Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎PFAS Transport and Fate)
(→‎Extraction Methods)
 
(832 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==PFAS Transport and Fate==
+
==Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques==  
−
The transport and fate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present.  Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment. PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain.
+
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).  
−
Understanding PFAS transport and fate is necessary for evaluating the potential risk from a PFAS release and for predictions about PFAS occurrence, migration, and persistence, and about the potential vectors for exposure. This knowledge is important for site characterization, identification of potential sources of PFAS to the site, development of an appropriate conceptual site model (CSM), and selection and predicted performance of remediation strategies.  
 
  
 
<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)]]
 
  
−
'''Contributor(s): '''
+
*[[Munitions Constituents]]
−
Dr. Hunter Anderson and Dr. Mark L. Brusseau
 
  
−
'''Key Resource(s): '''
+
'''Contributor(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">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. Technical/Regulatory Guidance: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC, PFAS Team, Washington DC. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ITRC_PFAS_TechReg_April2020.pdf  Free Download from ITRC].&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 
  
−
*[[Media: Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf | Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Brusseau 2018 (manuscript).]]<ref name="Brusseau2018">Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of the Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf | Author’s Manuscript]]</ref>
+
*Dr. Austin Scircle
 +
 
 +
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 +
 
 +
*[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==
−
The transport and fate of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] is a rapidly evolving field of science, with many questions that are not yet resolved. Much of the currently available information is based on a few well-studied PFAS compounds. However, there is a large number and variety of PFAS with a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect their behavior in the environment. The transport and fate of some PFAS could differ significantly from the compounds studied to date. Nevertheless, information about the behavior of some PFAS in the environment can be ascertained from the results of currently available research.  
+
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>.
 +
 
 +
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.  
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
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<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.
 +
 
 +
===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: 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.
 +
 
 +
===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.
 +
 
 +
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<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.
 +
 
 +
  
−
PFAS transport and fate in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present.  Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) are strong acids and are anionic in the environmentally-relevant pH range.  They are extremely persistent in the environment and do not degrade or transform under typical environmental conditions. Polyfluoroalkyl substances (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) include compounds that have the potential to degrade to PFAAs.  These compounds are commonly referred to as PFAA precursors or just ‘precursors’.  Because some polyfluoroalkyl substances can degrade into PFAA via biotic or abiotic degradation pathways, PFAAs are sometimes referred to as “terminal PFAS” or “terminal degradation products”.
 
−
The most important molecular properties controlling PFAA transport are the carbon chain length and functional moieties of the headgroups (e.g., sulfonate, carboxylate). The molecular properties of PFAA precursors are more varied, with different carbon chain lengths, headgroups and ionic states<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.J., 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; [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.258 Open Access Article]</ref><ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. American Chemical Society.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 Free Download from ACS]</ref> (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]]). All of these properties can influence transport and fate of PFAA precursors in the environment.
 
  
−
Important environmental characteristics include the nature of the source (mode of input into the environment), the length of time that the source was active, and the magnitude of the input, as well as precipitation and infiltration rates, depth to groundwater, surface water and groundwater flow rates and interactions, prevailing atmospheric conditions, the properties of the porous-media (e.g., soil and sediment) and aqueous solution, microbiological factors, and the presence of additional fluid phases such as air and non-aqueous phase liquids [[Wikipedia: Non-aqueous phase liquid | (NAPLs)]] in the vadose zone and water-saturated source.  In the subsurface, soil characteristics (texture, organic carbon content, clay mineralogy, metal-oxide content, solid surface area, surface charge, and exchange capacity) and solution characteristics (pH, redox potential, major ion chemistry, and co-contaminants) can influence PFAS transport and fate.  
+
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.  
  
−
==PFAS Transport and Fate Processes==
+
The limitations of this approach, as practiced, are the following:
−
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 400px | Figure 1. Illustration of PFAS partitioning and transformation processes. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
 
−
Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment (Figure 1). PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain.  However, PFAS uptake and bioaccumulation is not discussed in this article (see “Environmental Concern” section of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]).
 
