research on underground water

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Aquifers and Groundwater

Groundwater photo gallery, learn about groundwater through pictures, groundwater data for the nation, the usgs national water information system (nwis) contains extensive groundwater data for thousands of sites nationwide., groundwater information by topic, water science school home.

• Publications

A huge amount of water exists in the ground below your feet, and people all over the world make great use of it. But it is only found in usable quantities in certain places underground — aquifers. Read on to understand the concepts of aquifers and how water exists in the ground.

•   Water Science School HOME   •   Groundwater topics   •

Groundwater and aquifers

Groundwater is one of our most valuable resources—even though you probably never see it or even realize it is there.

Have you ever dug a hole at the beach and watched as it partially filled with water from the underlying sand? This is a great way to illustrate the concept of how the ground, if it is permeable enough, can hold water but still stay solid. The upper surface of this water-filled area, or "zone of saturation", is called the water table. The saturated area beneath the water table is called an aquifer, and aquifers are huge storehouses of water. In our sand hole example, you have essentially dug a "well" that exposes the water table, with an aquifer beneath it. At the beach, the level of the water table is always at the same level as the ocean , which is just below the surface of the beach.

As you may have read, most of the void spaces in the rocks below the water table are filled with water. These rocks have different porosity and permeability characteristics, which means that water does not move around the same way in all rocks below ground.

When a water-bearing rock readily transmits water to wells and springs , it is called an aquifer. Wells can be drilled into the aquifers and water can be pumped out. Precipitation eventually adds water ( recharge ) into the porous rock of the aquifer. The rate of recharge is not the same for all aquifers, though, and that must be considered when pumping water from a well. Pumping too much water too fast draws down the water in the aquifer and eventually causes a well to yield less and less water and even run dry . In fact, pumping your well too much can even cause your neighbor's well to run dry if you both are pumping from the same aquifer.

Visualizing groundwater

In the diagram below, you can see how the ground below the water table (the blue area) is saturated with water. The "unsaturated zone" above the water table (the gray area) still contains water (after all, plants' roots live in this area), but it is not totally saturated with water. You can see this in the two drawings at the bottom of the diagram, which show a close-up of how water is stored in between underground rock particles.

Sometimes the porous rock layers become tilted in the earth. There might be a confining layer of less porous rock both above and below the porous layer. This is an example of a confined aquifer. In this case, the rocks surrounding the aquifer confines the pressure in the porous rock and its water. If a well is drilled into this "pressurized" aquifer, the internal pressure might (depending on the ability of the rock to transport water) be enough to push the water up the well and up to the surface without the aid of a pump, sometimes completely out of the well. This type of well is called artesian. The pressure of water from an artesian well can be quite dramatic.

A relationship does not necessarily exist between the water-bearing capacity of rocks and the depth at which they are found. A very dense granite that will yield little or no water to a well may be exposed at the land surface. Conversely, a porous sandstone may lie hundreds or thousands of feet below the land surface and may yield hundreds of gallons per minute of water. Rocks that yield freshwater have been found at depths of more than 6,000 feet, and salty water has come from oil wells at depths of more than 30,000 feet. On the average, however, the porosity and permeability of rocks decrease as their depth below land surface increases; the pores and cracks in rocks at great depths are closed or greatly reduced in size because of the weight of overlying rocks.

Pumping can affect the level of the water table

Groundwater occurs in the saturated soil and rock below the water table. If the aquifer is shallow enough and permeable enough to allow water to move through it at a rapid-enough rate, then people can drill wells into it and withdraw water. The level of the water table can naturally change over time due to changes in weather cycles and precipitation patterns, streamflow and geologic changes, and even human-induced changes, such as the increase in impervious surfaces on the landscape.

The pumping of wells can have a great deal of influence on water levels below ground , especially in the vicinity of the well, as this diagram shows. If water is withdrawn from the ground at a faster rate that it is replenished, either by infiltration from the surface or from streams , then the water table can become lower, resulting in a "cone of depression" around the well. Depending on geologic and hydrologic conditions of the aquifer, the impact on the level of the water table can be short-lived or last for decades, and it can fall a small amount or many hundreds of feet. Excessive pumping can lower the water table so much that the wells no longer supply water—they can "go dry."

Water movement in aquifers

Water movement in aquifers is highly dependent of the permeability of the aquifer material. Permeable material contains interconnected cracks or spaces that are both numerous enough and large enough to allow water to move freely. In some permeable materials groundwater may move several meters in a day; in other places, it moves only a few centimeters in a century. Groundwater moves very slowly through relatively impermeable materials such as clay and shale. (Source: Environment Canada )

After entering an aquifer, water moves slowly toward lower lying places and eventually is discharged from the aquifer from springs, seeps into streams, or is withdrawn from the ground by wells. Groundwater in aquifers between layers of poorly permeable rock, such as clay or shale, may be confined under pressure. If such a confined aquifer is tapped by a well, water will rise above the top of the aquifer and may even flow from the well onto the land surface. Water confined in this way is said to be under artesian pressure, and the aquifer is called an artesian aquifer .

Visualizing artesian pressure

Here's a little experiment to show you how artesian pressure works. Fill a plastic sandwich baggie with water, put a straw in through the opening, tape the opening around the straw closed, point the straw upward (but don't point the straw towards your teacher or parents! ) and then squeeze the baggie. Artesian water is pushed out through the straw.

Do you think you know about groundwater? Take our  Groundwater true/false quiz , part of our  Activity Center .

Quiz icon made by mynamepong from  www.flaticon.com

Want to learn more about aquifers and groundwater? Follow me to the U SGS Principle Aquifers of the United States website!

Below are other science topics related to aquifers and groundwater.

Groundwater True/False Quiz

Groundwater Storage and the Water Cycle

How Do Hydrologists Locate Groundwater?

Groundwater flows underground.

Groundwater Wells

Groundwater Decline and Depletion

Drought and Groundwater Levels

Below are multimedia items associated with aquifers and groundwater.

Below are publications associated with aquifers and groundwater. In addition to those below, Water sources: groundwater by Environment and Climate Change Canada may be of interest.

A primer on ground water

Ground water and surface water: a single resource, ground water and the rural homeowner, a primer on water.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A Comprehensive Review for Groundwater Contamination and Remediation: Occurrence, Migration and Adsorption Modelling

Osamah al-hashimi.

1 Babylon Water Directorate, Babylon 51001, Iraq

2 School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK; [email protected] (K.H.); [email protected] (E.L.); [email protected] (T.M.Č.)

Khalid Hashim

3 Department of Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Babylon, Babylon 51001, Iraq

Edward Loffill

Tina marolt Čebašek, ismini nakouti.

4 Built Environment and Sustainable Technology Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK; [email protected]

Ayad A. H. Faisal

5 Department of Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Baghdad, Baghdad 10001, Iraq; moc.oohay@lasiafazmahladebadaya

Nadhir Al-Ansari

6 Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Lulea University of Technology, 97187 Lulea, Sweden; [email protected]

Associated Data

The data presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

The provision of safe water for people is a human right; historically, a major number of people depend on groundwater as a source of water for their needs, such as agricultural, industrial or human activities. Water resources have recently been affected by organic and/or inorganic contaminants as a result of population growth and increased anthropogenic activity, soil leaching and pollution. Water resource remediation has become a serious environmental concern, since it has a direct impact on many aspects of people’s lives. For decades, the pump-and-treat method has been considered the predominant treatment process for the remediation of contaminated groundwater with organic and inorganic contaminants. On the other side, this technique missed sustainability and the new concept of using renewable energy. Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) have been implemented as an alternative to conventional pump-and-treat systems for remediating polluted groundwater because of their effectiveness and ease of implementation. In this paper, a review of the importance of groundwater, contamination and biological, physical as well as chemical remediation techniques have been discussed. In this review, the principles of the permeable reactive barrier’s use as a remediation technique have been introduced along with commonly used reactive materials and the recent applications of the permeable reactive barrier in the remediation of different contaminants, such as heavy metals, chlorinated solvents and pesticides. This paper also discusses the characteristics of reactive media and contaminants’ uptake mechanisms. Finally, remediation isotherms, the breakthrough curves and kinetic sorption models are also being presented. It has been found that groundwater could be contaminated by different pollutants and must be remediated to fit human, agricultural and industrial needs. The PRB technique is an efficient treatment process that is an inexpensive alternative for the pump-and-treat procedure and represents a promising technique to treat groundwater pollution.

1. Introduction

Earth is known as the blue planet or the water planet because of the reality that most of its surface is covered by water, and it is the only planet in the solar system that has this huge quantity of water [ 1 , 2 ]. For various authorities and agencies dealing with water problems, the conservation of surface and groundwater purity without pollution is indeed an aim. In addition, groundwater is the main potable water supply used in many nations; this is also water for agriculture and industry [ 3 , 4 ]. The effect of global warming, climate change, the rise in weather temperature and evaporation increment, population growth, excessive use of fresh water in agriculture and industrial activities have all led to increasing reliance on groundwater [ 5 , 6 ]. Groundwater became fundamental for social and economic development. It is the sole source for drinking to about 2.5 billion people around the world [ 7 ]. There are many reasons to develop groundwater, but among the most important are [ 8 ]:

• (1) Groundwater usually lies in underground natural reservoirs. This promotes groundwater as a convenient source of water. Additionally, groundwater can be found in different quantities depending on aquifer capacity. Many times, aquifers detaining water larger than many human-made reservoirs; for example, the Ogalalla aquifer located in the United States produced up to 500 Km 3 of water for four decades, which is larger than Nasser lake in Egypt. The huge quantities of groundwater give an ability to pump water during the drought period, while surface water (in some places) is unable to be pumped in these quantities or at such high quality during such period.
• (2) In many cases, groundwater quality is better than surface water. This is due to the ability of aquifers to provide natural protection for groundwater from contamination.
• (3) Groundwater is a cheap, reliable source of water. It can be pumped out using small capital and can be drilled close to the location needed for water. Additionally, groundwater can be easily organized, managed and developed. For example, individuals can easily construct and operate their groundwater well on their land.

Pumping and treatment is a common technique used for groundwater treatment; however, the lack of groundwater quality restoration in the long term has been demonstrated in this method. An innovative approach to groundwater remediation is, therefore, necessary. The permeable reactive barrier (PRB) is proven as a promising technology for groundwater treatment by an interaction between the reactive material and the contaminant when the dissolved compounds migrate. In the permeable reactive barrier (PRB), water moves in a natural gradient, and no further energy is used to achieve the treatment [ 9 ]. The PRB is classified as in situ treatment, and the contaminant is transformed in the contaminated site into less toxic or immovable forms. The key benefits of the PRB innovation are minimal maintenance costs and long durability. However, the aim of this work is that future researchers will find a clear, in-depth and detailed explanation of groundwater contaminants, movement and detailed theoretical explanation for the fate of contaminants in the environment.

