Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Developing PFAS Treatment Technologies)
(→‎Diagnostic Resin Treatments)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment==
+
==''In Situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)==  
−
Well-developed ''ex situ'' treatment technologies applicable to treatment of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in drinking water and non-potable groundwater include membrane filtration (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), activated carbon adsorption (granular and powdered), and anion exchange.  There are also a variety of separation and destructive technologies in developmental stages.  Some of these processes may also be applicable to more complex matrices including wastewater and landfill leachate.
+
The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate into weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.
 
<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)]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
−
* [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
−
* [[PFAS Sources]]
 
−
* [[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
 
  
−
'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Scott Grieco]] and [[James Hatton]]
+
'''Contributors:''' Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr., Austin Crane
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Key Resources:'''
 +
*A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020">Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M.,  Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4799 doi: 10.1002/etc.4799]</ref>
 +
*An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017">Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3696 doi: 10.1002/etc.3696]</ref>
 +
*Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document- <ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007.  Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003GR1.txt Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: EPA2007.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 +
*In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification- <ref>In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/88a8f9ba-542b-4b98-bfa4-f693435535cd/er18-1181-project-overview Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: ER18-1181Ph.II.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>
  
−
*[https://www.waterrf.org/resource/treatment-mitigation-strategies-poly-and-perfluorinated-chemicals Water Research Foundation (Drinking Water): Treatment Mitigation Strategies for PFAS]<ref name="Dickenson2016">Dickenson, E. and Higgins, C., 2016. Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Report Number 4322. Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado. 123 pages. ISBN 978-1-60573-234-3</ref>
+
==Introduction==
 +
In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<ref>Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/owm0255.pdf Free Download from US EPA]&nbsp; [[Media: usepa1992.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>, can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ''ex situ'' organism exposures<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.  
  
−
*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council: PFAS Liquids Treatment Technologies]<ref name="ITRC2020">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document and Fact Sheets, PFAS-1. PFAS Team, Washington, DC. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods<ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-409.1 doi: 10.1897/03-409.1]</ref><ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-468.1 doi: 10.1897/03-468.1]</ref><ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/><ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | metals]], pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)]], and [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>.
  
−
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717307934 Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review.]<ref name="Kucharzyk2017"> Kucharzyk, K.H., Darlington, R., Benotti, M., Deeb, R. and Hawley, E., 2017. Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Management, 204(2), pp. 757-764. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016]&nbsp;&nbsp; Manuscript available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katarzyna_kate_Kucharzyk/publication/319125507_Novel_treatment_technologies_for_PFAS_compounds_A_critical_review/links/5a06590b4585157013a3be77/Novel-treatment-technologies-for-PFAS-compounds-A-critical-review.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>
+
==System Components and Validation==
 +
[[File: CraneFig1.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.]]
 +
The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water ''in situ''. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.
  
−
*[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2016.0233 Degradation and removal methods for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water]<ref name="Merino2016">Merino, N., Qu, Y., Deeb, R.A., Hawley, E.L., Hoffmann, M.R., and Mahendra, S., 2016. Degradation and Removal Methods for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water. Environmental Engineering Science, 33(9), pp. 615-649. [https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0233 DOI: 10.1089/ees.2016.0233]</ref>
+
===Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system===
 +
[[File: CraneFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver]]
 +
Given&nbsp;the&nbsp;importance&nbsp;of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies<ref>Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.</ref>. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.  
  
