Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Extraction Methods)
 
(756 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies==
+
==Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques==  
−
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] are mobile in the subsurface and highly resistant to natural degradation processes, therefore soil source areas can be ongoing sources of groundwater contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has not promulgated soil standards for any PFAS, although a handful of states have for select compounds. Soil standards issued for protection of groundwater are in the single digit part per billion range, which is a very low threshold for soil impacts. Well developed soil treatment technologies are limited to capping, excavation with incineration or disposal, and soil stabilization with sorptive amendments. At present, no in situ destructive soil treatment technologies have been demonstrated.
+
Munitions Constituents, including [[Wikipedia: Insensitive munition | insensitive munitions]] IM), are a broad category of compounds and, in areas where manufactured or used, can be found in a variety of environmental matrices (waters, soil, and tissues). This presents an analytical challenge when a variety of these munitions are to be quantified. This article discusses sample extraction methods for each typical sample matrix (high level water, low level water, soil and tissue) as well as the accompanying [[Wikipedia: High-performance liquid chromatography | HPLC]]-UV analytical method for 27 compounds of interest (legacy munitions, insensitive munitions, and surrogates).  
 +
 
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
  
−
* [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
+
*[[Munitions Constituents]]
−
* [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
+
 
−
* [[PFAS Sources]]
+
'''Contributor(s):'''
  
−
'''Contributor(s):''' [[Jim Hatton]] and [[Bill DiGuiseppi]]
+
*Dr. Austin Scircle
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
  
−
*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ITRC_PFAS_TechReg_April2020.pdf Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC 2020.]<ref name="ITRC2020"/>
+
*[https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/epa-8330b.pdf USEPA Method 8330B]<ref name= "8330B">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. EPA Method 8330B (SW-846) Nitroaromatics, Nitramines, and Nitrate Esters by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 2. [https://www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-8330b-sw-846-nitroaromatics-nitramines-and-nitrate-esters-high-performance-liquid USEPA Website]&nbsp; &nbsp;[[Media: epa-8330b.pdf | Method 8330B.pdf]]</ref>
 +
 
 +
*Methods for simultaneous quantification of legacy and insensitive munition (IM) constituents in aqueous, soil/sediment, and tissue matrices<ref name="CrouchEtAl2020">Crouch, R.A., Smith, J.C., Stromer, B.S., Hubley, C.T., Beal, S., Lotufo, G.R., Butler, A.D., Wynter, M.T., Russell, A.L., Coleman, J.G., Wayne, K.M., Clausen, J.L., Bednar, A.J., 2020. Methods for simultaneous determination of legacy and insensitive munition (IM) constituents in aqueous, soil/sediment, and tissue matrices. Talanta, 217, Article 121008. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121008 doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121008]&nbsp; &nbsp;[[Media: CrouchEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Manuscript.pdf]]</ref>
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] are a complex family of more than 3,000 manmade fluorinated organic chemicals<ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Wang2017.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref> although not all of these are currently in use or production. PFAS are produced using several different processes. Fluorosurfactants, which include perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] article for nomenclature) and side-chain fluorinated polymers, have been manufactured using two major processes: [[Wikipedia: Electrochemical fluorination | electrochemical fluorination (ECF)]] and [[Wikipedia: Telomerization | telomerization]]<ref name="KEMI2015"/>. ECF was licensed by 3M in the 1940s<ref name="Banks1994">Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E. and Tatlow, J.C. eds., 1994. Organofluorine Chemistry: Principles and Commercial Applications. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, N. Y. [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2]</ref> and used by 3M until 2001. ECF produces a mixture of even and odd numbered carbon chain lengths of approximately 70% linear and 30% branched substances<ref name="Concawe2016">Concawe (Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe), 2016.  Environmental fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  Report No. 8/16. Brussels, Belgium. [[Media:Concawe2016.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Telomerization was developed in the 1970s<ref name="Benskin2012a">Benskin, J.P., Ahrens, L., Muir, D.C., Scott, B.F., Spencer, C., Rosenberg, B., Tomy, G., Kylin, H., Lohmann, R. and Martin, J.W., 2012. Manufacturing Origin of Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Atlantic and Canadian Arctic Seawater. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 677-685.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202958p DOI: 10.1021/es202958p]</ref>, and yields mainly even numbered, straight carbon chain isomers<ref name="Kissa2001">Kissa, E., 2001. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents, Second Edition. Surfactant Science Series, Vol. 97. Marcel Dekker, Inc., CRC Press, New York. 640 pages. ISBN: 9780824704728</ref><ref name="Parsons2008">Parsons, J.R., Sáez, M., Dolfing, J. and De Voogt, P., 2008. Biodegradation of Perfluorinated Compounds. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 196, pp. 53-71. Springer, New York, NY.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Dolfing/publication/23489065_Biodegradation_of_Perfluorinated_Compounds/links/0912f5087a40c9d5df000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.  PFAS manufacturers have provided PFAS to secondary manufacturers for production of a vast array of industrial and consumer products.  
+
The primary intention of the analytical methods presented here is to support the monitoring of legacy and insensitive munitions contamination on test and training ranges, however legacy and insensitive munitions often accompany each other at demilitarization facilities, manufacturing facilities, and other environmental sites. Energetic materials typically appear on ranges as small, solid particulates and due to their varying functional groups and polarities, can partition in various environmental compartments<ref>Walsh, M.R., Temple, T., Bigl, M.F., Tshabalala, S.F., Mai, N. and Ladyman, M., 2017. Investigation of Energetic Particle Distribution from High‐Order Detonations of Munitions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 42(8), pp. 932-941. [https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.201700089 doi: 10.1002/prep.201700089]</ref>. To ensure that contaminants are monitored and controlled at these sites and to sustainably manage them a variety of sample matrices (surface or groundwater, process waters, soil, and tissues) must be considered. (Process water refers to water used during industrial manufacturing or processing of legacy and insensitive munitions.) Furthermore, additional analytes must be added to existing methodologies as the usage of IM compounds changes and as new degradation compounds are identified. Of note, relatively new IM formulations containing NTO, DNAN, and NQ are seeing use in [[Wikipedia: IMX-101 | IMX-101]], IMX-104, Pax-21 and Pax-41 (Table 1)<ref>Mainiero, C. 2015. Picatinny Employees Recognized for Insensitive Munitions. U.S. Army, Picatinny Arsenal Public Affairs.  [https://www.army.mil/article/148873/picatinny_employees_recognized_for_insensitive_munitions Open Access Press Release]</ref><ref>Frem, D., 2022. A Review on IMX-101 and IMX-104 Melt-Cast Explosives: Insensitive Formulations for the Next-Generation Munition Systems. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 48(1), e202100312. [https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.202100312 doi: 10.1002/prep.202100312]</ref>.
  
−
During manufacturing, PFAS may be released into the atmosphere then redeposited on land where they can also affect surface water and groundwater, or PFAS may be discharged without treatment to wastewater treatment plants or landfills, and eventually be released into the environment by treatment systems that are not designed to mitigate PFAS (see also [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]). Industrial discharges of PFAS were unregulated for many years, but that has begun to change. In January 2016, New York became the first state in the nation to regulate PFOA as a hazardous substance followed by the regulation of PFOS in April 2016. Consumer and industrial uses of PFAS-containing products can also end up releasing PFAS into landfills and into municipal wastewater, where it may accumulate undetected in biosolids which are typically treated by land application.  
+
Sampling procedures for legacy and insensitive munitions are identical and utilize multi-increment sampling procedures found in USEPA Method 8330B Appendix A<ref name= "8330B"/>. Sample hold times, subsampling and quality control requirements are also unchanged. The key differences lie in the extraction methods and instrumental methods. Briefly, legacy munitions analysis of low concentration waters uses a single cartridge reverse phase [[Wikipedia: Solid-phase extraction | SPE]] procedure, and [[Wikipedia: Acetonitrile | acetonitrile]] (ACN) is used for both extraction and [[Wikipedia: Elution | elution]] for aqueous and solid samples<ref name= "8330B"/><ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. EPA Method 3535A (SW-846) Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE), Revision 1. [https://www.epa.gov/esam/epa-method-3535a-sw-846-solid-phase-extraction-spe USEPA Website]&nbsp; &nbsp;[[Media: epa-3535a.pdf | Method 3535A.pdf]]</ref>. An [[Wikipedia: High-performance_liquid_chromatography#Isocratic_and_gradient_elution | isocratic]] separation via reversed-phase C-18 column with 50:50 methanol:water mobile phase or a C-8 column with 15:85 isopropanol:water mobile phase is used to separate legacy munitions<ref name= "8330B"/>. While these procedures are sufficient for analysis of legacy munitions, alternative solvents, additional SPE cartridges, and a gradient elution are all required for the combined analysis of legacy and insensitive munitions.  
  