2. Groundwater Contamination

Groundwater is the global population’s main source of fresh water and is used for domestic, food production and industrial purposes. About a third of the world’s population depends on groundwater as the main water source for their drinking purposes [ 10 ]. According to the United Nations Environmental Agency (UNEP), there are 32 cities around the world with a population greater than 10 million known as “megacities”; about 16 of these cities majorly rely upon groundwater [ 8 ]. In China, there are 657 cities, and approximately 400 cities are using water from the ground as the main source for their water supplies [ 11 ]. It is without doubt that subsurface water/groundwater is an essential resource of water to humanity; furthermore, it is vital for the ecological system on earth. Keeping this water resource sustainable, accessible, effective and efficient is a major concern for scientists working in a related field. However, urbanization, farming, industry and climate change all pose significant threats to the quality of groundwater. Toxic metal, hydrocarbons, contaminants such as organic trace pollutants, pharmaceutical pollutants, pesticides and other contaminants are endangering human health, natural ecosystems and long-term socioeconomic development [ 12 , 13 ]. Chemical contamination has been a major subject in groundwater investigations in recent decades. While groundwater contamination poses a significant threat to human populations, it also provides a chance for researchers to learn more about how our underground aquifers have evolved, as well as for decision makers to understand how we might maintain the quality and quantity of these resources [ 14 ]. According to the Canadian government, the contamination of groundwater can be defined as the addition of undesired substances by human activities [ 15 ]. Chemicals, brines, microbes, viral infections, medications, fertilizers and petroleum can all contribute to groundwater contamination. However, groundwater contamination is differs from surface water contamination in that it is unseen, and recovery of the resource is difficult and expensive at the current technological level [ 16 ].

Due to human and natural activities, chemicals and pollutants may be found in groundwater. Metals such as arsenic, cadmium and iron could be dissolved in groundwater and may be found in high concentrations. Human activities such as industrial discharges, waste disposal and agriculture activities are the main cause of groundwater contamination. Furthermore, it could happen due to urban activities such as the excessive use of fertilizers, pesticides and chemicals in which pollutants migrate to groundwater and reach the water table. In any case, using groundwater for drinking, irrigation or industrial purposes requires different tests to ensure that it is suitable for these purposes.

The presence of inorganic contaminants in groundwater is a big concern especially when groundwater is used for drinking or agricultural purposes. If these contaminants are presented in the groundwater with levels higher than the permissible recommended concentration, they cause health problems throughout the food chain [ 17 ]. Table 1 presents different inorganic pollutants in groundwater, sources and health effects.

Inorganic pollutants presented in groundwater.

In addition, discharging organic pollutants into the environment and water resources represents a pressing concern for people’s health. The existence of organic contaminants in groundwater represents a crucial environmental problem, as it may affect the water supply reservoirs and people’s health [ 18 ]. Additionally, it can affect the ecological system [ 19 ]. Usually, groundwater contaminants come from two sources: (1) landfills, solid waste disposal lands, sewer leakage and storage tanks leakage and (2) agriculture and farmyard drainage [ 20 ]. Table 2 shows the most common organic pollutants usually found in the groundwater, the sources and the health effect.

Organic contaminants, source to groundwater and their effects.

In the environment, groundwater in shallow or deep aquifers is never found completely sterile [ 21 ]. Coliform organisms and bacteria are the main cause of the microbiological pollution of groundwater. When present, these pollutants need immediate attention to protect lives from outbreaks of pathogenic disease [ 22 ]. Microbiological contaminants naturally occur in the environment by the intestines of humans, warm-blooded animals and plants. These microorganisms could cause dysentery, typhoid fever and different diseases [ 21 ].

3. Groundwater Treatment Technologies

In recent decades, scientists developed sophisticated and highly successful techniques for the remediation of water from many contaminants. These techniques generally focused on the treatment of surface water resources such as a river, lakes and water reservoirs. However, in recent years, scientists and environmental researchers have become more aware of treating underground water, and groundwater has become an essential source of water in most places; it represents about 30% of the freshwater reserve in the world [ 29 , 32 , 37 , 38 ]. Groundwater is usually treated by drilling water wells, pumping the polluted water to ground facilities to perform different approaches of treatment such as air stripping and treatment tower and granular activated carbon (GAC). Pressurized air bubbles are also used to treat contaminated groundwater. The selection of the effective treatment/remediation procedure depends on the characteristics of contaminants and pollutants, in addition to the reactive media available [ 39 ].

3.1. Pump and Treat Method

One of the popular procedures to remediate contaminated groundwater is by dissolved chemicals, solvents, metals and fuel oil [ 40 ]. In this procedure, contaminated groundwater is piped to ground lagoons or directly to treatment units, which treat the groundwater using various methods such as activated carbon or air stripping. Finally, the treated water is to be discharged either to the nearest sewer system or re-pumped to the subsurface [ 37 ]. This technique can treat large volumes of contaminated groundwater but has many disadvantages, such as the high cost, spreading of contaminants into the ecosystem, as well as its long operation time; in addition, it may cause a reversal to the hydraulic gradient [ 41 , 42 , 43 ] as cited in [ 40 ].

3.2. Air Sparging Procedure and Soil Vapor Extraction

The procedure of air sparging and soil vapor extraction (SVE) is considered one of the most common techniques used in remediating groundwater contaminated by volatile organic contaminants (VOCs). It is considered efficient, fast and relatively economical [ 44 ]. This method involves the injection of pressurized air at the lowest point of the contaminated groundwater; this will clean up the groundwater by changing the state of volatile hydrocarbons to a vapor state. While pumping air under the saturated zone, pollutants are stripped out of the aquifer and oxygen is provided for the biodegradation of contaminants [ 45 ]. The extracted air is to be treated by vacuum extraction systems to remove any toxic contaminants [ 46 ]. The limitations for this method are the high cost when working in hard surface area and when many deep wells are required for the treatment. In addition, soil heterogeneity may lead to uneven treatment of the contaminated groundwater.

3.3. The Permeable Reactive Barriers (PRBs)

It is an innovative remediation technique [ 47 ]. Practically, it is in situ technology to remediate groundwater using reactive media designed to intercept a contaminated plume. Typically, reactive media is designed to degrade volatile organics, immobilizing metals. PRB media is placed with porous materials such as sand; this will enhance the hydraulic conductivity, so the plume of contaminants will pass through the PRB under a natural gradient descent [ 37 , 48 ].

In the treatment wall, contaminants are removed by adsorbing, transforming, degrading and precipitating the targeted pollutants during water flow through barrier trenches. PRBs are defined as an in situ remediation zone in which contaminants are passively captured, removed or broken down while it allows uncontaminated water to pass through. The primary removal method is either physical (sorption, precipitation), chemical (ion exchange) or biological [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ].

There are many geometries for placing the permeable reactive barriers (PRBs): (1) A continuous wall that contains reactive media. This is the most common placement in which the reactive media is placed perpendicular to the contaminated plume of groundwater flow; (2) funnel and gate in which contaminant plume is directed to a treatment filtering gate by two-sided impermeable walls at sites in which the soil is very heterogeneous, placing the PRB in the most permeable portion of the soil. Furthermore, when the contaminant’s distribution is non-uniform, the pollutant’s concentration can be better homogenized when entering the PRB gate; (3) radial filtration/caisson configuration in which the filter is placed in a cylindrical shape of reactive media surrounded by coarse material with a core of course materials. Additionally, there must be a radial centripetal flow by applying a hydraulic gradient. The third type of PRB has a long lifespan and a better treatment efficiency by extending the contact time between the pollutant and the reactive barrier [ 47 , 53 , 54 ].

Different reactive materials can be used to remediate contaminants, for example, zero-valent iron (ZVI; Fe0), which is a mild reductant and can treat heavy metals. ZVI can de-halogenate may halogenate hydrocarbon derivatives [ 55 ]. Bio-sparging materials and slow oxygen releasing compounds have the ability to treat groundwater containing petroleum hydrocarbon plums such as nitrobenzene and aniline by utilizing the biodegradation of these pollutants in PRBs [ 56 ]. Vegetative materials could be used in PRBs such as mulch to remediate chlorinated solvents and perchlorates [ 57 ].

Contaminants can also be precipitated on chemical reactive materials in the PRBs, for example, fly ash, ferrous slats, lime, phosphates and zeolites, iron/sand, iron/gravel, iron/sponge, granular activated carbon, organic carbon, copper wool and steel wool [ 37 , 54 ].

3.3.1. Characteristics of the Reactive Medias

Choosing a good reactive media depends on the following characteristics [ 58 ]:

• 1. Reactivity: The ability of reactive media to react/remediate contaminants and the equilibrium constant. All these factors are necessary to determine the required time for the remediation, which is important to calculate the volume and size of the in situ reactive barriers.
• 2. Stability: It is required that any good reactive material is to be active for a long period to remediate groundwater. Additionally, it is also necessary that the reactive media stay under the surface as a secondary precipitate. Once the PRB is installed, it is very expensive to be excavated and replaced with a new PRB.
• 3. Cost and availability: it is very important that the reactive media be available and inexpensive.
• 4. Hydraulic conductivity: the PRB must have a permeability equal to or greater than the surrounding soil to ease the groundwater flow within the PRB and achieve the remediation.
• 5. Environmental compatibility: Reactive media need to be similar/match the surrounding subsurface soil by mean of grain size for the goal that there will be no change in the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Additionally, it needs no unwanted by-products to be produced during the remediation.

3.3.2. Uptake Mechanism of Contaminants

In the remediation of groundwater from contaminants, four physical, chemical and biological uptake mechanisms are considered as uptake mechanisms [ 58 , 59 , 60 ], which are: (1) adsorption and ion exchange, (2) abiotic redaction, (3) biotic reduction and (4) chemical precipitation. Remediation of contaminants in groundwater can be achieved by two or more of these mechanisms [ 61 ].

• (1) Adsorption and Ion Exchange

The process in which species in an aqueous environment are attached to a solid surface is referred to as adsorption. Usually, adsorption interaction is considered a rapid and reversible phenomenon. Adsorbents such as zero-valent iron (ZVI), zeolite and amorphous ferric oxyhydroxide (AFO) are the most common adsorbents used in the adsorption of contaminants; most of the adsorbents have a large surface area per gram and could be used in a PRB. ZVI has the most adsorption rate, and it is the most popular reactive media used in PRBs. Adhesion of pollutant’s ions, atoms or molecules while it is in a liquid, gas or dissolved solid state is referred to as adsorption. It utilizes chemical forces to create a thin film of the adsorbate on the adsorbent’s surface. The adsorbent is any kind of material that can adsorb substances through its surface area characteristics. In the adsorption theory, the surface area of the adsorbent is predominant. The solid phase that provides a working adsorption area is the adsorbent, while the substances and species adsorbed on the adsorbent are referred to as the adsorbate. Adsorption efficiency depends on adsorbate concentration, liquid-phase temperature and pH [ 62 ].

