{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033442088091353996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01631321370309951, 'mean_word_length': 5.561497326203209, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Flux‐Informed Remediation Decision Making

In recent years there have been significant developments in contaminant mass flux and mass discharge measurement techniques (Payne et al. 2008; Bauer et al. 2004; Bockelmann et al. 2003; Nandita et al. 2006) that have sharpened the focus on resolving “moving” vs. “stored” contaminant mass. Fluxinformed remediation decision-making leverages this distinction by focusing on the mass that moves, which drives off-site exposure and long-term liability. Understanding the contaminant transport and interaction in and between the highpermeability and low-permeability aquifer segments enables more cost-effective reduction in risk by targeting smaller aquifer volumes for treatment as compared to aquifer restoration to meet maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) everywhere. By applying mass flux and mass discharge concepts (i.e., using a mass flux/discharge framework) to guide our characterization, monitoring, and remediation decisions (Nichols 2004), it is possible to factor the mobility of the contaminant mass to prioritize and allocate remediation efforts. This will result in more effective remedies, more sharply focused remediation goals, and more significant reductions in risk.