  
−
* '''Transport:''' PFAS can be transported substantial distances in the atmosphere<ref name="Ahrens2012">Ahrens, L., Harner, T., Shoeib, M., Lane, D.A. and Murphy, J.G., 2012. Improved Characterization of Gas–Particle Partitioning for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere Using Annular Diffusion Denuder Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7199-7206. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es300898s DOI: 10.1021/es300898s]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Harner/publication/225046057_Improved_Characterization_of_Gas-Particle_Partitioning_for_Per-_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_in_the_Atmosphere_Using_Annular_Diffusion_Denuder_Samplers/links/5cc730c4299bf12097893fdc/Improved-Characterization-of-Gas-Particle-Partitioning-for-Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl-Substances-in-the-Atmosphere-Using-Annular-Diffusion-Denuder-Samplers.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>, surface water<ref name="Taniyasu2013">Taniyasu, S., Yamashita, N., Moon, H.B., Kwok, K.Y., Lam, P.K., Horii, Y., Petrick, G. and Kannan, K., 2013.  Does wet precipitation represent local and regional atmospheric transportation by perfluorinated alkyl substances? Environment International, 55, pp. 25-32. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005]</ref>, soil<ref name="Braunig2017">Bräunig, J., Baduel, C., Heffernan, A., Rotander, A., Donaldson, E. and Mueller, J.F., 2017. Fate and redistribution of perfluoroalkyl acids through AFFF-impacted groundwater. Science of the Total Environment, 596, pp. 360-368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095]</ref>, and groundwater<ref name="Weber2017">Weber, A.K., Barber, L.B., LeBlanc, D.R., Sunderland, E.M. and Vecitis, C.D., 2017. Geochemical and Hydrologic Factors Controlling Subsurface Transport of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(8), pp. 4269-4279. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05573 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05573]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/weber2017_final.pdf Free Download]</ref>. The primary mechanisms controlling PFAS transport are [[Wikipedia:Advection | advection]] and [[Wikipedia:Dispersive_mass_transfer | dispersion]], similar to other dissolved compounds. For additional information on transport in groundwater, see [[Advection and Groundwater Flow]] and [[Dispersion and Diffusion]].
+
*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).
 +
 +
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.
  
−
* '''Partitioning:''' Partitioning of PFAS between the mobile and immobile phases is one of the most important processes controlling the rate of migration in the environment. The primary mobile phases are typically air and water. Relatively immobile phases include stream sediments, soils, aquifer material, NAPLs, and interfaces between different phases (air-water, NAPL-water).  Partitioning of a significant portion of the PFAS mass into an immobile phase increases the amount of material stored in the system and slows the apparent rate of migration in the mobile phase – a phenomenon that has been observed in field metadata<ref name="Anderson2019">Anderson, R.H., Adamson, D.T. and Stroo, H.F., 2019. Partitioning of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances from soil to groundwater within aqueous film-forming foam source zones. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 220, pp. 59-65. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011]&nbsp;&nbsp; Manuscript available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Stroo3/publication/329227107_Partitioning_of_poly-_and_perfluoroalkyl_substances_from_soil_to_groundwater_WITHIN_aqueous_film-forming_foam_source_zones/links/5e56996b299bf1bdb83e2f69/Partitioning-of-poly-and-perfluoroalkyl-substances-from-soil-to-groundwater-WITHIN-aqueous-film-forming-foam-source-zones.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.
+
==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:
  
−
* '''Transformation:''' Transformation of PFAS is controlled by the molecular structure of the individual compounds. Perfluorinated compounds, including PFAAs, are resistant to abiotic and biotic transformation reactions under typical conditions and highly persistent in the environment. In contrast, precursors can be transformed by both abiotic and biotic processes, often resulting in the production of so-called “terminal” PFAA daughter products.
+
*'''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).
  
