is linear; however, solutions for nonlinear isotherms are much more difficult
to develop. For this reason, linear adsorption isotherms often are assumed
to apply when in fact the experimental data suggest nonlinear adsorption
behavior.
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIG. 3. General Types of Sorption Isotherms: (a) Linear; (fa) Concave Nonlinear;
(c) Convex Nonlinear [after Melnyk (1985)]
the dependency of flux on D* (Eq. 16), not D* or Ds. In addition, the coef-
ficient D* or Ds is a function of the sorption characteristics of the soil, whereas
D* is not. Therefore, it is meaningless to report a value for D* or Ds without
reporting the associated Rd value since different soils have different sorption
characteristics.
Finally, an error in interpretation of diffusion data by a factor of R^ will
result if D* (or Ds) values from one study are compared with D* values from
another study. For this reason, extreme caution should be exercised when
interpreting the effective diffusion coefficient data for reactive solutes.
478
The equations presented in this paper do not consider the effect of coupled
flow processes, i.e., solute transport due to hydraulic, thermal, or electrical
gradients [e.g., see Mitchell (1976)]. Coupled flow phenomena could, under
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sampling
Port
-Concentration, c
(a)
DURING TEST
Analytical Solution
for One D*
Experimental Point
Elapsed Time
(b)
AFTER TEST
Concentration in Soil
Depth in
Soil
Analytical Solution
Column
for One D*
Experimental Point
METHODS OF MEASUREMENT
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidade Federal do Amazon on 05/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Several approaches have been used for the measurement of D* [e.g., see
Shackelford (1991)]. One technique is to saturate two half-cells of soil with
different solutions, place the half-cells together and allow diffusion to occur.
After a sufficient period, the apparatus is disassembled, the soil is sectioned
to determine the resulting concentration profile within the soil, and the ex-
perimental results are curve-fit with an analytical solution to Eq. 20 or Eq.
23 to determine the effective diffusion coefficient [e.g., see Olsen et al.
(1965) and Gillham et al. (1984)]. However, this approach may be inap-
propriate for compacted clay soils because it is difficult to obtain good con-
tact between the half-cells, counterdiffusion may exist when the interest often
is in salt diffusion, and it is relatively difficult to saturate low-permeability
soils in the two half-cells with leachate.
A more convenient approach for measuring effective diffusion coefficients
in compacted clay soils is based on techniques described by Mott and Nye
(1968), Stoessell and Hanor (1975), and Rowe et al. (1988). The concept
is illustrated in Fig. 4. Soil is compacted in a mold, soaked to destroy suction
that might produce advective mass transport, and then exposed to leachate
in a reservoir. The difference in concentration of solutes establishes a con-
centration gradient between the reservoir and the compacted soil, and the
concentration of solutes in the reservoir decreases with time [Fig. 4(a)]. At
the end of the diffusion test, the soil is extruded and sectioned, and the
aqueous phase of each section is analyzed to develop a profile of solute
concentrations within the soil [Fig. 4(b)]. Effective diffusion coefficient (D*)
for a nonreactive solute or the ratio D*/Rd for a reactive solute is calculated
from the variation in solute concentration in the reservoir versus time and/
or from the profile of solute concentrations in the soil at the end of the test
[e.g., see Rowe et al. (1988); Shackelford (1988, 1991); and Shackelford et
al. (1989)].
fusing chemical species also can affect the definition of D*. As a result of
the variation in the definition of D*, caution should be exercised when in-
terpreting and comparing the results of different studies performed to mea-
sure D*.
It is suggested that all factors that influence D* of nonreactive solutes be
lumped into a single factor known as the "apparent tortuosity factor, T„."
Since the volumetric water content, 6, is an independently determined vari-
able, it should not be included in the definition of the effective diffusion
coefficient, D*.
In general, it is not a good policy to lump the effective diffusion coeffi-
cient (£)*) and the retardation factor (Rd) into a single coefficient known as
the "apparent diffusion coefficient, D*" or the "effective diffusion coeffi-
cient of the reactive solute, Ds" since the value of D* or D„ is a function of
the adsorption characteristics of the soil.
Effective diffusion coefficients can be measured in cells in which com-
pacted soils are first presoaked to eliminate suction that would cause mass
transport via advection and then exposed to a reservoir of leachate and later
sectioned to determine the distribution of diffusing solutes at the end of the
test. Effective diffusion coefficients can be determined either from the rates
of decrease of solute concentrations in the reservoir or from the final con-
centration profiles of solutes in the soil.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Barraclough, D., and Nye, P. H. (1979). "The effect of molecular size on diffusion
characteristics in soil." J. Soil Sci., 30(1), 29-42.
