Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j c o n h yd

Analytical solution of two-dimensional solute transport in an

aquiferaquitard system
Hongbin Zhan a,, Zhang Wen b,c, Guanhua Huang b,c, Dongmin Sun d
a
b
c
d

Department of Geology and Geophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3115, United States
Department of Irrigation and Drainage, College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, PR China
ChineseIsraeli International Center for Research in Agriculture, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, PR China
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX 77058-1098, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 6 March 2008
Received in revised form 21 April 2009
Accepted 28 April 2009
Available online 7 May 2009
Keywords:
Aquitard diffusion
Aquitard advection
Mass conservation
Solute transport
Laplace transform

a b s t r a c t
This study deals with two-dimensional solute transport in an aquiferaquitard system by
maintaining rigorous mass conservation at the aquiferaquitard interface. Advection,
longitudinal dispersion, and transverse vertical dispersion are considered in the aquifer.
Vertical advection and diffusion are considered in the aquitards. The rst-type and the thirdtype boundary conditions are considered in the aquifer. This study differs from the commonly
used averaged approximation (AA) method that treats the mass ux between the aquifer and
aquitard as an averaged volumetric source/sink term in the governing equation of transport in
the aquifer. Analytical solutions of concentrations in the aquitards and aquifer and mass
transported between the aquifer and upper or lower aquitard are obtained in the Laplace
domain, and are subsequently inverted numerically to yield results in the real time domain (the
Zhan method). The breakthrough curves (BTCs) and distribution proles in the aquifer
obtained in this study are drastically different from those obtained using the AA method.
Comparison of the numerical simulation using the model MT3DMS and the Zhan method
indicates that the numerical result differs from that of the Zhan method for an asymmetric case
when aquitard advections are at the same direction. The AA method overestimates the mass
transported into the upper aquitard when an upward advection exists in the upper aquitard.
The mass transported between the aquifer and the aquitard is sensitive to the aquitard Peclet
number, but less sensitive to the aquitard diffusion coefcient.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Interaction between aquifers and aquitards is an important
process affecting ow and transport in subsurface ow systems.
Most aquitards consist of silt and clay and are well capable of
storing water and solute, due to their large values of porosity.
Thus when a solute in an aquifer contacts a previously solutefree aquitard, a concentration gradient exists across the aquiferaquitard interface; and molecular diffusion will drive the solute
into the aquitard. Furthermore, leakage often exists across the
aquitard, thus advection in the aquitard will be another
important mechanism for solute transport there.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 979 862 7961; fax: +1 979 845 6162.
E-mail address: zhan@geo.tamu.edu (H. Zhan).
0169-7722/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2009.04.010

Diffusion at the aquiferaquitard interface is somewhat similar

to diffusion at the matrix-fracture boundary (Tang et al., 1981;
Sudicky and Frind, 1982, 1984; Fujikawa and Fukui, 1990; Liu et
al., 2004). The difference is that the aperture of a fracture is
much smaller than the aquifer thickness and the ow velocity in
the fracture is often much greater than that in the aquifer under
the same hydraulic gradient. Many studies on fractured media
have shown that matrix diffusion is the primary factor for
retarding contaminants in the fractures (e.g. Neretnieks, 1980;
Rasmuson and Neretnieks, 1981; Neretnieks et al., 1982;
Moreno et al., 1985; Liu et al., 2004). Aquitard diffusion was
shown to be a controlling factor affecting solute transport in
laboratory experiments by Sudicky et al. (1985), Starr et al.
(1985), Young and Ball (1998), and in numerous eld aquifer
studies such as Gillham et al. (1984), Johnson et al. (1989), Ball

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

et al. (1997a,b), Liu and Ball (1999), Hendry et al. (2003),

Hunkeler et al. (2004), Parker et al. (2004) and others. After
passing of the solute front in the aquifer, back diffusion from the
aquitard to the aquifer is the primary cause of the tailing effect
observed in the aquifer, which has caused great difculty for
contaminant remediation (Liu and Ball, 2002). Another important reason causing the tailing effect in real aquiferaquitard
systems is diffusion into and out of low-permeability lenses
within the aquifer materials (Gillham et al., 1984).
Sudicky et al. (1985) have investigated the aquitard diffusion
effect in an articial sandy aquifer whose thickness is about 0.02
to 0.03 m in the laboratory. Because the aquifer thickness is so
thin in respect to the horizontal transport distance, they could
approximate the diffusive mass ux at the aquiferaquitard
interface as a volumetric source/sink term in the governing
equation of solute transport in the aquifer. Chen (1985) and
Tang and Aral (1992a,b) have also adopted this approach to
study dispersiondiffusion in an aquiferaquitard system with
radial and uniform ows, respectively. The implication of this
approach is that the transverse mixing across the aquifer
thickness is so rapid that a thickness-averaged concentration
can be used. The same approximation has been broadly adopted
in studying matrix diffusion in fractured media (Neretnieks,
1980; Rasmuson and Neretnieks, 1981; Tang et al., 1981;
Neretnieks et al., 1982; Sudicky and Frind, 1982, 1984; Fujikawa
and Fukui, 1990; Johns and Roberts, 1991; Liu et al., 2004).
Sudicky et al. (1985) have realized that in real aquifers, the
transverse mixing is probably not always rapid enough to
warrant the usage of a thickness-averaged approach. Therefore, they proposed an alternative method of treating the
diffusive ux at the aquiferaquitard interface as a boundary
condition rather than a source/sink term in the governing
equation of transport in the aquifer. But to make the work
amenable to analytical solution, Sudicky et al. (1985) have
neglected the longitudinal dispersion and only considered the
transverse vertical dispersion in the aquifer. Such a treatment
might provide a satisfactory interpretation of conservative
solute transport in a very thin articial sandy aquifer used in
the experiment of Sudicky et al. (1985). However, for more
realistic thicker aquifers, Starr et al. (1985) showed that
longitudinal dispersion is important and should be taken into
account. In a different paper, Johns and Roberts (1991) have
proposed a model for investigating solute transport in largeaperture fractures by considering lateral dispersion to the
small aperture regions and diffusion to the rock matrix.
Longitudinal dispersion is not considered in that study.
Advection in the aquitard is rarely considered in previous
analytical solutions although it can be dealt with in numerical
simulations (see for example Bester et al., 2005). Most conned aquifer systems are recharged by leakage through the
overlying aquitard, which means, in case of transport, that
there will be advection across the interface. Advective mass
ux in the aquitard may be small, but may be at a similar or
greater scale when compared to diffusive ux across the
interface. Therefore, to make the analytical solution useful,
both advective and diffusive uxes in the aquitard are considered in this study. It is also important to compare the
relative magnitudes of advective versus diffusive uxes across
the interface under realistic conditions.
In this study, we will solve for two-dimensional transport
in the aquifer and one-dimensional advectiondiffusion in