−
==Industrial Sources==
+
Previously, analysis of legacy and insensitive munitions required multiple analytical techniques, however the methods presented here combine the two munitions categories resulting in an HPLC-UV method and accompanying extraction methods for a variety of common sample matrices. A secondary HPLC-UV method and a HPLC-MS method were also developed as confirmatory methods. The methods discussed in this article were validated extensively by single-blind round robin testing and subsequent statistical treatment as part of ESTCP [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/d05c1982-bbfa-42f8-811d-51b540d7ebda ER19-5078]. Wherever possible, the quality control criteria in the Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories were adhered to<ref>US Department of Defense and US Department of Energy, 2021. Consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.4. 387 pages. [https://www.denix.osd.mil/edqw/denix-files/sites/43/2021/10/QSM-Version-5.4-FINAL.pdf Free Download]&nbsp; &nbsp;[[Media: QSM-Version-5.4.pdf | QSM Version 5.4.pdf]]</ref>. Analytes included in these methods are found in Table 1.
−
PFAS are used in many industrial and consumer applications, which may have released PFAS into the environment and impacted drinking water supplies in many areas of the United States<ref name="EWG2017">Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Northeastern University Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, 2017. Mapping A Contamination Crisis. [https://www.ewg.org/research/mapping-contamination-crisis Website]</ref>. Both in the United States (US) and abroad, primary manufacturing facilities produce PFAS and secondary manufacturing facilities use PFAS to produce goods. Environmental release mechanisms associated with these facilities include air emission and dispersion, spills, and disposal of manufacturing wastes and wastewater. Potential impacts to air, soil, sediment, surface water, stormwater, and groundwater are present not only at primary release points but potentially over the surrounding area<ref name="Shin2011">Shin, H.M., Vieira, V.M., Ryan, P.B., Detwiler, R., Sanders, B., Steenland, K., and Bartell, S.M., 2011. Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling for Perfluorooctanoic Acid Emitted from the Washington Works Facility in West Virginia. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(4), pp. 1435-1442. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102769t DOI: 10.1021/es102769t]</ref>. Some of the potential primary and secondary sources of PFAS releases to the environment are listed here<ref name="ITRC2020"/>:
 
  
−
* '''Textiles and leather:''' Factory or consumer applied coating to repel water, oil, and stains. Applications include protective clothing and outerwear, umbrellas, tents, sails, architectural materials, carpets, and upholstery<ref name="Rao1994">Rao, N.S., and Baker, B.E., 1994. Textile Finishes and Fluorosurfactants. In: Organofluorine Chemistry, Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E., and Tatlow, J.C., Eds. Springer, New York.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15]</ref><ref name="Hekster2003">Hekster, F.M., Laane, R.W. and De Voogt, P., 2003. Environmental and Toxicity Effects of Perfluoroalkylated Substances. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 179, pp. 99-121. Springer, New York, NY. [https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4 DOI: 10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004">Brooke, D., Footitt, A., and Nwaogu, T.A., 2004. Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS).  Environment Agency (UK), Science Group.  Free download from: [http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/docs/from_old_website/documents/meetings/poprc/submissions/Comments_2006/sia/pfos.uk.risk.eval.report.2004.pdf The Stockholm Convention]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Brooke2004.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005">Poulsen, P.B., Jensen, A.A., and Wallström, E., 2005. More environmentally friendly alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project 1013.  [[Media: Poulsen2005.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006">Prevedouros, K., Cousins, I.T., Buck, R.C. and Korzeniowski, S.H., 2006. Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(1), pp. 32-44.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475 DOI: 10.1021/es0512475]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Walters2006">Walters, A., and Santillo, D., 2006. Technical Note 06/2006: Uses of Perfluorinated Substances. Greenpeace Research Laboratories. [http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/uses-of-perfluorinated-chemicals.pdf Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Walters2006.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Trudel2008">Trudel, D., Horowitz, L., Wormuth, M., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T. and Hungerbühler, K., 2008. Estimating Consumer Exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(2), pp. 251-269.  [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x]</ref><ref name="Guo2009">Guo, Z., Liu, X., Krebs, K.A. and Roache, N.F., 2009. Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Content in 116 Articles of Commerce, EPA/600/R-09/033. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.  Available from: [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=206124 US EPA.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Guo2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2009">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Action Plan.  [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/pfcs_action_plan1230_09.pdf Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011a">Ahrens, L., 2011. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic environment: a review of their occurrence and fate. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(1), pp.20-31.
+
The chromatograms produced by the primary and secondary HPLC-UV methods are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Chromatograms for each detector wavelength used are shown (315, 254, and 210 nm).
−
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00373E DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00373E]. Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Ahrens/publication/47622154_Polyfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_the_aquatic_environment_A_review_of_their_occurrence_and_fate/links/00b7d53762cfedaf12000000/Polyfluoroalkyl-compounds-in-the-aquatic-environment-A-review-of-their-occurrence-and-fate.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Buck2011">Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., De Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S.A. and van Leeuwen, S.P., 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4), pp. 513-541. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.258]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Buck2011.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011">United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011. Report of the persistent organic pollutants review committee on the work of its sixth meeting, Addendum, Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.3/Rev.1 [http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/POPsReviewCommittee/Meetings/POPRC6/POPRC6Documents/tabid/783/ctl/Download/mid/3507/Default.aspx?id=125 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: UNEP2011.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Herzke2012">Herzke, D., Olsson, E. and Posner, S., 2012. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer products in Norway – A pilot study. Chemosphere, 88(8), pp. 980-987.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035]</ref><ref name="Patagonia2016">Patagonia, Inc., 2016. An Update on Our DWR Problem.  [https://www.patagonia.com/stories/our-dwr-problem-updated/story-17673.html Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Patagonia2016.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Kotthoff2015">Kotthoff, M., Müller, J., Jürling, H., Schlummer, M., and Fiedler, D., 2015. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in consumer products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(19), pp. 14546-14559.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Kotthoff2015.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2018. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment. US Department of Health and Human Services. Free download from: [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf ATSDR]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ATSDR2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
  
−
* '''Paper products:''' Surface coatings to repel grease and moisture. Uses include non-food paper packaging (for example, cardboard, carbonless forms, masking papers) and food-contact materials (for example, pizza boxes, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, baking papers, pet food bags)<ref name="Rao1994"/><ref name="Kissa2001"/><ref name="Hekster2003"/><ref name="Poulsen2005"/><ref name="Trudel2008"/><ref name="Buck2011"/><ref name="UNEP2011"/><ref name="Kotthoff2015"/><ref name="Schaider2017">Schaider, L.A., Balan, S.A., Blum, A., Andrews, D.Q., Strynar, M.J., Dickinson, M.E., Lunderberg, D.M., Lang, J.R., and Peaslee, G.F., 2017. Fluorinated Compounds in US Fast Food Packaging. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 4(3), pp. 105-111.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435 DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Schaider2017.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref>
+
==Extraction Methods==
 +
===High Concentration Waters (> 1 ppm)===
 +
Aqueous samples suspected to contain the compounds of interest at concentrations detectable without any extraction or pre-concentration are suitable for analysis by direct injection. The method deviates from USEPA Method 8330B by adding a pH adjustment and use of MeOH rather than ACN for dilution<ref name= "8330B"/>. The pH adjustment is needed to ensure method accuracy for ionic compounds (like NTO or PA) in basic samples. A solution of 1% HCl/MeOH is added to both acidify and dilute the samples to a final acid concentration of 0.5% (vol/vol) and a final solvent ratio of 1:1 MeOH/H2O. The direct injection samples are then ready for analysis.  
  
−
* '''Metal Plating & Etching:''' Corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic enhancement, surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel and tin electroplating, and post-plating cleaner<ref name="USEPA1996">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12.20. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle Park, NC.  [[Media: USEPA1996.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Riordan1998">Riordan, B.J., Karamchandanl, R.T., Zitko, L.J., and Cushnie Jr., G.C., 1998.  Capsule Report: Hard Chrome Fume Suppressants and Control Technologies. Center for Environmental Research Information, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. EPA/625/R-98/002  [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryID=115419 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Riordan1998.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Kissa2001"/><ref name="Prevedouros2006"/><ref name="USEPA2009a">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. PFOS Chromium Electroplater Study. US EPA – Region 5, Chicago, IL.  [[Media: USEPA2009a.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011"/><ref name="OSHA2013">Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), 2013. Fact Sheet: Controlling Hexavalent Chromium Exposures during Electroplating. United States Department of Labor.  [[Media: OSHA2013.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="KEMI2015"/><ref name="DEPA2015">Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles. [[Media: DEPA2015.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
===Low Concentration Waters (< 1 ppm)===
  
−
* '''Wire Manufacturing:''' Coating and insulation<ref name="Kissa2001"/><ref name="vanderPutte2010">van der Putte, I., Murin, M., van Velthoven, M., and Affourtit, F., 2010. Analysis of the risks arising from the industrial use of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) and from their use in consumer articles. Evaluation of the risk reduction measures for potential restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFOA and APFO. RPS Advies, Delft, The Netherlands for European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General.  [https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13037/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: vanderPutte2010.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="ASTSWMO2015">Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), 2015. Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs): Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Information Paper. Remediation and Reuse Focus Group, Federal Facilities Research Center, Washington, D.C. Free download from: [https://clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/pops/POPs-ASTSWMO-PFCs-2015.pdf US EPA]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Deeb-Article_1-Table_2-L10-Provisional_Groundwater_Remediaton_Objectives_Class_I_Groundwater.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
Aqueous samples suspected to contain the compounds of interest at low concentrations require extraction and pre-concentration using solid phase extraction (SPE). The SPE setup described here uses a triple cartridge setup shown in '''Figure 3'''. Briefly, the extraction procedure loads analytes of interest onto the cartridges in this order: Strata<sup><small>TM</small></sup> X, Strata<sup><small>TM</small></sup> X-A, and Envi-Carb<sup><small>TM</small></sup>. Then the cartridge order is reversed, and analytes are eluted via a two-step elution, resulting in 2 extracts (which are combined prior to analysis). Five milliliters of MeOH is used for the first elution, while 5 mL of acidified MeOH (2% HCl) is used for the second elution. The particular SPE cartridges used are noncritical so long as cartridge chemistries are comparable to those above.  
  