−
==Transport and Partitioning in the Atmosphere==
+
Expanded discussions for each of these are given below.
−
Air serves as a transport media for PFAS, particularly for uncharged polyfluorinated PFAS.  Airborne PFAS transport contributes to global distribution and can lead to localized deposition to soils and surface water in the vicinity of emission sources<ref name="Simcik2005">Simcik, M.F. and Dorweiler, K.J., 2005. Ratio of Perfluorochemical Concentrations as a Tracer of Atmospheric Deposition to Surface Waters. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(22), pp.  8678-8683. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0511218 DOI: 10.1021/es0511218]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt_Simcik/publication/7444956_Ratio_of_Perfluorochemical_Concentrations_as_a_Tracer_of_Atmospheric_Deposition_to_Surface_Waters/links/5f035861299bf1881603c3be/Ratio-of-Perfluorochemical-Concentrations-as-a-Tracer-of-Atmospheric-Deposition-to-Surface-Waters.pdf ResearchGate]</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 available from [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf?1447365456=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc.pdf&Expires=1605023809&Signature=Z6KqgaDN6lKdAazoe6qoASoCtVystG5i~5EnrTcb~qMg3xZPz4O49Kghh62WmMzqEKE788~6EwrnlBVo9o6cM0hjf2vymFYxg4mx-eSIOEonfFjk6RonSaWp5gRbA6m~SNjwsjaKXID3OQyWIlLVpUd2LzAdI5rLGFA~gIXXtNPyCArLuGn-kbPYUIcBUg5TIkTZ6TDLXF~ujmzK9tNv~55UYabsJL4pmwIGC2sNGkEyJrYMfU577fbactdrmQXTJH7XbgpfDSfd4-xWkDZTdvVf~TypDDqUCZdtCkY8wINdpqtfe1KEzLrAj7rxxALAHUYxlVbPB45XTkLAGe5qww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA  Academia]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011">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://doi.org/10.1021/ac202414w 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><ref name="Rauert2018">Rauert, C., Shoieb, M., Schuster, J.K., Eng, A. and Harner, T., 2018. Atmospheric concentrations and trends of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS) over 7 years of sampling in the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network. Environmental Pollution, 238, pp. 94-102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017]&nbsp;&nbsp; Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0269749117352521?token=4C770E6E8AEDB0B3BA6A1D5B2C20ED5385F81823612551FA3380AAA1DA7A978F9CB36834AF6B7F91F35FF57E32013252 ScienceDirect]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:Rauert2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
 
  
−
PFAAs, which are ionic and possess a negative charge under ambient environmental conditions, are far less volatile than many other groundwater contaminants.  An online database of vapor pressures and Henry’s Law constants for different PFAS, including PFAAs, is maintained by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. In general, vapor pressures of PFAS are low and water solubilities are high, limiting partitioning from water to air<ref name="ITRC2020"/>.  However, under certain conditions, particularly within industrial stack emissions, PFAS can be transported through the atmosphere in both the gas phase and associated with fugitive particulates.  In particular, volatile compounds including fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) may be present in the gas phase, whereas, PFAAs can aerosolize and be transported as particulates<ref name="Ahrens2012"/>. In addition, precursors can be transformed to PFAAs in the atmosphere, which can result in PFAA deposition.
+
'''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.
−
Short-range atmospheric transport and deposition can result in PFAS contamination in terrestrial and aquatic systems near points of significant emissions, impacting soil, groundwater, and other media of concern<ref name="Fang2018">Fang, X., Wang, Q., Zhao, Z., Tang, J., Tian, C., Yao, Y., Yu, J. and Sun, H., 2018. Distribution and dry deposition of alternative and legacy perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the air above the Bohai and Yellow Seas, China. Atmospheric Environment, 192, pp. 128-135. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052]</ref><ref name="Brandsma2019">Brandsma, S.H., Koekkoek, J.C., van Velzen, M.J.M. and de Boer, J., 2019.  The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands. Chemosphere, 220, pp. 493-500. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135]&nbsp;&nbsp; Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0045653518324706?token=E541D5C4B200C8626A86F41049FE9DCA92652BC9A8BA7D9E47832C08070AB5AF256F4872474C50B5C4908F5CA4C24947 ScienceDirect].&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Brandsma2019.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  Releases of ionic PFAS from factories are likely tied to particulate matter, which settle to the ground in dry weather and are also wet-scavenged by precipitation<ref name="Barton2006">Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J. and Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56(1), pp.  48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free access article available from [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Taylor and Francis Online]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Barton2006.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  The impact of other potential sources, such as combustion emissions or wind-blown fire-fighting foam from fire training and fire response sites, on the fate and transport of PFAS in air may need to be assessed.
 
