Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

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

Research Paper

A two-dimensional analytical model for organic contaminants transport in a T

transition layer-cutoff wall-aquifer system
Xiang-Hong Ding, Shi-Jin Feng , Qi-Teng Zheng, Chun-Hui Peng
⁎

Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092,
China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Cutoff walls are widely used as in-situ vertical barriers to control pollution plumes migration in aquifer. A two-
Cutoff wall dimensional analytical model for the transport of organic contaminants through a layered subsurface system
Two-dimensional transport with a cutoff wall is developed. The model considers a coupled advection-dispersion-adsorption-degradation
Biodegradation process in the whole system and a non-uniform concentration distribution of a contaminant source with respect
Advection
to depth. The solution was effectively validated against a one-dimensional analytical solution and a two-di-
Diffusion
mensional numerical solution. The migration behavior of contaminants in the triple-layer system and the service
Semi-analytical solution
performance of a cutoff wall are investigated. It is demonstrated that the previous one-dimensional contaminant
migration solution would underestimate the polluted ranges but overestimate the migration distance. The
consideration of a non-uniformly distributed contamination source is of great importance, especially for nar-
rowly contaminated aquifer. The biodegradation in a cutoff wall has a significant influence on the transport of an
organic contaminant through the layered system when its half-life in the cutoff wall is less than 5 years, and this
effect would be enhanced when the biodegradation in natural soil is also considered. The proposed model is a
practical tool for performing a comprehensive design of the location and thickness of a cutoff wall.

1. Introduction
Landfills, tailing dams and industrial lands are the primary sources
of soil and water pollution which posed a serious threat to human
health and thus has attracted extensive attention (Liu et al., 2019;
McGrath, 2000; Feng et al., 2019). A low-permeability and high-ad-
sorption subsurface barrier is generally used to impede the migration of
contaminants and protect the surrounding environment, also called a
cutoff wall (Britton et al., 2004; LaGrega et al., 2010; Zhang and Qiu,
2010; Katsumi et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2018). Therefore, studying the
migration characteristics of contaminants is particularly important for
evaluating the antifouling performance of a cutoff wall.
The transport of organic contaminants in a cutoff wall and sur-
rounding natural soil generally involves advection, mechanical disper-
sion, molecular diffusion, adsorption and degradation, which can be
numerically or analytically modelled. Although a numerical method
can model a more complex scenario, an analytical solution with high
computational efficiency can facilitate the analysis of numerous sce-
narios involving wide value ranges of controlling parameters, and allow
the development of a preliminary design method for a cutoff wall.
Initially, several steady-state analytical models have been proposed for
the contaminant migration in a cutoff wall (Britton et al., 2004; Devlin
and Parker, 1996; Neville and Andrews, 2006). However, these models
cannot describe the potential threat of contaminants to the surrounding
environment before reaching a steady state. Thus, many researchers
developed transient analytical solutions and proposed some pre-
liminary methods to design the thickness of a cutoff wall for a target
service life (Xie et al., 2018; Rubin and Rabideau, 2000; Li et al., 2017;
Scelsi et al., 2019; Li and Cleall, 2011; Chen et al., 2018a, 2018b). Li
et al. (2017) provided a series of design charts for contaminant trans-
port through a cutoff wall in terms of dimensionless effluent flux and
concentration. Chen et al. (2018a) and Chen et al. (2018b) proposed
simplified decoupled methods of a contaminant advection–dispersion
governing equation for different boundary conditions and proposed a
design method for the thickness of a cutoff wall. However, these three
studies adopted a single cutoff wall model that ignored the existences of
upstream and downstream aquifers. Thus, Li and Cleall (2011) and Xie
et al. (2018) developed contaminant transport analytical solutions in a
double-layer system with a downstream aquifer, and pointed out that
the scale of the aquifer has an important impact on the service life of a
cutoff wall.
The above analytical researches on cutoff walls were one-

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Si Ping Road 1239, Shanghai 200092, China.
E-mail address: fsjgly@tongji.edu.cn (S.-J. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103816
Received 4 May 2020; Received in revised form 24 August 2020; Accepted 27 August 2020
0266-352X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 1. Contaminants transport through a transition layer-cutoff wall-aquifer system: (a) schematic diagram; (b) mathematical model.
dimensional (1D) in the horizontal direction by assuming a constant-
concentration contaminant source with respect to depth. Nevertheless,
many in-situ field tests and laboratory tests have observed a non-uni-
form distribution of contaminant concentration along depth (Abdel-
Nasser et al., 2011; Anneser et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2008; Zhan et al.,
2014). For an organic contaminant, its biodegradation in soils has been
identified as particularly important by Mitchell and Santamarina
(2005). Moreover, a cutoff wall is generally constructed at a certain
distance away from a contaminant source in practice to avoid acci-
dental leakage during construction (Filz and Mitchell, 1996), and this
forms an upstream transition layer of natural soil. All the above three
factors should be considered for reasonably evaluating the service
performance of a cutoff wall against an organic contaminant source.
The main purpose of this study is to develop a two-dimensional (2D)
organic contaminant migration analytical model involving advection,
dispersion, adsorption and degradation in a layered system consisting of
an upstream transition layer, a cutoff wall and a downstream aquifer
(Fig. 1a). A non-uniformly distributed contaminant source with depth is
considered and its effect on the service performance of a cutoff wall is
characterized, as well as the 2D contaminant transport behavior in this
2
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
layered system. Finally, a new and comprehensive design idea for the
location and thickness of a cutoff wall is proposed by examining a wide
range of geometric parameters.
2. Mathematical model
2.1. Basic assumptions
The layered system that is adopted in this study is composed of a
transition layer of natural soil, a cutoff wall and an aquifer, with a non-
uniformly distributed contaminant source at the left boundary and a
river/stream at the right boundary (Fig. 1b). A 2D Cartesian coordinate
system (x, z) with the x-axis rightward and z-axis downward is adopted.
The thickness of the transition layer is denoted as Ltl which also re-
presents the distance of the cutoff wall to the contaminant source, and
the thicknesses of the cutoff wall and the aquifer are denoted as Lcw and
La, respectively. The total thickness and height of this triple-layer
system are x3 = Ltl + Lcw + La and H, respectively.
In order to facilitate the development of an advection–dispersion-
adsorption-degradation mathematical model, the following basic
X.-H. Ding, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816