Ion exchange is a process of remediation of inorganic chemicals and dissolved metals from liquids and groundwater. The ion exchange process is that the ion (a single atom or group of atoms) is either positively charged after its loss of electrons or negatively charged after gaining an electron. When liquids loaded by pollutants pass through the ion exchange resin, contaminated substances will be exchanged by the effect of metallic ions attraction by the resins. These resins can be re-generated after being exhausted, or it may be a single-use resin [ 63 , 64 ]. Ion exchange phenomena is a reversible reaction process in which a pollutant’s ion is replaced with an identical ion on the immobilizing barrier. Most ion exchangers are natural such as zeolite, but also, there are very good synthesized ion exchanger resins that can be used in specific needs, especially for the treatment of inorganic contaminants [ 58 , 60 ]. The ion exchange method is applicable to remediate heavy metals [ 65 ] and dissolved metals (chromium) from polluted liquids. Additionally, this method could be used to treat non-metallic pollutants such as nitrate and ammonia [ 63 ]. The limitation to the use of this method is that the oxidation of the soil will cause damage to the resin and will decrease remediation efficiency [ 66 , 67 ]. Another concern is that the contaminant has not been destroyed if treated by the ion exchange method; it is only transferred to another medium that needs to be disposed of. This method is not good if the groundwater contains oil or grease, as these pollutants may clog the exchange resin [ 67 ].

• (2) Abiotic Reduction

The chemical reactions that lead to the decomposition of contaminants in groundwater are referred to as abiotic remediation. In this technique, the harmful compounds are to be reduced either by immobilization in the treatment wall of the reactive barriers, or it is permitted to pass through the barrier in a harmless form. Zero-valent iron (ZVI) is the most popular reactive material used in the abiotic remediation of groundwater; after the reaction of ZVI with the contaminants, low solubility minerals will be precipitated, for example, the remediation of U and Cr from groundwater, which is removed by the precipitation of these contaminants by the abiotic process. Equation (1) shows the ability of ZVI to reduce U(VI) to U(IV) in groundwater with high carbonate and moderate pH via producing UO 2 (Uraninite), which is a solid, less crystalline product of uranium.

For the chromium (Cr), ZVI reducing Cr(VI) to Cr(IV) [ 58 , 60 ] as shown in Equation (2):

Cr(VI) could be reduced to Cr(III) by ferrous iron via introducing dissolved dithionite ions ( S 2 O 4 2 − ) to an aquifer, which can reduce the solid phase of ferric iron. Dithionite oxidizes to sulphite ( S O 3 2 − ) and F e 3 + is lowered to F e 2 + . Cr(III) is to be stalemated by precipitate in the solid form of Cr(III) and Fe(III) hydroxide along with the reduction in some halogenated organic compounds by the effect of F e 2 + as shown in Equations (3) and (4).

• (3) Biotic Redaction/Oxidation

When physical or chemical remediation of groundwater shows little or no degradation of contaminants, then degrading pollutants with a biological oxidation process may be helpful. Many pollutants such as chlorinated solvents tend to be easily reduced if oxidized; here, microorganisms will perform a reduction process by exploiting contaminants as their main source for energy and the required materials to synthesize their cells [ 49 ]. The bioremediation technique is a very effective remediation process based upon the degradation of contaminants by microorganisms; remediation efficiency in this process depends on the working environment, such as the temperature, pH, electron acceptors and the concentration of nutrients [ 68 ]. In biodegradation, it is necessary that germs use electron acceptors to accept any electrons liberated from pollutants; electrons transfer, releasing energy that is essential for microbes’ lives. In the presence of oxygen, under aerobic conditions (which is preferable), energy producing from this process is higher than that released without the presence of oxygen. Additionally, the oxidation rate of contaminants is higher. In the groundwater, the presence of oxygen is usually little; in this case, the anaerobic microbes electron acceptors is utilized. However, it is effective to remediate groundwater contaminated by monoaromatic hydrocarbons by using oxygen-releasing compounds in the PRBs [ 49 , 56 , 69 ].

The basic concept of biotic reduction, biotic oxidation, is to supply an electron donor along with nutrient materials to be used by microorganisms to break down the contaminants. Leaf mulch, wheat straw and sawdust can be used as electron donors, and municipal waste can be used as a nutrient material. Dissolved sulphate in the wastewater is a good electron acceptor, which can oxidate organic materials and can consume acidity coupling with metal reduction as shown in the below Equations (5) and (6):

• (4) Chemical Precipitation

This process consists of contaminants removal as hydroxides (Equation (7)) and carbonates (Equation (8)) via mineral precipitation resulting from increased pH. Firstly, contaminants are reduced to a less soluble species, and finally, they are retained as minerals in the barrier. Limestone (CaCo 3 ) and apatite [Ca 5 (PO 4 ) 3 (OH)] are commonly used in chemical precipitation

A summary of the available and common reactive media is presented in Table 3 ; the geochemical process, nature of contaminants, reactivity and availability are significant factors in the selection of the best convenient reactive media in remediating groundwater.

Reactive media for the remediation of groundwater contaminated by metals and radionuclides (Bronstein, 2005).

4. Modelling of Sorption Process

“Sorption” refers to the physical or chemical process in which a substance becomes in contact with another, which consists of two processes:

• (1) “Adsorption” is a surface process; substances transfer from their aqueous phase (liquid or gas) to the solid phase surface that provides a surface for adsorption known as “adsorbent”; the species transformed from the aqueous phase to the surface of the solid phase is called “adsorbate” [ 62 ]. The existence of nitro groups on the adsorbate stimulating adsorption, hydroxyl, azo groups increases the adsorption rate, while the presence of sulfonic acid groups decreases adsorption [ 70 ].
• (2) “Absorption” is defined as the whole transfer of substances from one phase to another without forces being applied to the molecules. The relationship governing the transfer of substances in aqueous porous media and the mobility of substances from liquid or gas states to the solid state is referred to as “isotherm” [ 71 ]. Adsorption isotherms is curvy relationships connecting the equilibrium concentration of a solute on the surface of an adsorbent ( q e ) to the concentration of solute in its aqueous state ( C e ); both phases should be in contact with each other [ 70 , 72 ].

4.1. Sorption Isotherm Models

Several isotherm models are used to describe sorption parameters and the adsorption of pollutants as follows:

4.1.1. Freundlich Model

In 1909, Freundlich gave an imperial relationship that describes the capability of a unit mass of solid to adsorb gas in the presence of pressure. The Freundlich adsorption isotherm is a curve correlation between a solute concentration on a solid’s interface and the solute concentration in the adjacent aqueous environment [ 73 ]. The Freundlich isotherm model describes absorption in the terms of adsorbate concentration as follows:

where K f   m g g   is the coefficient of the Freundlich isotherm, n < 1, which describes the empirical coefficient expresses the amount of sorption [ 72 , 74 , 75 ]. ( K f )   a n d   (n) can be calculated by solving equation xx logarithmically and plotting ln q e verses ln C e where K f = 10 y − i n t e r c e p t and the slop of ( 1 n ) as shown below:

According to the Freundlich isotherm, the sorbet contaminants is directly proportional to their concentration at a small amount and decreases when contaminants accumulate at the surface of the reactive media [ 76 ].

4.1.2. Langmuir Model

The theoretical Langmuir isotherm model has been derived to describe the physical besides the chemical adsorption, as well as quantifying and describing the sorption on sites located on the adsorbent. Langmuir assumes the following [ 70 , 71 , 76 ]:

• Each adsorbate molecule is to be adsorbed on a well-defined binding site on the adsorbent, and adsorption reaches saturation when all these sites are occupied.
• Each active binding site on the adsorbent interacts with one adsorbate molecule only.
• No interaction existed between adsorbed molecules. All sites are homogeneous (energetically equivalents).
• The surface is uniform, and monolayer adsorption occurs.

Accordingly, the equation of the Langmuir isotherm model is:

where C e (mg/L) represents the concentration of solute in the bulk solution at the equilibrium state. q m (mg/g) represents the maximum adsorption capacity. b is a constant that represents sorption free energy. q e (mg/g) represents the amount of the adsorbed solute by a unit weight of adsorbent within the equilibrium conditions. The Langmuir equation’s constant can be determined with the linearization of Equation (12) as follows:

This equation describes that C e q e is plotted as a function of C e , the parameters of q m and b   are determined from the slope ( 1 q m ) with y-intercept ( 1 q m b ) linear regression to Equation (12) [ 76 ].

4.1.3. Temkin Model

The Temkin isotherm assumes that heats of adsorption would more often decrease than increase with the increase in solid surface coverage. It takes into account the adsorbing species–adsorbent interaction. Temkin isotherm has the following formula:

where R represents gas universal constants (8.314 J/mol K). T is the absolute temperature (K). a T e and b T e are constants.

4.1.4. Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) Model

The BET was developed based on the Langmuir model in an attempt to minimize the Langmuir isotherm restrictions. This isotherm assumes that more molecules can be adsorbed on the monolayer, and it is possible within this isotherm that bi-layer (multi-layer) adsorption will occur. This isotherm could be proclaimed as:

where q m is the maximum adoption capacity, b represents a dimensionless constant, and C s is the concentration in the case of saturated sites and homogenous surfaces.

4.2. Kinetic Models

Adsorption kinetic models are important to describe the solution uptake rate and adsorption required time [ 74 , 75 , 77 ]; these models providing a description for the sorption process onto the sorbents. The sorption mechanism occurs in three steps; the first one is the diffusion of adsorbate through the aqueous phase surrounding the adsorbent; secondly, the diffusion of adsorbate in the pore of the particle (intrapore diffusion); finally, the adsorption occurrence due to physical or chemical interaction between the adsorbate and adsorbent [ 75 , 78 , 79 ]. However, three kinetic models are used to describe the sorption mechanism and the predominated stage as follows:

4.2.1. Pseudo-First-Order Model

A model that is quantified according to Equation (15) below:

where q e is the contaminant’s amount sorbet in equilibrium conditions (mg/g), q t represents a contaminant’s quantity sorbet during any given time (t) (mg/g), k 1 is a constant rate of pseudo-first-order adsorption (min −1 ).

The pseudo-first-order equation has been integrated at boundary conditions of t = 0 to t = t and q t = 0 to q t = q e , then transferred to a linear form as shown in Equations (16) and (17) [ 80 ].

For this kinetic model, log q e − q t must be plotted against time interval; if the intercept of q e theoretical differs than q e experimental , then the reaction does not follow the model of the pseudo first order.

4.2.2. Pseudo-Second-Order Model

The kinetic model of pseudo-second-order adsorption is applicable for small initial concentrations to calculate the initial sorption rate [ 74 ]. The pseudo-second-order equation for the sorption rate has the following form:

where q t is the magnitude of adsorbate, which is adsorbed by an adsorbent (mg g −1 ) at a given time (min), q e represents the amount of adsorbate adsorbed (mg g −1 ) in equilibrium conditions. k 2 is a constant of the second-order sorption rate (mg (mg min) −1 ) [ 80 ].

4.2.3. Intra-Particle Diffusion Model

In 1962, Weber and Morris proposed the kinetic model of intra-particle diffusion, and it has been used for the analysis of adsorption kinetics of lead ions by adsorbent (CHAP) [ 76 , 80 , 81 ]. Based on this model, the uptake graph of ( q t ) versus the squared root of time ( t 0.5 ) must be linear in the overall adsorption process; in addition, if the line intersects with the origin, then the intra-particle diffusion is the predominant adsorption process. The k d represents the intra-particle diffusion initial rate (mg (mg min) −1 ), which could be calculated through the following formula:

where q t represents the amount of sorbate on the solid phase (surface of sorbent) at any time t (mg g −1 ), and t represents time (min).