163

the aquitard simultaneously for a fully penetrating, horizontally innite source without using the averaged approximation employed by Sudicky et al. (1985), Chen (1985), Tang
and Aral (1992a,b), and others. Mass balance requirement is
rigorously maintained. An example of such a two-dimensional transport scenario is the leaking of toxic materials that
are buried in a long trench or a large landll site. There is no
doubt that three-dimensional numerical simulations of ow
and transport in complex aquiferaquitard systems can be
carried out with the present-day's computational power. For
instance, Martin and Frind (1998) have carried out a threedimensional numerical simulation of groundwater ow and
capture zone description for a multiple layer aquiferaquitard
system in the Waterloo Moraine. Bester et al. (2005) have
carried out a numerical simulation of road salt impact on an
urban welleld located in an aquiferaquitard system.
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the essence of the
aquitard effect on solute transport from an analytical perspective. Such analytical solutions may serve the purpose of
validating the numerical simulations which may suffer from
various types of numerical errors. For instance, the numerical
errors in numerical models tend to be the largest at the
aquiferaquitard interfaces (Martin and Frind, 1998; Bester
et al., 2005). For the sake of simplicity of presentation, we
only discuss a conservative solute.
2. Conceptual and mathematical models
2.1. Conceptual model
The system investigated is an aquifer bounded at the top
and bottom by two aquitards, or an aquifer bounded at the top
by an aquitard and at the bottom by impermeable bedrock.
The aquiferaquitard and the bedrockaquifer boundaries are
assumed to be horizontal. The aquifer is homogeneous and
horizontally isotropic with constant longitudinal and transverse vertical dispersivities. The aquitards are also homogeneous and sufciently thick so that solute diffusion is not
affected by their thicknesses. This assumption may be reasonable because the penetration depths of solute into the
aquitards via diffusion are often limited; meaning that only
those regions of the aquitards that are very close to the
aquifer will be affected by solute transport. However, if one is
dealing with a very thin aquitard, it is possible that solute can
penetrate through the entire thickness of the aquitard into the
adjacent aquifer. If this is the case, one must consider the
affected adjacent aquifer as well. Such a circumstance is of
interest but will not be discussed in this article. The aquifer,
the aquitards, and the bedrock extend horizontally to innity.
Fig. 1AB show the schematic diagrams of two cases that
will be investigated. They are an aquifer bounded by upper
and lower aquitards, and an aquifer bounded by an upper
aquitard and lower impermeable bedrock, respectively. The
big arrows there show the groundwater ow directions. The
hydraulic conductivity of the aquitard is assumed to be a few
orders of magnitude smaller than that of the aquifer, thus
advective ow in the aquitard is nearly perpendicular to the
aquiferaquitard interface. Flow in the aquifer is nearly horizontal. We set up the coordinate system as follows. The x- and
z-axes are along the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively with the origin at the left boundary. We choose the

164

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

tration can be easily calculated via the resident concentration

using the method of van Genuchten and Parker (1984).
The solution is based on the assumption of a constant
horizontal velocity in the aquifer and constant vertical velocities in the aquitards. This will lead to constant dispersion
coefcients in the aquifer and the aquitards. In reality, velocities in the aquifer and the aquitards could be variable and
so are the dispersion coefcients. A numerical simulation is
probably more useful when variable velocities are encountered. It is assumed that the aquifer and the aquitard are free
from solutes at the start of transport. Based on the conceptual
model, the following mathematical model is established.
2.2. Solute transport in an aquifer bounded by upper and lower
aquitards
The governing equations and the initial and boundary
conditions for the aquifer and aquitards of this case are as
follows. For the aquifer,

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of: A) an aquifer bounded at top and bottom by

aquitards; B) an aquifer bounded at top by an aquitard and at the bottom by
impermeable bedrock.

origin of the coordinate system at the center of the left

boundary of the aquifer in Fig. 1A, whereas it is at the bottom
of the left boundary of the aquifer in Fig. 1B.
We will deal with two kinds of boundary conditions,
namely the rst-type and the third-type conditions for the
source. At rst, a constant concentration (the rst-type) is
maintained at the left boundary for the entire thickness of the
aquifer. The length of the source in the direction transverse to
the xz plane is assumed to be sufciently large that dispersion in that direction is not considered. The rst-type
boundary condition has been commonly used in many contaminant transport problems described by Huyakorn et al.
(1987), Leij et al. (1991), Batu (1996), and others.
However, some investigators such as Kreft and Zuber
(1978, 1979) and van Genuchten and Parker (1984) have
pointed out that the rst-type boundary condition might not
correctly predict the resident concentration, although it can
correctly predict the ux concentration. They have shown
that the third-type or the ux-type boundary condition is
probably more suitable for predicting the resident concentration in a column test. The difference between the rst-type
and the third-type boundary conditions is expected to be
small when the concentration gradient near the boundary is
small. In real aquifer contamination problems, both boundaries seem possible, depending on the site-specic conditions. In this article, we will derive solutions for both types of
boundary conditions. Unless stated otherwise, the concentration is the resident concentration. If needed, the ux concen-

AC
A2 C
A2 C
AC
= Dx 2 + Dz 2 v
;
At
Ax
Ax
Az

C x = 0; z; t = C0 ;

C x = + ; z; t = 0;

C x; z; t = 0 = 0; for x N 0;

and for the upper aquitard,

AC1
A2 C1
AC
= D01
v1z 1 ;
At
Az
Az2

C1 x; z = B; t = C x; z = B; t ;

1 v1z C1 x; z = B; t 1 D01
= Dz

AC1 x; z = B; t
Az

AC x; z = B; t
;
Az

C1 x; z = + ; t = 0;

C1 x; z; t = 0 = 0;

and for the lower aquitard,

AC2
A2 C2
AC
= D02
v2z 2 ;
At
Az
Az2

10

C2 x; z = B; t = C x; z = B; t ;

11

2 v2z C2 x; z = B; t 2 D02
= Dz

AC2 x; z = B; t
Az

12

AC x; z = B; t
;
Az

C2 x; z = ; t = 0;

13

C2 x; z; t = 0 = 0;

14

where C, C1, C2 represent the resident concentrations in the

aquifer, the upper aquitard, and the lower aquitard respectively;

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

C0 is the constant concentration at x = 0; v is the average

pore velocity of groundwater ow in the aquifer, v1z and v2z are
the vertical pore velocities of groundwater ow in the upper
and lower aquitards, respectively and are positive for upward
ow; Dx and Dz are the longitudinal and vertical hydrodynamic
dispersion coefcients respectively for the aquifer, and Dx =
xv +D0, Dz =zv + D0, where x and z are the longitudinal
and transverse vertical dispersivities, respectively, D0is the
effective molecular diffusion coefcient of the solute in the
aquifer (Bear, 1972); D01 and D02 are the effective molecular
diffusion coefcients in the upper and lower aquitards,
respectively; B is the half thickness of the aquifer; , 1,
and 2 are the porosities of the aquifer, the upper aquitard, and
the lower aquitard, respectively; and t is time. The effective
molecular diffusion coefcients in the upper and lower
aquitards are D01 =1D0, and D02 =2D0, respectively, where
1 and 2 are tortuosities of the upper and lower aquitards,
respectively, and D0 is the free molecular diffusion coefcient of
the solute.
Eqs. (6) and (7) are the continuities of concentration and
mass ux at the upper aquiferaquitard interface at z = B,
respectively, whereas Eqs. (11) and (12) are the continuities
of concentration and mass ux at the lower aquiferaquitard
interface at z = B, respectively. Both aquitards are thought
to be sufciently thick for the transport problem discussed
here.
If using the third-type boundary condition, Eq. (2) will be
replaced by



