9 Sediment-Water Exchange

Introduction
Sediment-water partitioning
Particle settling and deposition
Sediment erosion and resuspension
Transport equation with sediments
Contaminant transport within sediment bed
Model of sediment-water exchange
Contaminated sediment remediation
Interest in Sediments
“Geo-morphology”
Sediment as pollutant
Sediment as carrier of pollutants
 Table 9-1 Sediment grade scale (adapted from ASCE, 1975)

Non-cohesive
Classification
Class name Diameter φ Class name Diameter φ
(mm) (mm)

Very coarse gravel 64-32 -5.5 Very fine sand 1/8-1/16 3.5

Coarse gravel 32-16 -4.5 Coarse silt 1/16-1/32 4.5

cohesive
Medium gravel 16-8 -3.5 Medium silt 1/32-1/64 5.5

Fine gravel 8-4 -2.5 Fine silt 1/64-1/128 6.5

Very fine gravel 4-2 -1.5 Very fine silt 1/128-1/256 7.7

Very coarse sand 2-1 -0.5 Coarse clay 1/256-1/512 8.5

Coarse sand 1-1/2 0.5 Medium clay 1/512-1/1024 9.5

Medium sand 1/2-1/4 1.5 Fine clay 1/1024-1/2048 10.5

Fine sand 1/4-1/8 2.5 Very fine clay 1/2048-1/4096 11.5

ASCE, 1975; φ= -ln(dmm)/ln(2) Most environmental interest in finer fractions

 SAND SILT CLAY
MIT
Classification Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine Coarse Medium Fine

90

70

50

30

10

10 1.0 d50 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Diameter (mm)

Grain Size Distribution

Figure by MIT OCW.

 Equilibrium Partitioning
Partition (or distribution) coefficient:
cs
Kp = Sorbed phase conc cs (mass contaminant
cd per mass solid) divided by dissolved
phase conc cd (mass contaminant per
Simplest model:
volume solvent) in equilibrium
two phases
Units of Kp: volume/mass, e.g., cm3/g
More complicated partitioning models

Kp depends on contaminant, its concentration, concentration

of organic matter, redox potential, etc. Typical values: 101 to
102 cm3/g (hydrophilic) to 104 to 105 cm3/g (hydrophobic)
In sediment bed
Mass of dissolved contaminant/volume
= φc d
Mass of sorbed contaminant/volume
= ρ s c s (1 − φ ) = ρ s K p c d (1 − φ )
if equilibrium
Unit volume Ratio of sorbed to total mass
with porosity φ ρ s K p (1 − φ ) Kpρ
f = =
ρ s K p (1 − φ ) + φ K p ρ + 1

ρ = ρ s (1 − φ ) / φ = ρ b ,d / φ Solid-water phase ratio

(solid mass/water mass)
ρ b ,d = ρ s (1 − φ ) Bulk (dry) sediment density
ρ b , w = ρ s (1 − φ ) + φ
Bulk (wet) sediment density
Surficial sediments
ρs ~ 1.5 - 2.5 g/cm3; φ ~ 0.6 – 0.8 =>
ρb,d ~ 0.3-1 g/cm3, ρb,w ~ 1.1-1.6 g/cm3, ρ ~ 0.4-1.7 g/cm3

Kpρ
f = ρ~ 1 => for Kp >> 1 most
K p ρ +1
contamination is sorbed to particles

While most of the contaminant is associated with solids,

the dissolved phase is very important because it is more
bio-available and amenable to sediment-water exchange
Sediment quality criteria often derived from target
dissolved phase concentrations assuming equilibrium
partitioning
In water column
“porosity” ~ 1 so ρ = ρ s (1 − φ ) / φ ≡ [TSS ]

[TSS] ~ 1 to 100 mg/L (10-4 to 10-6 g/cm3)