5. Contaminant Transport Equation and Breakthrough Curves

Soil is a dynamic system in which toxic contaminants are used as a sink or a pathway. When contamination occurs on the surface soil, some of these contaminants will percolate under the water table and form a plume of contaminants. This plume will be developed over time ( t ), and contaminants will be driven downstream, as shown in Figure 1 . It is very important to understand how these contaminants will dissolve in the flow and how they will be carried out downstream; it is very important to discover the concentration of these contaminants as a function of time. The predominant mechanism for the attenuation and retardation of contaminants is sorption. Sorption phenomena will happen when the solid phase of the environment attenuate these contaminants, which will lead to contaminants being removed from the water, and the concentration of pollutants will be reduced downstream. The transport mechanism of pollutants in a saturated environment is the advection that carries contaminants without mixing. The hydrodynamic dispersion is driven by molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion. If the hydraulic dispersion goes to zero, then the transport will be conservative, and there will be no retardation or any attenuation to the contaminants; on the contrary, if there is retardation to the contaminates, then the concentration of contaminants will be reduced at the downstream by the effect of sorption.

Contaminants concentration development in groundwater (“t1, t2–t6” are time intervals).

5.1. Modeling of Contaminants Transport

5.1.1. advection.

In the advection, contaminants transport downstream along with the flow with advective velocity. It is the physical transport of contaminants across the space:

where V x a is the linear advective velocity.

Darcy velocity is given by the meaning of Darcy law, which is:

where ( K ) is the hydraulic conductivity, ( K r ) is the relative conductivity, ( θ ) is the volumetric moisture content, and ( ∂ h ∂ x ) is the head gradient in the x-direction.

where (F x ) is the advective flux ( K g t . m 2 ), ( V x a ) is the advective liner velocity ( m s e c ), ( n ) is the effective porosity, and ( c ) is the concentration of contaminants ( k g m 3 )

Substitute   F x , F y   and F z   in the conservative equation:

In the saturated medium, ( n ) = 1.

5.1.2. Hydrodynamic Dispersion

Molecular diffusion.

In a stagnant fluid, diffusion is the process of molecules random movement. It is basically driven by the concentration gradient and occurs by the Brownian motion. Therefore, diffusion usually increases with the increment of entropy.

In general, diffusion follows Fick’s first law:

where ( F ) is the mass of solute per unit area per unit time ( M L 2 T ), ( D d ) is the diffusion coefficient ( L 2 T ) ≈ 10 − 9 ( m 2 s e c ), and ( ∂ c ∂ x ) is the concentration gradient ( M L 3 L ).

According to the mass conservation of dissolved contaminants:

The time-dependent concentration equation is:

n = 1 in a saturated medium.

Substituting Fick’s first law in Equation (28)

For a one dimensional flow:

The diffusion coefficient ( D d ) here is the free diffusion coefficient (i.e., in water); if the flow medium is porous, then the effective diffusion coefficient ( D * ) is used due to the effect of the tortuous flow path:

w is related to the tortuosity (T): T = l e l ≥ 1 as shown in the below Figure 2 ; laboratory studies showed that 0.01 > w   ≤ 0.5

Determination of tortuosity in a porous medium.

Mechanical Dispersion

There is a number of mechanisms that lead to the assurance of the mechanical mixing of contaminants in the aquifer as follows:

• (a) Mechanical dispersion due to pore size

When dissolved contaminants pass through a porous medium, pore size will affect the hydraulic conductivity of this media; when particles are fine, porosity will be below, and the advective velocity will be slow, as shown in Figure 3 .

Mechanical dispersion due to pore size.

• (b) Mechanical dispersion due to path length

If a pore is medium, the mechanical mixing may happen due to the effect of the length of the pathway, which will be passed by the dissolved contaminants. Each molecule of contaminants will pass through a different pathway that is unequal with the pathway of other particles, as illustrated in the below Figure 4 .

Mechanical dispersion due to path length.

• (c) Tylor dispersion

Taylor mechanical dispersion occurs when dissolved contaminants pass around the aquifer’s solid particles. Solids pass faster in a middle way between two particles than another pass near a solid particle, as shown in Figure 5 . This is because the linear velocity in the centre of pores is greater than that near the edge of solid particles.

Tylor mechanical dispersion.

All the above mechanisms lead to mechanical mixing for solute contaminants in both the longitudinal direction (with the main flow direction) and the transverse direction (out of the main flow direction).

The coefficient of mechanical dispersion ( D ) is related to aquifers’ dispersivity (α), which reflects the extent to which the aquifer is dispersive and the advective velocity of flow.

where ( D L ) and ( D T ) are the mechanical dispersion coefficient in the longitudinal and transverse directions (m 2 /sec), respectively. ( α L   ) and ( α T ) are the longitudinal and transverse dispersivity (m), respectively. ( V L a ) and ( V T a ) are the longitudinal and transverse advective velocity (m/sec).

In the low permeability medium, the permeability is near to zero; in this case, there will be no effect on the mechanical dispersion, and only the diffusion will be predominant.

5.1.3. Advection–Diffusion Equation

The theory of contaminants transport model in porous media is subjected to a partial differential equation governing space and time. The theory incorporates four different processes, all merged in one equation; one process is advection, which means that a substance follows the direction of water (driven by water flow) and itself moves with convection. The second process is dispersion, which is caused by the heterogeneity of pollutants, and a package of contaminants will move faster than the others. Then, there is a chemical reaction, which described by a kinetic equation. Finally, there is the adsorption to the soil, which means that the contaminant may spend some of its time tied to the solid phase and sometimes in the mobile water. The equation that describes all of this is the advection–dispersion equation, as follows:

In the above equation, the change in mass per unit volume ( m ) of the contaminants due to the reactions within the aquifer is referred to as ( r ).

where ( F x ) is the total flux in the ( X ) direction. ( V x n C ) is the addictive flux, and (– ( n D x ∂ C ∂ x )) is the dispersive flux.

Substituting ( F x ) in Equation (37) for (x, y and z) directions:

In the 1D flow, with a constant dispersion coefficient and constants porosity in space and time (=1 in a saturated medium), the equation of advection–dispersion can be written as:

The term ( r ) is considered an important factor in the attenuation of contaminants in a porous media, which is related to the sorption, the predominant process of contaminants attenuation in a permeable reactive barrier during contaminants’ mass transfer. Generally, ( r ) depends on the bulk density ( ρ b ) of the medium and the amount of contaminants sorbed ( q ) with time, thus:

By substituting the value of ( r ) (Equation (41)) in Equation (40), the advection–dispersion will be as follows:

The sorption process is represented in the above equation by the term ρ b n ∂ q ∂ t , ( q ) represents contaminants concentration that sorbed on the solid phase of the reactive media, which can be described by the Langmuir or Freundlich isotherm models as a function of concentration. Equation (42) can be rewritten as follows:

where ( R ) is the retardation factor, which reflects the effect of retardation of contaminants during its transport to the downstream.

The “breakthrough curve” describes the relationship between the concentration of contaminant vs. time, which is an important tool for design and optimizes the sorption in a field-scale PRB by relating the data obtained from laboratory columns to the field scale breakthrough curves. In a continuous constant influent of contaminants, the breakthrough curve will be shaped as (S); the best point on this curve is referred to as the breakthrough point, which has an outlet concentration of contaminants that matches the desired concentration in water. A summary of empirical and theoretical models used to predict the breakthrough curves are described below:

• Bohart–Adams model

The purpose of performing column experiments is to calculate the relationship between the concentration and time, the breakthrough curve in addition to calculate the maximum adsorbent capacity of adsorption. Results will be used to design a full-scale adsorption column. The Bohart–Adams model is one of the models that has been formulated to fulfil this purpose; it has been based on the rate of surface reaction theory [ 82 ]. This model has been built on the following assumptions [ 48 ]:

• 1. This model can describe the concentration at low levels ( C « C 0 ) ( C = 0.15   C 0 ).
• 2. When t → ∞ ; q 0 → N 0   with saturation concentration.
• 3. The external mass transfer is limiting adsorption speed.
• 4. The Bohart–Adams model has the following formula: C C 0 = 1 1 + exp K N 0 Z U − K C 0 t (44) where C 0   and C represents the instantaneous (initial) concentration of the pollutant in solution (mg/L). K is the kinetic constant (L/g/min). N 0 represents the congestion concentration (mg/L). Z represents column bed depth (cm). t represents the time of service (min), and U is the velocity of the flow (cm/min).
• Thomas model.

The Thomas model is widely used to calculate adsorbent maximum adsorption capacity. It uses data obtained from continuous column experiments. The Thomas adsorption column is given below:

where C 0   and C are the concentrations of influent (mg/L). K T is the constant rate (mL/mg/min), q represents the higher adsorption capacity (mg/g), M represents an adsorbent quantity in the column (g), t is the time of adsorption (min), and Q is the feed flow rate (mL/min). The Thomas model is based on the following assumption:

• 1. No dispersion is driven.
• 2. The Langmuir isotherm coincide with the equilibrium state.
• 3. Adsorption kinetics ( K ) should follow the rate of pseudo-second-order law.
• Yoon–Nelson model

In this model, the decreasing probability of each adsorbate is proportional to its breakthrough adsorption on the adsorbent. The following formula is a representation of this model:

where K Y N represents the Yoon–Nelson rate constant. The Yoon–Nelson model is limited by its rough form.

• Clark Model

Clark’s breakthrough curves were based on the mass transfer principle in conjunction with the Freundlich isotherm. Clark has developed his breakthrough curves as follows:

where n represents the exponent of the Freundlich isotherm,   A and r represents the parameters of the kinetic equation.

Wang et al. (2003) invented a new model based on the mass transfer model. It has been used as a solution of Co and Zn ions in a fixed bed under the following assumptions:

• 1. The adsorption mechanism is isothermal.
• 2. The mass transfer equation is as the following: − d y d t = K w x y (48) where K w represents the kinetic constant, the fraction of adsorbed metal ions is represented by y . (with x + y = 1 ) ,     x represents the fraction of metal ions moving through the fixed bed.
• 1. There is symmetry in the breakthrough curve.
• 2. The axial dispersion in the column is negligible.

By integrating the above equation and presuming that y = y w at t = t w . w = 0.5 , the entire breakthrough equation can be expressed as:

where ( x ) can be expressed as:

Finally, the Wand model, similar to the Yoon–Nelson model, cannot provide enough detail on the adsorption mechanism.

6. Review of Previous Research on the Use of PRBS

The first permeable reactive barrier was constructed at a Canadian air force base in (1991) [ 83 ]; since that date, many studies have been conducted to examine the PRB’s efficiency. There were 624 publications that discussed the permeable reactive barrier from 1999 to 2009 [ 84 , 85 ]. Previous research has been conducted to study the ability of different reactants to remediate different pollutants in the permeable reactive barrier. The following is a list of the most important scientific studies.