assumptions were adopted: It was assumed that the layered system has not been contaminated
in the beginning and the initial condition can be written as:
(1) The transition layer, cutoff wall and aquifer were assumed as sa-
Ci (x , z, t = 0) = 0 (8)
turated, homogeneous and isotropic.
(2) The concentration of a contaminant source was assumed as an ar- The inlet boundary condition on the left side (x = 0) was expressed
bitrary function of depth z and time t at the inlet boundary (x = 0). as a concentration function of depth z and time t as:
(3) Contaminant diffusion in both vertical and horizontal directions
were considered, as well as the advection in the horizontal direction Ctl (x = 0, z , t ) = Cin (z , t ) (9)
under steady groundwater flow. where Cin (z, t) represents the concentration of a contaminant source,
(4) Contaminant adsorption was assumed as liner, instantaneous and which is a product of an depth-dependent function f(z) and a time-de-
reversible (Xie et al., 2018). pendent function g(t), i.e., Cin (z, t) = f(z) × g(t).
(5) The first-order biodegradation reaction model of organic con- A flushing boundary (i.e., zero concentration boundary) was
taminants was adopted (Williams and Tomasko, 2008). adopted to describe the outlet boundary of river and stream for a
conservation design of a cutoff wall (Li et al., 2017; Rabideau and
2.2. Mathematical model development Khandelwal, 1998). Thus, the right boundary of the system (x = x3) can
be expressed as:
Based on above assumptions, the contaminant transport in the
proposed triple-layer system can be mathematically described by 2D Ca (x = x3, z, t ) = 0 (10)
coupled advection–dispersion-adsorption-degradation equations as fol-
For a scenario without river or stream around the barrier, Eq. (10)
lows (Zheng et al., 2002; Zhan et al., 2009):
can be degenerated to a semi-infinite aquifer boundary using a positive
For the transition layer (denoted as ‘tl’; 0 ≤ x ≤ x1; x1 = Ltl)
infinite x3, i.e., Ca(x = +∞, z, t) = 0 adopted by Xie et al. (2018).
Ctl 2C
tl Ctl 2C
tl The upper boundary (z = 0) adjacent to atmosphere/vadose zone
Rd,tl = Dx, tl vtl + Dz, tl tl Ctl
t x2 x z2 (1) and the bottom boundary (z = H) adjacent to a low-permeability
aquitard were assumed as zero mass flux:
For the cutoff wall (denoted as ‘cw’; x1 ≤ x ≤ x2; x2 = Ltl + Lcw)
Ccw 2C Ccw 2C Ci (x , z = 0, t )
cw cw =0
Rd, cw = Dx,cw vcw + Dz ,cw cw Ccw x (11)
t x2 x z2 (2)
For the aquifer (denoted as ‘a’; x2 ≤ x ≤ x3; x3 = Ltl + Lcw + La) Ci (x , z = H , t )
=0
2C 2C x (12)
Ca Ca
Rd,a = Dx , a 2a va + Dz, a 2a a Ca
t x x z (3) The continuity conditions of contaminant concentration and mass
−3
where Ci [ML ] (i = tl, cw, a) represents the contaminant con- flux at layer interfaces should be satisfied as follows:
centration in layer i, which is a function of position (x, z) [L] and time t For the interface between the transition layer and the cutoff wall
[T]; Rd,i [dimensionless] is the sorption retardation factor of layer i; Dx,i (x = x1)
[L2T−1] and Dz,i [L2T−1] represent the horizontal and vertical hydro- Ctl (x = x1, z, t ) = Ccw (x = x1, z , t ) (13a)
dynamic dispersion coefficients of layer i, respectively; vi [LT−1] is the
steady-state seepage velocity of layer i; and λi [T−1] is the first-order Ctl (x = x 1, z, t )
n tl Dtl + n tl vtl Ctl (x = x1, z , t )
degradation constant for an organic contaminant in layer i. x
Ccw (x = x 1, z , t )
The hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients (Dx,i and Dz,i) can be es- = n cw Dcw x
+ n cw vcw Ccw (x = x1, z , t) (13b)
timated by the molecular diffusion coefficient (Di*) and the mechanical
dispersion coefficients (Dmx,i) of a porous medium as follows For the interface between the cutoff wall and the aquifer (x = x2)
(Shackelford and Daniel, 1991): Ccw (x = x2 , z, t ) = Ca (x = x2 , z, t ) (14a)
Dx, i = Di + Dmx, i , Dz , i = Di (4)
Ccw (x = x 2, z , t )
n cw Dcw + ncw vcw Ccw (x = x2 , z, t )
where the Di* [L2T−1] equals to the product of the molecular diffusion x

coefficient of an contaminant in a free solution D0 [L2T−1] and the = na Da

Ca (x = x 2, z , t )
+ na va Ca (x = x2 , z, t ) (14b)
x
tortuosity factor of a porous medium τi [dimensionless]; and Dmx,i = αivi
where αi [L] is the dispersivity. Many in-situ tests showed that as the In addition, water mass balance at the two layer interface (x = x1, x
travelling distance x increases, the αi gradually increases before = x2) requires that the Darcy velocity vd = nivi should be satisfied
reaching a constant and it can be described by an empirical relationship where ni is the porosity of layer i. The vd also can be expressed as a
proposed by Gelhar et al. (1992) as follows: product of average permeability kd and hydraulic gradient i of cutoff
wall-aquifer system. In this case, kd can be written as (Feng et al.,
x2
100
m, x 100m 2019):
= 100m, x > 100m (5)
L tl + Lcw + La
kd =
The sorption retardation factor Rd,i and the first-order degradation L tl k tl + Lcw k cw + La ka (15)
constant λi can be expressed as:

d, i K d, i
R d, i = 1 + 2.3. Semi-analytical solution
ni (6)

ln 2 Applying the Laplace transform (Widder, 2015):

i =
t1 2, i (7) +
st dt
g (s ) = L (g (t )) = g (t ) e (16)
−3 3 −1 0
where ρd,i [ML ] is the dry density of a porous medium; Kd,i [L M ]
is the distribution coefficient; and t1/2,i is the half-life of an organic to the governing equations of the system (Eqs. (1)–(3)) yields the cor-
contaminant. responding expression in the Laplace domain