−
* '''Industrial Surfactants, Resins, Molds, Plastics:''' Manufacture of plastics and fluoropolymers, rubber, and compression mold release coatings; plumbing fluxing agents; fluoroplastic coatings, composite resins, and flame retardant for polycarbonate<ref name="Kissa2001"/><ref name="Renner2001">Renner, R., 2001. Growing Concern Over Perfluorinated Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(7), pp. 154A-160A.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es012317k DOI: 10.1021/es012317k]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Renner2001.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005"/><ref name="Fricke2005">Fricke, M. and Lahl, U., 2005. Risk Evaluation of Perfluorinated Surfactants as Contribution to the current Debate on the EU Commission’s REACH Document. Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung (UWSF), 17(1), pp. 36-49.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03038694 DOI: 10.1007/BF03038694]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006"/><ref name="Skutlarek2006">Skutlarek, D., Exner, M. and Färber, H., 2006. Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 13(5), pp. 299-307.  [https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.07.326 DOI: 10.1065/espr2006.07.326]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Skutlarek/publication/6729263_Perfluorinated_surfactants_in_surface_and_drinking_waters/links/0deec52049b9cba2e4000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="vanderPutte2010"/><ref name="Buck2011"/><ref name="Herzke2012"/><ref name="Kotthoff2015"/><ref name="Chemours2010">Chemours, 2010. The History of Teflon Fluoropolymers. [https://www.teflon.com/en/news-events/history Website]</ref>
+
===Soils=== 
 +
Soil collection, storage, drying and grinding procedures are identical to the USEPA Method 8330B procedures<ref name= "8330B"/>; however, the solvent extraction procedure differs in the number of sonication steps, sample mass and solvent used. A flow chart of the soil extraction procedure is shown in '''Figure 4'''. Soil masses of approximately 2 g and a sample to solvent ratio of 1:5 (g/mL) are used for soil extraction. The extraction is carried out in a sonication bath chilled below 20 ⁰C and is a two-part extraction, first extracting in MeOH (6 hours) followed by a second sonication in 1:1 MeOH:H<sub>2</sub>O solution (14 hours). The extracts are centrifuged, and the supernatant is filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE disk filter.  
  
−
* '''Photolithography, Semiconductor Industry:''' Photoresists, top anti-reflective coatings, bottom anti-reflective coatings, and etchants, with other uses including surfactants, wetting agents, and photo-acid generation<ref name="Choi2005">Choi, D.G., Jeong, J.H., Sim, Y.S., Lee, E.S., Kim, W.S. and Bae, B.S., 2005. Fluorinated Organic− Inorganic Hybrid Mold as a New Stamp for Nanoimprint and Soft Lithography. Langmuir, 21(21), pp. 9390-9392.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/la0513205 DOI: 10.1021/la0513205]</ref><ref name="Rolland2004">Rolland, J.P., Van Dam, R.M., Schorzman, D.A., Quake, S.R., and DeSimone, J.M., 2004. Solvent-Resistant Photocurable “Liquid Teflon” for Microfluidic Device Fabrication. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 126(8), pp. 2322-2323.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja031657y DOI: 10.1021/ja031657y]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004"/><ref name="vanderPutte2010"/><ref name="UNEP2011"/><ref name="Herzke2012"/>
+
The solvent volume should generally be 10 mL but if different soil masses are required, solvent volume should be 5 mL/g. The extraction results in 2 separate extracts (MeOH and MeOH:H2O) that are combined prior to analysis.  
  
−
==Class B Firefighting Foams==
+
===Tissues===  
−
Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and other fluorinated Class B firefighting foams are another important source of PFAS to the environment, especially in military and aviation settings. [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | Class B firefighting foams]] have been used since the 1960s to extinguish flammable liquid hydrocarbon fires and for vapor suppression. These foams contain complex and variable mixtures of PFAS that act as surfactants. Fluorinated surfactants are both hydrophobic and oleophobic (oil-repelling), as well as thermally stable, chemically stable, and highly surface active<ref name="Moody1999">Moody, C.A. and Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es981355%2B DOI: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref>. These properties make them uniquely suited to fighting hydrocarbon fuel fires. Use of fluorinated Class B foams is prevalent and is a major source of PFAS to the environment. Release to the environment typically occurs during firefighting operations, firefighter training, apparatus testing, or leakage during storage. Research into fluorine-free alternatives is underway and Congressional pressure is leading towards banning fluorinated Class B firefighting foams in the United States.
 
  
−
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 1. Types of Class B firefighting foams. Reproduced from ITRC, 2020; original figure courtesy of S. Thomas, Wood PLC, used with permission.]]
+
Tissue matrices are extracted by 18-hour sonication using a ratio of 1 gram of wet tissue per 5 mL of MeOH. This extraction is performed in a sonication bath chilled below 20 ⁰C and the supernatant (MeOH) is filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE disk filter.  
−
When discussing the relationship between firefighting foams and sources of PFAS to the environment, the emphasis is typically on AFFF; however, many different types of Class B firefighting foams exist. These may or may not be fluorinated (contain PFAS). Class B foams are used to extinguish Class B fires, that is, those involving flammable liquids. Fluorinated Class B foams spread across the surface of the flammable liquid forming a thin film and extinguish fires by (1) excluding air from the flammable vapors, (2) suppressing vapor release, (3) physically separating the flames from the fuel source, and (4) cooling the fuel surface and surrounding metal surfaces<ref name="NationalFoam">National Foam, no date. A Firefighter’s Guide to Foam. [http://foamtechnology.us/Firefighters.pdf Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NationalFoam.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. From a PFAS perspective, Class B firefighting foams can be divided into two broad categories: fluorinated foams (that contain PFAS) and fluorine-free foams (that do not contain PFAS)<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. This distinction and examples of each type are shown in Figure 1.  
 
  
−
AFFF was developed by the US Navy in the 1960s and in 1969, the US Department of Defense (DoD) issued military specification MIL-F-24385 listing firefighting performance requirements for all AFFF used within the US DoD<ref name="ITRC2020"/><ref name="Navy1969">US Navy, 1969. Military Specification MIL-F-24385(NAVY). Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate, Six Percent, for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Hyattsville, Maryland. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: milspecAFFF1969.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Navy2020">US Navy, 2020. Performance Specification MIL-PRF-24385F(SH) with Amendment 4. Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: milspecAFFF2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. These performance standards are often referred to as “Mil-Spec.” Products that meet the Mil-Spec have been added to the US DoD [https://qpldocs.dla.mil/ Qualified Product Listing (QPL)]. In 2006 the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also began requiring that 14-CFR-139-certified commercial airports purchase Mil-Spec compliant AFFF only. Because the US DoD and FAA have been the primary purchasers of AFFF, development of AFFF product mixtures has historically been performance-driven (to comply with the Mil-Spec) rather than formula-driven (the specific PFAS mixtures utilized have varied over time and by manufacturer). Multiple manufacturers in the US and throughout the world produce or have produced AFFF concentrate<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. AFFF concentrate is or has been available in 1%, 3%, or 6% formulations, where the percentage designates the recommended percentage of concentrate to be mixed into water during application. 
+
Due to the complexity of tissue matrices, an additional tissue cleanup step, adapted from prior research, can be used to reduce interferences<ref name="RussellEtAl2014">Russell, A.L., Seiter, J.M., Coleman, J.G., Winstead, B., Bednar, A.J., 2014. Analysis of munitions constituents in IMX formulations by HPLC and HPLC-MS. Talanta, 128, pp. 524–530. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.02.013 doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.02.013]</ref><ref name="CrouchEtAl2020"/>. The cleanup procedure uses small scale chromatography columns prepared by loading 5 ¾” borosilicate pipettes with 0.2 g activated silica gel (100–200 mesh). The columns are wetted with 1 mL MeOH, which is allowed to fully elute and then discarded prior to loading with 1 mL of extract and collecting in a new amber vial. After the extract is loaded, a 1 mL aliquot of MeOH followed by a 1 mL aliquot of 2% HCL/MeOH is added. This results in a 3 mL silica treated tissue extract. This extract is vortexed and diluted to a final solvent ratio of 1:1 MeOH/H<sub>2</sub>O before analysis.
  
−
The specific mixtures of PFAS found in AFFF have varied by manufacturer and over time due to differences in production processes and voluntary formula changes. AFFF formulations can generally be grouped into three categories<ref name="ITRC2020"/>:
+
   
  
−
* '''Legacy Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) AFFF''' This type of AFFF was manufactured exclusively by 3M under the brand name “Lightwater” from the late 1960s until 2002 using the ECF production process. They contain PFOS and perflouroalkane sulfonates (PFSAs) such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS)<ref name="ITRC2020"/><ref name="Backe2013">Backe, W.J., Day, T.C. and Field, J.A., 2013. Zwitterionic, Cationic, and Anionic Fluorinated Chemicals in Aqueous Film Forming Foam Formulations and Groundwater from US Military Bases by Nonaqueous Large-Volume Injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(10), pp. 5226-5234. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3034999 DOI: 10.1021/es3034999]</ref>. Legacy PFOS AFFF produced by ECF were voluntarily phased out in 2002, however, use of stockpiled product was permitted after that date<ref name="ITRC2020"/>.
 
  
−
* '''Legacy fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF manufactured and sold in the U.S. from the 1970s until 2016 and includes all brands that were produced using a process known as fluorotelomerization (FT). The FT manufacturing process produces polyfluorinated substances that can degrade in the environment to perfluoroalkyl substances (specifically PFAAs) including Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Polyfluoroalkyl substances that degrade to create terminal PFAAs are referred to as “precursors” <ref name="ITRC2020"/>.
+
Most federal, state, and local regulatory guidance for assessing and mitigating the [[Vapor Intrusion (VI) | vapor intrusion]] pathway reflects USEPA’s ''Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air''<ref name="USEPA2015">USEPA, 2015. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Publication No. 9200.2-154, 267 pages. [https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/technical-guide-assessing-and-mitigating-vapor-intrusion-pathway-subsurface-vapor USEPA Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/06/USEPA2015.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>. The paradigm outlined by that guidance includes: 1) a preliminary and mostly qualitative analysis that looks for site conditions that suggest vapor intrusion might occur (e.g., the presence of vapor-forming chemicals in close proximity to buildings); 2) a multi-step and more detailed quantitative screening analysis that involves site-specific data collection and their comparison to screening levels to identify buildings of potential VI concern; and 3) selection and design of mitigation systems or continued monitoring, as needed. With respect to (2), regulatory guidance typically recommends consideration of “multiple lines of evidence” in decision-making<ref name="USEPA2015" /><ref>NJDEP, 2021. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance, Version 5.0. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. [https://dep.nj.gov/srp/guidance/vapor-intrusion/vig/ Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ee/NJDEP2021.pdf  Guidance Document.pdf]</ref>, with typical lines-of-evidence being groundwater, soil gas, sub-slab soil gas, and/or indoor air concentrations.  Of those, soil gas measurements and/or measured short-term indoor air concentrations can be weighted heavily, and therefore decision making might not be completed without them. Effective evaluation of VI risk from sub-slab and/or soil gas measurements would require an unknown building-specific attenuation factor, but there is also uncertainty as to whether or not indoor air data is representative of maximum and/or long-term average indoor concentrations. Indoor air data can be confounded by indoor contaminant sources because the number of samples is typically small, indoor concentrations can vary with time, and because a number of household products can emit the chemicals being measured. When conducting VI pathway assessments in neighborhoods where it is impractical to assess all buildings, the EPA recommends following a “worst first” investigational approach.
 +
 