Barraclough, P. B., and Tinker, P. B. (1981). "The determination of ionic diffusion
coefficients in field soils. I. Diffusion coefficients in sieved soils in relation to
water content and bulk density." J. Soil Sci., 32(2), 225-236.
Barraclough, P. B., and Tinker, P. B. (1982). "The determination of ionic diffusion
coefficients in field soils. II. Diffusion of bromide ions in undisturbed soil cores."
J. Soil Sci., 33(1), 13-24.
Barrer, R. M. (1951). Diffusion in and through solids. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
481
482
vironment, ASA Special Publication No. 40, Amer. Society for Agronomy, Mad-
ison, Wis., 31-45.
McKelvey, J. G., and Milne, I. H. (1962). "The flow of salt solutions through com-
pacted clay." Clays and Clay Minerals, 9, 248-259.
Melnyk, T. W. (1985). "Effects of sorption behavior on contaminant migration."
Report AECL-8390, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Nuclear Res.
Establishment, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada.
Mitchell, J. K. (1976). Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, N.Y.
Mott, C. J. B., and Nye, P. H. (1968). "Contribution of adsorbed strontium to its
self-diffusion in a moisture-saturated soil." Soil Sci., 105(1), 18-23.
Nye, P. H. (1979). "Diffusion of ions and uncharged solutes in soils and soil clays."
Advances in Agronomy, 31, 225-272.
Olsen, H. W. (1969). "Simultaneous fluxes of liquid and charge in saturated ka-
olinite." Proc. Soil Science Society of America, 33(3), 338-344.
Olsen, S. R., and Kemper, W. D. (1968). "Movement of nutrients to plant roots."
Advances in Agronomy, 20, 91-151.
Olsen, S. R., Kemper, W. D., and van Schaik, J. C. (1965). "Self-diffusion coef-
ficients of phosphorous in soil measured by transient and steady-state methods."
Proc, Soil Science Society of America, 29(2), 154-158.
Porter, L. K., Kemper, W. D., Jackson, R. D., and Stewart, B. A. (1960). "Chlo-
ride diffusion in soils as influenced by moisture content." Proc, Soil Science
Society of America, 24(6), 400-403.
Quigley, R. M., and Rowe, R. K. (1986). "Leachate migration through clay below
a domestic waste landfill, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada: chemical interpretation and
modelling philosophies." Hazardous and industrial solid waste testing and dis-
posal, STP 933, D. Lorenzen, et al., (eds.), ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., 93-103.
Quigley, R. M., Yanful, E. K., and Fernandez, F. (1987). "Ion transfer by diffusion
through clayey barriers." Geotechnical practice for waste disposal, Special Pub-
lication No. 13, R. D. Woods, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 137-158.
Robinson, R. A., and Stokes, R. H. (1959). Electrolyte solutions, 2nd Ed., Butter-
worths Scientific Publications, London, England.
Romkens, M. J. M., and Bruce, R. R. (1964). "Nitrate diffusivity in relation to
moisture content of non-adsorbing porous media." Soil Sci., 98(5), 333-337.
Rowe, R. K. (1987). "Pollutant transport through barriers." Geotechnical practice
for waste disposal, Special Publication No. 13, R. D. Woods, ed., ASCE, 159-
181.
Rowe, R. K., Caers, C. J., and Barone, F. (1988). "Laboratory determination of
diffusion and distribution coefficients of contaminants using undisturbed clayey
soil." Can. Geotech. J., 25(1), 108-118.
Rowe, R. K., Caers, C. J., and Crooks, V. E. (1985). "Pollutant migration through
clay soils." Proc, 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Mech. and Foundation Engrg., Inter-
national Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1293-1298.
Shackelford, C. D. (1988). "Diffusion of inorganic chemical wastes in compacted
clay," thesis presented to the University of Texas, at Austin, Tex., in partial ful-
fillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Shackelford, C. D. (1989). "Diffusion of contaminants through waste containment
barriers." Transp. Res. Rec, 1219, 169-182.
Shackelford, C. D. (1991). "Laboratory diffusion testing for waste disposal—A re-
view." / . Contaminant Hydro., Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 7(3).
Shackelford, C. D., Daniel, D. E., and Liljestrand; H. M. (1989). "Diffusion of
inorganic chemical species in compacted clay soil." J. Contaminant Hydro., Am-
sterdam, the Netherlands, 4(3), 441-473.
483
fluence of soil moisture." Proc, Soil Science Society of America, 36(1), 39-42.
484