  
−
Long-range transport processes are responsible for the wide distribution of neutral and ionic PFAS across the Earth as evidenced by their occurrence in biota, surface snow, ice cores, seawater, and other environmental media in regions as remote as the Arctic and Antarctic<ref name="Bossi2016">Bossi, R., Vorkamp, K. and Skov, H., 2016. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorinated compounds in the atmosphere of North Greenland. Environmental Pollution, 217, pp. 4-10. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2010">Ahrens, L., Gerwinski, W., Theobald, N. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Sources of polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Norwegian Sea: Evidence from their spatial distribution in surface water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(2), pp. 255-260. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013]</ref>. 
+
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" />.  
−
Distribution of PFAS to remote regions far removed from direct industrial input is believed to occur from both: a) long-range atmospheric transport and subsequent degradation of volatile precursors; and b) transport via ocean currents and release into the air as marine aerosols (sea spray)<ref name="DeSilva2009">De Silva, A.O., Muir, D.C. and Mabury, S.A., 2009. Distribution of perfluorocarboxylate isomers in select samples from the North American environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 28(9), pp. 1801-1814. [https://doi.org/10.1897/08-500.1 DOI: 10.1897/08-500.1]</ref><ref name="Armitage2009">Armitage, J.M., 2009. Modeling the global fate and transport of perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS). Doctoral Dissertation, Institutionen för tillämpad miljövetenskap (ITM), Stockholm University. [[Media: Armitage2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
  
−
==Transport and Partitioning in Aqueous Systems==
+
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.   
−
PFAS adsorb from water to a variety of solid materials including organic materials, clay minerals, metal oxides, and granular activated carbon<ref name="Du2014">Du, Z., Deng, S., Bei, Y., Huang, Q., Wang, B., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2014. Adsorption behavior and mechanism of perfluorinated compounds on various adsorbents – A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 274, pp. 443-454. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038]</ref>. This process is thought to occur through two primary mechanisms: 1) sorption to organic-carbon components of the solids; and 2) electrostatic (and other) interactions with inorganic constituents of the solids, including clay minerals and metal-oxides<ref name="Guelfo2013">Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(9), pp. 4164-4171. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3048043 DOI: 10.1021/es3048043]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/11124/80055/Guelfo_mines_0052E_10298.pdf?sequence=1#page=64 Doctoral Dissertation]</ref><ref name="Zhao2014">Zhao, L., Bian, J., Zhang, Y., Zhu, L. and Liu, Z., 2014. Comparison of the sorption behaviors and mechanisms of perfluorosulfonates and perfluorocarboxylic acids on three kinds of clay minerals. Chemosphere, 114, pp. 51-58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lixia_Zhao8/publication/262148355_Comparison_of_the_sorption_behaviors_and_mechanisms_of_perfluorosulfonates_and_perfluorocarboxylic_acids_on_three_kinds_of_clay_minerals/links/5b1be5dca6fdcca67b681a4f/Comparison-of-the-sorption-behaviors-and-mechanisms-of-perfluorosulfonates-and-perfluorocarboxylic-acids-on-three-kinds-of-clay-minerals.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>. The relative contribution of each mechanism varies depending on surface chemistry and other geochemical factors, as well as the molecular properties of the PFAS.  In general, the impact of electrostatic interactions with charged soil constituents is more important for PFAS than non-polar, hydrophobic organic contaminants (e.g. hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents).  Adsorption of PFAS by solids is often nonlinear, with greater sorption at lower solute concentrations.  The impacts of adsorption kinetics and their potential reversibility on PFAS transport have not yet been examined for most PFAS compounds.   
 