 +
The limitations of this approach, as practiced, are the following:
 +
 
 +
*Decisions are rarely made without indoor air data and generally, seasonal sampling is required, delaying decision making.
 +
*The collection of a robust indoor air data set that adequately characterizes long term indoor air concentrations could take years given the typical frequency of data collection and the most common methods of sample collection (e.g., 24-hour samples).  Therefore, indoor air sampling might continue indefinitely at some sites.
 +
*The “worst first” buildings might not be identified correctly by the logic outlined in USEPA’s 2015 guidance and the most impacted buildings might not even be located over a groundwater plume.  Recent studies have shown [[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways |VI impacts in homes as a result of sewer and other subsurface piping connections]], which are not explicitly considered nor easily characterized through conventional VI pathway assessment<ref> Beckley, L, McHugh, T., 2020. A Conceptual Model for Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Through Sewer Lines. Science of the Total Environment, 698, Article 134283. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134283 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134283]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4e/BeckleyMcHugh2020.pdf  Open Access Article]</ref><ref name="GuoEtAl2015">Guo, Y., Holton, C., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Identification of Alternative Vapor Intrusion Pathways Using Controlled Pressure Testing, Soil Gas Monitoring, and Screening Model Calculations. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(22), pp. 13472–13482. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03564 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03564]</ref><ref name="McHughEtAl2017">McHugh, T., Beckley, L., Sullivan, T., Lutes, C., Truesdale, R., Uppencamp, R., Cosky, B., Zimmerman, J., Schumacher, B., 2017.  Evidence of a Sewer Vapor Transport Pathway at the USEPA Vapor Intrusion Research Duplex.  Science of the Total Environment, pp. 598, 772-779. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.135 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.135]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/63/McHughEtAl2017.pdf  Open Access Manuscipt]</ref><ref name="McHughBeckley2018">McHugh, T., Beckley, L., 2018. Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways for Volatile Organic Compound Migration into Buildings: Risk Factors and Investigation Protocol. ESTCP ER-201505, Final Report. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/f12abf80-5273-4220-b09a-e239d0188421 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/55/2018b-McHugh-ER-201505_Conceptual_Model.pdf  Final Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="RiisEtAl2010">Riis, C., Hansen, M.H., Nielsen, H.H., Christensen, A.G., Terkelsen, M., 2010. Vapor Intrusion through Sewer Systems: Migration Pathways of Chlorinated Solvents from Groundwater to Indoor Air. Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, May, Monterey, CA. Battelle Memorial Institute. ISBN 978-0-9819730-2-9. [https://www.battelle.org/conferences/battelle-conference-proceedings Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/95/2010-Riis-Migratioin_pathways_of_Chlorinated_Solvents.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref>.
 +
*The presumptive remedy for VI mitigation (sub-slab depressurization) may not be effective for all VI scenarios (e.g., those involving vapor migration to indoor spaces via sewer connections).
 
   
 
   
−
* '''Modern fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF developed in response to the USEPA 2010-2015 voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program<ref name="USEPA2018">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. [https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program Website]</ref>, which asked companies to commit to first reducing and then eliminating the following: PFOA, precursors that can break down to PFOA, and related chemicals from facility emissions and products. In response, manufacturers began producing only short-chain fluorosurfactants targeting fluorotelomer PFAS with 6 carbons per chain (C6), rather than the traditional long-chain fluorosurfactants (8 or more carbons per chain). These short-chain PFAS do not breakdown in the environment to PFOS or PFOA<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. Their toxicity in comparison to long-chain fluorosurfactants is a topic of current research.
+
The '''VI Diagnosis Toolkit''' components were developed considering these limitations as well as more recent knowledge gained through research, development, and validation projects funded by SERDP and ESTCP.
−
 
+
 
−
In the US, AFFF users including the US DoD (predominantly the Navy and Air Force), civilian airports, oil refineries, other petrochemical industries, and municipal fire departments<ref name="Darwin2011">Darwin, Robert L. 2011. Estimated Inventory of PFOS-based Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, Inc., Arlington, VA. [[Media:Darwin2011.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. AFFF is used, for example, in fire fighting vehicles, in fixed fire suppression systems (including sprinklers and fixed spray systems in or at aircraft hangars, flammable liquid storage areas, engine hush houses, and fuel farms), and onboard military and commercial ships. Fluorinated Class B foams may be introduced to the environment through the following practices<ref name="ITRC2020"/>:
+
==The VI Diagnosis Toolkit Components==
 +
[[File:DahlenFig1.png|thumb|450px|Figure 1. Vapor intrusion pathway conceptualization considering “alternate VI pathways”, including “pipe flow
 +
VI” and “sewer VI” pathways<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020" />.]]
 +
The primary components of the VI Diagnosis Toolkit and their uses include:
 +
 
 +
*'''External VI source strength screening''' to identify buildings most likely to be impacted by VI at levels warranting building-specific testing.
 +
*'''Indoor air source screening''' to locate and remove indoor air sources that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment.
 +
*'''Controlled pressurization method (CPM)''' testing to quickly (in a few days or less) measure the worst-case indoor air impact likely to be caused by VI under natural conditions in specific buildings. CPM tests can also be used to identify the presence of indoor air sources and diagnose active VI pathways.
 +
*'''Passive indoor sampling''' for determining long-term average indoor air concentrations under natural VI conditions and/or for verifying mitigation system effectiveness in buildings that warrant VI mitigation.
 +
*'''Comprehensive VI conceptual model development and refinement''' to ensure that appropriate monitoring, investigation, and mitigation strategies are being selected (Figure 1).
 +
 
 +
Expanded discussions for each of these are given below.
 +
 
 +
'''External VI source strength screening''' identifies those buildings that warrant more intrusive building-specific assessments, using data collected exterior to the buildings. The use of groundwater and/or soil gas concentration data for building screening has been part of VI pathway assessments for some time and their use is discussed in many regulatory guidance documents. Typically, the measured concentrations are compared to relevant screening levels derived via modeling or empirical analyses from indoor air concentrations of concern.
  
−
* low volume releases of foam concentrate during storage, transfer or operational requirements that mandate periodic equipment calibration
+
More recently it has been discovered that VI impacts can occur via sewer and other subsurface piping connections in areas where vapor migration through the soil would not be expected to be significant, and this could also occur in buildings that do not sit over contaminated groundwater<ref name="RiisEtAl2010" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2015" /><ref name="McHughEtAl2017" /><ref name="McHughBeckley2018" />.
−
* moderate volume discharge of foam solution for apparatus testing and episodic discharge of AFFF-containing fire suppression systems within large aircraft hangars and buildings
 
−
* occasional, high-volume, broadcast discharge of foam solution for firefighting and fire suppression/prevention for emergency response
 
−
* periodic, high volume, broadcast discharge for fire training
 
−
* accidental leaks from foam distribution piping between storage and pumping locations, and from storage tanks and railcars
 
  
−
The DoD is currently replacing legacy, long-chain AFFF with modern, short-chain fluorotelomer AFFF and disposing of the legacy foams through incineration. While the PFAS included in modern fluorotelomer AFFF formulations are currently understood to be less toxic and less bioaccumulative than those used in legacy formulations, they are also environmentally persistent and can degrade to produce other PFAS that may pose environmental concerns<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. While fluorine free alternatives exist, they do not meet the current Mil-Spec<ref name="Navy2020"/> which requires that fluorine-based compounds be used. The US DoD is working to revise the Mil-Spec to allow fluorine-free foams, and several states have passed laws prohibiting the use of fluorinated Class B foams for training and prohibiting future manufacture, sale or distribution of fluorinated foams, with limited exceptions<ref name="Denton2019">Denton, Charles, 2019. Expert Focus: US states outpace EPA on PFAS firefighting foam laws. Chemical Watch. [https://chemicalwatch.com/78075/expert-focus-us-states-outpace-epa-on-pfas-firefighting-foam-laws Website]</ref> (e.g., WA Rev Code § 70.75A.005 (2019); VA § 9.1-207.1 (2019)). Additionally, a bill passed in the US Congress in 2018 directs the FAA to allow fluorine-free foams for use at commercial airports<ref name="FAA2018">FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. US Public Law No: 115-254 (10/05/2018). [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?r=1 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: FAA2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Research into the development of Mil-Spec compliant fluorine-free foams that will be compatible with existing AFFF and supporting equipment is ongoing and includes the following:
+
Therefore, in addition to groundwater and soil gas sampling, external data collection that includes and extends beyond the area of concern should include manhole vapor sampling (e.g., sanitary sewer, storm sewer, land-drain). Video surveys from sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and/or land-drains can also be used to identify areas of groundwater leakage into utility corridors and lateral connections to buildings that are conduits for vapor transport. During these investigations, it is important to recognize that utility corridors can transmit both impacted water and vapors beyond groundwater plume boundaries, so extending investigations into areas adjacent to groundwater plume boundaries is necessary. 
  