Kpρ K p [TSS ] (10 −4 to 10 −6 ) K p

f = = =
K p ρ +1 K p [TSS ] + 1 (10 − 4 to 10 −6 ) K p + 1

For hydrophobic contaminants (Kp ~ 104 to 105)

concentrations in sorbed and dissolved phases can be
comparable. Hydrophylic contaminants are mostly in
dissolved phase
Non-equilibrium conditions
dc d ⎛ cs ⎞ Rate of increase of dissolved
=κ ⎜ − cd ⎟
dt ⎜K ⎟ phase mass
⎝ p ⎠

d ( ρc s ) ⎛ c s ⎞⎟ Rate of increase of sorbed phase

⎜
= κ cd −
dt ⎜ K p ⎟⎠ mass
⎝
κ Rate constant (t-1); e.g. (Wu and Gschwend, 1986)
0.2(1 − φ ) Dm K p ρ
κ= R = aggregate radius, Dm =
φR 2
molecular diffusivity
d
(c d + ρc s ) = 0 Total mass is conserved
dt
Non-equilibrium, cont’d
κ/Kp Time scale for desorption from particle
= days to months => equilibrium
assumption not very good for
suspended sediments (may be OK for
stationary sediments)

d
(c d + ρc s ) = 0 Total mass is conserved
dt
Additional Comments

Fine particles usually most important

„ Most easily resuspended
„ Settle most slowly
„ Probably have highest foc => Kp
„ Highest κ ~ (diameter)-2
„ Models often have multiple particle sizes with
individual settling velocity, tendency to
resuspend, and κ
 Sediment movement

EPA, 2004
Modes of transport
Settling & deposition (non-cohesive and
cohesive)
Erosion & resuspension (non-cohesive
and cohesive)
Bed-load (non-cohesive)
Particle settling (WWT jargon)

Discrete (Type 1) (non-cohesive)

Flocculant (Type 2) (cohesive)
Hindered or zone (Type 3)
Compression (Type 4)

Focus on Types 1 and 2

 Terminal velocity
πd 3
Fg = ( ρ s − ρ f ) g
Fd 6
2 πd
2
1
Fd = ρ f Cd ws
2 4
Fg
Equating, C d =
4dg ( s − 1)
2
3ws
s = ρs/ρf

Cd = f(R); R = Reynolds number = wsd/ν

Applicable to cohesive and non-cohesive sediments, but aggregate

shapes and densities are ill-defined for cohesive sediments
Spherical particles
R < 1; d < 100 µm (Stokes settling)
Fd = 3πρυdws
24 g ( s − 1)d 2
Cd = ws =
R 18υ
R < 104 (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991)
24 3
Cd = + + 0.34
R R
More generally (0.01 mm < d < 100 mm; Dietrich, 1982)
log w* = −3.76715 + 1.92944(log D*) − 0.09815(log D *2 )
− 0.00557(log D *3 ) + 0.00056(log D *4 )
3
ws ( s − 1) gd 3
w* = D* =
( s − 1) gυ υ2
Spherical & non-spherical particles
10,000

1000
600
400
200
Drag Coefficient, CD

100
60
Stokes
40
20 ψ = 0.125
10 ψ = 0.220
6
4 ψ = 0.600
2
ψ = 0.806
1
0.6
0.4 ψ = 1.000
0.2 Sphere
0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 2 4 6 10 100 1000 10,000 105 106
Reynolds number, based on DP

Figure by MIT OCW.

πD p 2
Brown et al. (1950)
Ψ= Surface area of equivalent sphere/surface area of particle
As
Settling of Cohesive Sediments
Settling velocity depends on
30

25
concentration. Empirical
Settling Velocity (m/d)

20 formula from EPA (2004):

15 1.0
0.8 0.1 m / d CWL + 30 m / d (C COH − CWL )
10
0.6
0.4 ws ( m / d ) =
0.2
0.0
C COH
5 0 2 4 6 8 10

0
0 50 100 150 200 CWL = wash load concentration (5
Concentration (mg/L)
mg/L); CCOH = cohesive sediment
Figure by MIT OCW. concentration (mg/L). Within
range of empirical observations,
e.g., Hawley (1982)
 Sewage particles