  
−
Sorption of hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and other hydrophobic organics is often controlled the by organic-carbon components of the solid phase (see [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]).  However, studies of PFAS sorption to solid phase organic carbon have reported conflicting results.  In a study of field sites with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF, a type of fire-fighting foam) releases, solid phase organic carbon content was found to significantly influence PFAS soil-to-groundwater concentration ratios.  Statistical modeling was then used to derive apparent organic carbon partition coefficients for 18 different PFAS<ref name="Anderson2019"/>.  A recent compilation of published organic carbon partition coefficients found a good correspondence to PFAS molecular structure<ref name="Brusseau2019a">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. Estimating the relative magnitudes of adsorption to solid-water and air/oil-water interfaces for per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. Environmental Pollution, 254B, p. 113102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102]</ref>. However, other studies have shown a general lack of correlation between solid phase partition coefficients and organic carbon<ref name="Li2018">Li, Y., Oliver, D.P. and Kookana, R.S., 2018. A critical analysis of published data to discern the role of soil and sediment properties in determining sorption of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Science of the Total Environment, 628, pp. 110-120. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167]</ref>. It is possible that greater variability may be observed for broader data sets that incorporate different ranges of PFAS concentrations, different solution conditions, different measurement methods, and field-based data which often have less well-defined conditions and may also be influenced by other retention processes<ref name="Anderson2019"/><ref name="Brusseau2019a"/>.
+
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.  
  
−
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig2.png | thumb | 400px | Figure 2. Example of expected orientation and accumulation of PFAS at air-water interface. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
+
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" />.  
−
Most solids present in the environment contain both fixed-charged (negative) and variably charged surfaces.  At neutral to high pH, variably charged clay minerals have a net-negative charge.  As a result, negatively charged PFAAs do not strongly interact electrostatically in most soils, although as the soil pH decreases electrostatic sorption would be expected to increase in soils with variably charged clay minerals.  Cationic and zwitterionic precursors are expected to be more strongly sorbed than anionic PFAAs in most environments due to well-established cation exchange reactions. Other factors, including ionic strength, composition, and the presence of co-solutes, can affect adsorption of PFAS<ref name="Higgins2006">Higgins, C.P. and Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251-7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n DOI: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref><ref name="Chen2009">Chen, H., Chen, S., Quan, X., Zhao, Y. and Zhao, H., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on oil and oil-derived black carbon: Influence of solution pH and [Ca2+]. Chemosphere, 77(10), pp. 1406-1411. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008]</ref><ref name="Pan2009">Pan, G., Jia, C., Zhao, D., You, C., Chen, H. and Jiang, G., 2009. Effect of cationic and anionic surfactants on the sorption and desorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on natural sediments. Environmental Pollution, 157(1), pp.325-330. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gang_Pan2/publication/23189567_Effect_of_cationic_and_anionic_surfactants_on_the_sorption_and_desorption_of_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_on_natural_sediments/links/5be19d23a6fdcc3a8dc2550d/Effect-of-cationic-and-anionic-surfactants-on-the-sorption-and-desorption-of-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-PFOS-on-natural-sediments.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Guelfo2013"/><ref name="Zhao2014"/>.
 
  
−
Most PFAS compounds act as surface-active agents (or [[Wikipedia:Surfactant | surfactants]]) due to the presence of a hydrophilic headgroup and a hydrophobic tail. The hydrophilic headgroup will preferentially partition to the aqueous phase and the hydrophobic tail will preferentially partition to the non-aqueous phase (air or organic material). As a result, PFAS tend to accumulate at interfaces (air-water, water-NAPL, water-solid) (Figure 2). This tendency to accumulate at interfaces can influence transport in the atmosphere (on water droplets and hydrated aerosols), in the vadose or unsaturated zone at air-water interfaces, in the presence of NAPLs, and in wastewater treatment systems<ref name="Brusseau2018"/><ref name="Brusseau2019b">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. The Influence of Molecular Structure on the Adsorption of PFAS to Fluid-Fluid Interfaces: Using QSPR to Predict Interfacial Adsorption Coefficients. Water Research, 152, pp. 148-158. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374777/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>.
+
'''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>.
−
 
 
−
In theoretical and experimental studies of transport in unsaturated porous media, adsorption at the air-water interface increased PFOS and PFOA retention<ref name="Brusseau2018"/><ref name="Lyu2018">Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., and Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air-Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312111/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019">Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., and Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294326/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>, contributing approximately 20% to 80% of total retention in sands and soil. The impact of oil-water interfacial adsorption on PFAS transport was also quantitatively characterized in recent studies and shown to contribute to total retention on a similar scale as air-water interfacial adsorption<ref name="Brusseau2018"/><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019"/>.  These processes may result in increased PFAS mass retained in NAPL source zones, increased PFAS sorption with the resulting retardation of transport, and greater persistence of dissolved PFAS in the environment.  
 