−
* Novel Fluorine-Free Replacement for Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. Joseph Tsang, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Divisions) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2737 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2737]
+
Using projected indoor air concentrations from modeling and empirical data analyses, and distance screening approaches, external source screening can identify areas and buildings that can be ruled out, or conversely, those that warrant building-specific testing.  
−
* Fluorine-Free Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. John Payne, National Foam) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2738 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2738]
 
−
* Fluorine-Free Foams with Oleophobic Surfactants and Additives for Effective Pool fire Suppression (Lead investigator: Dr. Ramagopal Ananth, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2739 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2739]
 
  
−
==Wastewater Treatment Plants==
+
Demonstration of neighborhood-scale external VI source screening using groundwater, depth, sewer, land drain, and video data is documented in the ER-201501 final report<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020" />.  
−
Consumer and/or industrial uses of PFAS-containing materials results in the discharge of PFAS to industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Conventional WWTP treatment processes remove less than 5% of PFAAs<ref name="Ahrens2011a"/><ref name="Schultz2006">Schultz, M.M., Higgins, C.P., Huset, C.A., Luthy, R.G., Barofsky, D.F., and Field, J.A., 2006. Fluorochemical Mass Flows in a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7350-7357.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061025m DOI: 10.1021/es061025m]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556954/ Author Manuscript]</ref><ref name="MWRA2019">Michigan Waste and Recycling Association (MWRA), 2019. Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent, Second Revision.  [[Media: MWRA2019.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. WWTPs, particularly those that receive industrial wastewater, are possible sources of PFAS release<ref name="Bossi2008">Bossi, R., Strand, J., Sortkjær, O. and Larsen, M.M., 2008. Perfluoroalkyl compounds in Danish wastewater treatment plants and aquatic environments. Environment International, 34(4), pp. 443-450. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002]  Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/43968517/Perfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_Danish_waste20160321-31116-esz4d1.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Lin2014">Lin, A.Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Tsai, Y.T., and Yu, T.H., 2014. Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds in the aquatic environment as found in science park effluent, river water, rainwater, sediments, and biotissues. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(5), pp. 3265-3275.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2009">Ahrens, L., Felizeter, S., Sturm, R., Xie, Z. and Ebinghaus, R., 2009. Polyfluorinated compounds in waste water treatment plant effluents and surface waters along the River Elbe, Germany. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(9), pp.1326-1333. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Ahrens2009.pdf | Author’s manuscript]]</ref>.
 
  
−
Evaluation of full-scale WWTPs has indicated that conventional primary (sedimentation and clarification) and secondary (aerobic biodegradation of organic matter) treatment processes can result in changes in PFAS concentrations and classes. For example, higher concentrations of PFAAs have been observed in effluent than in influent, presumably due to transformation of precursor PFAS<ref name="Schultz2006"/>. Some data has indicated that the terminal PFAS compounds PFOS and PFOA were among the most frequently detected PFAS in wastewater<ref name="Hamid2016">Hamid, H. and Li, L., 2016. Role of wastewater treatment plant in environmental cycling of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances. Ecocycles, 2(2), pp. 43-53. [https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62 DOI: 10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hamid2016.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref>. A state-wide study in Michigan indicated that PFAS were detected in all of the samples from 42 WWTPs, including influent, effluent, and biosolids/sludge samples, and that the short-chain PFAS were more frequently detected in the liquid process flow (influent and effluent), while long-chain PFAS were more common in biosolids<ref name="EGLE2020">Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), 2020. Summary Report: Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater and Associated Residuals (Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan. [[Media:EGLE2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]&nbsp;&nbsp;
+
'''Indoor air source screening''' seeks to locate and remove indoor air sources<ref>Doucette, W.J., Hall, A.J., Gorder, K.A., 2010. Emissions of 1,2-Dichloroethane from Holiday Decorations as a Source of Indoor Air Contamination. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 30(1), pp. 67-73. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01267.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01267.x] </ref> that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment. Visual inspections and written surveys might or might not identify significant indoor air sources, so these should be complemented with use of portable analytical instruments<ref>McHugh, T., Kuder, T., Fiorenza, S., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Philp, P., 2011. Application of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), pp. 5952-5958. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es200988d doi: 10.1021/es200988d]</ref><ref name="BeckleyEtAl2014">Beckley, L., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., McHugh, T., 2014. On-Site Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Analysis to Streamline Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Environmental Forensics, 15(3), pp. 234–243. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2014.930941 doi: 10.1080/15275922.2014.930941]</ref>.
−
[https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/wrd-pfas-initiatives_691391_7.pdf Website]</ref>.
 
  
−
Multiple studies have found PFAS in municipal sewage sludge<ref name="Higgins2005">Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., Criddle, C.S., and Luthy, R.G., 2005. Quantitative Determination of Perfluorochemicals in Sediments and Domestic Sludge. Environmental Science and Technology, 39 (11), pp. 3946 – 3956.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es048245p DOI: 10.1021/es048245p]</ref><ref name="EGLE2020"/>. The US EPA states that more than half of the sludge produced in the United States is applied to agricultural land as biosolids, therefore there are concerns that biosolids applications may become a potential source of PFAS to the environment<ref name="USEPA2020">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2020. Research on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).  [https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/research-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Website]</ref>. Application of biosolids as a soil amendment can potentially result in transfer of PFAS to soil, surface water and groundwater and can possibly allow PFAS to enter the food chain<ref name="Sepulvado2011">Sepulvado, J.G., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L.S. and Higgins, C.P., 2011. Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal Biosolids. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp.  8106-8112.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es103903d DOI: 10.1021/es103903d]</ref><ref name="Lindstrom2011">Lindstrom, A.B., Strynar, M.J., Delinsky, A.D., Nakayama, S.F., McMillan, L., Libelo, E.L., Neill, M. and Thomas, L., 2011. Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp. 8015-8021.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1039425 DOI: 10.1021/es1039425]</ref><ref name="Blaine2013">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Hundal, L.S., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Uptake of Perfluoroalkyl Acids into Edible Crops via Land Applied Biosolids: Field and Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(24), pp.14062-14069.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es403094q DOI: 10.1021/es403094q]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/508_pfascropuptake.pdf US EPA]</ref><ref name="Blaine2014">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Sedlacko, E.M., Hundal, L.S., Kumar, K., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Distribution in Various Plant Compartments of Edible Crops Grown in Biosolids-Amended Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(14), pp. 7858-7865.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es500016s DOI: 10.1021/es500016s] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuldip_Kumar2/publication/263015815_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Distribution_in_Various_Plant_Compartments_of_Edible_Crops_Grown_in_Biosolids-Amended_soils/links/5984cb310f7e9b6c852f4f02/Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Distribution-in-Various-Plant-Compartments-of-Edible-Crops-Grown-in-Biosolids-Amended-soils.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Navarro2017">Navarro, I., de la Torre, A., Sanz, P., Porcel, M.Á., Pro, J., Carbonell, G. and de los Ángeles Martínez, M., 2017. Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances and halogenated flame retardants by crop plants grown in biosolids-amended soils. Environmental Research, 152, pp. 199-206.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018]</ref>. Limited studies have shown that PFAS concentrations can be elevated in surface and groundwater in the vicinity of agricultural fields that received PFAS contaminated biosolids for an extended period<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Yoo, H., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M., and Libelo, E.L., 2010. Concentrations, Distribution, and Persistence of Perfluoroalkylates in Sludge-Applied Soils near Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22), pp. 8390-8396.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1003846 DOI: 10.1021/es1003846]  Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Washington3/publication/47447289_Concentrations_Distribution_and_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkylates_in_Sludge-Applied_Soils_near_Decatur_Alabama_USA/links/5e3c0184a6fdccd9658add41/Concentrations-Distribution-and-Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkylates-in-Sludge-Applied-Soils-near-Decatur-Alabama-USA.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. The most abundant PFAS found in biosolids are the long-chain PFAS<ref name="Hamid2016"/><ref name="EGLE2020"/>. Based on the persistence and stability of long-chain PFAS and their interaction with biosolids, research is ongoing to determine PFAS leachability from biosolids and their bioavailability for uptake by plants, soil organisms, and the consumers of potentially PFAS-impacted plants and soil organisms.  
+
The advantage of portable analytical tools is that they allow practitioners to expeditiously test indoor air concentrations under natural conditions in each room of the building. Concentrations in any room in excess of relevant screening levels trigger more sampling in that room to identify if an indoor source is present in that room. Removal of a suspected source and subsequent room testing can identify if that object or product was the source of the previously measured concentrations.  
  
−
==Solid Waste Management Facilities==
+
'''Building-specific controlled pressurization method (CPM) testing''' directly measures the worst case indoor air impact, but it can also be used to determine contributing VI pathways and to identify indoor air sources<ref>McHugh, T.E., Beckley, L., Bailey, D., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., Brock, S., MacGregor, I.C., 2012. Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Using Controlled Building Pressure. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(9), pp. 4792–4799. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es204483g doi: 10.1021/es204483g]</ref><ref name="BeckleyEtAl2014" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2015" /><ref name="HoltonEtAl2015">Holton, C., Guo, Y., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Long-Term Evaluation of the Controlled Pressure Method for Assessment of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2091–2098.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es5052342 doi: 10.1021/es5052342]</ref><ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2020a">Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., Johnson, P.C., 2020a. Development and Validation of a Controlled Pressure Method Test Protocol for Vapor Intrusion Pathway Assessment.  Environmental Science and Technology, 54(12), pp. 7117-7125. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00811 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00811]</ref>. In CPM testing, blowers/fans installed in a doorway(s) or window(s) are set-up to exhaust indoor air to outdoor, which causes the building to be under pressurized relative to the atmosphere. This induces air movement from the subsurface into the test building via openings in the foundation and/or subsurface piping networks with or without direct connections to indoor air. This is similar to what happens intermittently under natural conditions when wind, indoor-outdoor temperature differences, and/or use of appliances that exhaust air from the structure (e.g. dryer exhaust) create an under-pressurized building condition.  
−
Industrial, commercial, and consumer products containing PFAS that have been disposed in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or other legacy disposal areas since the 1950s are potential sources of PFAS release to the environment. Environmental and drinking water impacts from disposal of legacy PFAS-containing industrial and consumer wastes have been documented<ref name="Oliaei2010">Oliaei, F., Kriens, D. and Weber, R., 2010. Discovery and investigation of PFOS/PFCs contamination from a PFC manufacturing facility in Minnesota—environmental releases and exposure risks. Organohalogen Compd, 72, pp. 1338-1341.</ref><ref name="Shin2011"/><ref name="MDH2020">Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), 2020. Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Sites in Minnesota. [https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazardous/topics/sites.html Website]</ref>.
 