Often a wide range of settling velocities

Settling Basins: discrete settling

u
ws

Inlet Outlet

Time to settle Ts = h/ws

Hydraulic residence time Tres = V/Q = Ah/Q

Tres > Ts => Ahwsc/Qh > 1

wsc > Q/A or Q < Awsc or A > Q/wsc
Comments
Q/A = overflow rate (really a velocity); particles settling
faster will deposit
Flow capacity depends on area (not depth) => make
tanks as shallow as practical
Increase area using stacked clarifiers, inclined
plates/tubes, etc.
Similar concepts apply to field: deposition at river
deltas, in ponds & reservoirs, downstream from outfalls
Example of particulate phosphorus loading in reservoir
(Vollenweider plots)
Retention in lakes & reservoirs:
critical phosphorus loading

& Q
m,
Qp
wsp
p
dp
V = m& − Qp − ws Ap
dt
V = impoundment volume
In steady state
m& Q A = impoundment area
= p + ws p
A A Q/A = impoundment
m& / A “overflow rate”
p=
Q / A + ws
p = average P concentration
Phosphorous loading diagram

ws = 10m/yr

eutrophic

oligotrophic

Q/A <<ws Q/A >> ws

Q/A = ws

After Vollenweider (1975); Chapra (1997)

 Particle scavenging
Removal of marine contaminants (e.g., metals)
by natural particle settling

234Th: particle-reactive tracer; t1/2 = 24.1 d

238U

α w/o deposition ce = equil conc of 234Th:

234Th
h (ce) Rad decay = -λce, λ = decay rate (ln2/t1/2)
β 234U Production = λce (must be same in equil)
 Particle scavenging, cont’d
With deposition, 234Th conc c < ce
f = fraction of 234Th sorbed to particles
K p [TSS ]
f =
238U K p [TSS ] + 1
fws/h is effective 234Th removal rate (t-1)
α 234Th
⎛ fws ⎞
h (c) ce λ = c⎜ λ + ⎟
⎝ h ⎠
ce measured offshore;
β 234U
fws (ce − c)λ
= c measured locally => ws
⎛w ⎞ h c
f ⎜ s ⎟c
⎝ h ⎠ (ce − c)λh
ws =
cf
 Particle scavenging, cont’d
Use 234Th deposition to trace
deposition of another metal (call it x),
with different partitioning
K px [TSS ]
238U fx =
K px [TSS ] + 1
α 234Th
h (c) (ce − c)λh
ws =
β 234U cf
J Th − 234 = fcws = (ce − c)λh
JTh-234 ⎛w ⎞
f ⎜ s ⎟c f x cx
⎝ h ⎠ Jx = f x c x ws = (ce − c)λh
fc
Deposition
Flux of settling particles
ws C C = sediment concentration (TSS)
Deposition rate, D
D = pws C p = probability of depositing (sticking)
For non-cohesive sediments, p = 1
For cohesive sediments
p = (1 − τ / τ c ,d ) τ < τ c,d τc,d = critical depositional
shear stress
0.06 < τc,d < 1.1 N/m2 (Mehta & Partheniades, 1975;
Ziegler et al, 1995)
Particle accumulation on bottom
Rate of mass approaching
interface/unit area = D
Rate of accumulation in
surface sediments
ws
z d
[hρ s (1 − φ )]
dt
h
Equating
dh D
wo = =
dt ρ s (1 − φ )

If φ = 0.8, ρs = 2.5 g/cm3, ρs(1-φ) = 0.5

How to determine wo = dh/dt?
Depth of natural, accidental or
intentional marker
„ e.g., paint pigments in Fort Point
Channel
Decay of radioactive tracer
„ e.g., 210Pb,
Fort Point Channel
Recall discussion in Chapter 4

N Boston

Inner Harbor
18
ft

18
ft Northern Ave.

Fluorescent dye Congress St.

and pigment Summer St.

particles released Cores 2,3

18
ft

May ’90 and July Gillette

‘91 Dorchester Ave.

Core 1
Broadway Meters
100 0 500
BOS 070

Figure by MIT OCW.