The remediation of groundwater contaminated by chlorinated ethenes such as vinyl chloride (VC), dichloroethene (DCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) was studied using in situ biodegradation with a special functional microorganism known as Burkholderia cepacia ENV435 [ 86 ]. The researchers chose these microorganisms for many important characteristics, such as their good adhesion ability to aquifers’ solids; in addition, these microorganisms can establish an organized existence without the need to induce co-substrates. Furthermore, these organisms can grow in a high density in fermenters (−100 g/L), and finally, they can accumulate high internal energy, which this microorganism can use to resist the effect of chlorinated solvents and survive. Results showed the concentrations of VC, DCE and TCE decreased by 78% after two days of organism injection.

The output of a pilot-scale PRB for the remediation of chlorinated volatile organic compound-contaminated groundwater (VOCs) has been investigated. This study used a granular zero-valent iron reactive barrier, which was mounted in a funnel with a gate mechanism. Results showed that consistent VOC degradation was observed over the research period. It is observed that the degradation mechanism is due to pH increment, which leads bicarbonate ( H C O 3 − ) to convert to carbonate ( C O 3 2 − ), the carbonate combines cations ( C a 2 + ,   F e 2 + ,   M g 2 + ,   etc . ) in solution, which form mineral precipitates. It is observed that mineral precipitates formed in the reactive media represented as an unconquerable limitation to the treatment process [ 87 ].

A zero-valent iron PRB’s effectiveness in eliminating chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons (CAHs) has been investigated. The contact of reactive media (ZVI) with the CAHs in an aqueous environment caused a rise in the pH; this resulted in the precipitation of carbonate minerals and a loss of 0.35% of the porosity in the reactive fraction of the PRB [ 88 ].

The rapid evolution of the PRB’s application from a full in situ implementation on a laboratory level to treat groundwater polluted by various types of inorganic and metals was assessed [ 89 ]. This study concluded that different reactive media can be used in the preamble reactive barrier to remove inorganic compounds, such as the use of zero-valent iron PRB to remove TC, U and Cr from groundwater. Furthermore, solid-state organic carbon may be used to extract dissolved solids associated with acid-mine drainage. According to this research, there are different mechanisms for the treatment of inorganic anions; for example, the rate of Cr(VI), TC (VII), U(VI) and NO 3 could be successfully decreased by the mean of reduction using zero-valent iron (Fe 0 ). According to a monitoring program for a Cr(VI)-contaminated area, the concentration of Cr(VI) has decreased from 8 mg L −1 to > 0.01 mg L −1 , owing to a decrease in Eh and an increase in pH.

At a former uranium production site in Monticello, Utah [ 90 ] investigated the design and efficiency of a PRB in extracting arsenic, uranium, selenium, vanadium, molybdenum and nitrate. In this study, field and laboratory column tests have been performed. The reactive media in PRB was the zero-valent iron. After one year from PRB installation, the performance of ZVI–PRB is described by the reduction in concentrations of elements up-gradient and down-gradient of the barrier. The inlet concentrations of arsenic, manganese, molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, uranium and vanadium were 10.3, 308, 62.8, 60.72, 18.2, 396 and 395 µg/L, respectively. These concentrations have reduced to be >0.2, 117, 17.5, >65.1, 0.1, >0.24 and 1.2 µg/L, respectively. The removal mechanism for these radionuclides is by reducing uranium to lower molecules along with precipitation. Additionally, adsorption is another chemical process that leads to a reduction in these elements.

The use of a reactive biological barrier to remove nitrate pollutants has been investigated. The autotrophic sulphur-oxidizing bacteria has been used as an electron donor, and sulphur granules have been used as a biological agent. Sulphur-oxidizing bacteria colonized the sulphur particles and removed nitrate, according to the findings. The best operation conditions have been investigated, and it was found that an environment near the neutral pH achieved 90% removal of nitrates [ 91 ].

The efficacy of a ZVI barrier mounted in the field in eliminating chromium solid-phase association has been studied, and the removal efficiency after 8 years of operation has been investigated. Results showed that ZVI has the ability to reduce the concentration of Cr from an average <1500 µg/L to about >1 µg/L. The reduction in Cr(VI) to Cr(III) along with the oxidation of Fe(0) to Fe(II) and Fe(III), resulting in Fe(III)-Cr(III) precipitating as oxyhydroxides and hydroxides, has been discovered to be the most common Cr removal mechanism. It was also discovered that the reacted iron produced a coating of goethite (α-FeOOH) with Cr, resulting in precipitation [ 92 ].

Experiments have been performed to discover the efficiency of seven selected organic substrates in removing inorganic nitrogen in the form of NO 3 − , NO 2 − and/or NH 4 + in a denitrification PRB in batch scale experiments. Softwood, hardwood, coniferous, mulch, willow, compost and leaves were all reactive materials. The softwood was found to be suitable for use as a reactive medium in PRB due to its very good ability to denitrify nitrogen. Reduction in nitrate was due to the effect of denitrification (which represents 90% of the nitrate removal of which the dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonia (DNRA) represents 10% of the removal process [ 93 ].

The efficacy of activated carbon PRB for removing cadmium from contaminated groundwater has been investigated. The original cadmium concentration was 0.020 mg/L, but after it passed through a PRB of activated carbon, the polluted plume was adsorbed, and the cadmium concentration was nearly zero for the first three months. After that, the barrier became saturated, but the effluent cadmium concentration remained below the quality limit of 0.005 mg/L for more than seven months [ 94 ].

The use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP-K30)-modified nanoscale ZVI in removing tetracycline from liquid has been investigated. Tests revealed that PVP-nZVI consists of Fe(0) in the core and ferric oxides on the shell. PVP-nZVI will adsorb tetracycline and its degradation products, according to the findings. It is also observed that the adsorption of tetracycline has been reduced with time due to the formation of H 2 PO 4 − , which has a strong tendency to react with the mineral surface [ 95 ].

Tetracycline adsorption using graphene oxide (GO) as a reactive media has been investigated. Results showed that tetracycline formed a π–π interaction and cation–π bonds with the surface of GO, with the Langmuir and Temkin models providing the best fit isotherms for adsorption and the Langmuir model calculating a maximum adsorption capacity of 313 mg g −1 . The kinetics of the adsorption model are also equipped with a pseudo-second-order model with a better sorption constant ( k ), 0.065 g mg −1 h −1 than other adsorbents, according to the results [ 96 ].

The design, construction and testing of a permeable barrier at the Casey station in Antarctica to remediate and avoid the spread of an old diesel fuel spill have been discovered. Five segments of a bio-reactive barrier were allocated and installed in the funnel and gate configuration, each segment divided into three zones; the first one is a slow-release fertilizer zone to enhance the biodegradation, the second zone is responsible for hydrocarbon and nutrient capture and degradation, while the third zone is responsible for cation capture and access to nutrients produced by the first zone. The first zone’s reactive media was a nutrient source, followed by hydrocarbon sorption materials (granular activated carbon plus zeolite); to extract cations nutrient released and accessed from the first region, sodium activated clinoptilolite zeolite is used. Oxygen delivery to the system was applied to enhance the microbial reactions. The function of each zone is the first zone to provide nutrients such as phosphorate to the microorganism. Due to its high surface area and microporous surface (500–1500) m 2 /kg, granulated activated carbon can adsorb hydrocarbon pollutants in the second zone. In the third zone, the Australian sodium zeolite is placed to capture any accessed ammonium cation from the solution due to its high ability to exchange ions with ammonium. Tests and results showed that the ion exchange of zeolite best-controlled nutrient concentration, while the sodium zeolite captured any migrated ammonia from the groundwater. Additionally, results showed that the fuel is degraded in the PRB faster than in the hydrocarbon spill area field. In the cold world, activated carbon–PRB is a strong technology for removing hydrocarbons.

In batch and fixed-bed column experiments, the adsorption of tetracycline (TC) and chloramphenicol (CAP) was investigated by [ 97 ] using bamboo charcoal (BC) as a reactive medium. The predominant mechanism of TC and CAP adsorption on BC is π – π   electron-donor–acceptor (EDA), cation–π bond in combination with H-bond interaction, while the hydrophobic and electrostatic interaction has a minor effect on the adsorption. Results showed that BC has a strong adsorption capacity to TC and CAP; with increasing influent concentration and flow rate, adsorption efficiency improves. Surface diffusion was the most common mass transfer mechanism for antibiotic adsorption [ 98 , 99 ].

An overview of the use of PRBs in the remediation of a broad range of pollutants, demonstrating that it is a viable alternative to the pump-and-treat process, has been discussed by [ 85 ]. The most popular PRB reactive media, according to this study, is zero-valent iron (ZVI). Efficient PRB architecture requires accurate site characterization, groundwater flow and flow conditions requirements and ground flow modelling.

The potential efficiency of a microscale zero-valent iron PRB in removing tetracycline (TC) and oxytetracycline (OTC) with the formation of transformation products during the remediation have been discovered. To investigate the effect of solution pH, a series of batch experiments were carried out, including iron dose and environment temperature. Results showed that pH has a key factor controlling the efficiency of removal; increasing iron dose and working temperature also increased the removal efficiency. Pseudo-second-order model and Langmuir isotherm were found to be most fitted to adsorption kinetics and removal isotherms [ 100 ].

The effectiveness of removing copper ions Cu(II) and zinc ions Zn (II) heavy metals from groundwater using cement kiln dust and a sand PRB was investigated by [ 48 ]. In this research, the re-use of a very fine by-product powder resulted from the cement industry known as cement kiln dust (CKD) has been investigated to remove appointed heavy metals instead of throwing this CKD into the environment. The optimum weight ratio of CKD/sand, which provides the best remediation, has been investigated in column tests from 99 days of operation time. The remediation mechanisms were the adsorption/desorption, precipitation/dissolution and adsorption/desorption of the pollutants. Contaminant transport in porous media, as well as breakthrough curves, are also explored. Breakthrough curves refer to the relationship between the concentration of the contaminants at any time in any position in the domain. Results showed that the best CKD/sand ratio was (10:90 and 20:80) because other ratios showed a loss in the hydraulic conductivity and loss in groundwater flow due to the accumulation of contaminants mass in the voids between the sand causing clogging and flow loss.

The mechanism of remediating pharmaceutical pollutants (tetracycline) from groundwater using zero-valent iron coupled with microorganisms as reactive media has been investigated by [ 55 ]. In this research, three PRB columns have been studied, beginning with columns filled by zero-valent iron, the second with zero-valent iron and microorganisms and, finally, the third one with microorganisms. Results revealed that zero-valent iron has the best effect on removing tetracycline. Removal efficiency reaches 50% while it was 40% with zero-valent iron and microorganisms’ PRB and 10% by the effect of microorganisms’ PRB. The mechanism of this reaction is that the zero-valent iron (Fe 0 ) has been adsorbed and reduced tetracycline, Fe 0 converted to Fe +2 and Fe +3 , and the tetracycline has been degraded.

The use of a bio-PRB coupled with a good aeration system to remediate groundwater polluted with nitrobenzene and aniline have been studied. To degrade the NB and AN, suspension-free cells of the degrading consortium and the immobilized consortium were used in this study. Results showed that both AN and NB were completely degraded within 3 days in the immobilized consortium, while it needs 3–5 days to degrade using the free cells. It was also discovered that in the presence of oxygen, the removal efficiency of NB and AN was increased [ 56 ].