  
−
Several studies have identified a wide variety of PFAS in MSW landfill leachates<ref name="Busch2010">Busch, J., Ahrens, L., Sturm, R. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), pp.1467-1471. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031]</ref><ref name="Eggen2010">Eggen, T., Moeder, M. and Arukwe, A., 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: A significant source for new and emerging pollutants. Science of the Total Environment, 408(21), pp. 5147-5157. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049]</ref>. PFAS composition and concentration in leachates vary depending on waste age, climate, and waste composition<ref name="Allred2015">Allred, B. M., Lang, J. R., Barlaz, M. A., and Field, J. A., 2015. Physical and Biological Release of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Municipal Solid Waste in Anaerobic Model Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(13), pp. 7648-7656. [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01040 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01040]</ref><ref name="Lang2017">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Field, J.A., Levis, J.W. and Barlaz, M.A., 2017. National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal Landfill Leachate. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(4), pp. 2197-2205.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05005 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05005]</ref>.  The relative concentrations of various PFAS in leachate and groundwater from landfill sites is different from those found at WWTPs and AFFF-contaminated sites. In particular, 5:3 fluorotelomer carboxylic acid (FTCA) is a common and often dominant PFAS found in landfills, and has been released from carpet in model anaerobic landfill reactors. This compound could prove to be an indicator that PFAS in the environment originated from a landfill<ref name="Lang2016">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Peaslee, G.F., Field, J.A., and Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Release of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) from Carpet and Clothing in Model Anaerobic Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(10), pp. 5024-5032.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06237 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06237]</ref><ref name="Lang2017"/>. PFAS may also be released to the air from landfills, predominantly as fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and perfluorobutanoate (PFBA). In one study, total airborne PFAS concentrations were 5 to 30 times greater at landfills than at background reference sites<ref name="Ahrens2011b">Ahrens, L., Shoeib, M., Harner, T., Lane, D.A., Guo, R. and Reiner, E.J., 2011. Comparison of Annular Diffusion Denuder and High volume Air Samplers for Measuring Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere. Analytical Chemistry, 83(24), pp. 9622-9628. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ DOI: 10.1021/ac202414w]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from: [https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC11FU-SUBM-PFOA-Canada-2-20151211.En.pdf InforMEA]</ref>. PFAS release rates within landfills vary over time for a given waste mass, with climate (for example, rainfall) serving as the apparent driving factor for the variations<ref name="Lang2017"/><ref name="Benskin2012">Benskin, J.P., Li, B., Ikonomou, M.G., Grace, J.R. and Li, L.Y., 2012. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Landfill Leachate: Patterns, Time Trends, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp.11532-11540.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302471n DOI: 10.1021/es302471n]</ref>.
+
The blowers/fans can also be used to blow outdoor air into the building, thereby creating a building over-pressurization condition. A positive pressure difference CPM test suppresses VI pathways; therefore, chemicals detected in indoor air above outdoor air concentrations during this condition are attributed to indoor contaminant sources which facilitates the identification of any such indoor air sources.
  
−
==Commercial and Consumer Products==
+
Data collected during CPM testing, when combined with screening level VI modeling, can be used to identify which VI chemical migration pathways are significant contributors to indoor air impacts<ref name="GuoEtAl2015" />. CPM testing guidelines were developed and validated under ESTCP Project ER-201501<ref name="GuoEtAl2020a" /><ref name="JohnsonEtAl2021" />.
−
PFAS are widely used in consumer products and household applications, with a diverse mixture of PFAS found in varying concentrations depending on the product<ref name="Clara2008">Clara, M., Scharf, S., Weiss, S., Gans, O. and Scheffknecht, C., 2008. Emissions of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) from point sources - identification of relevant branches. Water Science and Technology, 58(1), pp. 59-66. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.641 DOI: 10.2166/wst.2008.641]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Clara2008.pdf | Open access article.]]</ref><ref name="Trier2011">Trier, X., Granby, K. and Christensen, J.H., 2011. Polyfluorinated surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 18(7), pp. 1108–1120.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3]</ref><ref name="Fujii2013">Fujii, Y., Harada, K.H. and Koizumi, A., 2013. Occurrence of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) in personal care products and compounding agents. Chemosphere, 93(3), pp. 538-544. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049]</ref><ref name="OECD2013">Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013. Synthesis paper on per‐ and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). OECD Environment Directorate/UNEP Global PFC Group.  [https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-management/PFC_FINAL-Web.pdf  Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: OECD2013.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018"/><ref name="Kotthoff2015"/><ref name="KEMI2015"/><ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA Document Number: 822-R-16-004.  Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.  [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final_508.pdf Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA2016.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  Environmental releases associated with the commercial and consumer products are primarily related to their production.  To a much lower extent, the environmental releases may be associated with the management of solid waste (for example, disposal of used items in a MSW landfill) and wastewater disposal (for example, discharge to WWTPs, private septic systems, or other subsurface disposal systems).
 
  
−
Studies have shown that physical degradation of some consumer products (such as PFAS-treated paper, textiles, and carpets) may release PFAS in house dust<ref name="Bjorklund2009">Björklund, J.A., Thuresson, K. and De Wit, C.A., 2009. Perfluoroalkyl Compounds (PFCs) in Indoor Dust: Concentrations, Human Exposure Estimates, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(7), pp. 2276-2281. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803201a DOI: 10.1021/es803201a]</ref>. Additionally, studies have also shown that professional ski wax technicians may have significant inhalation exposures to PFAS<ref name="Nilsson2013">Nilsson, H., Kärrman, A., Rotander, A., van Bavel, B., Lindström, G., and Westberg, H., 2013. Professional ski waxers' exposure to PFAS and aerosol concentrations in gas phase and different particle size fractions. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 15(4), pp. 814-822.  [https://doi.org/10.1039/C3EM30739E DOI: 10.1039/C3EM30739E]</ref> and snowmelt and surface waters near ski areas could have measurable PFAS impacts<ref name="Kwok2013">Kwok, K.Y., Yamazaki, E., Yamashita, N., Taniyasu, S., Murphy, M.B., Horii, Y., Petrick, G., Kallerborn, R., Kannan, K., Murano, K. and Lam, P.K., 2013. Transport of Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from an arctic glacier to downstream locations: Implications for sources. Science of the Total Environment, 447, pp. 46-55.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091]</ref>.
+
'''Passive samplers''' can be used to measure long term average indoor air concentrations under natural conditions and during VI mitigation system operation. They will provide more confident assessment of long term average concentrations than an infrequent sequence of short term grab samples. Long term average concentrations can also be determined by long term active sampling (e.g., by slowly pulling air through a thermal desorption (TD) tube). However, passive sampling has the advantage that additional equipment and expertise is not required for sampler deployment and recovery.   
  
−
As increased environmental sampling for PFAS occurs, additional information will become available to further our understanding of the major and minor PFAS contributors to the environment.
+
Use of passive samplers in indoor air under time-varying concentration conditions was demonstrated and validated by comparing against intensive active sampling in ESTCP Project ER-201501<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2021">Guo, Y., O’Neill, H., Dahlen, P., and Johnson, P.C.  2021.  Evaluation of Passive Diffusive-Adsorptive Samplers for Use in Assessing Time-Varying Indoor Air Impacts Resulting from Vapor Intrusion.  Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 42(1), pp. 38-49.  [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12481 doi: 10.1111/12481]</ref>.
−
<br clear="left" />
+
 
 +
The purpose of maintaining an evergreen '''comprehensive VI conceptual model''' is to ensure that the most complete and up-to-date understanding of the site is informing decisions related to future sampling, data interpretation, and the need for and design of mitigation systems. The VI conceptual model can also serve as an effective communication tool in stakeholder discussions.  
 +
 
 +
Use of these tools for residential neighborhoods and in non-residential buildings overlying chlorinated solvent groundwater plumes is documented comprehensively in a series of peer reviewed articles<ref name="JohnsonEtAl2020" /><ref name="JohnsonEtAl2021" /><ref name="JohnsonEtAl2022" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2015" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2020a" /><ref name="GuoEtAl2020b">Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., Johnson, P.C. 2020b. Temporal variability of chlorinated volatile organic compound vapor concentrations in a residential sewer and land drain system overlying a dilute groundwater plume. Science of the Total Environment, 702, Article 134756.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134756 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134756]&nbsp;&nbsp; [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/e5/GuoEtAl2020b.pdf  Open Access Manuscript]</ref><ref name="GuoEtAl2021" /><ref name="HoltonEtAl2015" />.
 +
 
 +
==Summary==
 +
In summary, the VI Diagnosis Toolkit provides a set of tools that can lead to quicker, more confident, and more cost effective neighborhood-scale VI pathway and impact assessments. Toolkit components and their use can complement conventional methods for assessing and mitigating the vapor intrusion pathway.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
 
<references />
 
<references />
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
  
−
*
+
*[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000681 Evaluation of Radon and Building Pressure Differences as Environmental Indicators for Vapor Intrusion Assessment]
 +
*[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es4024767 Temporal Variability of Indoor Air Concentrations under Natural Conditions in a House Overlying a Dilute Chlorinated Solvent Groundwater Plume]
 +
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/e0d00662-c333-4560-8ae7-60f20b0e714b Integrated Field-Scale, Lab-Scale, and Modeling Studies for Improving Our Ability to Assess the Groundwater to Indoor Air Pathway at Chlorinated Solvent Impacted Sites]

Latest revision as of 21:57, 22 July 2024

Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques

Munitions Constituents, including insensitive munitions IM), are a broad category of compounds and, in areas where manufactured or used, can be found in a variety of environmental matrices (waters, soil, and tissues). This presents an analytical challenge when a variety of these munitions are to be quantified. This article discusses sample extraction methods for each typical sample matrix (high level water, low level water, soil and tissue) as well as the accompanying HPLC-UV analytical method for 27 compounds of interest (legacy munitions, insensitive munitions, and surrogates).