3
X.-H. Ding, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816

2C (x , z ,
i s) Ci (x , z, s ) 2C (x , z ,
i s) cw _ tl = ntl Dx,tl n cw Dx ,cw (28c)
Dx , i vi + Dz , i
x2 x z2
a_ cw = n cw Dx ,cw na Dx , a (28d)
(Rd, i s + i ) Ci (x , z, s ) = 0 (17)
Applying the transfer matrix method to Eqs. (26) and (27), the re-
where Ci (x , z, s ) is the Laplace transform of Ci (x , z, t ) , and s is the La-
lationship between the undetermined coefficients of the transition layer
place transform parameter.
and the aquifer layer is formulated as:
Applying the finite cosine transform (Bracewell, 1986):
Aa Atl A
f (k ) = Fc [f (z )] =
2 H
f (z )cos(k z H ) dz = Sa_ cw Scw _ tl = M tl
H 0 (18) Ba Btl Btl (29)

to the governing equation in the Laplace domain (Eq. (17)) yields Substituting the general solution of Eq. (24) into the inlet (x = 0)
and outlet (x = x3) boundary conditions of Eqs. (20) and (21) yields:
2C (x , k, s ) Ci (x , k, s )
i
Dx , i vi (Rd, i s + i + k 2 2Dz, i H 2 ) Ci (x , k , s ) Ctl (x = 0, k , s ) = Atl + Btl = f (k ) g (s ) (30)
x2 x
=0 (19)
Ca (x = x3, k, s ) = Aa e a x3 + Ba e a x3 =0 (31)
where Ci (x , k, s ) is the finite cosine transform of Ci (x , z, s ) , and k is the
corresponding transform parameter. By solving Eqs. (30) and (31), the undetermined coefficients (Atl and
Using these two transform techniques (Eqs. (16) and (18)), the inlet Btl) of the transition layer are calculated as:
and outlet boundary conditions (Eqs. (9) and (10)) and the continuity M12 e a x3 + M22 e a x 3
conditions at the layer interfaces (Eqs. (13) and (14)) can be rewritten Atl (M12 M11) e a x3 + (M22 M21) e a x 3
= f (k ) g (s )
in the Laplace-finite cosine transform domain as follows: Btl M11 e a x 3 M21 e a x 3
For the inlet and outlet boundary conditions (M12 M11) e a x3 + (M22 M21) e a x 3 (32)

Ctl (x = 0, k , s ) = f (k ) g (s ) (20) where Mij denotes the element in the i-th row and j-th column of the M
matrix in Eq. (29), and the undetermined coefficients of the cutoff wall
Ca (x = x3, k, s ) = 0 (21) and the aquifer (Acw, Bcw, Aa, Ba) can be obtained by employing the
transfer matrices of Eq. (29).
For the continuity conditions of concentration and mass flux at the
In this way, the six coefficients of the general solution in the
layer interfaces
Laplace-finite cosine domain have been obtained, and then applying the
Ctl (x = x1, k, s ) = Ccw (x = x1, k, s ) (22a) finite cosine inverse transform to the general solution of each layer (Eq.
(29)) yields:
Ctl (x = x1, k, s ) C (x = x1, k, s ) For the transition layer (0 ≤ x ≤ x1)
ntl Dtl = ncw Dcw cw
x x (22b) +
1
Ctl (x , z , s ) = (Atl e tl (k = 0, s ) x + Btl e tl (k = 0, s ) x )+ (Atl e tl x

Ccw (x = x2 , k, s ) = Ca (x = x2 , k , s ) (23a) 2 k=1

k z
Ccw (x = x2 , k , s ) C (x = x2 , k , s )
+ Btl e tl x ) cos
ncw Dcw = na Da a H (33)
x x (23b)
For the cutoff wall (x1 ≤ x ≤ x2)
The general solution to the governing equation (Eq. (19)) in the
1
transform domain is: Ccw (x , z , s ) = (Acw e cw (k = 0, s ) x + Bcw e cw (k = 0, s ) x )
2
+
Ci (x , k, s ) = Ai e ix + Bi e ix (24) k z
+ (Acw e cw x + Bcw e cw x ) cos
where Ai and Bi are the undetermined integration coefficients, and k=1 H (34)

vi2 + 4Dx , i (Rd, i s + + k2 2Dz , i ) (2Dx , i ) For the aquifer (x2 ≤ x ≤ x3)
i, i = i ± i (25)
+
Substituting the general solution of Eq. (24) into the continuity 1
Ca (x , z, s ) = (A a e a (k = 0, s ) x + Ba e a (k = 0, s ) x )+ (A a e ax

conditions of Eqs. (22) and (23), the relationships between the un- 2 k=1
determined coefficients [Ai, Bi]T of adjacent layers can be written in the k z
form of matrices as:
+ Ba e ax ) cos
H (35)
A cw
= Scw _ tl
Atl Since Ai, αi and βi in Eqs. (33)–(35) are expressed as complex
Bcw Btl (26) functions of s, Laplace numerical inversion method is required to obtain
the solutions in real time domain. This study adopts the Talbot’s version
Aa Acw algorithm (Talbot, 1979) to solve Eqs. (33)–(35), which is a great tool
= Sa_ cw
Ba Bcw (27) for handling contaminant transport problems as recommended by
where Wang et al. (2015).

1
Scw _ tl = 3. Model verification
cw cw

( cw cw _ tl tl ) e
( tl cw ) x 1 ( cw cw _ tl tl ) e
( tl cw ) x 1 A 1D analytical solution for contaminant transport through a
( cw ) e
( cw ) x1 ( cw ) e
( cw ) x 1 double-layer system reported by Li and Cleall (2011) is chosen to verify
(28a)
tl
cw _ tl tl cw _ tl tl
tl
the present solution. The proposed 2D triple-layer model can be de-
( ( cw a ) x2 ( cw a ) x2 generated to a 1D double-layer model by assuming a zero vertical hy-
1 a a_ cw cw ) e ( a a_ cw cw ) e
Sa_ cw = drodynamic dispersion coefficient, a zero thick transition layer and a
( a_ cw ) e ( cw a ) x2 ( a_ cw (
a ) e cw a ) x2
a a cw a cw constant contaminant concentration of 1 mg/L at the inlet boundary.
(28b) For the remaining cutoff wall and aquifer, the thickness, porosity,