Paint chips as markers

6m

8 cm

6 cm

Stolzenbach and Adams (1998)

Pigment surveyed with freeze corer
Dec 1993

July 1991
May ’90 to Dec ’93
14 cm/3.6 yr = 3.9 cm/yr

May 1990 Jul ’91 to Dec ’93

8 cm/2.4 yr = 3.3 cm/yr

Stolzenbach and Adams (1998)

Comments

Deposition rates of 1-4 cm/yr in FPC

(three cores)
Loading rates for all FPC sediment
sources ~ 0.14 cm/yr
Substantial import of (contaminated)
sediment
 Cs-237
Fallout from bomb testing

USGS Gravity cores, Lake

Worth, TX, 2000-01
Measuring deposition with Excess 210Pb

Pb-210 particle reactive

co c tracer; t1/2 ~ 23 yr
c = excess concentration
Relative to (moving)
interface, steady state,
no sediment mixing
dc
− wo = −λc
dz
λz
c −
= e wo
co
Alternatively
-z 0
1
wo = λ ∫ c ( z )dz
co −∞
Erosion and Resuspension
Associated with bottom shear stress

∂u
τ = − ρ u ' w' = ρE z
∂z
2
τ = ρc f u cf is bottom friction factor
Erosion of non-cohesive seds

Critical shear stress τc required to initiate

particle motion
ws > (τ/ρ)0.5 > (τc/ρ)0.5 => bedload
(τ/ρ)0.5 > ws, τc => suspended load
Re-suspension flux depends on near-bed
concentration; many formulations
EPA, 2004
Cohesive sediments
Many formulations; most apply for shear stress
above a critical erosional shear stress, τc,e

Erosion rate E (g/m2-s)

τ
E = M( − 1) n
τ c ,e

τc,e = 0.05 to 0.3 N/m2;

M = 0.1 to 3 g/m2-s; n = 1-3
Cohesive sediments, cont’d
Erosion potential ε (g/m2)

ao τ
ε= ( − 1) n Td = time (days) after deposition
Td
m
τ c ,e

τc,e = 0.1 N/m2 ; ao = 50; m = 2; n = 2.7

Erosion over specified time interval ~ 1 hr

Above parameters from Ziegler, et al., 1995 for
Watts Bar Reservoir, TN
Measurement of erosion

Linear laboratory flume

Linear flume in field
Laboratory annular flume
Portable resuspension device (Shaker;
Tsai and Lick, 1986)
 Sedflume
(after McNeil
et al., 1996)
Figure by MIT OCW.

Measures erosion rates in the lab

 To boat

81 cm i.d. hose
Top, Front View

12 cm
2.4 m
6 cm

Ravens &
Lateral angle iron
Grid Boundary layer trap Gschwend
(1999)

Measures erosion
Bottom, Front View
rates in the field

Angle iron Sediment bed

test section

Lateral angle iron

1m Boundary Layer Development Region

Figure by MIT OCW.

Comments
τc,e increases & E decreases with time
after deposition and depth below
sediment bed reflecting increased
strength due to compaction, armoring
from larger particles
Regions with τ > τc,e on regular or
intermittent basis exhibit erosional
tendencies
Net erosion (erosion
n
– deposition)
⎡ τ ⎤ ⎡ τ ⎤
φ = E−D = M⎢ − 1⎥ − ws c ⎢1 − ⎥
⎣⎢τ c ,e ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ τ c ,d ⎦⎥
Transport Equation with Sediments
∂c ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂c ∂ ∂c ∂ ∂c
+ (uc) + (vc) + ( w − ws )c = ( E x ) + ( E y ) + ( E z )
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z
z positive upward, origin at sediment interface;
c = sediment concentration; ws = settling velocity
Neglecting horizontal transport & vertical water velocity
∂c ∂ ∂ ∂c
− ws c = ( E z )
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z