Related Article(s):

Contributor(s):

  • Dr. Austin Scircle

Key Resource(s):

  • Methods for simultaneous quantification of legacy and insensitive munition (IM) constituents in aqueous, soil/sediment, and tissue matrices[2]

Introduction

The primary intention of the analytical methods presented here is to support the monitoring of legacy and insensitive munitions contamination on test and training ranges, however legacy and insensitive munitions often accompany each other at demilitarization facilities, manufacturing facilities, and other environmental sites. Energetic materials typically appear on ranges as small, solid particulates and due to their varying functional groups and polarities, can partition in various environmental compartments[3]. To ensure that contaminants are monitored and controlled at these sites and to sustainably manage them a variety of sample matrices (surface or groundwater, process waters, soil, and tissues) must be considered. (Process water refers to water used during industrial manufacturing or processing of legacy and insensitive munitions.) Furthermore, additional analytes must be added to existing methodologies as the usage of IM compounds changes and as new degradation compounds are identified. Of note, relatively new IM formulations containing NTO, DNAN, and NQ are seeing use in IMX-101, IMX-104, Pax-21 and Pax-41 (Table 1)[4][5].

Sampling procedures for legacy and insensitive munitions are identical and utilize multi-increment sampling procedures found in USEPA Method 8330B Appendix A[1]. Sample hold times, subsampling and quality control requirements are also unchanged. The key differences lie in the extraction methods and instrumental methods. Briefly, legacy munitions analysis of low concentration waters uses a single cartridge reverse phase SPE procedure, and acetonitrile (ACN) is used for both extraction and elution for aqueous and solid samples[1][6]. An isocratic separation via reversed-phase C-18 column with 50:50 methanol:water mobile phase or a C-8 column with 15:85 isopropanol:water mobile phase is used to separate legacy munitions[1]. While these procedures are sufficient for analysis of legacy munitions, alternative solvents, additional SPE cartridges, and a gradient elution are all required for the combined analysis of legacy and insensitive munitions.

Previously, analysis of legacy and insensitive munitions required multiple analytical techniques, however the methods presented here combine the two munitions categories resulting in an HPLC-UV method and accompanying extraction methods for a variety of common sample matrices. A secondary HPLC-UV method and a HPLC-MS method were also developed as confirmatory methods. The methods discussed in this article were validated extensively by single-blind round robin testing and subsequent statistical treatment as part of ESTCP ER19-5078. Wherever possible, the quality control criteria in the Department of Defense Quality Systems Manual for Environmental Laboratories were adhered to[7]. Analytes included in these methods are found in Table 1.

The chromatograms produced by the primary and secondary HPLC-UV methods are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Chromatograms for each detector wavelength used are shown (315, 254, and 210 nm).

Extraction Methods

High Concentration Waters (> 1 ppm)

Aqueous samples suspected to contain the compounds of interest at concentrations detectable without any extraction or pre-concentration are suitable for analysis by direct injection. The method deviates from USEPA Method 8330B by adding a pH adjustment and use of MeOH rather than ACN for dilution[1]. The pH adjustment is needed to ensure method accuracy for ionic compounds (like NTO or PA) in basic samples. A solution of 1% HCl/MeOH is added to both acidify and dilute the samples to a final acid concentration of 0.5% (vol/vol) and a final solvent ratio of 1:1 MeOH/H2O. The direct injection samples are then ready for analysis.

Low Concentration Waters (< 1 ppm)

Aqueous samples suspected to contain the compounds of interest at low concentrations require extraction and pre-concentration using solid phase extraction (SPE). The SPE setup described here uses a triple cartridge setup shown in Figure 3. Briefly, the extraction procedure loads analytes of interest onto the cartridges in this order: StrataTM X, StrataTM X-A, and Envi-CarbTM. Then the cartridge order is reversed, and analytes are eluted via a two-step elution, resulting in 2 extracts (which are combined prior to analysis). Five milliliters of MeOH is used for the first elution, while 5 mL of acidified MeOH (2% HCl) is used for the second elution. The particular SPE cartridges used are noncritical so long as cartridge chemistries are comparable to those above.

Soils

Soil collection, storage, drying and grinding procedures are identical to the USEPA Method 8330B procedures[1]; however, the solvent extraction procedure differs in the number of sonication steps, sample mass and solvent used. A flow chart of the soil extraction procedure is shown in Figure 4. Soil masses of approximately 2 g and a sample to solvent ratio of 1:5 (g/mL) are used for soil extraction. The extraction is carried out in a sonication bath chilled below 20 ⁰C and is a two-part extraction, first extracting in MeOH (6 hours) followed by a second sonication in 1:1 MeOH:H2O solution (14 hours). The extracts are centrifuged, and the supernatant is filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE disk filter.

The solvent volume should generally be 10 mL but if different soil masses are required, solvent volume should be 5 mL/g. The extraction results in 2 separate extracts (MeOH and MeOH:H2O) that are combined prior to analysis.

Tissues

Tissue matrices are extracted by 18-hour sonication using a ratio of 1 gram of wet tissue per 5 mL of MeOH. This extraction is performed in a sonication bath chilled below 20 ⁰C and the supernatant (MeOH) is filtered through a 0.45 μm PTFE disk filter.

Due to the complexity of tissue matrices, an additional tissue cleanup step, adapted from prior research, can be used to reduce interferences[8][2]. The cleanup procedure uses small scale chromatography columns prepared by loading 5 ¾” borosilicate pipettes with 0.2 g activated silica gel (100–200 mesh). The columns are wetted with 1 mL MeOH, which is allowed to fully elute and then discarded prior to loading with 1 mL of extract and collecting in a new amber vial. After the extract is loaded, a 1 mL aliquot of MeOH followed by a 1 mL aliquot of 2% HCL/MeOH is added. This results in a 3 mL silica treated tissue extract. This extract is vortexed and diluted to a final solvent ratio of 1:1 MeOH/H2O before analysis.



Most federal, state, and local regulatory guidance for assessing and mitigating the vapor intrusion pathway reflects USEPA’s Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air[9]. The paradigm outlined by that guidance includes: 1) a preliminary and mostly qualitative analysis that looks for site conditions that suggest vapor intrusion might occur (e.g., the presence of vapor-forming chemicals in close proximity to buildings); 2) a multi-step and more detailed quantitative screening analysis that involves site-specific data collection and their comparison to screening levels to identify buildings of potential VI concern; and 3) selection and design of mitigation systems or continued monitoring, as needed. With respect to (2), regulatory guidance typically recommends consideration of “multiple lines of evidence” in decision-making[9][10], with typical lines-of-evidence being groundwater, soil gas, sub-slab soil gas, and/or indoor air concentrations. Of those, soil gas measurements and/or measured short-term indoor air concentrations can be weighted heavily, and therefore decision making might not be completed without them. Effective evaluation of VI risk from sub-slab and/or soil gas measurements would require an unknown building-specific attenuation factor, but there is also uncertainty as to whether or not indoor air data is representative of maximum and/or long-term average indoor concentrations. Indoor air data can be confounded by indoor contaminant sources because the number of samples is typically small, indoor concentrations can vary with time, and because a number of household products can emit the chemicals being measured. When conducting VI pathway assessments in neighborhoods where it is impractical to assess all buildings, the EPA recommends following a “worst first” investigational approach.

The limitations of this approach, as practiced, are the following:

  • Decisions are rarely made without indoor air data and generally, seasonal sampling is required, delaying decision making.
  • The collection of a robust indoor air data set that adequately characterizes long term indoor air concentrations could take years given the typical frequency of data collection and the most common methods of sample collection (e.g., 24-hour samples). Therefore, indoor air sampling might continue indefinitely at some sites.
  • The “worst first” buildings might not be identified correctly by the logic outlined in USEPA’s 2015 guidance and the most impacted buildings might not even be located over a groundwater plume. Recent studies have shown VI impacts in homes as a result of sewer and other subsurface piping connections, which are not explicitly considered nor easily characterized through conventional VI pathway assessment[11][12][13][14][15].
  • The presumptive remedy for VI mitigation (sub-slab depressurization) may not be effective for all VI scenarios (e.g., those involving vapor migration to indoor spaces via sewer connections).

The VI Diagnosis Toolkit components were developed considering these limitations as well as more recent knowledge gained through research, development, and validation projects funded by SERDP and ESTCP.

The VI Diagnosis Toolkit Components

Figure 1. Vapor intrusion pathway conceptualization considering “alternate VI pathways”, including “pipe flow VI” and “sewer VI” pathways[16].

The primary components of the VI Diagnosis Toolkit and their uses include:

  • External VI source strength screening to identify buildings most likely to be impacted by VI at levels warranting building-specific testing.
  • Indoor air source screening to locate and remove indoor air sources that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment.
  • Controlled pressurization method (CPM) testing to quickly (in a few days or less) measure the worst-case indoor air impact likely to be caused by VI under natural conditions in specific buildings. CPM tests can also be used to identify the presence of indoor air sources and diagnose active VI pathways.
  • Passive indoor sampling for determining long-term average indoor air concentrations under natural VI conditions and/or for verifying mitigation system effectiveness in buildings that warrant VI mitigation.
  • Comprehensive VI conceptual model development and refinement to ensure that appropriate monitoring, investigation, and mitigation strategies are being selected (Figure 1).

Expanded discussions for each of these are given below.

External VI source strength screening identifies those buildings that warrant more intrusive building-specific assessments, using data collected exterior to the buildings. The use of groundwater and/or soil gas concentration data for building screening has been part of VI pathway assessments for some time and their use is discussed in many regulatory guidance documents. Typically, the measured concentrations are compared to relevant screening levels derived via modeling or empirical analyses from indoor air concentrations of concern.