−
==Established PFAS Treatment Technologies==
+
The Trident also includes an adjustable stopper plate, which forms a seal against the sediment and prevents the inadvertent dilution of porewater samples with surface water. (Figure 2). Preliminary laboratory results indicate that the Trident is extremely effective in collecting porewater samples with minimal surface water infiltration in sediments ranging from coarse sand to fine clay. Underwater cameras, sensors, passive samplers, and other auxiliary equipment can be attached to the Trident probe frame to provide supplemental data.
−
Three technologies are well demonstrated for removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] from drinking water and non-potable groundwater (as described below):
 
−
 
−
* membrane filtration including [[wikipedia: Reverse osmosis | reverse osmosis (RO)]] and [[Wikipedia: Nanofiltration | nanofiltration (NF)]]
 
−
* granular [[Wikipedia: Activated carbon | activated carbon]] (GAC) and powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption
 
−
* [[wikipedia: Ion_exchange | anion exchange (IX)]] 
 
  
−
However, these technologies are less demonstrated for removal of PFAS from more complex matrices such as wastewater and leachate. 
+
Alternatively, practitioners may employ the iTIE system to evaluate site surface water. To sample surface water, weighted intake tubes can collect surface water from the water column using a peristaltic pump.
−
Site-specific considerations that affect the selection of optimum treatment technologies for a given site include water chemistry, required flow rate, treatment criteria, waste residual generation, residual disposal options, and operational complexity.  Treatability studies with site water are highly recommended because every site has different factors that may affect engineering design for these technologies.
 
  
−
===Membrane Filtration===
+
===Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber===
−
[[File: revOsmosisPlant.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 1. A RO municipal drinking water plant in Arizona]]
+
[[File: CraneFig3.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.]]
−
Given their ability to remove dissolved contaminants at a molecular size level, RO and some NF membranes can be highly effective for PFAS removal. For RO systems (Figure 1), several studies have demonstrated effective removal of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) from drinking water with removal rates well above 90%<ref name="Tang2006">Tang, C.Y., Fu, Q.S., Robertson, A.P., Criddle, C.S., and Leckie, J.O., 2006. Use of Reverse Osmosis Membranes to Remove Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) from Semiconductor Wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7343-7349.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es060831q DOI: 10.1021/es060831q]</ref><ref name="Flores2013">Flores, C., Ventura, F., Martin-Alonso, J., and Caixach, J., 2013. Occurrence of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in NE Spanish surface waters and their removal in a drinking water treatment plant that combines conventional and advanced treatments in parallel lines. Science of the Total environment, 461, 618-626.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.026 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.026]</ref><ref name="Appleman2014">Appleman, T.D., Higgins, C.P., Quiñones, O., Vanderford, B.J., Kolstad, C., Zeigler-Holady, J.C., and Dickenson, E.R., 2014. Treatment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in US full-scale water treatment systems. Water Research, 51, pp. 246-255.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.067 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.067]</ref>. RO potable water reuse treatment systems implemented in California have also demonstrated effective PFOS and PFOA removal as reported by the Water Research Foundation (WRF)<ref name="Dickenson2016"/>. Analysis of permeate at both sites referenced by the WRF confirmed that short and long chain PFAS concentrations in the treated water were reduced to levels below test method reporting limits.
+
Porewater&nbsp;is&nbsp;naturally&nbsp;anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.
−
 