Boundary conditions
∂c
− ws c − E z =0 at surface (z = h)
∂z
∂c
− ws c − E z = (α − 1) ws c at bottom (z = 0)
∂z
Surface and bottom BCs
z

h
dc
c
ws c − Ez
dz

0
α=0 α=1 α>1

α denotes relative amount of erosion

Vertical sediment distribution
Under steady state
dc
− ws c = E z
dz
Logarithmic velocity profile in channel; turbulent
diffusivity = viscosity
ws κu*
c( z ) ⎡⎛ h − z ⎞⎛ a ⎞⎤
= ⎢⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎥
ca ⎣⎝ z ⎠⎝ h − a ⎠⎦

w s / κu * Rouse number
Depth-average Ez (= 0.07u*h)
ws h
Pe = Peclet number ~ 6 ws/κu*
Ez
 T=tws/h Pe=200 0.2
T = tV/h Pe = Vh/D = 200 T = tV/h Vh/D = 0.2
0 0
.025 .025
T = .1 .1
.2 .2
.2 T = 3.0
Z/h

c(z/h,T,Pe)
2.0 .2

z .4
.5
.4
.3
.4
Z/h T = .4
.3

.6 .6 .6

h .8
T = 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0
.9
.8
.7
.8
1.2
T = 1.5
1.0 1.0

No erosion
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
C/Co (%)
20 C/Co (%)
0.02
(α=0)
Vh/D = 20 Vh/D = 0.02
0 0
.025 1.2 1.0 .8 .6 .5 .4 .2 .025
1.1 .9 .7 .3 T = .1
T = .1
.2 .2
.2

Z/h .4
.4
.3 .4
Z/h Constant Ez
.6 .5 .6
.6
.7
.8 .8 .8
1.8
1.7 1.51.4 1.0
.9
ws h
Pe =
1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1
1.0 1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
C/Co (%) 2 C/Co (%) 0.002 Ez
Pe = Vh/D = 2.0 Vh/D = 2.0 x 10-8
0 0
.025
.2 .2

Pe < 0.2 =>

1.9
T=1
.4 .4 1.61.4 1.2 1.0 .8
2.1 .6 T = .4
.2 1.8
Z/h Z/h .9 .7
.5 .3

well-mixed)
2.5 1.5 1.3 1.1
.6 .3 .6 1.7
1.9 .4
1.6 .5 3.0 2.0
.8 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.0 .6 .8
T = 3.0 2.0 1.5 .9 .8 .7
1.3 1.1

Pe > 100 =>

1.7
1.0 1.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
C/Co (%) C/Co (%)
stratified
Dhamothran et al (1981) Figure by MIT OCW.
Application: Settling basin & river

40 mg/L
100 mg/L

L = 50m, W = 6m, h =
4m, Q = 0.2m3/s
h = 1 m,
u = 0.3 m/s
Pe = wsh/Ez

Ez = 0.07u*h; assume u* ~ 0.05u => Ez = 0.0035uh

Pe = ~ 300ws/u
ws = 10-2 to 10-6 m/s (Table 9.2)
Often a wide range of settling velocities
 Focus on Basin

40 mg/L
100 mg/L

L = 50 m, W = 6 m, h
= 4 m, Q = 0.2 m3/s
h = 1 m,
Basin
u = 0.3 m/s
u = Q/hW = 0.0083 m/s
Pe = ~ 300ws/u (second column of Table 9.3)

wsc = Q/A = Q/LW = 7.7x10-4 m/s

(faster settling particles theoretically removed)
Pe for settling basin and river
Ws Pe = wsh/Ez Pe = wsh/Ez
(m/s) (Basin) (River)
10-2 340
10-3 34
10-4 3.4 0.1
10-5 0.34 0.01
10-6 0.034 0.001
 Focus on River

40 mg/L
100 mg/L

L = 50 m, W = 6 m, h
= 4 m, Q = 0.2 m3/s
h = 1 m,
River u = 0.3 m/s

Pe = ~ 300ws/u (third column of Table 9.3)

Comments
In basin, turbulence insufficient to mix
particles that settle (Pe > 30)
In river, turbulence sufficient to mix
particles that don’t settle in basin (Pe <
0.1) (river can be treated as well
mixed)
In basin, τb = ρu*2 = 0.07 N/m2 < τc,e
In river, τb = ρu*2 = 0.22 N/m2 <~ τc,e
(possible resuspension)
Vertically well-mixed conditions
Pe < 0.2