In a permeable reactive barrier, [ 101 ] investigated the effect of MnO 2 and its mechanism of tetracycline elimination. The zero-valent iron serves as the reactive media in this PRB. In this research, three PRB columns were studied, the first one with ZVI, the second had ZVI-MnO 2 , while the third consisted of MnO 2 only. Results show that the ZVI in the presence of MnO 2 is the most effective material in removing TC. Its removal efficiency reached 85%, while the ZVI removed about 65% and the MnO 2 removed 50% of TC. This research revealed that MnO 2 accelerated the transformation of Fe 2+ to Fe 3+ , then the Fe 3+ degraded tetracycline. The functional group that played the predominant role in this reaction is the hydroxyl radical produced in this process.

A series of laboratory and field studies in the Ukrainian city of Zhovty Vody has been performed to assess the reliability of a reactive barrier made up of zero-valent iron and organic carbon mixtures to remediate uranium-contaminated groundwater. In these studies conducted by [ 102 ], three reactive media were examined. The first was zero-valent iron, which was used to study the sorption, reduction and precipitation of redox oxyanions; the second was the phosphorate materials, which has been used to transfer the dissolved materials to other phases; the third was bioremediation materials and organic carbon substrates. The study revealed that the treatment mechanism of the uranium is sorption by the ZV, and it also observed that the microbes have the ability to sorb the uranium U(VI) to the bacterial cell walls. Due to the effect of enzymatic production, dissolved oxygen reduced first, then due to the effect of denitrification, UO 2 CO 3 reduced to uranite and sulphate reduced to sulphide; finally, amorphous uranium oxide will be formed on the microorganism surfaces. In this research, new placement of the reactive media has been used in which rows of cylinders with iron reactive media have been placed instead of the regular funnel and gate placement; this placement reduced the in situ installation cost.

The effectivity of PRB made from sodium alginate/graphene oxide hydrogel beds (GSA) for the remediation of ciprofloxacin (CPX) antibiotic contaminating the groundwater has been investigated. In this research, the key factors affecting the performance have been studied, and longevity and the cost of PRB have been discussed, and a proper design for the PRB has been proposed. Results show that the adsorption capacity of CPX on the GSA was 100 mg for each gram of GSA at pH 7.0; the leading mechanism in the adsorption process was the pore filling, H-bonding, ion exchange, electrostatic interaction and hydrophobic interaction. The results indicate that the GSA’s ability to remove CPX from groundwater when used in a PRB is concrete evidence that GSA is a good option for removing CPX from groundwater [ 103 ].

The removal of tetracycline from aqueous solutions using binary nickel/nano zero-valent iron (NiFe) reactive media in column reactors has been studied. Results show that if a mixture of 20 mg/L of TC plus 120 mg/L of NiFe in a 90 min time of interaction, TC will be removed by 99.43%. In this research, sand particles loaded with reactive media (NiFe) have been used. Electrostatic interaction has been used to load the reactive media on sand particles. A Tc removal mechanism was investigated using UV-Visible spectroscopy, TOC, FTIR and SEM analysis [ 104 ].

The use of the PRB system in preventing the migration of radiocesium into groundwater using natural zeolite and sepiolite has been investigated. These reactive media are natural, low-cost materials. Two-dimensional bench-scale prototypes at the steady flow conditions have been used in the experiment. Information on the transport behaviour of radiocesium and changes in hydraulic conductivity were investigated in this study. It has been determined that the remediation phase would reduce hydraulic conductivity over time. As a result, by combining sand with reactive media, the PRB has been modified to achieve steady-state operating conditions of flow [ 105 ].

The effectivity of the use of PRB of cement kiln dust as a reactive media in an acidic environment (pH 3) to remediate groundwater contaminated with dissolved benzene has been studied by [ 9 ]. Experiments were performed for 60 days with batch and column tests. Results showed that benzine removing efficiency reached more than 90%, and the best CKD/sand ratio was 5/95, 10/90 and 15/85, which achieved the best hydraulic conductivity. Results also show that barrier longevity reached (half a year) when CKD was about 15%. FTIR test results showed that adsorption happened due to the formation of H bonding and cation.

The removal of meropenem antibiotic with a cement kiln dust (CKD) PRB through batch and continuous column experiments have been studied by [ 106 ]. Results showed that pH 7.0 had a 60 mg adsorption potential for every 1 g of CKD, according to the findings. Initial concentration, flow rate and influence have all had an impact on CKD efficiency. Meropenem adsorption occurred due to the O-containing functional group’s effect on the surface of CKD, which leads to an H-bonding and π – π   a n d   n – π EDA interaction (donor–acceptor) between the CKD and the meropenem, which all lead to the adsorption.

The sustained treatment of a bio-wall and its effectivity in remediating groundwater contaminated by chlorinated volatile organic compounds (TCE) after 10 years of bio-wall installation has been studied by [ 107 ]. The reactive medium used in this barrier was mulch, utilizing the benefit of its high cellulose content (<79%). This research investigates a reactive barrier of mulch (1615 m long × 10.7 m depth × 0.6 m thickness). This bio-barrier consisted of 42% mulch, 11% cotton, 32% sand and 15% rock to increase the permeability. It is estimated that groundwater retention time within the barrier is 2–50 days, while groundwater speed was (0.002–0.3 m/day). Contaminants were trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), dichloroethene (DCE) and vinyl chloride (VC). After 10 years of the bio-wall installation, results showed that mulch bio-wall effectively degrades TCE from groundwater to daughter products, TCE concentrations remained below the USEPA maximum levels, while it was over these levels in the up-gradient side of the bio-wall. The microbial population, geochemical environment of the barrier was still active. Investigating the concentration patterns, microbial community and the geochemical environment of the bio-wall demonstrates that the bio-wall is an effective reductive to the volatile organic contaminants.

The effectiveness of a horizontal PRB with a reactive media of zero-valent iron to prevent the scattering of chlorinated solvent vapour in the unsaturated region was investigated by [ 108 ]. In this research, the potential feasibility of using PRBs placed in a horizontal direction was investigated. The reactive medium in this study was the zero-valent iron (ZVI) powder mixed with sand, and the TCE was tested as a model for the (VOCs). Tests were performed in batch reactors. Results showed after 3 weeks of treatment and based on the type of ZVI powder, the concentration of TCE vapour was reduced in a range of 35–99%. The ZVI’s best output is determined by the particular surface area.

The use of sewage sludge and cement kiln dust to produce hydroxyapatite nanoparticles has been investigated. The removal of tetracycline using the new formed hydroxyapatite were examined and the best operation conditions were 2 h contact time, dosage 0.4 g/50 mL, agitation speed 200 rpm with a mixture molar ratio Ca/P = 1.662, the removal efficiency reached 90% with a TC maximum adsorption capacity of 43.534 mg for each gram of hydroxyapatite filter cake. Results show that adding 10% sand (to enhance the hydraulic conductivity of the PRB) to the hydroxyapatite reduced the adsorption capacity to be 41.510 mg/g. XRD, FTIR and SEM analytical tests proved that the predominant mechanism for the remediation of TC is due to the adaptation on the hydroxyapatite surface. During the process, two functional groups, (-OPO3H-) and (CaOH2+), were formed, both of which are positively charged with the ammonium functional group and negatively charged with the phenolic diketone moiety of TC species. The removal of TC was also aided by the effect of hydrogen bonding and surface complexes formed between TC and Ca [ 109 ].

7. Conclusions and Perspective

In recent decades, there has been an increment in the dependence on groundwater as a major source of freshwater for daily human needs, but in many places, groundwater is being polluted by organic and inorganic contaminants. It is very important to remediate groundwater before use to prevent the spread of contaminants to the neighbour environment. Many techniques and reactive materials have been used in the remediation of contaminated groundwater; one of the most popular technologies is PRBs, which is considered an affordable technology. It allows the treatment of multiple pollutants if a multi-barrier is being used. In PRB technology, there is no adverse contamination that may happen, as contaminants will not be brought out to the surface. On the other hand, this technology may have some limitations, such as the difficulty of detailed site characterization required prior to the design of PRB, and only contaminants passing the PRB could be treated in addition to the limited field data for the longevity of the PRB, so the prospective tendency is to use new by-product materials to improve PRB performance. In this way, the environment will be saved by the disposal of these unwanted by-products and will be considered a (green) refreshment to the environment.

Groundwater contamination is now a global issue; solving this problem involves close coordination between scientists at universities and government agencies, as well as the industry and decision makers at all levels. The way ahead for solving this problem must include addressing the levels of groundwater contamination in different countries by using developed measures, techniques and policies. In addition, the variation of the influence of groundwater contamination in different countries must be well studied, including the effect on climatic regions and geological features. To study groundwater contamination in the future, groundwater scientists will need to adopt and apply new technologies such as artificial intelligence, “big data” analysis, drone surveys and molecular and stable isotope analysis technologies. Finally, governments, especially those with developing economies, need to invest more in groundwater and encourage researchers, training and research in this important, valuable field.

Author Contributions

O.A.-H. and K.H. organized the conceptualization of the idea and the methodology employed in this paper. Following that, E.L., T.M.Č., I.N., A.A.H.F. and N.A.-A. worked on the critical evaluation of the existing techniques. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2018

Invisible water: the importance of good groundwater governance and management

• Sharon B. Megdal 1  

npj Clean Water volume  1 , Article number:  15 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

53 Citations

23 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Water resources

This paper summarizes the results of efforts to bring attention to the importance of understanding and improving groundwater governance and management. Discussion of survey work in the United States and global case studies highlights the importance of focusing attention on this invisible water resource before pollution or depletion of it causes severe economic, environmental, and social dislocations. Better governance and management of groundwater are required to move toward sustainable groundwater use.

Similar content being viewed by others

Global water resources and the role of groundwater in a resilient water future

Unlocking aquifer sustainability through irrigator-driven groundwater conservation

Rapid groundwater decline and some cases of recovery in aquifers globally

Introduction.

The growing population’s increasing demand for water for food, energy, and other human uses and changing climate’s impacts to both water supplies and demands are resulting in increasing reliance on groundwater. In many places groundwater is being depleted faster than nature replenishes it, and its quality is being compromised. Groundwater “mining” can have negative implications for meeting long-term water needs of people and natural systems. At the same time that groundwater from deeper and saltier aquifers is eyed for meeting future drinking water needs, aquifers are being identified as repositories for waste streams from desalination and energy processes as well as carbon sequestration sites. As dependence on groundwater increases, water managers and policy makers must pay careful attention to both groundwater quality and quantity. This paper focuses on efforts to bring attention to the importance of understanding and improving the governance and management of this invisible and increasingly relied-upon resource. It is essential that water users focus attention on this invisible water resource before pollution or depletion of it causes severe economic, environmental, and social dislocations. Better governance and management of groundwater are required to move toward sustainable groundwater use.

Multi-disciplinary and collaborative efforts to bring attention groundwater management and governance

In 2011, global leaders in groundwater monitoring and management embarked on an effort to highlight best practices in groundwater governance. Completed in 2016, the Groundwater Governance Project “aimed to influence political decisions thanks to better awareness of the paramount importance of groundwater resources and their sustainable management in averting the impending water crisis”. 1 The three final project documents and extensive background documents 2 provide a rich overview of the issues associated with managing groundwater at different geographic scales. The stated need for this project on groundwater governance was predicated on the rapid increase in groundwater extraction and its invisibility. Unlike surface water, which can be seen and touched separately from its consumption, water consumers generally have little understanding of groundwater quantity and quality.