4
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 2. Comparison of the present solutions with existing solutions: (a) reported
by Li and Cleall (2011); (b) calculated by COMSOL 5.3.
sorption retardation factor and Darcy’s velocity were set as 0.5 m, 0.4,
2, and 4 × 10−9 m/s respectively, with a zero first-order degradation
constant of an organic contaminant. The horizontal hydrodynamic
dispersion coefficient of the cutoff wall was set as 5 × 10−9 m2/s, and
several typical values of horizontal hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient
of the aquifer layer (i.e., 2.5 × 10−9, 5 × 10−9, 10 × 10−9,
20 × 10−9, 40 × 10−9 m2/s) were adopted. An initial condition of
zero concentration (t = 0) in the cutoff wall and aquifer were adopted.
The results show that the contaminant concentration profiles at
t = 2 years obtained by the proposed solution agree well with those in
the reference (Li and Cleall, 2011) (Fig. 2(a)).
The proposed solution is also verified by the commercial software
COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3 (Multiphysics, 2017) in terms of a con-
taminant concentration distribution at 100 years in 2D domain using
the following parameters (Xie et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2019; Wang
et al., 2016) (the subscripts of tl, cw, a refer to the transition layer,
cutoff wall and aquifer, respectively):
(1) Thickness Li: Ltl = 2 m, Lcw = 1 m, La = 10 m; Height H = 10 m;
(2) Darcy velocity v: v = 2 × 10−9 m/s; Porosity n: ntl, = 0.5,
ncw = 0.4, na = 0.5;
(3) Horizontal hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients Dx,i:
Dx,tl = 1.5 × 10−9 m2/s, Dx,cw = 5 × 10−10 m2/s,
Dx,a = 1.5 × 10−9 m2/s; Vertical hydrodynamic dispersion
5
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
coefficients Dz,i: Dz,tl, = 1.2 × 10−9 m2/s, Dz,cw = 4 × 10−10 m2/s,
Dz,a = 1.2 × 10−9 m2/s;
(4) Sorption retardation factor Rd,i: Rd,tl = 1, Rd,cw = 15, Rd,a = 1;
(5) Half-life of an organic contaminant in each layer t1/2,i: t1/
2,i = 100 years;
(6) Contaminant concentration at the inlet boundary (x = 0): Ctl = exp
((-z-5)2/2); and initial concentration (t = 0) in the triple-layer
system Ci = 0.
The results obtained using these two methods are in good agreement
(Fig. 2b), providing confidence in the accuracy of the proposed analy-
tical solution.
4. Two-dimensional transport behavior of contaminants
4.1. Non-uniform distribution of source concentration
A uniform concentration distribution of contaminant source was
generally assumed, i.e., a constant concentration C0 in the previous
work. However, this concentration distribution is non-uniform with
depth in practice and shows certain regularity. Parker et al. (2008)
drilled core samples at a contaminated site of trichloroethylene (TCE) in
Florida, USA, and found that the distributions of TCE concentration
with depth can be well fitted by a Gaussian function of
f = f0 + A × exp(-(z-μ)/2σ2), where f0, A, μ and σ are the initial value,
amplitude, expected value and variance (Fig. 3(a)). Many other field
tests and laboratory soil column tests (Abdel-Nasser et al., 2011;
Anneser et al., 2008; Zhan et al., 2014) showed similar results with
different parameters, that is, using a Gaussian function to fit a con-
centration distribution with depth (Fig. 3(b)-(d)). Therefore, the stan-
dard Gaussian function C = Cin,max × exp(-(z-μ)/2σ2) was adopted in
this study for depicting a non-uniform contaminant concentration dis-
tribution, where amplitude Cin,max is the maximum concentration of a
contaminant source; expected value μ is the position corresponding to
Cin,max, and variance σ is the distribution range of the high concentra-
tion. Based on the laboratory and field tests in Fig. 3, the values of μ and
σ vary in a wide range of [0, 16.34] and [0.07, 6.28], respectively,
depending on the soil properties and pollution history. Thus, typical
values in these ranges are adopted in the following analysis.
4.2. Comparison with the existing one-dimensional cases
As mentioned in section Introduction, 1D horizontal transport of a
contaminant through a barrier was generally assumed in the previous
studies neglecting vertical diffusion, which could cause some inevitable
errors in predicting the contaminant migration behavior. Hence, this
section compares 2D migration (termed as Case A and C) and 1D mi-
gration (termed as Case B and D) of a contaminant in a transition layer-
cutoff wall-aquifer system, together with investigating the effect of
hydraulic gradient.
When hydraulic gradient i = 0.5 (Fig. 4(a) and (b)), the pollution
plume is controlled by the cutoff wall, thus avoiding contaminating the
downstream aquifer. The pollution plume of 2D migration shows a fan-
shaped distribution (Case A in Fig. 4(a)), while the plume of 1D mi-
gration is approximately rectangular (Case B in Fig. 4(b)). Furthermore,
comparing to Case B, Case A has a lower relative concentration maxi-
mally by 0.44 in the plume centerline (z = 5 m) but has a higher re-
lative concentration maximally by 0.17 in the vicinity of the plume
centerline (z = 5 ± 1.2 m) as shown in Fig. 4(c). This is due to the
contaminant transport from the high concentrations in plume centerline
to the low concentrations in adjacent areas via vertical diffusion.
Moreover, the 1D migration assumption might underestimate the ser-
vice life of the barrier depending on the source concentration dis-
tribution and the breakthrough criteria of a barrier (discussed in
Section 5.1). When the hydraulic gradient increases to i = 1 (Fig. 4(d)
and (e)), the contaminants break through the cutoff wall and enter the
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 3. Variation of contaminant concentration along depth in in-situ test and laboratory test.
aquifer, indicating that the hydraulic gradients is an important con-
trolling measure to prolong the service time of a cutoff wall. Comparing
to 2D migration situation (Case C in Fig. 4(d)), 1D migration solution
(Case D in Fig. 4(e)) underestimates the polluted ranges but over-
estimates the migration distance of contaminants in the aquifer. This
incorrect estimation would cause difficulty in the selection and design
of subsequent remediation of aquifer pollution. If advection was ne-
glected (i = 0) as presented in (Peng et al., 2020), most of the con-
taminants will be blocked in front of the barrier entrance (Case E in
Fig. 4(g)). The plume of 2D diffusion shows an approximate rectangle
with a wider polluted ranges in depth direction compared to a scenario
of advection–diffusion shown in Fig. 4(a) or 4(d). It arises because
horizontal advection can significantly reduce the vertical dilution of
contaminants. There is a smaller difference value of relative
6
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
concentration between 1D diffusion and 2D diffusion shown in Fig. 4(i))
due to a slower 1D migration without advection of contaminant.
Therefore, a two-dimensional migration model with advection plays an
important role in predicting transport behavior of contaminants.
5. Assessment of service performance of a cutoff wall
Once leaked contaminants break through the low-permeability and
high-adsorption cutoff wall, the surrounding environment and residents
will be greatly threatened. Hence, it is particularly important to assess
the service performance of a cutoff wall by calculating the maximum
contaminant concentration at the outlet boundary of the wall (Ccw,max).
Toluene (TOL) is selected as the targeted organic contaminant in the
following study. The typical concentration value of TOL in landfill
X.-H. Ding, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816

Fig. 4. Comparison of the relative concentration between 2D migration and 1D migration of contaminants: (a-c) hydraulic gradient i = 0.5; (d-f) hydraulic gradient
i = 1; (g-i) hydraulic gradient i = 0, i.e., diffusion case.