3-D equation
∂c ∂ ∂ ∂c
− ws c = ( E z )
∂t ∂z ∂z ∂z

Vertical integration

∂c ⎡ ∂c ⎤ ⎡ ∂c ⎤
h = ⎢ ws c + E z ⎥ − ⎢ ws c + E ⎥
∂t ⎣ ∂z ⎦ surf ⎣ ∂z ⎦ bot

=0
Vertically well-mixed conditions,
cont’d
No resuspension (α = 0)
dc wc
=− s
dt h

c = co exp(− ws t h)
co = initial depth-averaged concentration
ws/h = first order removal rate, κs

Partially-mixed conditions sometimes

analyzed using κs > ws/h (because near
bottom concentrations are greater than co)
Multiple size fractions
dc wc First order settling of different
= −∑ s i
dt i h size fractions can resemble
second order settling:
co
ws/h = 0.3x10-5s-1 c=
1 + Btco
1.0x10-5s-1

0.3x10-5s-1
Ave 2nd O settling (Bco = 3x10-4s-1)
Contaminant transport within &
across the sediment bed
Porewater advection (GW
movement; sediment
compaction; wave or bedform
induced pressures; biomixing
J a = φuc d
Contaminant transport within &
across the sediment bed
Porewater advection (GW
movement; sediment
compaction; wave or bedform
induced pressures; biomixing

J a = φuc d

Porewater diffusion

J d = −φD' dc d dz
D' = φDm
Contaminant transport within &
across the sediment bed
Porewater advection (GW
movement; sediment
compaction; wave or bedform
induced pressures; biomixing

Bulk sediment motion J a = φuc d

(“turbulence”)
Porewater diffusion
J b = − Db d (c d + ρ s c s ) / dz
J d = −φD' dc d dz
D' = φDm
Sediment Profile Imaging

Benthic fauna mix

dissolved oxygen and
other sediment
characteristics
(oxygen rich areas
are light colored)
Note feeding tubes
near surface

EPA, 2006
Measuring bioturbation with 234Th

Th-234 particle reactive

co c tracer (c); t1/2 ~ 24.1 day
Relative to (moving)
interface, steady state,
including sediment mixing
dc d 2 cs
− wo = Db 2
− λc
dz dz

For Dbλ >> wo

d 2 cs
0 = Db 2
− λc
dz
-z c
= exp(− λ Db z )
co
Comments
Db correlates with wo (reflecting flux of
organic matter)
Coastal sediments: Db = 10-7 to 10-6
cm2/s
Deep sea sediments: 10-9 to 10-8 cm2/s
DDT on Palos Verdes Shelf (WE 9-4)
DDT commonly used
pesticide until 1970s
(Silent Spring).
~ 1700T discharged by
LACSD’s White Point
outfall (60m depth) (also
agricultural run-off)
~100T (p-p’-DDE) still
buried in sediment
Issues of environmental
racism
EPA Superfund Site
(Montrose Chemical Co.)
Vertical Profiles
Core 8C 1981 (solid) to 1989 (open)

700
600
500
400 1981 Concentration vs depth
ppm

300
200 1989 (USGS; Lee, 1994)
100
0
0 20 40 60 80
Depth in cm

Vertical distribution of porosity (open

squares) and bioturbation coefficient
(closed squares)

1 Exponential distribution
φ
of porosity and
0.8
0.6

bioturbation (latter based

0.4
0.2
Db/Dbo
0
on worm density)
1

13

17

21

25

29

33

37

41

45

49

Depth in cm
Issues
Contamination slowly decreasing. But is it bio-
degradation or surface loss?
Will natural sedimentation cap contaminants?
Decreasing since WWTP upgrade; introduce
clean sediments from flood control reservoirs?
Current strategy of institutional controls (public
outreach, fish monitoring, etc.) Is this enough?
Possible future capping. Will this work? (2000
pilot capping failed.)
Sediment Fate Processes
Core 8C 1981 (solid) to 1989 (open)
Deposition of clean
700
600
Lee, 1994 (USGS)
sediment (deposition
500
400 1981 velocity w in cm/yr)
ppm