−
Full-scale studies using larger effective pore size NF membranes for PFAS removal are limited in number but are promising since NF systems are somewhat less costly than RO and may be nearly as effective in removing PFAS. Recent laboratory or pilot studies have shown good performance of NF membranes<ref name="Steinle-Darling2008">Steinle-Darling, E., and Reinhard, M., 2008. Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of Perfluorochemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(14), pp. 5292-5297.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es703207s DOI: 10.1021/es703207s]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48926882/es703207s20160918-21142-1xmqco5.pdf?1474189169=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DNanofiltration_for_Trace_Organic_Contami.pdf&Expires=1613000850&Signature=N-ZvvjOJX3TSOQzg7od3Q0LulNSZOqqjfummVEUfmiYlC3VasS4FuBHOgY52Xy~7FrKbOLhx0xx8QHdUsR~fbRTMQNXhiqbEslnU2gda2EcZHMMJj0mf-01wIA3jFIywA7IIabmTd3uMUGsIfT1D0PrGY00RmprYIQBoG3Dg~KjoizdfxYfvEgdZw2C~7D47pPiwMSnavZiGuvO0~dbRF8nawL7Prg91xt5BFTNUQQiIrIlMWc4PhVjzE5Su2CUZqnNlYdAW5Ck7B9lKmmVMPiOgz07vFnyp7m-q4UK3woa~aBFW9Wp~hjqN6vfohn8Hocv5oMpZNamhu8vBbPilKw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia].</ref><ref name="Appleman2013">Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R., Bellona, C., and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Nanofiltration and granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, 740-746.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033]</ref><ref name="Soriano2017">Soriano, Á., Gorri, D., and Urtiaga, A., 2017. Efficient treatment of perfluorohexanoic acid by nanofiltration followed by electrochemical degradation of the NF concentrate. Water Research, 112, 147-156.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Soriano2017.pdf | Author’s Manuscript.]]</ref><ref name="Zeng2017">Zeng, C., Tanaka, S., Suzuki, Y., Yukioka, S., and Fujii, S., 2017. Rejection of Trace Level Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) in Pure Water by Loose Nanofiltration Membrane. Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 15(3), pp. 120-127.  [https://doi.org/10.2965/jwet.16-072 DOI: 10.2965/jwet.16-072]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jwet/15/3/15_16-072/_pdf J-STAGE]</ref><ref name="Wang2018">Wang, J., Wang, L., Xu, C., Zhi, R., Miao, R., Liang, T., Yue, X., Lv, Y. and Liu, T., 2018. Perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorobutane sulfonate removal from water by nanofiltration membrane: The roles of solute concentration, ionic strength, and macromolecular organic foulants. Chemical Engineering Journal, 332, pp. 787-797.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061]</ref>.
 
  
−
Although membrane RO and NF processes are generally capable of providing uniform removal rates relative to short and long chain PFAS compounds (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature), other aspects of these treatment technologies are more challenging:
+
Gas bubbles may form in the oxygen coil over the course of a deployment. These can be disruptive, decreasing water sample volumes and posing a danger to sensitive organisms like daphnids. To account for this, the water travels to a drip chamber after exiting the oxygen coil, which allows gas bubbles to be separated and diverted to an overflow system. The sample water then flows to a manifold which divides the flow into different paths to each of the treatment units for fractionation and organism exposure.
  
−
* Membranes must be flushed and cleaned periodically, such that overall water recovery rates (process water volumes consumed, wasted, and lost vs. treated water volumes produced) are much lower than those for GAC and IX processes. Membrane fouling can be slowed or avoided depending on operating conditions, membrane modifications, and feed modifications<ref name="LeRoux2005">Le Roux, I., Krieg, H.M., Yeates, C.A. and Breytenbach, J.C., 2005. Use of chitosan as an antifouling agent in a membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 248(1-2), pp. 127-136.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2004.10.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2004.10.005]</ref>. Typically, 70-90% of the water supplied into a membrane RO process is recoverable as treated water. The remaining 10-30% is reject containing approximately 4 to 8 times the initial PFAS concentration (depending on recovery rate).
+
===iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers===
 +
[[File: CraneFig4.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.]]
 +
At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>, the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an in situ exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.
  
−
* These cleaning and flushing processes create a continuous liquid waste stream, which periodically includes harsh membrane cleaning chemicals as well as a continuous flow of concentrated membrane reject chemicals (i.e., PFAS) that must be properly managed and disposed of.  Management often includes further treatment to remove PFAS from the liquid waste.
+
After being exposed to test organisms, water is collected in sample bottles. The bottles can be pre-loaded with preservation reagents to allow for later chemical analysis. Sample bottles can be composed of polyethylene, glass or other materials depending on the CoC.
  