Table 1 leachate was recommended as 10 mg/L (Bonaparte et al., 2002) which

Geometric and material parameters of the transition layer, cutoff wall and is the maximum inlet concentration of the system (Cin,max). According
aquifer (Xie et al., 2018; Parker et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2019). to the United States drinking water regulations, the upper limit of TOL
Parameters Transition layer Cutoff wall Aquifer concentration in aquifer, i.e., the maximum concentration at the outlet
of a cutoff wall (Ccw,max) is 1 mg/L (USEPA, 2009). Thus, a break-
Thickness L (m) 2 1 10 through standard of relative concentration Ccw,max/Cin,max = 0.1 is
Height H (m) 10 10 10
select to estimate the potential service time (also call breakthrough time
Permeability coefficient k 6.7 × 10−8 1.8 × 10−10 6.7 × 10−8
(m/s) tb) of a cutoff wall. The parameters for each layer are listed in Table 1,
Molecular diffusion 8.47 × 10−10 8.47 × 10−10 8.47 × 10−10 and both transition layer and aquifer have same parameter values with
coefficient D0 (m2/s) natural soil layer.
Dry density ρd (g/cm3) 1.55 1.7 1.55
Distribution coefficient Kd 0 4.45 0
(mL/g) 5.1. Effect of concentration distribution of a contaminant source
Half-life t1/2 (year) +∞ +∞ +∞
Dispersivity α 0.04 0.01 1
As mentioned above, the standard Gaussian function
Tortuosity factor τ 0.5 0.1 0.5
Porosity n 0.47 0.42 0.47 C = Cin,max × exp(-(z-μ)/2σ2) was adopted to represent a non-uniform
contaminant concentration at the inlet boundary of transition layer.
Three key parameters of the amplitude Cin,max, expected value μ and