300
1989
Biological mixing (Db
200
100
0

in cm2/yr)
0 20 40 60 80
Depth in cm

Biodegradation (1st O
rate λ in yr-1)
Release to surface (k
in cm/yr)
J = kρ s (1 − φ )cso
 Mass Transport in Sediments
∂c s ∂ ∂ ⎧ ∂ ⎫
(1 − φ ) ρ s + [ w(1 − φ ) ρ s c s ] = ρ s ⎨ Db [(1 − φ )c s ]⎬ − λ (1 − φ ) ρ s c s
∂t ∂ς ∂ς ⎩ ∂ς ⎭

Boundary conditions
∂c s
Db
∂ς
= (k + wo )c s at ς =0 ζ = depth below
(moving) sediment bed
cs = 0 at ς =∞

Use observations to calibrate unknown

parameters w, Db, λ and k
Simplification
∂c s ' ' ∂ ∂ −ς / L ∂
+ ( wo c s ' ' ) = Dbo [e c s ' ' ] − λc s ' '
∂t ∂ς ∂ς ∂ς

where c s ' ' = (1 − φ )c s /(1 − φ o )

wo = w(1 − φ ) (1 − φ o )

Db = Dbo e −ς / L
 Spatial Moments
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

M i = ∫ c s ς i dς M i ' = ∫ cs e −ς / L
ς dς
i
M i ' ' = ∫ c s ' ' ς dς
i
M i ' ' ' = ∫ c s ' ' e −ς / L ς i dς
0 0 0
0

dM o ' '
= −kc so − λM o ' '
dt 4 moment equations
dM 1 ' ' D in 4 unknowns
− wo M o = Dbo c so − bo M o ' ' '−λM 1 '
dt L

dM 2 ' ' 2 Dbo

− 2wo M 1 = 2 Dbo M o ' ' '− M 1 ' ' '−λM 2 ' '
dt L
dM 3 ' ' 3Dbo
− 3wo M 2 = 6 Dbo M 1 ' ' '− M 2 ' ' '−λM 3 ' ' '
dt L
wo = 1.7 cm/yr, Dbo = 44 cm2/yr, λ = 0.03 yr-1, k = 9.6 cm/yr.

Surface loss λ M o ' ' and degradation loss k c so

comparable; times scale of each ~ 30 yrs
 Sediment water exchange model

-H
Steady state
Includes bioturbation,
pore-water diffusion and
1 Flushing
Cd0

sorption kinetics, but no

-ZW Cd1 cd2 = cs2/Kp 2 Water-side diffusion resuspension, deposition
ZS 3 Sorption kinetics or bio-degradation
4 Bio-mixing
Colloidal transport
included but not
L
cdL = csL/Kp
described here
Applied to PAH’s in
Z
Boston Harbor
Figure by MIT OCW.

Chen, 1993
Sediment water exchange model
d 2 cd κ
0 = ( Db + D ' ) 2
+ (c s − K p c d ) dissolved
dz Kp
d 2 cs κ sorbed
0 = Db ρ 2
+ ( K p cd − cs )
dz Kp

Boundary Conditions

cd = cd1 dc s dz = 0 at z = 0

c d K p = c s = c sL at z = L
Approximate Solution
cd − cd1 1 − e − rz + εrz
= -H
c sL K p − c d 1 1 + εrL
cd0 1 flushing
cs − K p cd1 1 + ε (rz + e − rz
)
=
c sL − K p c d 1 1 + εrL) -zw cd1 cd2=cs2/Kp 2 water-side diffusion
zs 3 sorption kinetics
φ ( Db + D' )c s∞ / K p + (1 + εrL)( Dm / δ w )c d 0
cd1 = 4 bio-mixing
(1 + εrL)( Dm / z w ) + φ ( Db + D' )r
L
cdL=csL/Kp
r = κ /( Db + D' )
z