More recently it has been discovered that VI impacts can occur via sewer and other subsurface piping connections in areas where vapor migration through the soil would not be expected to be significant, and this could also occur in buildings that do not sit over contaminated groundwater[15][12][13][14].

Therefore, in addition to groundwater and soil gas sampling, external data collection that includes and extends beyond the area of concern should include manhole vapor sampling (e.g., sanitary sewer, storm sewer, land-drain). Video surveys from sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and/or land-drains can also be used to identify areas of groundwater leakage into utility corridors and lateral connections to buildings that are conduits for vapor transport. During these investigations, it is important to recognize that utility corridors can transmit both impacted water and vapors beyond groundwater plume boundaries, so extending investigations into areas adjacent to groundwater plume boundaries is necessary.

Using projected indoor air concentrations from modeling and empirical data analyses, and distance screening approaches, external source screening can identify areas and buildings that can be ruled out, or conversely, those that warrant building-specific testing.

Demonstration of neighborhood-scale external VI source screening using groundwater, depth, sewer, land drain, and video data is documented in the ER-201501 final report[16].

Indoor air source screening seeks to locate and remove indoor air sources[17] that might confound building specific VI pathway assessment. Visual inspections and written surveys might or might not identify significant indoor air sources, so these should be complemented with use of portable analytical instruments[18][19].

The advantage of portable analytical tools is that they allow practitioners to expeditiously test indoor air concentrations under natural conditions in each room of the building. Concentrations in any room in excess of relevant screening levels trigger more sampling in that room to identify if an indoor source is present in that room. Removal of a suspected source and subsequent room testing can identify if that object or product was the source of the previously measured concentrations.

Building-specific controlled pressurization method (CPM) testing directly measures the worst case indoor air impact, but it can also be used to determine contributing VI pathways and to identify indoor air sources[20][19][12][21][16][22]. In CPM testing, blowers/fans installed in a doorway(s) or window(s) are set-up to exhaust indoor air to outdoor, which causes the building to be under pressurized relative to the atmosphere. This induces air movement from the subsurface into the test building via openings in the foundation and/or subsurface piping networks with or without direct connections to indoor air. This is similar to what happens intermittently under natural conditions when wind, indoor-outdoor temperature differences, and/or use of appliances that exhaust air from the structure (e.g. dryer exhaust) create an under-pressurized building condition.

The blowers/fans can also be used to blow outdoor air into the building, thereby creating a building over-pressurization condition. A positive pressure difference CPM test suppresses VI pathways; therefore, chemicals detected in indoor air above outdoor air concentrations during this condition are attributed to indoor contaminant sources which facilitates the identification of any such indoor air sources.

Data collected during CPM testing, when combined with screening level VI modeling, can be used to identify which VI chemical migration pathways are significant contributors to indoor air impacts[12]. CPM testing guidelines were developed and validated under ESTCP Project ER-201501[22][23].

Passive samplers can be used to measure long term average indoor air concentrations under natural conditions and during VI mitigation system operation. They will provide more confident assessment of long term average concentrations than an infrequent sequence of short term grab samples. Long term average concentrations can also be determined by long term active sampling (e.g., by slowly pulling air through a thermal desorption (TD) tube). However, passive sampling has the advantage that additional equipment and expertise is not required for sampler deployment and recovery.

Use of passive samplers in indoor air under time-varying concentration conditions was demonstrated and validated by comparing against intensive active sampling in ESTCP Project ER-201501[16][24].

The purpose of maintaining an evergreen comprehensive VI conceptual model is to ensure that the most complete and up-to-date understanding of the site is informing decisions related to future sampling, data interpretation, and the need for and design of mitigation systems. The VI conceptual model can also serve as an effective communication tool in stakeholder discussions.

Use of these tools for residential neighborhoods and in non-residential buildings overlying chlorinated solvent groundwater plumes is documented comprehensively in a series of peer reviewed articles[16][23][25][12][22][26][24][21].

Summary

In summary, the VI Diagnosis Toolkit provides a set of tools that can lead to quicker, more confident, and more cost effective neighborhood-scale VI pathway and impact assessments. Toolkit components and their use can complement conventional methods for assessing and mitigating the vapor intrusion pathway.

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. EPA Method 8330B (SW-846) Nitroaromatics, Nitramines, and Nitrate Esters by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), Revision 2. USEPA Website    Method 8330B.pdf
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Crouch, R.A., Smith, J.C., Stromer, B.S., Hubley, C.T., Beal, S., Lotufo, G.R., Butler, A.D., Wynter, M.T., Russell, A.L., Coleman, J.G., Wayne, K.M., Clausen, J.L., Bednar, A.J., 2020. Methods for simultaneous determination of legacy and insensitive munition (IM) constituents in aqueous, soil/sediment, and tissue matrices. Talanta, 217, Article 121008. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2020.121008    Open Access Manuscript.pdf
  3. ^ Walsh, M.R., Temple, T., Bigl, M.F., Tshabalala, S.F., Mai, N. and Ladyman, M., 2017. Investigation of Energetic Particle Distribution from High‐Order Detonations of Munitions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 42(8), pp. 932-941. doi: 10.1002/prep.201700089
  4. ^ Mainiero, C. 2015. Picatinny Employees Recognized for Insensitive Munitions. U.S. Army, Picatinny Arsenal Public Affairs. Open Access Press Release
  5. ^ Frem, D., 2022. A Review on IMX-101 and IMX-104 Melt-Cast Explosives: Insensitive Formulations for the Next-Generation Munition Systems. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 48(1), e202100312. doi: 10.1002/prep.202100312
  6. ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2007. EPA Method 3535A (SW-846) Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE), Revision 1. USEPA Website    Method 3535A.pdf
  7. ^ US Department of Defense and US Department of Energy, 2021. Consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.4. 387 pages. Free Download    QSM Version 5.4.pdf
  8. ^ Russell, A.L., Seiter, J.M., Coleman, J.G., Winstead, B., Bednar, A.J., 2014. Analysis of munitions constituents in IMX formulations by HPLC and HPLC-MS. Talanta, 128, pp. 524–530. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.02.013
  9. ^ 9.0 9.1 USEPA, 2015. OSWER Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Publication No. 9200.2-154, 267 pages. USEPA Website   Report.pdf
  10. ^ NJDEP, 2021. Vapor Intrusion Technical Guidance, Version 5.0. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. Website   Guidance Document.pdf
  11. ^ Beckley, L, McHugh, T., 2020. A Conceptual Model for Vapor Intrusion from Groundwater Through Sewer Lines. Science of the Total Environment, 698, Article 134283. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134283   Open Access Article
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Guo, Y., Holton, C., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Identification of Alternative Vapor Intrusion Pathways Using Controlled Pressure Testing, Soil Gas Monitoring, and Screening Model Calculations. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(22), pp. 13472–13482. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03564
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 McHugh, T., Beckley, L., Sullivan, T., Lutes, C., Truesdale, R., Uppencamp, R., Cosky, B., Zimmerman, J., Schumacher, B., 2017. Evidence of a Sewer Vapor Transport Pathway at the USEPA Vapor Intrusion Research Duplex. Science of the Total Environment, pp. 598, 772-779. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.135   Open Access Manuscipt
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 McHugh, T., Beckley, L., 2018. Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways for Volatile Organic Compound Migration into Buildings: Risk Factors and Investigation Protocol. ESTCP ER-201505, Final Report. Project Website   Final Report.pdf
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 Riis, C., Hansen, M.H., Nielsen, H.H., Christensen, A.G., Terkelsen, M., 2010. Vapor Intrusion through Sewer Systems: Migration Pathways of Chlorinated Solvents from Groundwater to Indoor Air. Seventh International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, May, Monterey, CA. Battelle Memorial Institute. ISBN 978-0-9819730-2-9. Website   Report.pdf
  16. ^ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JohnsonEtAl2020
  17. ^ Doucette, W.J., Hall, A.J., Gorder, K.A., 2010. Emissions of 1,2-Dichloroethane from Holiday Decorations as a Source of Indoor Air Contamination. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 30(1), pp. 67-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2009.01267.x
  18. ^ McHugh, T., Kuder, T., Fiorenza, S., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Philp, P., 2011. Application of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), pp. 5952-5958. doi: 10.1021/es200988d
  19. ^ 19.0 19.1 Beckley, L., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., McHugh, T., 2014. On-Site Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) Analysis to Streamline Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Environmental Forensics, 15(3), pp. 234–243. doi: 10.1080/15275922.2014.930941
  20. ^ McHugh, T.E., Beckley, L., Bailey, D., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Rivera-Duarte, I., Brock, S., MacGregor, I.C., 2012. Evaluation of Vapor Intrusion Using Controlled Building Pressure. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(9), pp. 4792–4799. doi: 10.1021/es204483g
  21. ^ 21.0 21.1 Holton, C., Guo, Y., Luo, H., Dahlen, P., Gorder, K., Dettenmaier, E., Johnson, P.C., 2015. Long-Term Evaluation of the Controlled Pressure Method for Assessment of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2091–2098. doi: 10.1021/es5052342
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., Johnson, P.C., 2020a. Development and Validation of a Controlled Pressure Method Test Protocol for Vapor Intrusion Pathway Assessment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(12), pp. 7117-7125. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00811
  23. ^ 23.0 23.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JohnsonEtAl2021
  24. ^ 24.0 24.1 Guo, Y., O’Neill, H., Dahlen, P., and Johnson, P.C. 2021. Evaluation of Passive Diffusive-Adsorptive Samplers for Use in Assessing Time-Varying Indoor Air Impacts Resulting from Vapor Intrusion. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 42(1), pp. 38-49. doi: 10.1111/12481
  25. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named JohnsonEtAl2022
  26. ^ Guo, Y., Dahlen, P., Johnson, P.C. 2020b. Temporal variability of chlorinated volatile organic compound vapor concentrations in a residential sewer and land drain system overlying a dilute groundwater plume. Science of the Total Environment, 702, Article 134756. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134756   Open Access Manuscript

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=16683"