−
* RO and NF systems are inherently more expensive and complicated systems to implement, operate, and maintain compared to adsorption processes. Treatment system operator certification and process monitoring requirements are correspondingly markedly higher for RO and NF than they are for GAC and IX.  
+
===Pumping Sub-system===
 +
[[File: CraneFig5.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.]]
 +
Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps ([https://ecotechmarine.com/ EcoTech Marine]). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries ([https://www.bioennopower.com/ Bioenno Power]).
  
−
* Water feed pressures required to drive flow through membrane RO and NF processes are considerably higher than those involved with GAC and IX processes. This results in reduced process efficiency and higher pumping and electrical operating costs.
+
First, water is supplied to the system by a booster pump (Figure 5A). This pump is situated between the water sampling sub-system and the oxygen coil. The booster pump: 1) facilitates pore water collection, especially from sediments with high fine particle fractions; 2) helps water overcome vertical lifts to travel to the iTIE system; and 3) prevents vacuums from forming in the iTIE system interior, which can accelerate the formation of disruptive gas bubbles in the oxygen coil. The booster pump should be programmed to supply an excess of water to prevent vacuum formation.
  
−
* Membrane systems can also be subject to issues with irreversible membrane fouling, clogging, and scaling or other physical membrane damage and failures. Additional water pretreatment and higher levels of monitoring and maintenance are then required, further adding to the higher costs of such systems.
+
Second, a set of four regulation pumps ensure precise flow rates through each independent iTIE unit (Figure 5B). Each regulation pump pulls water from the top of an iTIE unit and then dispenses that water into a sample bottle for further analysis.
−
===Activated Carbon Adsorption===
 
−
[[File: GAChouse.JPG | thumb| 500px | Figure 2.  Typical private water supply well GAC installation for removal of VOCs and PFAS. Pressure gages and sample ports installed before the first (or lead) vessel, at the midpoint, and after the second (or lag) vessel allow monitoring for pressure drop due to fouling and for contaminant breakthrough.]] 
 
−
Activated carbon is a form of carbon processed to have small pores that increase the surface area available for adsorption of constituents from water. Activated carbon is derived from many source materials, including coconut shells, wood, lignite, and bituminous coal. Different types of activated carbon base materials have varied adsorption characteristics such that some may be better suited to removing certain contaminant compounds than others.  Results from laboratory testing, pilot evaluations, and full-scale system operations suggest that bituminous coal-based GAC is generally the best performing carbon for PFAS removal<ref name="McNamara2018">McNamara, J.D., Franco, R., Mimna, R., and Zappa, L., 2018. Comparison of Activated Carbons for Removal of Perfluorinated Compounds from Drinking Water. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 110(1), pp. E2-E14.  [https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0003 DOI: 10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0003]</ref><ref name="Westreich2018">Westreich, P., Mimna, R., Brewer, J., and Forrester, F., 2018. The removal of short‐chain and long‐chain perfluoroalkyl acids and sulfonates via granular activated carbons: A comparative column study. Remediation Journal, 29(1), pp. 19-26.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21579 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21579]</ref>.
 