AC
+ = vC :
j
vC Dx
0
Ax x = 0

15

A point to note is that diffusion along the x-axis is not

included in the governing equations of transport in the
aquitards (see Eqs. (5) and (10)). This is based on two
considerations. First, one purpose of this study is to compare
the result with those obtained with the averaged approximation which only consider diffusion along the z-axis in the
aquitard as well (Sudicky et al., 1985; Chen, 1985; Tang
and Aral, 1992a,b). Second, adding the diffusion term along
the x-axis in Eqs. (5) and (10) will make the analytical
modeling challenging and complex. From a rigorous physical
point of view, neglecting diffusion along the x-axis in
the aquitard will certainly introduce some errors to the
modeling results. Now the question is: how large are such
errors? At the moving front of a contaminant plume where
the concentration gradient along the x-axis could be very
large, the diffusion term along the x-axis could be comparable
with other terms in the equations, thus one is expected to see
some non-negligible errors. On the other hand, at regions
where the concentration gradients along the x-axis are nearly
zeroes, such as at regions far behind the moving front of a
contaminant front, the errors of neglecting the diffusion
term along the x-axis should be minimized and negligible.
Fortunately, many problems associated with aquitard contamination often involve time scales of many decades and
contaminant moving fronts that have traveled long distances
from persistent sources of contaminant, thus the result
developed in this study will be applicable for regions that
are close to those sources (or far behind the moving fronts).
Nevertheless, one still hopes that an analytical or semi-

165

analytical solution can be developed to consider diffusions in

both the x- and z-axes in the future.
Dening the dimensionless terms in Table 1 where the
subscript D represents the dimensionless term, and Pe, Pe1,
Pe2 are the Peclet numbers of the aquifer, the upper aquitard,
and the lower aquitard, respectively (Bear, 1972). Pe1 or Pe2
will be positive for upward advection and negative for downward advection. After transforming Eqs. (1)(9) into dimensionless form, applying the Laplace transform to the
governing equations and boundary conditions will result in
the following equation groups.
pC D =

A2 C D
A2 C D
AC
+
Pe D ;
2
AxD
AxD
Az2D

16

C D xD = 0; zD ; p = 1 = p;

17

C D xD = + ; zD ; p = 0;

18

and for the upper aquitard,

pC 1D = 1

A2 C 1D
AC
Pe1 1D ;
AzD
Az2D

19

C 1D xD ; zD = 1; p = C D xD ; zD = 1; p;

20

AC 1D xD ; zD = 1; p
Pe1 C 1D xD ; zD = 1; p
AzD

AC D xD ; zD = 1; p
;
AzD

1 1

21

C 1D xD ; zD = + ; p = 0;

22

and for the lower aquitard,

pC 2D = 2

A2 C 2D
AC
Pe2 2D ;
AzD
Az2D

23

C 2D xD ; zD = 1; p = C D xD ; zD = 1; p;
"

AC 2D xD ; zD = 1; p
Pe2 C 2D xD ; zD = 1; p
AzD

2 2
=

24
#
25

AC D xD ; zD = 1; p
;
AzD

C 2D xD ; zD = ; p = 0;

26

, C 2D
are the Laplace transforms of CD, C1D, C2D,
where C D , C 1D
respectively, and p is the Laplace transform parameter in
respective to the dimensionless time. All the associated terms
are explained in Table 1.

Table 1
Dimensionless variables used in this study.
q
1 =
xD = Bx DDxz ; zD = Bz ; tD = DB2z t
CD =

C
C0

M1D =

; C1D =
C0 B2

C1
C0

; C2D =

M
1
p
;
Dx = Dz

C2
C0

M2D =

1 =
C0 B2

D01
Dz
1

; 2 =

; 2 =

D02
Dz
2

M
2
p
; Pe1 =
Pe = pvB
Dx = Dz

Dx Dz

v1z B
Dz ; Pe2

v2z B
Dz

166

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

The procedure of solving the equation group of Eqs. (16)

,
(22) is given in Appendix A. The derived solutions for C D , C 1D
are:
and C 2D
2

CD =

An exp4

q


Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe
2

n=0

3
xD 5 cosn zD + n ;

27

1 V zD V 1;

C 1D =

An exp
2
q
Pe1 = 1 2 + 4p = 1 Pe1 = 1

n=0

q


Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe

zD 1 cosn + n ;

zD z 1:

C 2D =

q


Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe

An exp
2
q
Pe2 = 2 2 + 4p = 2 + Pe2 = 2

n=0

28

xD

29

xD

zD + 1 cosn n ;

zD V 1:

2.4. Numerical consideration

where n and n are the frequency and the phase terms

that are determined via Eqs. (A8) and (A9), respectively in
Appendix A, and
An =

4F1 n ; n
;
pF2 n ; n

30

where F1(n, n) and F2(n, n) are given in Eq. (A11).

If the third-type boundary condition is used at xD = 0,
Eq. (17) will be replaced by
1 AC D
CD
Pe AxD

= 1 = p:

31

xD = 0 +

The solutions for the third-type boundary condition are

identical to Eqs. (27)(29) except that An is given by
An =

4F1 n ; n
;
pF2 n ; n Gn

32

where G(n) is:

Gn =

with negligible diffusion into the bedrock (Fig. 1B), the concentrations in the aquifer and aquitard can be easily obtained
by modifying the solutions derived in Section 2.2. This can be
done as follows. One can use the x axis or (z = 0 line) as a
symmetric line to make an image aquifer and an image lower
aquitard from z = 0 to . The image aquifer and aquitard
have the same hydrological parameters as their counterparts,
respectively. Furthermore, the advective velocities in the
upper aquitard and the lower image aquitard have the same
magnitude but opposite direction. The image aquifer and the
aquifer are now combined into an equivalent hypothetical
aquifer with thickness 2B. The system generated in such a way
is a special case of Section 2.2 as mentioned after Eq. (33).
Therefore, the problem shown in Fig. 1B can be regarded as
the upper half-plane of a hypothetical aquifer of thickness 2B
with identical upper and lower aquitard parameters and the
same magnitude but opposite aquitard advective velocities.
With such a modication, the solutions derived in Section 2.2
can be directly applied for the case of Fig. 1B.

q



1 + 4 p + 2n = Pe2 + 1 = 2:

33

We call the results of Eqs. (27)(29) the Zhan method

hereinafter.
For the special case in which the upper and lower
aquitards have identical hydrologic parameters, n = 0.
Furthermore, if the advective velocities in the upper and
lower aquitards have the same magnitude but opposite
direction, then the system investigated becomes symmetric
about the line of z = 0 which can be treated as a no-ux
boundary. This can also be seen easily from Eqs. (28) and (29).
2.3. Solute transport in an aquifer bounded by an upper
aquitard and lower impermeable bedrock
If the aquifer is bounded by an upper aquitard and lower
impermeable bedrock, which is treated as a no-ux boundary

Now the solutions are derived in the Laplace domain.

Analytical inverse Laplace transform is often difcult, if not
impossible for the problems discussed here. Previous studies
by Tang et al. (1981), Sudicky et al. (1985), and many others
have shown that even under simplied conditions, analytical
inverse Laplace transform of the transport problem might end
in multiple integrations that can only be calculated numerically. Therefore, we will use numerical inverse Laplace transform to nd the concentrations in the real time domain.
The numerical inverse Laplace transform can be carried out
using the methods developed either by Stehfest (1970), or Talbot
(1979), or de Hoog et al. (1982), among others. The Laplace
transform Galerkin technique (LGT) proposed by Sudicky
(1989) is another highly efcient and accurate numerical inverse
Laplace transform method for solving ow and transport.
Algorithms by Talbot (1979), de Hoog et al. (1982), and Sudicky
(1989) involve complex variables, which are difcult to use
in our solutions involving a frequency term n and a phase term
n.
The Stehfest (1970) algorithm, on the other hand, only
requires real values of p. It has been used successfully by
several hydrologists in similar problems (Moench and Ogata,
1981; Moench, 1991), but it sometimes suffers from oscillation and convergence problems. Fortunately, this algorithm
is found to work well for the problems investigated here
when comparing the numerical solutions with analytical
solutions under simplied situations. The number of terms
used in the Stehfest method is N = 12, which seems to yield
the best result for the problems investigated here. Under the
special condition that transport in the aquitard is negligible,
closed-form analytical solution exists. The results obtained
from the numerical inverse Laplace transform method is then
tested against the closed-form analytical solution and agreement has been reached. Nevertheless, such an agreement may
not be enough to prove that the numerical inverse Laplace
transform method is always accurate for the general case
that the aquitard transport is non-negligible; it gives us
some condence of using the numerical inverse Laplace
transform.