7
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 5. Influence of concentration distribution of contaminant source (different
values of μ and σ) on relative contaminant concentration at the exit of cutoff
wall.
variance σ of a contaminant source concentration will be discussed
below.
When the distribution range of the high concentration remains un-
changed (fixed σ value), the breakthrough curves for different values of
expected value μ overlap with each other (Fig. 5). This indicates that
the breakthrough time of a cutoff wall is independent of the position
where the maximum concentration Cin,max lies. As the σ value increases
from 0.2 to infinite, i.e., from a narrowly distributed contaminant
source to a uniformly distributed source in the vertical direction, the
relative concentration at the outlet boundary of a cutoff wall Ccw,max/
Cin,max increases and the breakthrough time tb decreases accordingly
(tb = 105, 93, 89, 87 years corresponding to the cases of σ = 0.2, 0.5, 1,
+∞, respectively). A scenario with σ = +∞ corresponds to a uni-
formly distributed source in the depth direction, which is equivalent to
a 1D migration scenario. It can be inferred that the assumption of 1D
migration would underestimate the breakthrough time and the service
life of a cutoff wall because contaminant dilution in the vertical di-
rection was ignored. A Gaussian distribution of source concentration
with μ = 5 and σ = 1 is employed in the following.
5.2. Effect of contaminant degradation
To analyze the influence of contaminant degradation, continuous
variation in the half-life of TOL in a cutoff wall, t1/2,cw, was investigated
(Fig. 6). The dotted line indicates the critical breakthrough curve of a
cutoff wall for different values of t1/2,cw under the breakthrough stan-
dard of Ccw,max/Cin,max = 0.1. The relative contaminant concentration
on the right side of the line is great than the breakthrough standard,
while the left side of the line is the opposite. Without the degradation of
TOL in natural soil layers, i.e., t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = +∞ (Fig. 6(a)), the half-
life of TOL in a cutoff wall, t1/2,cw has a significant impact on the
breakthrough time tb at t1/2,cw < 5 years, but has a slight impact on tb
at t1/2,cw > 5 years. For example, the t1/2,cw decreases from 147 to
109 years as the breakthrough time tb increases from 2 to 5 years, but it
merely reduces by 4 years as the tb further increases from 5 to 10 years.
A similar phenomenon was observed in Guan et al. (2014) where the
breakthrough curve of a GCL/SL landfill liner system would be sig-
nificantly affected by the degradation of a contaminant when its half-
life in GCL is less than 1 year. With the degradation of TOL in natural
soil layers, e.g., t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 year (Fig. 6(b)), the t1/2,cw would
8
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
Fig. 6. Influence of t1/2,cw on relative contaminant concentration at the exit of
cutoff wall: (a) t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = +∞; (b) t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 year.
have a great effect on tb at the range of t1/2,cw < 10 years
(tb = 141 years for t1/2,cw = 5 years and tb = 124 years for t1/
2,cw = 10 years). This indicates the degradation of TOL in natural soil
layers can increase the influence region of TOL degradation in the
cutoff wall on the breakthrough time due to the greater difference in
degradation between the cutoff wall and the natural soil in case of t1/
2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 years and t1/2,cw = +∞ (initial state). In addition, the
breakthrough time tb of the case of t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 years (Fig. 6(b))
is longer than that of the case of t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = +∞ (Fig. 6(a)) due to
the decreased concentration caused by the degradation of TOL in the
transition layer.
Several values of t1/2,cw are selected to investigate the influence of
contaminant degradation in a cutoff wall on the total mass flux of TOL
(TMFcw) that is the integral value of the mass flux along the depth at the
outlet boundary of the wall (Fig. 7). When the time increases, TMFcw
first increases to the peak value and then decreases to a stable value at
t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = +∞ (Fig. 7(a)). The increase stage of TMFcw means an
increase in the concentration difference between the inlet and outlet of
the cutoff wall that is caused by the continuous accumulation of con-
taminants passing through the transition layer. The decreased TMFcw is
due to the increased contaminant concentration at the outlet of the
cutoff wall with the existence of the aquifer. For a double-layer landfill
liner system without aquifer, the mass flux at the bottom would gra-
dually increase to a steady-state over time without a decrease (Xie et al.,
2013). Moreover, with an increase in t1/2,cw, the TMFcw increases but
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 7. Influence of t1/2,cw on total mass flux at the exit of cutoff wall: (a) t1/
2,tl = t1/2,a = +∞; (b) t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 year.
with the peak value approximately occurring at the same time. It arises
because the reduced degradation can increase the total amount of TOL,
but has a negligible effect on the flow of pollution plumes. Compared to
Fig. 7(a), Fig. 7(b) shows that the peak of TMFcw disappears and its
maximum is greater at t1/2,tl = t1/2,a = 10 year. In order to reveal the
independent effect of contaminant degradation in a transition layer and
an aquifer, several typical values of t1/2,tl (or t1/2,a) are applied in
Fig. 8(a) (or Fig. 8(b)) with t1/2,a (or t1/2,tl) being unchanged. As the
degradation of a contaminant in the transition layer becomes faster, i.e.,
a decreased t1/2,tl, the TMFcw values decrease but the time corre-
sponding to a peak value almost remains unchanged (Fig. 8(a)). This
indicates that the transition layer and cutoff wall play a similar role in
decreasing the total mass flux at the exit of cutoff wall regarding to
contaminant degradation. However, slower contaminant degradation in
the aquifer, i.e., a decreased t1/2,a results in increasing values of TMFcw
and disappearance of TMFcw peak. Thus, the disappearance of TMFcw
peak in Fig. 7 is primarily controlled by the contaminant degradation in
the aquifer which creates a large concentration difference between the
inlet and outlet of the cutoff wall.
To analyze the influence of the degradation of organic contaminant
in the source, the concentration function is written as
C = Cin,max × exp(-(z-μ)/2σ2) × exp(-λst) where λs = ln2/t1/2,s (Chen
9
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
Fig. 8. Influence of (a) t1/2,tl and (b) t1/2,a on total mass flux at the exit of cutoff
wall.
et al., 2009) (Fig. 9). In Fig. 9(a), a scenario without the degradation of
source, i.e., t1/2,s = +∞, the relative concentration Ccw,max/Cin,max
increases to a stable value, but with the existence of contaminant de-
gradation in the source, the Ccw,max/Cin,max shows a gradually decrease
after reaching a peak value and a smaller value of t1/2,s gives a more
significant decrease. Meanwhile, the degradation of source can greatly
affect the time corresponding to the concentration peak, but has neg-
ligible effect on the time corresponding to the flux peak (Fig. 9(b)). The
faster the contaminant degradation in the source, the smaller the total
mass flux at the outlet of the cut off wall when reaching a steady state.
In terms of contaminant concentration and flux, the t1/2,s has a slight
effect before the peak value but a significant effect after the peak.
To sum up, the contaminant degradation plays an important role in
the service life and exit mass flux of a barrier.
5.3. Effect of location and thickness of a cutoff wall
The breakthrough time tb of a cutoff wall almost linearly increases
with an increase in the wall thickness Lcw, which also affected by the
wall permeability kcw (Fig. 10(a)). When the thickness Lcw increases
from 0.6 to 1.2 m, the breakthrough time tb increases by 167 years (or
24 years) for kcw = 1 × 10−10 m/s (or 8 × 10−10 m/s). This indicates
X.-H. Ding, et al.
Fig. 9. Influences of t1/2,s on (a) relative contaminant concentration and (b)
total mass flux at the exit of cutoff wall.
that an increase in the thickness of a cutoff wall together with a de-
crease in its permeability can significantly improve its resistance to
TOL. The effect of wall permeability kcw on the breakthrough time tb is
greater for a thicker cutoff wall due to a more obvious retardation for a
thicker wall. For the location of a cutoff wall, its influence on the
breakthrough time tb is slight at high values of wall permeability but
significant at low values of wall permeability (Fig. 10(b)). For example,
as the distance between the wall and the contaminant source x1 in-
creases from 0 to 6 m, the tb increases from 23 to 31 years for
kcw = 8 × 10−10 m/s but for kcw = 1 × 10−10 m/s it increases from
140 to 207 years. These phenomena indicate that the wall permeability
plays an important role in the service performance of a barrier and the
service life of a low-permeability cutoff wall can be significantly im-
proved by increasing its thickness and the distance to the contaminant
source.
6. Comprehensive design for location and thickness of a cutoff
wall
The design of thickness and location of a vertical barrier is influ-
enced by many factors, such as the target service life of the wall, trench
excavation equipment, locations of surrounding buildings and
10
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
Fig. 10. Influence of (a) Lcw and (b) x1 on breakthrough time of cutoff wall for
different permeability coefficient of cutoff wall Kcw.
residents, and expense budget for containment of contaminated sites
(Filz and Mitchell, 1996). Nevertheless, it is still indispensable to per-
form a preliminary design of a barrier for a given service life, and nu-
merous studies have focused on its thickness but ignored its location
(Britton et al., 2004; Xie et al., 2018; Rubin and Rabideau, 2000; Li
et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Rabideau and
Khandelwal, 1998). This section will give a comprehensive design
thought for the location and thickness of a cutoff wall.
For several different breakthrough times of a cutoff wall tb, the
corresponding combinations of critical wall thickness Lcw,c and location
x1,c are depicted by dashed line in Fig. 11(a). For example, the break-
through time of a 0.9-meter-thick cutoff wall next to the contaminant
source (reference point A: Lcw,c = 0.9 m; x1,c = 0) is approximately
70 years. The service life of 100 years can be achieved by the following
three approaches. The first way is only to increase the wall thickness
Lcw (A → B) by approximately 0.2 m, and the second way is to directly
increase the distance between the wall to the contaminant source x1
(A → C) by approximately 6 m. This indicates that it is much more
effective to improve the resistance to TOL by increasing the wall
thickness than increasing the distance away from the contaminant
X.-H. Ding, et al. Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816

characteristics and anisotropy of soils due to sedimentation and con-

solidation. The contaminant migration through a cut-off wall is re-
stricted to a steady groundwater flow without vertical advection, but a
conservative design can be achieved with this assumption. The present
model also assumes linear and equilibrium sorption and first-order
biodegradation of an organic contaminant in soils, which cannot be
applied to seriously contaminated sites with unstable degradation
products. Zero mass flux boundary conditions are applied in the upper
and bottom boundary based on the assumptions that the liquid-phase
contaminants can hardly enter the atmosphere zone through the upper
surface of an aquifer and/or penetrate a low-permeability aquitard.
Zero concentration boundary condition is assumed at the outlet con-
sidering the flushing effect of river, and if the downstream aquifer is
blocked by subsurface structures, a Neumann boundary condition is
more appropriate. Moreover, the model adopts a non-point pollution
source referring to contaminated sites, while for to-be-contaminated
sites internal point pollution sources should be adopted and would be
studied in the future. Overall, although the proposed semi-analytical
solution has the above limitations, it is still valuable for the perfor-
mance evaluation and the design of a cut-off wall considering a tran-
sition layer on the left and an aquifer on the right.