( Db + D ' )
ε=
ρK p Db
Flux to surface
Dissolved phase concentration
in equilibrium with csL

c sL / K p
J=
τ z 2.2 R L
+ w + +
H Dm (1 − φ )[( Db + D' ) Dm ρ s K p ]1 / 2 (1 − φ ) ρ s Db K p

1 2 3 4

Denominator: 4 “resisters” in series: 1)

flushing, 2) water-side diffusion, 3)
sorption kinetics, 4) bio-mixing
 Varia Definition Value(s)

Parameters
ble

Dm Aqueous solution diffusivity 0.8x10-5

cm2/s
D’ Aqueous solution diffusivity 0.5x10-5
corrected for porosity

Db Bioturbation coefficient 10-7, 10-6, 10-5

cm2/s

Kp Solid-water partition coefficient 101 to

106cm3/g
L Biologically active depth 5 cm

φ Porosity 0.8

ρs Sediment density 2.5 g/cm3

Sorbed concentration at z = L 10-6 g/g

R Characteristic aggregate radius 0.01 cm

Water-side boundary layer 0.06 cm

thickness
Hydrodynamic residence time of 5 day
overlying water

H Depth of overlying waterbody 6m

Desorption rate constant Eq (9.5)

 Db = 10-5 cm2/s

1.0
D1/D
0.9

0.8
Fractional Resistance

0.7 D2/D

0.6

0.5
D3/D
0.4

0.3

0.2 D4/D
0.1

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
log (Kp in cm3/g)
 Db = 10-6 cm2/s

1.0
D1/D
0.9
D2/D
0.8
Fractional Resistance

0.7 D3/D
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 D4/D

0.2

0.1

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
log (Kp in cm3/g)
 Db = 10-7 cm2/s

1.0
D1/D
0.9
D2/D
0.8
Fractional Resistance

0.7 D3/D

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 D4/D
0.2

0.1

0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6
log (Kp in cm3/g)
Comments
Water side bl (2) controls for large Kp & Db
Bioturbation (4) controls for small Kp & Db

(Resistance on side with smallest equilibrium

concentration)
Desorption not limiting factor
Longest clean-up times for high Kp (nearly a
century for benzo(a) pyrene (Kp ~ 105) in
Boston Harbor)
Dealing with Contaminated Sediment
Natural attenuation (Let it sit)
„ If evidence of natural recovery (deposition, bio-
degradation)
„ Or if other options problematic
„ Combined w/ active monitoring & inst controls
Capping (Cover it up)
„ With clean sediment
„ In situ or in confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cells
Dredging (Remove it)
„ Environmental (remove contamination)
„ Maintenance (keep harbors/channels open)
„ Improvement (make harbors/channels deeper)
Boston Harbor Navigation
Improvement Project
Deepen to 38-40’
(versus maintenance
or environmental)
1.7x106 yd3 clay
(MBDS)
1.1x106 yd3 silt (CAD
cells)
Confined Aquatic Disposal Cells

Figure by MIT OCW.

Dredge buckets

Environmental Clam shell

 CAD Challenges
5 0 6 0 50
E W
Core M4-5 Core M4-4 Core M4-2

g 5 0 5 9 50
n
i
h
rto
N

5 0 5 8 50

5 0 5 7 50
717350 717450 717550 717650 717750 717850
Subbottom line 6-003 from cell M4 (OSI 1999), annotated at bottom showing location of cores,
E a s tin g

Hitting target
fluidized mud layer (above red dashed line), sand zone (between red and blue dashed lines),
and approximate bottom of cell (green dashed line). Note reversal of East and West.

Cell M4 - Post-Cap Sub-Bottom Profile

Verifying CAP integrity

Waiting for sufficient

consolidation
Additional Issues
Containing dredged and capping material
(during descent & upon impact)
Time of disposal (environmental windows
to allow migrating fish passage)
Residual silt (should you “rake all the
leaves?”)
Open cells (exposure to uncapped
material)