  
−
==Transformation==
+
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.  
−
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig3.png | thumb | 400px | Figure 3. Conceptual model of precursor transformation resulting in the formation of PFAAs. Source L. Trozzolo, TRC and C. Higgins, Colorado School of Mines, used with permission.]]
 
−
Certain polyfluorinated substances have the potential to transform to other PFAS, with PFAAs as the typical terminal daughter products. These polyfluorinated substances are often referred to as “precursors”. The transformation potential of polyfluorinated precursors is influenced by the presence, location, and number of carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds and potentially carbon-oxygen (C-O) bonds throughout the carbon chain. Specifically, PFAS with C-H bonds are subject to a variety of biotic and abiotic reactions that ultimately result in the formation of PFAAs with perfluorinated carbon chains of the same length or shorter than the initial polyfluorinated precursor<ref name="Houtz2013">Houtz, E.F., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A. and Sedlak, D.L., 2013. Persistence of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors in AFFF-impacted groundwater and soil. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(15), pp.  8187-8195.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4018877 DOI: 10.1021/es4018877]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_Houtz/publication/252323955_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Precursors_in_AFFF-Impacted_Groundwater_and_Soil/links/59dbddeeaca2728e2018336d/Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Precursors-in-AFFF-Impacted-Groundwater-and-Soil.pdf ReseqarchGate]</ref><ref name="McGuire2014">McGuire, M.E., Schaefer, C., Richards, T., Backe, W.J., Field, J.A., Houtz, E., Sedlak, D.L., Guelfo, J.L., Wunsch, A., and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Evidence of Remediation-Induced Alteration of Subsurface Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance Distribution at a Former Firefighter Training Area. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(12) pp. 6644-6652.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es5006187 DOI: 10.1021/es5006187]&nbsp;&nbsp; Manuscript available from [https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/td96k706f Oregon State University]</ref><ref name="Anderson2016">Anderson, R.H., Long, G.C., Porter, R.C. and Anderson, J.K., 2016. Occurrence of select perfluoroalkyl substances at US Air Force aqueous film-forming foam release sites other than fire-training areas: Field-validation of critical fate and transport properties. Chemosphere, 150, pp. 678-685.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014]</ref><ref name="Weber2017"/>.
 
  
−
Transformation studies published to date have tested only a small subsample of possible precursors and, therefore, much uncertainty exists regarding 1) the extent to which precursor transformation occurs on a global scale, 2) which environmental compartments represent the majority of transformation, 3) relevant environmental conditions that affect transformation processes, and 4) transformation rates and pathways. Nevertheless, a portion of the precursors are expected to transform to PFAAs over time as shown in Figure 3.
+
'''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.  
  
