{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022315202231520222, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003486750348675035, 'mean_word_length': 5.833333333333333, '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}}
Aquifer Tuning for Optimum Performance of In Situ Remedies

Recent advances in our understanding of how injected fluids and contaminants move through and interact with an aquifer matrix are supporting improved design and optimization of injection-based in situ remediation systems. This, along with an increased understanding of treatment mechanisms, is allowing us to look deeper than ever before into the proverbial “black box” of in situ remediation. The successful deployment of in situ remediation systems hinges on finding the balance between design, system implementation, and stated endpoints (objectives) acceptable to all stakeholders (Figure 1). These elements can be summarized as follows: • Design: Often completed in two steps, starting with the application of first principles and technologyspecific theory to an understanding of the site and contaminants characteristics, followed by field testing to unmask and account for site-specific heterogeneities and geochemistry. • Implementation: System construction and operation including subsequent adaptation and continuous refinement of the remediation system configuration and operation as needed based on process monitoring. • Endpoints: Dependent on the absolute and functional objectives established for site restoration (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2005) vs. what is achievable with the selected remedy in the site-specific aquifer setting.