I will note here that there are about as many definitions of (ground)water governance as there are papers or books written on it. I like to use the following single-sentence definition, which I developed with coauthors: Groundwater governance is the overarching framework of groundwater use laws, regulations, and customs, as well as the processes of engaging the public sector, the private sector, and civil society . 3 This framework shapes “what” is done, that is, how groundwater resources are managed and how aquifers are used.

I had the good fortune of being invited to participate in the regional consultation portion of the project, where water management professionals from around the world were invited to participate in one of five regional consultations. The consultations were held in Uruguay, Kenya, Jordan, China, and the Netherlands. It was for the final regional consultation held at The Hague in March 2013, where United States (US) practices would be shared, that I was motivated to characterize the US’ decentralized approach to groundwater governance. I will report more on the efforts to describe US groundwater governance and management in the next section.

In 2016, two independent efforts, one in the United States and the other more globally based, attempted to bring greater attention to the importance of wise governance and management of this invisible resource through dialogues from which principles or directives emerged. The American Water Resources Association (AWRA) and the National Groundwater Association, two US-based national organizations dedicated to knowledge sharing, education, and good water stewardship, joined forces and convened the April 2016 Groundwater Visibility Initiative workshop. I was on the workshop organizing committee and contributed to the efforts to disseminate workshop findings. The six summary principles are as follows: 4 , 5 (1) Governing and managing groundwater require working with people; (2) Data and information are key; (3) Some “secrets” remain; (4) We need to take care of what we have; (5) Effective groundwater management is critical to an integrated water management portfolio that is adaptive and resilient to drought and climate change; and (6) To be robust, policies of the agriculture, energy, environment, land-use planning, and urban development sectors must incorporate groundwater considerations. Perhaps most wide-ranging of the findings-conclusions is the recognition that effective groundwater management is critical to an integrated water management portfolio that is adaptive and resilient to drought and climate change. In addition, the importance of groundwater considerations to policies related to agriculture, energy, environment, land-use planning, and urban development was underscored. Fundamentally, the workshop concluded that it comes down to the relationship of the water consumers to the resource. Are they organized to manage the resource and, if so, on the basis of what information? A major thrust of this effort, like the global Groundwater Governance Project, was to bring attention to the important, growing, and often misunderstood status of groundwater in meeting human and environmental water needs.

The second effort emerged from the Ninth International Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge (ISMAR9), which was held in Mexico City in June 2016. A subset of groundwater experts from across the globe convened to draft a set of principles for sustainable groundwater management. 6 The six principles or directives from this effort include stopping depletion of aquifers, acquiring and sharing information on aquifer systems, and managing groundwater within an integrated water resource framework. Specifically, the directives are (1) Recognize aquifers and groundwater as critically important, finite, valuable, and vulnerable resources; (2) Halt the chronic depletion of groundwater in aquifers on a global basis; (3) Aquifer systems are unique and need to be well understood, and groundwater should be invisible no more; (4) Groundwater must be sustainably managed and protected within an integrated water resource framework; (5) Managed Aquifer Recharge should be greatly increased globally; and (6) Effective groundwater management requires collaboration, robust stakeholder participation, and community engagement. It is not surprising that a group convened to explore managed aquifer recharge urged increased implementation of MAR efforts. Again, the importance of stakeholders was noted: Effective groundwater management requires collaboration, robust stakeholder participation, and community engagement.

While the Water Governance Initiative led by Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is not exclusively focused on groundwater, this initiative has also emphasized the role of stakeholder engagement. 7 , 8 However, what is less recognized is that sustaining meaningful stakeholder participation is resource intensive. I still see very limited resources going into stakeholder engagement efforts. 9 This is true at a time when professionals from multiple backgrounds are concluding that the barriers to agreeing upon a strategy to address many of the world’s thorniest water challenges are those related to the human dimensions of water sector decision-making rather than engineering or even financial constraints.

Most recently, in early 2018, the AWRA adopted its “Policy Statement on Fresh Groundwater”. 10 The AWRA recommends that groundwater be managed according to the tenets of Integrated Water Resources Management and that attention focus on the following ten action items so as to advance sustainable groundwater management, presented here in abbreviated form: (1) Assessing the resource; (2) Building partnerships; (3) Aligning the legal framework; (4) Including groundwater considerations; (5) Maintaining sustainability; (6) Respecting ecosystems; (7) Engaging stakeholders; (8); Committing to understand; (9) Protecting the asset; and (10) Utilizing interdisciplinary approaches.

I am therefore encouraged that hydrologists, engineers, and other physical scientists are increasingly acknowledging the importance of collaboration across disciplines and the need for robust stakeholder participation.

Efforts to characterize and share US groundwater governance practices

What do we know about actual governance practices that lead to good groundwater stewardship? The Groundwater Governance Project had sharing governance practices at its foundation. It convened water managers and decision-makers from jurisdictions large and small, ranging from island states to large countries. This was necessary because groundwater is primarily a local resource. Approaches to its governance and management will reflect relevant laws and regulations, along with local physical and economic conditions. No cookbook approach to groundwater governance has emerged. What has turned out to be illuminating and helpful is the comparing of experiences so that decision-makers, water professionals and other can learn from each other’s successes as well as challenges.

As I participated in the more global dialogues, I observed something that bothered me. Often, conditions for the US were shown on a map in a single color, meaning that conditions were uniform across the US. Nothing can be further from the truth in a country as large as the US. While some may inherently acknowledge this, my guess was that few engaged in global discussions on groundwater governance and management recognized just how decentralized groundwater authorities and agencies are across the US. Despite the US being a nation of states, aside from national regulations addressing the quality of drinking water and discharges of water into navigable waters, there is little other federal guidance on groundwater quantity or quality. To help document the diversity of governance and management approaches across the US, a small team at the University of Arizona undertook an effort to characterize elements of this diversity. Armed with a survey of the literature that revealed no recent survey of state practices, we undertook an initial and survey of the states to demonstrate that one cannot paint the US groundwater governance and management picture with a single brushstroke. 11 This survey targeted experts from state agencies responsible for water quantity regulations. One of the survey results was that most states had different government agencies managing water quantity and water quality.

Figure 1 shows quite a bit of variation in reliance on groundwater across the US states. Indeed, within states there will be additional variation. Super-imposed on the coloring showing the level of extent of reliance on groundwater are hatch marks showing states that reported a focus on declining groundwater levels. Several states with limited reliance on groundwater for overall state water demands indicated concern with declining groundwater levels.

States’ reliance (as a %) on groundwater for total water withdrawals and states concerned with declining groundwater levels. (reproduced with permission from ref. 3 , Copyright National Ground Water Association 2015)

As Fig. 2 shows, water quality or contamination was the most frequently cited priority—even by personnel from state-level water quantity agencies. Because water quality determines the cost of using groundwater for different purposes, water quality and quantity are intrinsically connected.

Groundwater governance priorities. (reproduced with permission from ref. 3 , Copyright National Ground Water Association 2015). The items listed, in order of frequency, were selected by respondents as their state groundwater governance priorities

This finding was validated by a more recent national survey that focused on groundwater quality. 12 For our “State-level Groundwater Governance and Management in the U.S.—Summary of Survey Results of Groundwater Quality Strategies and Practice”, we surveyed state water professionals primarily from water quality agencies. As summarized in Fig. 3 , respondents identified several groundwater concerns, including impairment of water quality and quantity, staffing and budget issues, health/vulnerability of private well users, and aquifer overdraft, with water quality being the most frequently cited. Contamination of groundwater, especially in agricultural sites but also due to naturally occurring contaminants, was a key concern. Additionally, underground storage tanks, Superfund/CERCLA sites, industrial sites, and septic tanks were noted by many survey respondents. Nitrate and chlorinated solvents were the two most cited contaminants.

Frequency of groundwater concerns listed in the top three by states (Number responding = 48) (based on data from ref. 12 )

Most respondents pointed to the existence of groundwater quality management goals and noted that significant changes to groundwater quality policy occurred in the past decade. Extensive information sharing of groundwater quality data was reported, with most states having groundwater quality standards and a groundwater classification system. States reported multiple sources of funding for water quality programs, with 85% depending at least in part on federal funding. However, states reported challenges associated with decreasing groundwater quality program budgets. Looking to the future, water quality/water level monitoring and increased groundwater pumping were identified as requiring additional attention.

Because both surveys targeted only one respondent per state, should resources be available, additional inquiry and analysis would help validate the results. Nevertheless, the results can indeed be used to portray the richness and diversity of groundwater governance and management issues faced across the US and aid those interested in understanding how experiences elsewhere relate to their own priorities, challenges, and policies.

Considerations of transboundary aquifers and groundwater governance case studies

Groundwater governance and management practices will reflect the geographic reach of aquifers, jurisdictional boundaries, and the rules and regulations set forth by the relevant nation, state, or locality. Special attention must be given to aquifers that cross boundaries (see ref. 13 for a summary of interesting cases and the myriad issues that arise). The almost 600 known transboundary aquifers are mapped by the International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre. 14 The governance of transboundary aquifers must respect the sovereignty of nations, including tribal nations, and their different regulatory frameworks, cultures, and often languages. For over a decade, I have been involved in assessment of aquifers along the US-Mexico border. Collaborative assessment of transboundary aquifers is likely the precursor to transboundary governance and management because it is difficult to manage aquifers that have not been characterized through an agreed-upon methodology. The experiences of the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TAAP) along the US-Mexico border demonstrate the importance of establishing the rules of engagement for binational investigations. The cooperative framework developed for it can serve as a model for others undertaking similar efforts, whether across or within nations. 15

Case study analysis is useful to identifying good practices and determining trends. 16 , 17 While a survey or review of groundwater governance case studies is beyond the scope of this perspective article, a look at the case study section of the released volume, Advances in Groundwater Governance , 18 is instructive. In addition to a chapter by this author and others focusing on the US, 19 the section includes seven case studies from across the globe.