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

167

3. Comparison with previous studies

3.1. Comparison with analytical solutions
It can be shown that for no ow and no mass ux across the aquiferaquitard interfaces, and constant source concentration, the
solution simplies to the well-known one-dimensional transport solution by Ogata and Banks (1961). Without the interface ux,
1 = 2 = 0 and n = n, where n = 0, 1, 2, ....from Eq. (A6). The only non-zero An term from Eq. (A7) is A0 = 1/p. After this, it is
easy to verify that the inverse Laplace transform of (A4) will result in the following solution in real time domain:
CD =






1
x Pet
x + Pet
erfc D p D + expxD erfc D p D ;
2 tD
2 tD
2

34

where erfc ( ) is the complementary error function. Eq. (34) is the well-known one-dimensional solution derived by Ogata and
Banks (1961).
For the third-type boundary condition at xD = 0, A0 = 1/[pG(0)], and An = 0 for n 0, where G(0) is given by Eq. (33) by setting
n = 0. It is not difcult to verify that the inverse Laplace transform of the general solution (A4) under this circumstance will
become:

CD =

"
#
!1





1
x Pet
1 Pe2 tD 2
x PetD 2
1
x + Pet
2

exp D
erfc D p D +
1 + PexD + Pe tD expPexD erfc D p D
2 tD

4tD
2 tD
2
2
4

35

Eq. (35) is the well known one-dimensional solution for the third-type boundary derived by van Genuchten (1981) and several
others. Detailed derivation of the inverse Laplace transform can be found from van Genuchten (1981) or from the author upon
request.
3.2. Averaged approximation of aquitard advection and diffusion
In many previous studies, aquitard diffusion is approximated as a volumetric source/sink term in the governing equation of
transport in the aquifer, and aquitard advection is not taken into account (Neretnieks, 1980; Tang et al., 1981; Chen, 1985; Sudicky
et al., 1985; Fujikawa and Fukui, 1990; Tang and Aral, 1992a,b). In the following, we are going to include advection as part of the
mass transport mechanism. The governing Eq. (1) under this approximation is modied as:
AC
A2 C
AC
C
C
= Dx 2 v
1 + 2 ;
2B
2B
At
Ax
Ax

36

where 1 and 2 are the mass uxes across the upper and lower interfaces of the aquifer and they include both advective ux and
diffusive ux:
C1 =





AC
AC
1 v1z C1 1 D01 1
; C2 = 2 v2z C2 2 D02 2
:
Az z = B
Az z = B

37

The governing equations of the aquitards are still the same as Eqs. (5) and (10). C and C1 are continuous at the upper aquifer
aquitard interface, whereas C and C2 are continuous at the lower aquiferaquitard interface. Changing above equations into their
dimensionless forms and applying Laplace transforms, one can obtain the following solutions in the Laplace domain for the rsttype boundary condition as:
2
6
6
1
C D = exp6
6
p
4

s

q


q

Pe21 + 4p1 + Pe1 + 2
Pe22 + 4p2 Pe2 Pe
Pe2 + 4p + 1
2
2

C 1D = C D xD ; zD = 1; p exp4

C 2D

q
Pe1 =1 2 + 4p = 1 Pe1 = 1
2

3
7
7
xD 7
7;
5

38

3
zD 15;

2q
3
Pe2 =2 2 + 4p = 2 + Pe2 = 2
= C D xD ; zD = 1; p exp4
zD + 15:
2

39

40

If ignoring the advective uxes in the aquitards and assuming the upper and lower aquitards have identical parameters, then
the solutions come back to those derived by Tang et al. (1981), Fujikawa and Fukui (1990), and others. The same procedures can be

168

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

applied for the third-type boundary condition and will not be repeated here. Inverse Laplace transform of Eqs. (38)(40) will yield
the concentrations in the real time domain. We call the results of Eqs. (38)(40) the averaged approximation (AA) method
hereinafter. Now we compare the AA method with the Zhan method derived in Section 2.2.
4. Results analysis
The results of this study are formulated in dimensionless
forms which can be applied to any suitable real parameters. For
the sake of helping readers to understand the range of those
dimensionless variables, a table of realistically possible values
is provided in Table 2 and is briey illustrated. The effective
molecular diffusion coefcients chosen for the aquitard (D01 and
D02) and the aquifer (D0) are equivalent to a dilute NaCl solution
with D01 = D02 = D0 = 1.16 10 9 m2/s. The average pore
velocity v is chosen to be 0.10 m/day or 1.1610 6 m/s. The
same values of effective molecular diffusion coefcient and
average pore velocity were also used in Sudicky et al. (1985). For a
eld-scale dispersion problem, we choose the longitudinal
dispersivity x =2 m. The transverse vertical dispersivity is
expected to be 0.0095 of the longitudinal one as z =0.019 m.
Such a choice is consistent with eld-scale dispersion (Domenico
and Schwartz, 1998; Fetter, 1999) but is greater than the local
dispersivity used in the laboratory experiment of Sudicky et al.
(1985) and the eld experiment of Sudicky (1986), which is
0.001 m. Therefore, the corresponding dispersion coefcients
are Dx =xv +D0 = 2.32 10 6 m2/s, and Dz =zv +D0 =
2.32 10 8 m2/s. The aquifer thickness is 2B = 4 m. The
corresponding Peclet number Pe is 10. Two different leakage velocities in the aquitard are v1z =1.1610 10 m/s, and
1.1610 9 m/s, respectively, corresponding to Pe1 of 0.1, and 1.
The positive sign of v1z (or v2z) indicates that water is moving
upward. The porosity difference among the aquitards and aquifer
is expected to be a secondary effect, thus the identical value of
porosity 0.36 is assigned for all units. The same porosity is used
for the aquitard in Sudicky et al. (1985). The rst-type boundary
condition is used in the following discussion.

