Define the source–pathway–receptor model
Describe the source zone, groundwater flow, transport pathways and receptors. Identify where observations exist and where the conceptual site model relies on assumptions. A trend at one monitoring point cannot by itself describe the behaviour of the whole plume.
Distinguish loss from transformation
Evaluate dilution, dispersion, sorption, volatilisation and degradation as separate explanations. Where transformation is proposed, consider the expected products and the relevant geochemical setting. The strongest interpretation combines information that tests different parts of the explanation rather than repeating one indicator.
Test the time and space argument
Review comparable sampling rounds, analytical methods, detection limits and changes in the monitoring network. Ask whether the plume is stable, whether the source persists and whether the proposed timeframe fits receptor protection. Present uncertainty explicitly where the record is short or uneven.
Keep a contingency in view
A monitored approach needs decision points: what observation would challenge the interpretation, trigger additional investigation or require a different response? A useful review delivers an evidence map, monitoring gaps and escalation criteria for the responsible project team.
Sources & context
Background reading checked 9 October 2026. The review questions and structures above are BGF editorial guidance; the references are not BGF project evidence or endorsements. Apply them to the relevant site, data and agreed scope.