Habermehl explains how national legislation in Australia, the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act of 1999, which explicitly requires protection of groundwater-dependent ecosystems, applies to the Great Artesian Basin. 20 Dinesh Kumar addresses how the sub-regions of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India 21 , the “cereal bowl” of India, face distinct groundwater problems and management challenges due to their different physical, economic, and social characteristics. Two recommendations offered to help the sub-regions move to groundwater sustainability are pro rata pricing of electricity and a water rights system, both in conjunction with each other. Fried et al. 22 consider the evolution of groundwater governance in the European Union and explain how science-policy dialogue over time has extended groundwater governance concerns to include environmental considerations and incorporate the connection between groundwater and surface water. The move from private ownership to public ownership of groundwater was a significant feature of the 1998 South African National Water Act. 23

The chapter on the Middle East-North Africa region expresses pessimism regarding moving to sustainable groundwater governance and management due to ineffective state-level governance and limited participation of water users in improving the frameworks. 24 The authors see continued depletion of groundwater systems, with the concomitant implications for water quality and cost of extraction. Amore 25 emphasizes the multiple levels of actors in his discussion of the transboundary Guarani aquifer, which is shared by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. On the first page of his chapter, Amore emphasizes the complex inter-jurisdictional relationships when he writes about the Guarani Aquifer Project: “…the weakest and most crucial level to foster groundwater governance is the local or municipal level, because it is at this level that all contamination and overexploitation problems of the aquifer really occur. Many expectations are supposed to be resolved after the Guarani Aquifer Agreement’s enforcement; one of them is how regional and national level can effectively support the local level, a critical dimension to mitigate impacts and develop protection strategies to the Guarani Aquifer.” Finally, the chapter by Hirata and Escolero compares and contrasts the groundwater situation for the two largest metropolitan areas in Latin America - São Paulo, Brazil and Mexico City, Mexico. 26 Mexico’s water supply is owned by the federal government, which has a water rights and permitting system and which allows for marketing of water rights. However, there, as in São Paolo, the governance framework is complex and fragmented, with the authors pointing to lack of enforcement capacity and ineffectiveness.

Returning to the US, although US groundwater regulation is determined by the states, some states further delegate authorities or responsibilities to regional districts or other sub-state jurisdictions, the Megdal et al. chapter in the Villholth volume highlights the experiences of two states—an early adopter and a late adopter of state-level groundwater governance frameworks. In 1980, Arizona, my home state, led the way in adopting comprehensive groundwater regulations for areas called Active Management Areas. California, with 38 million people, did not enact a statewide framework for groundwater regulation until 2014. With California being home to one of the largest economies in the world, attention is focused on the implementation of California’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 27 , 28 However, it is too early to report on the effectiveness of this recent legislation.

Neither Villholth et al. nor I can offer a recipe for those striving to achieve sustainable groundwater management. Returning to its local nature, strategies will depend on the local situation, including those related to community norms and values. Villholth et al. provide early acknowledgement of this when, in their Preface to ref. 18 , they state: “The book does not present final conclusions or recommendations as no silver bullets exist for groundwater governance.”

Concluding remarks

Groundwater, the invisible water supply, is becoming more visible in dialogues on the challenges of meeting the world’s food, energy and water needs. The governance and management of this resource will often be at the scale of the source aquifers. Many across the globe are working hard to bring greater attention to the importance of good governance and management of this oftentimes non-renewable resource. As the state-level survey work demonstrates, quality considerations are paramount to those responsible for regulating groundwater. Along with other factors, quality considerations will determine groundwater’s usability. The case studies discussed underscore that groundwater is largely a local resource, with its governance and management vital to the livability and productivity of regions around the globe. Water policymakers, users, researchers, and citizens must focus attention on this invisible water resource before pollution or depletion of it results in severe economic, environmental, and social dislocations.

Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action. Developing a Global Framework for Action. http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/ (accessed 27 July 2018).

Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action. Resources. http://www.groundwatergovernance.org/resources/en/ (accessed 27 July 2018).

Megdal, S. B., Gerlak, A., Varady, R. & Huang, L. Groundwater governance in the United States: common priorities and challenges. Groundwater 53 , 677–684 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Megdal, S.B. The Invisible Water. Arizona Water Resource 24, 7 (2017). https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/The-Invisible-Water_0.pdf .

Alley, W. M., Beutler, L., Campana, M. E., Megdal, S. B. & Tracy, J. C. Groundwater visibility: the missing link. Groundwater 54 , 758–761 (2016).

González Villareal, F., et al. (2016), 4 pp., ISMAR9 Call to Action: Sustainable Groundwater Management Policy Directives, International Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge, Mexico City, June 2016. https://recharge.iah.org/files/2016/08/SUSTAINABLE-DIRECTIVES-ISMAR9-call-to-action.pdf.

Akhmouch, A. & Clavreul, D. Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance: “Practicing What We Preach” with the OECD Water Governance Initiative. Water 2016 8 , 204 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD Water GovernanceInitiative. http://www.oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/water-governance-initiative.htm (accessed 27 July 2018).

Mott Lacroix, K. & Megdal, S. B. Explore, synthesize, and repeat: unraveling complex water management issues through the stakeholder engagement wheel. Water 8 , 118 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

American Water Resources Association (AWRA). AWRA Policy Statements. http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-groundwater.html (2018).

Gerlak, A., Megdal, S. B., Varady, R., & Richards, H., “Groundwater governance in the U.S.: Summary of initial survey results”, May 2013 ( https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/pdfs/GroundwaterGovernanceReport-FINALMay2013.pdf).

Megdal, S. B., Vimont, E., Gerlak, A. K., & Petersen-Perlman, J., “State-level Groundwater Governance and Management in the U.S. – Summary of Survey Results of Groundwater Quality Strategies and Practices”, June 2017 ( http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/files/Survey%20Report_Main_FINAL_June2017(1).pdf.

Fried, J. & Ganoulis, J., (eds.) Transboundary Groundwater Resources: Sustainable Management and Conflict Resolution , LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, Germany 2016, pp. 276.

International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre. Transboundary Aquifers of the World. https://www.un-igrac.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/TBAmap_2015.pdf (2015).

Megdal, S.B. The Cooperative Framework for the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program: A Modelfor Collaborative Transborder Studies. Arizona Water Resource 25 , 1–2, https://wrrc.arizona.edu/sites/wrrc.arizona.edu/files/pub-pol-rev-summer-2017_1.pdf (2017).

Varady, R. G., Zuñiga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K. & Megdal, S. B. Modes, approaches, and lessons learned: a survey of selected cases of groundwater governance across the globe. Water 8 , 417 (2016).

Megdal, S. B. et al. Innovative approaches to collaborative groundwater governance in the United States: case studies from three high-growth regions in the Sun Belt. Environ. Manag. 59 , 718–735 (2017).

Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J. (eds.) Advances in Groundwater Governance , CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017, 594 pp.

Megdal, S. B. et al. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.), Ch. 24, p. 483 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Habermehl, R. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 21, p. 411 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Dinesh Kumar, M. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 22, p. 443 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Fried, J., Quevauviller, P., & Vargas Amelin, A. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 23, p. 463 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Seward, P., & Stephanus du Toit van Dyk, G. in Advancesin Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 25, p. 511 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Molle, F., Closas, A., & Al-Zubari, W. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 26, p. 527 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Amore, L. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 27, p. 555 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Hirata, R. & Escolero, O. in Advances in Groundwater Governance (eds Villholth, K. G., López-Gunn, E., Conti, K., Garrido, A., & van der Gun, J.) Ch. 28, p. 579 (CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, The Netherlands 2017).

Kiparsky, M., Milman, A., Owen, D. & Fisher, A. T. The importance of institutional design for distributed local-level governance of groundwater: the case of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Water 9 , 755, Leiden, The Netherlands (2017).

Babbitt, C. et al. The Future of Groundwater in California: Lessons in Sustainable Management fromAcross the West. Environmental Defense Fund (2018) http://waterforfood.nebraska.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/groundwater-case-study.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks her collaborators and coauthors on the several groundwater projects and papers cited in this article and reviewers of this paper for helpful comments. Partial funding was provided by the University of Arizona Technology and Initiative Fund, the United States Geological Survey, and the Ground Water Research and Education Foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center, Tucson, AZ, USA

Sharon B. Megdal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon B. Megdal .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Megdal, S.B. Invisible water: the importance of good groundwater governance and management. npj Clean Water 1 , 15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-018-0015-9

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2017

Revised : 05 May 2018

Accepted : 10 May 2018

Published : 03 September 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-018-0015-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Combined ert survey and pumping test for correlation analysis of geoelectrical and aquifer parameters in hilly terrain.

• Joseph Tripura

Journal of Earth System Science (2023)

Groundwater zoning and sustainable management strategies for groundwater resources in the Bist-Doab region of Punjab, India

• Anant Gautam
• Suresh Chand Rai

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)

Concrete Structures and Their Impacts on Climate Change and Water and Raw Material Resource Depletion

• Adriana Eštoková
• Martina Wolfová Fabiánová
• Marcela Ondová

International Journal of Civil Engineering (2022)

Impact of anthropogenic activities on the alluvial aquifers of north-east Punjab, India

• Shive Prakash Rai

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2020)

Exploring farmers’ perceptions about their depleting groundwater resources using path analysis: implications for groundwater overdraft and income diversification

• Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi
• Reza Sedaghat

Hydrogeology Journal (2020)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Groundwater: Understanding and Protecting Our Hidden Resource

Published October 18, 2021

Groundwater is one of the most extracted raw materials in the world, providing about half of the drinking water supply worldwide. This source of drinking water is found underground, so unlike the visible lakes and rivers around us, this resource is not something most of us think about very often.

EPA researchers have long studied the fundamentals of groundwater science to protect and restore it, including how water is transported through the subsurface and how contaminants can move underground.

Groundwater supplies are highly dependent on rainfall reaching the ground, and then moving downward through the soil to the aquifer. On natural or planted surfaces, some of the falling rain penetrates the soil, like water percolating through coffee grounds, eventually reaching and replenishing the groundwater stores underground. But often our modern cityscapes, paved roads, parking lots, and other hard surfaces don’t always allow the rain to naturally reach the soil. Instead, it runs off these surfaces to nearby surface waters, or is transported to wastewater treatment plants via sewer systems, where it’s often discharged to surface waters. When groundwater supplies are not replenished by rainfall, the underground storage volume decreases. Incorporating features like rain gardens and permeable pavements is one way to help increase the amount of rainfall reaching the ground, giving the water cycle and groundwater supplies a boost.

EPA researchers are developing applications and tools for understanding processes like groundwater flow models, contaminant transport models, and how different subsurface materials, like different types of rock, affect the movement of both water and contaminants.

As water moves from place to place – whether it’s soaking into the ground in a field, running down a street gutter, or infiltrating through a built system like a rain garden – it can carry along contaminants that it may encounter. Road salts from de-icing operations, oil and gas products from cars, pesticides and lawn fertilizers, heavy metals, litter, and pathogens from animal waste are all present in the environment and can be carried away by water. Regardless of where a pollutant enters our water supply, it can persist as it moves through the water cycle.

“EPA is focused on protecting groundwater to maintain quality sources of drinking water,” said the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water Director, Jennifer McLain. “EPA researchers provide the scientific basis for EPA’s policies and regulations protecting groundwater.”

EPA is also researching the use of stormwater and treated wastewater for aquifer recharge, and how green infrastructure practices and fertilizer applications in agricultural operations can affect groundwater quality.

The movement of water in the water cycle is continuous and connected, and our behaviors and activities are part of that cycle. Groundwater quality and quantity is affected by human activities, both beneficial and harmful. While we can’t see groundwater the way we can see lakes and streams, groundwater shouldn’t be left out of the conversation about clean water or the efforts to protect it.

Read More about EPA’s Groundwater Research:

Science Matters: Over 50 Years of Groundwater Research at EPA’s Kerr Lab in Ada, Oklahoma

Science Matters: Protecting Groundwater Resources within the Arbuckle-Simpson Aquifer in Oklahoma

• Science Matters Home
• Researchers at Work Profiles
• All Stories