4.1. Transport in the aquiferaquitard system

4.1.1. Concentration proles in the aquiferaquitard system
Fig. 2AC show the vertical concentration proles in the
aquiferaquitard system under conditions of 1 = 2 = 1,
Pe = 10, xD = 10, and tD = 2. Fig. 2A is for a case with different
hydrologic parameters of the upper and lower aquitards with
1 = 0.05, 2 = 0.1, Pe1 = 0.5, and Pe2 = 1. Fig. 2B is for a case
Table 2
The default values used in this study.
Parameter name

Symbol

Default value

Half aquifer thickness in Fig. 1A or full

aquifer thickness in Fig. 1B
Effective molecular diffusion coefcients
of the aquitard
Longitudinal dispersion coefcient of
the aquifer
Transverse dispersion coefcient of
the aquifer
Average pore velocity in the aquifer
Average pore velocity in the aquitard

2m

D01, D02

1.16 10 9 m2/s

Dx

2.32 10 6 m2/s

Dz

2.32 10 8 m2/s

v
v1z, v2z

1.16 10 6 m/s
1.16 10 10 m/s
1.16 10 9 m/s
0.36

Porosity

= 1 = 2

with identical hydrologic parameters of the upper and lower

aquitards with 1 = 2 = 0.1, and Pe1 = Pe2 = 1. A point to note
is that advective velocities in the upper and lower aquitards
are both upward in Fig. 2A and B. Fig. 2C is for a case that is
identical to that of Fig. 2B except that the advective velocities
in the upper and lower aquitards have opposite direction, i.e.,
Pe1 = 1 but Pe2 = 1. Fig. 2C is the special case discussed
before in Section 2.2 after Eq. (33) with a symmetric system
about z = 0. The case shown in Fig. 2C for z N 0 would also be
the solution applying for the conceptual model of Fig. 1B.
Several interesting points can be made from these three
gures. Firstly, as can be seen from the gures, Fig. 2A and B
have asymmetric shapes of concentration distributions along
the z-axis since the advective velocities in the upper and lower
aquitards are both along the upward direction. However,
Fig. 2C has a symmetric shape of concentration distribution
along the z-axis as expected. For the asymmetric cases of
Fig. 2A and B, greater discrepancy exists between the result of
the AA method and the Zhan method in the upper aquitard
than that in the lower aquitard. Secondly, the AA method only
yields a z-independent concentration within the aquifer and
a declined concentration with z in the aquitard. Notice that
zD = 1 is the interface between the aquifer and the upper
aquitard. The Zhan method, however, provides a concentration prole that continuously varies with z. Because of the
difference between the dispersion coefcient of the aquifer
and the diffusion coefcient of the aquitard, concentration
gradients are not continuous at the aquiferaquitard interface.
Fig. 2AB show that the AA method considerably overestimates the concentration in the upper aquitard up to a
fairly large distances from the aquiferaquitard interface.
However, for the symmetric case of Fig. 2C, the degree of such
overestimation is much less. Fig. 2C shows that for the symmetric case and for the case with the impermeable bedrock,
the difference between the AA solution and our solution is
actually quite small. Thirdly, the AA method and the Zhan
method seem to converge to negligible concentration at
approximately the same distances from the aquiferaquitard
interface. For instance, at zD 3 in Fig. 2AC, the concentrations calculated from the Zhan method and the AA method
will both become nearly negligible.

4.1.2. Breakthrough curves (BTCs) in the aquifer

Fig. 3 shows the comparison of BTCs in the aquifer calculated by the Zhan method at zD = 0 and zD = 0.5 under conditions of 1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 1,
and xD = 10. The result from the AA method, which is independent of the z-axis, is also shown in this Figure. Several
observations can be made.
First, the concentration at zD = 0 is always greater than that
at zD = 0.5. This simply reects the fact that a concentration
gradient exists to drive mass upward into the upper aquitard.
Second, the AA method overestimates the aquifer concentration
at early times but underestimates the aquifer concentration at
late times. Third, even under relatively long times, aquifer
concentrations cannot reach the source concentration C0 (or CD

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

169

than the source concentration. This phenomenon is somewhat

similar to that observed for a radioactively decaying solute.
4.1.3. Comparison of the semi-analytical solutions and the
numerical simulations
To test the semi-analytical solutions obtained here, we
have conducted numerical simulations using the model
MT3DMS developed by Zheng and Bennett (2002). The
numerical simulations are straightforward, thus are only
briey outlined here. A two-dimensional aquiferaquitard
system is generated and the parameters used are the same as
those outlined in Section 4. The idea is to reproduce the
situation of 1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, and Pe1 =
Pe2 = 1. The simulated domain includes an aquifer that is 4 m
thick and 1000 m long, and an upper and a lower aquitard. The
thickness of each aquitard is 50 m, which is sufciently large to
satisfy the boundary conditions of Eqs. (8) and (13). The
hydraulic conductivity of the aquitards is approximately three
orders of magnitude lower than that in the aquifer, so that
ow is essentially vertical in the aquitards. The vertical ow
velocity in the aquitards is 1/100 of the horizontal ow
velocity in the aquifer. The ow velocities in the aquifer and
aquitards are obtained through Modow after appropriately
specifying the boundary condition of ow and these velocities
are used by MT3DMS to generate the concentration eld
(Zheng and Bennett, 2002). The grid spacing was made
sufciently ne to reduce the numerical errors. After trying
different grid spacings, we decided to use a spacing of 0.2 m for
the aquifer and the aquitards. Further rening the grid space to
0.1 m did not produce noticeable changes to the output.
Different solver options of MT3DMS had been tried except the
explicit nite difference method, and similar results were
obtained. The hybrid Method of Characteristic (HMOM) was
eventually chosen because of its relative short computational
time. A constantconcentration boundary condition was
used on the left-hand side of the aquifer in the numerical
simulation.
However, one must be careful with the nature of comparison of the analytical and numerical modeling results.

Fig. 2. The vertical concentration proles in the aquiferaquitard system

under conditions of 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, xD = 10, and tD = 2. (A) 1 = 0.05,
2 = 0.1, Pe1 = 0.5, and Pe2 = 1; (B) 1 =2 = 0.1, and Pe1 =Pe2 = 1; (C) 1 =
2 = 0.1, Pe1 = 1, and Pe2 = 1.

of 1). That is because in addition to the horizontal mass ux in

the aquifer, the vertical mass ux across the aquiferaquitard
boundary serves as a sink to keep aquifer concentration lower

Fig. 3. The breakthrough curves (BTC) at zD = 0, and zD = 0.5 under

conditions of 1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 1, and xD = 10
from the Zhan method. The result of the AA method, which is independent of
the z axis, is also shown in this gure.

170

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

Such a comparison is by no means to be exact in a quantitative

sense because of a few reasons. First, diffusion along the xaxis is not considered in the governing equations of transport
in the aquitard (see Eqs. (5) and (10)), but it is included in
MT3DMS. In this sense, the numerical modeling seems to
have an advantage over the analytical modeling of this study.
Unfortunately, our numerical exercises indicate that MT3DMS
performs poorly near the aquiferaquitard interfaces. Such
poor performance is caused by the abrupt change of aquifer
parameters and concentration gradients near the aquifer
aquitard interfaces. This issue cannot be simply resolved by
rening the grid blocks near those interfaces. New numerical
modeling strategies should be used to accurately model the
transport behavior near the aquiferaquitard interfaces. The
nding of our numerical exercises seems to agree with
previous numerical simulation which indicated that the
numerical errors tended to be the largest at the aquifer
aquitard interfaces (Martin and Frind, 1998; Bester et al.,
2005). In this regard, the analytical modeling seems to have
some advantages over the numerical modeling.
The idea of comparing the analytical and numerical
modeling results is not to show which one is better; rather, it
is to show how different are those results in a qualitative sense.
The default parameters used in the comparison come from
Table 2. As an example, Fig. 4 shows the concentration distribution in the system obtained from the numerical simulation
against that obtained from the Zhan method at xD = 2.5 (or
x = 50 m) at tD = 2 or (t = 3991 day). The advections in both
aquitards are upward thus Fig. 4 is for an asymmetric case. The
horizontal ow velocity in the aquifer is 0.1 m/day. This implies
that the averaged travel distance of the solute is x = 3991
0.1 m = 399.1 m, which is considerably larger than the coordinate of the observation point in Fig. 4 (which is x = 50 m).
Thus the result in Fig. 4 can be regarded as the one far behind
the front of the solute. As can be seen from this gure, the result
of the numerical simulation is close to that of the Zhan method

in the lower aquitard but it differs considerably from that of the

Zhan method in the upper aquitard and in the upper portion of
the aquifer. Large differences between the analytical and
numerical modeling results exist at both the upper and lower
aquiferaquitard interfaces. The asymmetric shapes of the
concentration distribution in Fig. 4 are apparently due to the
asymmetric aquitard advections which are upward in both
aquitards here.
4.1.4. Mass transported into the aquitard
It is interesting to know how much mass was stored in the
aquitard due to advective and diffusive transport across the
aquiferaquitard boundary. The total masses per unit width
along the direction perpendicular to the xz plane in the upper
and lower aquitards are denoted as M1 and M2, respectively.
Their dimensionless forms, denoted as M1D and M2D are
dened in Table 1. The Laplace transforms of M1D and M2D,
denoted as M 1D and M 2D respectively, can be obtained
through the following integration:
Z
M1D =