8. Conclusion

An analytical model was developed to investigate 2D transport of

contaminants in a cutoff wall and adjacent aquifer system considering a
non-uniform distribution of source concentration with respect to depth.
This model can describe the transient advection–dispersion-adsorption-
degradation processes in the whole system, and has been validated
against a 1D analytical solution reported by Li et al. (2017) and a 2D
numerical result calculated by COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3. By examining
the effects of several important factors, the following conclusions were
drawn:

Fig. 11. Influence of Lcw and x1 on (a) breakthrough time of cutoff wall and (b)
(1) The assumption of 1D contaminant migration would underestimate
cumulative mass discharged at the exit of cutoff wall. the polluted ranges but overestimate the migration distance of a
contaminant, leading to difficulty in the selection and design of
subsequent remediation of aquifer pollution.
source. However, the wall thickness is limited by trench excavation
(2) For a non-uniformly distributed contamination source with depth
equipment and the amount of backfill material. Hence, simultaneously
(i.e., σ = 0.2), the breakthrough time of a cutoff wall is 18 years
increasing Lcw and x1 can be a more practical choice (A → D) by esti-
longer than that for a uniformly distributed source (i.e., σ = +∞).
mating the increments of △Lcw and △x1. Fig. 11(b) then analyzes the
It demonstrates that assuming a uniformly distributed contamina-
effects of Lcw and x1 on the cumulative mass discharged (CMD) that is
tion source is overly conservative in practice, especially for a nar-
the integral value of the total mass flux of TOL (TMFcw) over time at the
rowly contaminated aquifer.
outlet boundary of the wall. The thickness increment of 0.2 m (A → B)
(3) The biodegradation has a significant influence on the breakthrough
reduces the CMD from 12.85 g/m to 1.307 g/m (by 89.8%), while the
time of a cutoff wall when the half-life of TOL is less than 5 years,
way of A → C decreases the CMD by 98.9% indicating that increasing in
and furthermore, it greatly affects the value of total mass flux at
the distance between the wall and a contaminant source plays a more
outlet of cutoff wall but slightly changes the position of its peak
important role in reducing the total mass of contaminants migrating
value.
into aquifer. The dotted line BC represents different combinations of
(4) The proposed model is a practical tool for performing a compre-
Lcw,c and x1,c of a cutoff wall for breakthrough time tb = 100 years
hensive design for the thickness and location of a cutoff wall. It is
corresponding to Fig. 11(a). The CMD gradually decreases from the
more effective to reduce the cumulative mass discharge of pollu-
point B to C, which indicates that a decrease in the thickness Lcw and a
tants at the wall outlet by increasing the wall location away from
simultaneous increase in the distance x1 could effectively reduce the
the source than increasing the wall thickness.
amounts of contaminants in the downstream aquifer. Therefore, the
design of a cutoff wall should increase the distance away from the
contaminant source as far as possible within an allowable site range. CRediT authorship contribution statement

Xiang-Hong Ding: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,

7. Limitations
Writing - original draft. Shi-Jin Feng: Conceptualization, Writing -
review & editing. Qi-Teng Zheng: Validation, Writing - review &
The presented analytical model depends on the assumptions that are
editing. Chun-Hui Peng: Validation, Software.
listed in the Section 2.2 of model development with several limitations.
One limitation is that the proposed model describes a contaminant
migration in a saturated, homogeneous and isotropic vertical layered Declaration of Competing Interest
system, and cannot consider the unsaturated region caused by tran-
spiration and groundwater fluctuation, and/or the horizontal layered We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative

11
X.-H. Ding, et al.
interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the
work submitted.
Acknowledgment
Much of the work described in this paper was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.
41572265, 41931289 and 41725012, the Shanghai Shuguang Scheme
under Grant No. 16SG19, the Fundamental Research Funds for Central
Universities of China under Grant No. 0200219152, and the
Department of Education Science and Technology Research Project of
Jiangxi Province in China under Grant No. GJJ180586. The writers
would like to greatly acknowledge all these financial supports and ex-
press their most sincere gratitude.
References
Abdel-Nasser, G., Al-Turki, A., Al-Wabel, M., El-Saeid, M., 2011. Behavior of atrazine and
malathion pesticides in soil: Simulation of transport process using numerical and
analytical models. Res. J. Environ. Sci. 5 (3), 221–235.
Anneser, B., Einsiedl, F., Meckenstock, R.U., Richters, L., Wisotzky, F., Griebler, C., 2008.
High-resolution monitoring of biogeochemical gradients in a tar oil-contaminated
aquifer. Appl. Geochem. 23 (6), 1715–1730.
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D., Koerner, R., 2002. Assessment and Recommendations for
Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems. EPA-Environmental
Protection Agency.
Bracewell, R.N., 1986. The Fourier Transform and its Applications. McGraw-Hill New
York.
Britton, J.P., Filz, G.M., Herring, W.E., 2004. Measuring the hydraulic conductivity of
soil-bentonite backfill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (12), 1250–1258.
Chen, Z.-L., Feng, S.-J., Chen, H.-X., Peng, M.-Q., Li, Y.-C., Zhu, Z.-W., 2019. Analytical
solution for transport of degradable contaminant through vertical cutoff wall and
aquifer. Environ. Geotech. 1–10.
Chen, G.-N., John Cleall, P., Li, Y.-C., Yu, Z.-X., Ke, H., Chen, Y.-M., 2018a. Decoupled
advection-dispersion method for determining wall thickness of slurry trench cutoff
walls. Int. J. Geomech. 18 (5), 06018007.
Chen, G.-N., Li, Y.-C., Ke, H., 2018b. A simplified third-type inlet boundary condition
solution for contaminate transport through slurry cut-off walls. In: The International
Congress on Environmental Geotechnics. Springer, pp. 404–412.
Chen, Y., Xie, H., Ke, H., Chen, R., 2009. An analytical solution for one-dimensional
contaminant diffusion through multi-layered system and its applications. Environ.
Geol. 58 (5), 1083–1094.
Devlin, J., Parker, B., 1996. Optimum hydraulic conductivity to limit contaminant flux
through cutoff walls. Groundwater. 34 (4), 719–726.
Feng, S.J., Peng, M.Q., Chen, Z.L., Chen, H.X., 2019. Transient analytical solution for one-
dimensional transport of organic contaminants through GM/GCL/SL composite liner.
Sci. Total Environ. 650 (Pt 1), 479–492.
Filz, G., Mitchell, J., 1996. Design, construction, and performance of soil-and cement-
based vertical barriers. Chapter. 3, 45–75.
Gelhar, L.W., Welty, C., Rehfeldt, K.R., 1992. A critical review of data on field-scale
dispersion in aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 28 (7), 1955–1974.
Guan, C., Xie, H.J., Wang, Y.Z., Chen, Y.M., Jiang, Y.S., Tang, X.W., 2014. An analytical
model for solute transport through a GCL-based two-layered liner considering bio-
degradation. Sci. Total Environ. 466–467, 221–231.
Katsumi, T., Takai, A., Inui, T., 2018. Soil–Bentonite Cutoff Walls for Geoenvironmental
Containment. Geotechnics for Natural and Engineered Sustainable Technologies.
12
Computers and Geotechnics 128 (2020) 103816
Springer, pp. 207–223.
LaGrega, M.D., Buckingham, P.L., Evans, J.C., 2010. Hazardous WASTE Management.
Waveland Press.
Li, Y.-C., Cleall, P.J., 2011. Analytical solutions for advective–dispersive solute transport
in double-layered finite porous media. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 35 (4),
438–460.
Li, Y.-C., Chen, G.-N., Chen, Y.-M., Cleall, P.J., 2017. Design charts for contaminant
transport through slurry trench cutoff walls. J. Environ. Eng. 143 (9), 06017005.
Liu, J., Liu, R., Zhang, Z., Cai, Y., Zhang, L., 2019. A Bayesian Network-based risk dy-
namic simulation model for accidental water pollution discharge of mine tailings
ponds at watershed-scale. J. Environ. Manage. 246, 821–831.
McGrath, D.T., 2000. Urban industrial land redevelopment and contamination risk. J.
Urban Econ. 47 (3), 414–442.
Mitchell, J.K., Santamarina, J.C., 2005. Biological considerations in geotechnical en-
gineering. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (10), 1222–1233.
Multiphysics, C., 2017. COMSOL Multiphysics User’s Guide. COMSOL AB Burlington,
Massachusetts.
Neville, C.J., Andrews, C.B., 2006. Containment criterion for contaminant isolation by
cutoff walls. Groundwater. 44 (5), 682–686.
Parker, B.L., Chapman, S.W., Guilbeault, M.A., 2008. Plume persistence caused by back
diffusion from thin clay layers in a sand aquifer following TCE source-zone hydraulic
isolation. J. Contam. Hydrol. 102 (1), 86–104.
Peng, C.-H., Feng, S.-J., Zheng, Q.-T., Ding, X.-H., Chen, Z.-L., Chen, H.-X., 2020. A two-
dimensional analytical solution for organic contaminant diffusion through a com-
posite geomembrane cut-off wall and an aquifer. Comput. Geotech. 119.
Rabideau, A., Khandelwal, A., 1998. Boundary conditions for modeling transport in
vertical barriers. J. Environ. Eng. 124 (11), 1135–1139.
Rubin, H., Rabideau, A.J., 2000. Approximate evaluation of contaminant transport
through vertical barriers. J. Contam. Hydrol. 40 (4), 311–333.
Scelsi, G., Della Vecchia, G., di Prisco, C., Musso, G., Sanetti, G., 2019. Optimization of the
Geometry of Monitoring Devices for Contaminant Detection in Cement-Bentonite
Cutoff Walls. National Conference of the Researchers of Geotechnical Engineering.
Springer, pp. 555–564.
Shackelford, C.D., Daniel, D.E., 1991. Diffusion in saturated Soil. I: background. J.
Geotech. Engrg. 117 (3), 467–484.
Talbot, A., 1979. The accurate numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. IMA J. Appl.
Math. 23 (1), 97–120.
USEPA, 2009. Primary Drinking Water Regulations Environmental Protection Agency
816-F-09-004.
Wang, Y., Chen, Y., Xie, H., Zhang, C., Zhan, L., 2016. Lead adsorption and transport in
loess-amended soil-bentonite cut-off wall. Eng. Geo. 215, 69–80.
Wang, Q., Zhan, H., 2015. On different numerical inverse Laplace methods for solute
transport problems. Adv. Water Resour. 75, 80–92.
Widder, D.V., 2015. Laplace transform (PMS-6). Princeton University Press.
Williams, G.P., Tomasko, D., 2008. Analytical solution to the advective-dispersive
equation with a decaying source and contaminant. J. Hydrol. Eng. 13 (12),
1193–1196.
Xie, H., Lou, Z., Chen, Y., Jin, A., Zhan, T.L., Tang, X., 2013. An analytical solution to
organic contaminant diffusion through composite liners considering the effect of
degradation. Geotextiles Geomembranes. 36, 10–18.
Xie, H., Wang, S., Chen, Y., Jiang, J., Qiu, Z., 2018. An analytical model for contaminant
transport in cut-off wall and aquifer system. Environ. Geotech. 1–10.
Zhan, T.L.T., Guan, C., Xie, H.J., Chen, Y.M., 2014. Vertical migration of leachate pol-
lutants in clayey soils beneath an uncontrolled landfill at Huainan, China: A field and
theoretical investigation. Sci. Total Environ. 470–471, 290–298.
Zhan, H., Wen, Z., Gao, G., 2009. An analytical solution of two-dimensional reactive
solute transport in an aquifer-aquitard system. Water Resour. Res. 45 (10).
Zhang, W.-J., Qiu, Q.-W., 2010. Analysis on contaminant migration through vertical
barrier walls in a landfill in China. Environ Earth Sci. 61 (4), 847–852.
Zheng, C.M., Bennett, G.D., Zheng, C.M., Bennett, G.D., 2002. Applied contaminant
transport modeling. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union. 77 (48), 908–923.