−
Precursors can be transformed by a variety of abiotic processes including hydrolysis, photolysis, and oxidation. Hydrolysis of some precursors, followed by subsequent biotransformation, can produce perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs).  An important example is the production of PFOS from perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (POSF)<ref name="Martin2010">Martin, J.W., Asher, B.J., Beesoon, S., Benskin, J.P. and Ross, M.S., 2010. PFOS or PreFOS? Are perfluorooctane sulfonate precursors (PreFOS) important determinants of human and environmental perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exposure? Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(11), pp.1979-2004.  [https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00295J DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00295J]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Ross3/publication/47415684_PFOS_or_PreFOS_Are_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_precursors_PreFOS_important_determinants_of_human_and_environmental_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_exposure/links/00b7d520a6132da945000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.  Other hydrolysis reactions produce perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs). At neutral pH, the hydrolysis of fluorotelomer-derived polymeric precursors results in the formation of monomeric precursors of PFOA and other PFAAs with half-lives of 50 to 90 years)<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M. and Yoo, H., 2010. Response to Comments on “Degradability of an Acrylate-Linked, Fluorotelomer Polymer in Soil”. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2), pp. 849-850.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902672q DOI: 10.1021/es902672q]&nbsp;&nbsp;  [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es902672q Free Download from ACS].</ref>.  Oxidation of precursors by hydroxyl radicals can occur in natural waters, with the fluorotelomer-derived precursors being oxidized relatively rapidly<ref name="Gauthier2005">Gauthier, S.A. and Mabury, S.A., 2005. Aqueous photolysis of 8: 2 fluorotelomer alcohol. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(8), pp.1837-1846.  [https://doi.org/10.1897/04-591R.1 DOI: 10.1897/04-591R.1]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzanne_Gauthier/publication/7609648_Aqueous_photolysis_of_8_2_fluorotelomer_alcohol/links/5ec16c4792851c11a86d9438/Aqueous-photolysis-of-8-2-fluorotelomer-alcohol.pdf ResearchGate].</ref><ref name="Plumlee2009">Plumlee, M.H., McNeill, K. and Reinhard, M., 2009. Indirect Photolysis of Perfluorochemicals: Hydroxyl Radical-Initiated Oxidation of N-Ethyl Perfluorooctane Sulfonamido Acetate (N-EtFOSAA) and Other Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(10), pp.3662-3668.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803411w DOI: 10.1021/es803411w]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Megan_Plumlee/publication/26309488_Indirect_Photolysis_of_Perfluorochemicals_Hydroxyl_Radical-Initiated_Oxidation_of_N-Ethyl_Perfluorooctane_Sulfonamido_Acetate_N-EtFOSAA_and_Other_Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides/links/5aac0437a6fdcc1bc0b8d002/Indirect-Photolysis-of-Perfluorochemicals-Hydroxyl-Radical-Initiated-Oxidation-of-N-Ethyl-Perfluorooctane-Sulfonamido-Acetate-N-EtFOSAA-and-Other-Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides.pdf ResearchGate].</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.
−
Evidence of aerobic biotransformation is provided from studies of PFAS composition throughout the continuum of wastewater treatments<ref name="Arvaniti2015">Arvaniti, O.S. and Stasinakis, A.S., 2015. Review on the occurrence, fate and removal of perfluorinated compounds during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 524, pp. 81-92.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023]</ref>, from field studies at AFFF-impacted sites<ref name="Houtz2013"/><ref name="McGuire2014"/><ref name="Anderson2016"/><ref name="Weber2017"/>, and from microcosm experiments. In general, the literature on aerobic biotransformation collectively demonstrates or indirectly supports the following conclusions as summarized in ITRC 2020<ref name="ITRC2020"/>:
+
 
−
* Numerous aerobic biotransformation pathways exist with relatively rapid kinetics
+
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" />.
−
* All polyfluorinated precursors studied to date have the potential to aerobically biotransform to PFAAs
+
 
−
* Aerobic biotransformation of various fluorotelomer-derived precursors exclusively results in the formation of PFCAs, including PFOA, without necessarily the conservation of chain-length
+
'''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.   
−
* Aerobic biotransformation of various electrochemical fluorination-derived precursors primarily results in the formation of PFAAs, including PFOS, with the conservation of chain-length
+
 
−
Precursor transformation can complicate CSMs (and risk assessments) and should be considered during comprehensive site investigations.  For example, atmospheric emissions of volatile precursors can result in long-range transport where subsequent transformation and deposition can result in detectable levels of PFAAs in environmental media independent of obvious point-sources<ref name="Vedagiri2018">Vedagiri, U.K., Anderson, R.H., Loso, H.M. and Schwach, C.M., 2018. Ambient levels of PFOS and PFOA in multiple environmental media. Remediation Journal, 28(2), pp. 9-51.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21548 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21548]</ref>.  With respect to site-related precursors, transformation of otherwise unmeasured PFAS into detectable PFAAs is obviously relevant to site investigations to the extent transformation occurs after initial site characterization efforts or if past remedial efforts have accelerated ''in situ'' transformation rates<ref name="McGuire2014"/>.  Additionally, differential transport rates between precursor PFAS and the corresponding terminal PFAA could also confound CSMs if transformation rates are slower than transport rates as has been suggested<ref name="Weber2017"/>.  
+
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>.  
−
To account for otherwise unmeasurable precursors, several surrogate analytical methods have been developed. See [[PFAS Sampling and Analytical Methods]] for additional detail.
+
 
 +
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"