Z
dxD

Z
C 1D dzD ;

M2D =

Z
dxD

C 2D dzD
41

This can be done straightforwardly. Using Eqs. (28) and

(29), one has
M 1D =

X
n=0

M2D =

X
n=0

4An cosn + n
;
q

q


2
2
Pe + 4 p + n Pe
Pe1 = 1 2 + 4p = 1 Pe1 = 1
4An cosn + n
;
q

q


Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe
Pe2 = 2 2 + 4p = 2 + Pe2 = 2

42
where An is given by Eq. (30) for the rst-type boundary
condition at x = 0 or Eq. (32) for the third-type boundary
and
condition at x = 0. Inverse Laplace transforms of M 1D
in Eq. (42) will result in the solution in the real time
M 2D
domain for the Zhan method.
If using Eqs. (39) and (40) for the AA method, one can
as:
and M 2D
obtain M 1D
4= p
M 1D = s

q


q

Pe2 + 4p + 1

Pe21 + 4p1 + Pe1

+ 2

Pe22 + 4p2 Pe2

Pe

1
q
;
Pe1 = 1 2 + 4p = 1 Pe1 = 1
4= p
M 2D = s

q


q

2
2
Pe1 + 4p1 + Pe1 + 2
Pe22 + 4p2 Pe2 Pe
Pe + 4p + 1
1
q
:
Pe2 = 2 2 + 4p = 2 + Pe2 = 2

Fig. 4. Comparison of the vertical concentration proles in the aquifer

aquitard system obtained from the numerical simulation using MT3DMS and
the Zhan method. 1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 1, tD = 2.
The proles at xD = 2.5 is shown here. zD = 1 and 1 are the upper and
lower aquiferaquitard interfaces. The rst-type solute transport boundary
condition is used on the left hand side of the aquifer.

43

in Eq. (43)
Inverse Laplace transforms of M 1D and M 2D
will result in the solution in the real time domain for the AA
method. As an example, a comparison of the M1D values
calculated from Eq. (42) (the solid line) and Eq. (43) (the
dashed line) is shown in Fig. 5 for 1 = 2 = 0.05, 1 = 2 = 1,
Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 0.1 and 1. Several observations can be
made from Fig. 5.

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

171

Fig. 5. The dimensionless mass transported to the aquitard per unit width
(M1D) calculated from the Zhan method and that from the AA method versus
the dimensionless time (tD) under the conditions of 1 = 2 = 0.05, 1 =
2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 0.1 and 1.

Fig. 6. The dimensionless mass transported to the aquitard per unit width
(M1D) calculated from the Zhan method and that from the AA method versus
the dimensionless time (tD) under the conditions of 1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 =
2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 0.1 and 1.

First, the AA method always overestimates the mass

transported to the aquitard, and the error increases with the
Peclet numbers. For example, at tD = 2 and Pe1 = Pe2 = 0.1,
the error is about 18%, while at tD = 2 and Pe1 = Pe2 = 1, the
error is about 144%. This is understandable. In the AA method,
the aquitard diffusion is regarded as a volumetric source/sink
term in the governing equation of transport in the aquifer,
thus every point from zD = 0 to zD = 1 within the aquifer is
capable of losing mass, resulting in a greater loss of mass to
the aquitard. This is contradictory to the realistic mass
transfer that only occurs at the aquiferaquitard interface.
The Zhan method treats the mass ux to the aquitard as an
interface term rather than a volumetric term, thus it results in
less total mass transported.
Second, the value of the aquitard Peclet number greatly
inuences the M1D values and a greater Peclet number results
in a greater M1D value when time is sufciently large (tD N 1).
The reason is quite straightforward since a greater Peclet
number indicates greater upward advective transport from
the aquifer to the upper aquitard, thus more mass ends up in
the upper aquitard.
Third, the functionality of M1D versus tD is nonlinear. In
fact, the slope of M1D versus tD increases with tD when tD is
relatively small and eventually approach a constant when tD
is close to 2, indicating an advective transport mechanism
at the late time. A tD of 2 is equivalent to a real time of
t = 4000 days or close to 11 years (see Tables 1 and 2).
Therefore, both diffusion and advection will affect the earlytime mass transport, but only advection will affect the late
time transport between the aquifer and the aquitard.
Fig. 6 is similar to Fig. 5 except that both the 1 and 2
values are increased to 0.1. It is interesting to see that when
the 1 and 1 values are doubled, indicating that the aquitard
diffusion becomes stronger, the mass transported to the
upper aquitard increases as well, as expected. However, the
percentage of increase is greater for a case with a smaller
aquitard Peclet number. For instance, at tD of 2 and Pe1 =
Pe2 = 0.1, the M1D value increases 20% from Figs. 5 and 6,
while at tD of 2 and Pe1 = Pe2 = 1, the M1D value increases

only 0.4% from Figs. 5 and 6. This nding implies that the mass
transported between the aquifer and the aquitard is relatively
insensitive to the aquitard diffusion when the aquitard Peclet
number is greater than unity.
Fig. 7 is similar to Figs. 5 and 6 except that the upper and
lower aquitards have different diffusion coefcients. In this
case, the upper aquitard diffusion coefcient is one half of the
lower one. One can tell that by reducing the upper aquitard
diffusion, the M1D value is slightly reduced. But in general, the
M1D value is less sensitive to the difference of the aquitard
diffusion coefcients. A great discrepancy has been observed
between the Zhan method and the AA method when
Pe1 = Pe2 = 1.
Fig. 8 shows the results for different aquitard Peclet
numbers. In this example, the Peclet number of the upper
aquitard is 1/10 of that of the lower aquitard. As can be seen
obviously, the M1D value is sensitive to the difference of the

Fig. 7. The dimensionless mass transported to the aquitard per unit width
(M1D) calculated from the Zhan method and that from the AA method versus
the dimensionless time (tD) under the conditions of 1 = 0.05, 2 = 0.1,
1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = Pe2 = 0.1 and 1.

172

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

Peclet numbers between the upper and lower aquitards,

particularly at late times.

generally overestimates the concentration in the upper

aquitard for this asymmetric case.
When ow velocities in the upper and lower aquitards have
the same magnitude but opposite directions, a symmetric
concentration distribution along the vertical direction will be
obtained. For this case, the concentrations in the aquifer
obtained by the two methods differ considerably. However,
much less discrepancy has been observed in the aquitards.
Comparison of the numerical simulation using MT3DMS
and the Zhan method indicates that the result of the numerical
simulation could differ considerably from that of the Zhan
method for an asymmetric case where aquitard advection is in
the same direction. More specically, in the aquitard where
the advection is towards the aquiferaquitard interface, the
numerical result agrees with the result of the Zhan method
reasonably well; in the aquitard where the advection is
away from the aquiferaquitard interface, the numerical result
differs considerably from the result of the Zhan method.
Compared to the Zhan method, the AA method overestimates mass transported into the upper aquitard when an
upward advection exists. The mass transported between the
aquifer and the aquitard is sensitive to the aquitard Peclet
number, but less sensitive to the aquitard diffusion coefcient,
particularly at late times.

5. Summary and conclusions

Acknowledgements

This study deals with two-dimensional solute transport in

an aquiferaquitard system by maintaining rigorous mass
conservation at the aquiferaquitard interface. Advection,
longitudinal dispersion, and transverse vertical dispersion are
considered in the aquifer. Vertical advection and diffusion are
considered in the aquitards. The rst-type and the third-type
boundary conditions are considered in the aquifer. This study
differs from previous AA method that treats the mass ux
between the aquifer and aquitard as an averaged volumetric
source/sink term in the governing equation of transport in
the aquifer. Instead, it solves the transport governing equations in the aquifer and the aquitards explicitly by maintaining continuity of concentration and vertical mass ux at the
aquiferaquitard interfaces. Analytical solutions of concentrations in the aquitards and aquifers are obtained in the
Laplace domain and are inverted numerically to yield concentrations in the real time domain. The following conclusions
can be drawn from this study.
The BTCs and concentration proles obtained in the Zhan
method are drastically different from those obtained using
the AA method. The AA method shows a sharp change of
concentration prole near the aquiferaquitard interface
whereas the Zhan method shows a continuously decreasing
concentration near that interface.
Concentration distributions in the aquitards are closely
related to advection in the aquitards. When ow velocities in
the upper and lower aquitards have the same magnitude and
both are along the upward direction, an asymmetric concentration distribution along the vertical direction will result.
The AA method overestimates the aquifer concentration at
early times but underestimates the aquifer concentration at
late times. However, a greater discrepancy exists between the
result of the AA method and the Zhan method in the upper
aquitard than that in the lower aquitard. The AA method

This study is partially supported by National Science Foundation of China (#50428907), the CONACYT-TAMU Collaborative Research Program, and the Advanced Research Program
(ARP) from the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board,
USA. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. In particular, we thank the Editor-inChief E. O. Frind for his critical and detailed suggestions of this
manuscript. Dr. Frind's comments have helped us improve this
manuscript substantially.

Fig. 8. The dimensionless mass transported to the aquitard per unit width
(M1D) calculated from the Zhan method and that from the AA method versus
the dimensionless time (tD) under the conditions of 1 = 2 = 0.05, and
1 = 2 = 0.1, 1 = 2 = 1, Pe = 10, Pe1 = 0.1 and Pe2 = 1.

Appendix A. Solute transport in an aquifer bounded by

two aquitards
The following solution is proposed for C D :
CD =

An C xD xD ; p; n cosn zD + n ;

A1

n=0

where An is the coefcient that needs to be determined, C xD

(xD, p, n) is the part related to the x coordinate, and n is the
frequency of the Fourier transform along the z-axis. Substituting Eq. (A1) into Eq. (16) results in the following equa (xD, p, n):
tion for C xD


d2 C xD
PedC xD
2

p + n C xD = 0:
2
dxD
dxD

A2

Considering the boundary condition of Eq. (18) will yield

the general solution of Eq. (A2):
2 0q
1 3


Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe
AxD 5: A3
C xD xD ; p; n = exp4@
2

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

Therefore, the proposed solution for the aquifer becomes:

2 0q
1 3



Pe2 + 4 p + 2n Pe
X
4
@
AxD 5 cosn zD + ;
CD =
An exp
n
2
n=0
V zD V 1

A4

The solution to Eq. (19) with the boundary conditions of

Eqs. (20) and (22) is:
2
C 1D = C D xD ; zD = 1; pexp4

q
Pe1 = 1 2 + 4p = 1 Pe1 = 1
2

zD z 1:

3
zD 15;

A5

singularities of n =/4+n/2 separate the entire domain into

many sections with an equal interval of /2. It is worthwhile
to
p
point out that near the singular point of n = b, there are
alwaysptwo
roots of n within that /2 section including

n = b. Only one root of n exists within each of the rest /2

sections.
After determining n and n, one can determine An from
the boundary condition Eq. (17):

An cosn zD + n = 1 = p:

C 2D

zD V 1:

A6

Substituting Eq. (A4) into Eqs. (21) and (25), and

considering Eqs. (A5) and (A6) will lead to:
q
n tann + n = 1 Pe21 = 4 + p1 + 1 Pe1 = 2;
q
n tann n = 2 Pe22 = 4 + p2 2 Pe2 = 2:

A7

Conducting inverse Fourier transform of Eq. (A10) results

in:

2
n

1 2

q

Pe21 = 4 + p1 + Pe1 = 2

q

Pe22 = 4 + p2 Pe2 = 2

= n

A8

tan2
n

q

1 Pe21 = 4 + p1 + 1 Pe1 = 2

q

+ 2 Pe22 = 4 + p2 2 Pe2 = 2 ;

n + 1 2

q

Pe21 = 4 + p1 + Pe1 = 2

q


Pe22 = 4 + p2 Pe2 = 2
= n

An =

4
F ;
1 n n ;
p
F2 n ; n

A11

where
F1 n ; n = sinn cos n ;

A12

F2 n ; n = 2n + sin2n cos2 n :
, and C 2D
are derived after substituting
Therefore, C D , C 1D
Eq. (A11) into Eqs. (A4), (A5), and (A6), respectively. For the
special case in which the upper and lower aquitards have
identical parameters, n = 0.
References

From Eq. (A7), one has:

A10

n=0

Similarly,
2q
3
Pe2 = 2 2 + 4p = 2 + Pe2 = 2
= C D xD ; zD = 1; pexp4
zD + 15;
2

173

A9

tan2
n

q

1 Pe21 = 4 + p1 + 1 Pe1 = 2

q

2 Pe22 = 4 + p2 2 Pe2 = 2 ;
n is determined from Eq. (A8). After that, n is calculated
from Eq. (A9). For the numerical calculation, accurate determination of n and n are important since these parameters have been
used in solutions (see Eqs. (27)(33)). As can be seen from Eq.
(A8), n is the root of a function tan(2n)=n/(n2 b), where
a and b are two dummy variables associated with all the other
2
parameters of Eq. (A8).
p Notice that function n/(n b)has a
singularity at n = b, and the function of tan(2n) has innite
numbers of singularities at n =/4+n/2, where n is an
integer varying from negative innity to positive innity. The

Ball, W.P., Liu, C., Xia, G., Young, D.F., 1997a. A diffusion-based interpretation
of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene concentration proles in a
groundwater aquitard. Water Resour. Res. 33 (12), 27412757.
Ball, W.P., Xia, G., Durfee, D.P., Wilson, R.D., Brown, M.J., Mackay, D.M., 1997b.
Hot methanol extraction for the analysis of volatile organic chemicals in
subsurface core samples from Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Ground
Water Monit. Remediat. 17 (1), 104121.
Batu, V., 1996. A generalized three-dimensional analytical solute transport
model for multiple rectangular rst-type sources. J. Hydrol. 174, 5782.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. Elsevier, New York, USA.
Bester, M., Frind, E.O., Molson, J.W., Rudolph, D.L., 2005. Numerical investigation of road salt impact on an urban well eld. Ground Water 44 (2),
165175.
Chen, C.S., 1985. Analytical and approximate solutions to radial dispersion
from an injection well to a geological unit with simultaneous diffusion
into adjacent strata. Water Resour. Res. 21 (8), 10691076.
de Hoog, F.R., Knight, J.H., Stokes, A.N.,1982. An improved method for numerical
inversion of Laplace transforms. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 3 (3), 357366.
Domenico, P.A., Schwartz, F.W., 1998. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology,
2nd ed. Wiley, New York, USA.
Fetter, C.W., 1999. Contaminant Hydrogeology, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Fujikawa, Y., Fukui, M., 1990. Adsorptive solute transport in fractured rock:
analytical solutions for delta-type source conditions. J. Contam. Hydrol. 6,
85102.
Gillham, R.W., Sudicky, E.A., Cherry, J.A., Frind, E.O., 1984. An advective
diffusive concept for solute transport in heterogeneous unconsolidated
geological deposits. Water Resour. Res. 20 (3), 369378.
Hendry, M.J., Ranville, J.R., Boldt-Leppin, B.E.J., Wassenaar, L.I., 2003. Geochemical and transport properties of dissolved organic carbon in a clay-rich
aquitard. Water Resour. Res. 39 (7), 1194. doi:10.1029/2002WR001943.
Hunkeler, D., Chollet, N., Pittet, X., Aravena, R., Cherry, J.A., Parker, B.L., 2004.
Effect of source variability and transport processes on carbon isotope
ratios of TCE and PCE in two sandy aquifers. J. Contam. Hydrol. 74,
265282.
Huyakorn, P.S., Ungs, M.J., Mulkey, L.A., Sudicky, E.A., 1987. A threedimensional analytical method for predicting leachate migration.
Ground Water 25 (5), 588598.
Johns, R.A., Roberts, P.V., 1991. A solute transport model for channelized ow
in a fracture. Water Resour. Res. 27 (8), 17971808.

174

H. Zhan et al. / Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 107 (2009) 162174

Johnson, R.L., Cherry, J.A., Pankow, J.F., 1989. Diffusive contaminant transport
in natural clay: a eld example and implications for clay-lined waste
disposal sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23, 340349.
Kreft, A., Zuber, A., 1978. On the physical meaning of the dispersion equation
and its solutions for different initial and boundary conditions. Chem. Eng.
Sci. 33, 14711480.
Kreft, A., Zuber, A., 1979. On the use of the dispersion model of uid ow. Int.
J. Appl. Radiat. Isot. 30, 705708.
Leij, F.J., Skaggs, T.H., van Genuchten, M.Th., 1991. Analytical solutions for
solute transport in three-dimensional semi-innite porous media. Water
Resour. Res. 27 (10), 27192733.
Liu, C.X., Ball, W.P., 1999. Application of inverse methods to contaminant
source identication from aquitard diffusion proles at Dover AFB,
Delaware. Water Resour. Res. 35 (7), 19751985.
Liu, C.X., Ball, W.P., 2002. Back diffusion of chlorinated solvent contaminants
from a natural aquitard to a remediated aquifer under well-controlled
eld conditions: predictions and measurements. Ground Water 40 (2),
175184.
Liu, H.H., Bodvarsson, G.S., Zhang, G., 2004. The scale-dependency of the
effective matrix diffusion coefcient. Vadose Zone J. 3, 312315.
Martin, P.J., Frind, E.O., 1998. Modeling a complex multi-aquifer system: the
Waterloo moraine. Ground Water 36 (4), 679690.
Moench, A.F., 1991. Convergent radial dispersion: a note on evaluation of the
Laplace transform solution. Water Resour. Res. 27 (12), 32613264.
Moench, A.F., Ogata, A., 1981. A numerical inversion of the Laplace transform
solution to radial dispersion in a porous medium. Water Resour. Res. 17 (1),
250252.
Moreno, L., Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., 1985. Analysis of some laboratory tracer
runs in natural ssures. Water Resour. Res. 21 (7), 951958.
Neretnieks, I., 1980. Diffusion in the rock matrix: an important factor in
radionuclide retardation? J. Geophys. Res. 85 (B8), 43794397.
Neretnieks, I., Eriksen, T., Thtinen, P., 1982. Tracer movement in a single
ssure in granitic rock: some experimental results and their interpretation. Water Resour. Res. 18 (4), 849858.
Ogata, A., Banks, R.B., 1961. A solution of differential equation of longitudinal
dispersion in porous media. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 411, A1A7.
Parker, B.L., Cherry, J.A., Chapman, S.W., 2004. Field study of TCE diffusion
proles below DNAPL to assess aquitard integrity. J. Contam. Hydrol. 74,
197230.
Rasmuson, A., Neretnieks, I., 1981. Migration of radionuclides in ssured
rock: the inuence of micropore diffusion and longitudinal dispersion.
J. Geophys. Res. 86 (B5), 37493758.

Stehfest, H., 1970. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Commun. ACM

13 (1), 4749.
Sudicky, E.A., 1986. A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a
sand aquifer: spatial variability of hydraulic conductivity and its role in
the dispersion process. Water Resour. Res. 22 (13), 20692082.
Sudicky, E.A., 1989. The Laplace transform Galerkin technique: a timecontinuous nite element theory and application to mass transport in
groundwater. Water Resour. Res. 25 (8), 18331846.
Sudicky, E.A., Frind, E.O., 1982. Contaminant transport in fractured porous
media: analytical solutions for a system of parallel fractures. Water
Resour. Res. 18 (6), 16341642.
Sudicky, E.A., Frind, E.O., 1984. Contaminant transport in fractured porous
media: analytical solutions for a two-member decay chain in a single
fracture. Water Resour. Res. 20 (7), 10211029.
Sudicky, E.A., Gillham, R.W., Frind, E.O., 1985. Experimental investigation of
solute transport in stratied porous media, 1. The nonreactive case.
Water Resour. Res. 21 (7), 10351041.
Starr, R.C., Gillham, R.W., Sudicky, E.A., 1985. Experimental investigation of
solute transport in stratied porous media, 2. The reactive case. Water
Resour. Res. 21 (7), 10431050.
Talbot, A., 1979. The accurate numerical inversion of the Laplace transforms.
J. Inst. Math. Appl. 23, 97120.
Tang, Y., Aral, M.M., 1992a. Contaminant transport in layered porous media, 1.
General solution. Water Resour. Res. 28 (5), 13891397.
Tang, Y., Aral, M.M., 1992b. Contaminant transport in layered porous media, 2.
Applications. Water Resour. Res. 28 (5), 13991406.
Tang, D.H., Frind, E.O., Sudicky, E.A., 1981. Contaminant transport in fractured
porous media: analytical solution for a single fracture. Water Resour. Res.
17 (3), 555564.
van Genuchten, M., 1981. Analytical solutions for chemical transport with
simultaneous adsorption, zero-order production and rst-order decay.
J. Hydrol. 49, 213233.
van Genuchten, M.Th., Parker, J.C., 1984. Boundary conditions for displacement experiments through short laboratory soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48,
703708.
Young, D.F., Ball, W.P., 1998. Estimating diffusion coefcients in lowpermeability porous media using a macropore column. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 32 (17), 25782584.
Zheng, C., Bennett, G.D., 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling,
2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.