  
−
The removal efficiency of individual PFAS compounds using GAC is a function of both the PFAS functional group (carboxylic acid versus sulfonic acid) and also the perfluoro-carbon chain length<ref name="McCleaf2017">McCleaf, P., Englund, S., Östlund, A., Lindegren, K., Wiberg, K., and Ahrens, L., 2017. Removal efficiency of multiple poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in drinking water using granular activated carbon (GAC) and anion exchange (AE) column tests. Water Research, 120, pp. 77-87. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057]</ref><ref name="Eschauzier2012">Eschauzier, C., Beerendonk, E., Scholte-Veenendaal, P., and De Voogt, P., 2012. Impact of Treatment Processes on the Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Acids from the Drinking Water Production Chain. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(3), pp. 1708-1715. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es201662b DOI: 10.1021/es201662b]</ref>(see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature):
+
==Study Design Considerations==
−
* perfluoro-sulfonate acids (PFSAs) are more efficiently removed than perfluoro-carboxylic acids (PFCAs) of the same chain length
+
===Diagnostic Resin Treatments===
−
* long chain compounds of the same functional group are removed better than the shorter chains
+
Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.
−
Activated carbon may be applied in drinking water systems as GAC or PAC<ref name="Dudley">Dudley, L.A., Arevalo, E.C., and Knappe, D.R., 2015. Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Substances by PAC Adsorption and Anion Exchange. Water Research Foundation Project #4344.  Free  download of Executive Summary from: [https://www.waterrf.org/system/files/resource/2019-04/4344_ProjectSummary.pdf Water Research Foundation (Public Plus account)]</ref><ref name="Qian2017">Qian, J., Shen, M., Wang, P., Wang, C., Li, K., Liu, J., Lu, B. and Tian, X., 2017. Perfluorooctane sulfonate adsorption on powder activated carbon: Effect of phosphate (P) competition, pH, and temperature. Chemosphere, 182, pp. 215-222. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.033 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.033]</ref>. GAC has larger granules and is reusable, while PAC has much smaller granules and is not typically reused.  To-date, PAC is most often used as a temporary treatment as costs associated with disposal and replacement of the used PAC may preclude using PAC for long-term treatment. A typical GAC installation for a private drinking water well is shown in Figure 2.
+
*[https://www.dupont.com/products/ambersorb560.html DuPont Ambersorb 560] for removal of 1,4-dioxane and other organic chemicals<ref>Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21402 doi: 10.1002/rem.21402]</ref>
−
Contrary to PAC, GAC used to treat PFAS can be reactivated by the manufacturer, driving the PFAS from the GAC and into off-gas. The extracted gas is then treated with thermal oxidation (temperatures often 1200&deg;C to 1400&deg;C).  The reactivated GAC is then brought back to the site and reused.  Thus, GAC can ultimately be a destructive treatment technology.
+
*C18 for nonpolar organic chemicals
 +
*[https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us Bio-Rad] [https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/chelex-100-resin?ID=6448ab3e-b96a-4162-9124-7b7d2330288e Chelex] for metals
 +
*Granular activated carbon for metals, general organic chemicals, sulfide<ref>Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011]</ref>
 +
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=Shop&isocode=en_US&keyword=oasis%20hlb&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=best-sellers&xcid=ppc-ppc_23916&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14746094146&gbraid=0AAAAAD_uR00nhlNwrhhegNh06pBODTgiN&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PsppE0raci2IhvGnAAe5ijciNcetLaGZo5qA3g3r4Z_La7YAPJtzShoC6LoQAvD_BwE Oasis HLB] for general organic chemicals<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>
 +
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=All&enableHL=true&isocode=en_US&keyword=Oasis%20WAX%20&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=most-relevant Oasis WAX] for PFAS, organic chemicals of mixed polarity<ref>Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. [https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica5020012 doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012]&nbsp; [[Media: IannoneEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Zeolite for ammonia, other organic chemicals
  
−
===Anion Exchange===
+
Resins must be adequately conditioned prior to use. Otherwise, they may inadequately adsorb toxicants or cause stress to organisms. New resins should be tested for efficacy and toxicity before being used in an iTIE system.  
−
Anion exchange has also been demonstrated for the adsorption of PFAS, and published results note higher sorption per pound than GAC<ref name="McCleaf2017"/><ref name=" Senevirathna2010">Senevirathna, S.T.M.L.D., Tanaka, S., Fujii, S., Kunacheva, C., Harada, H., Shivakoti, B.R., and Okamoto, R., 2010. A comparative study of adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) onto granular activated carbon, ion-exchange polymers and non-ion-exchange polymers. Chemosphere, 80(6), pp. 647-651.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.053 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.053]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chinagarn_Kunacheva/publication/44672056_A_comparative_study_of_adsorption_of_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_onto_granular_activated_carbon_ion-exchange_polymers_and_non-ion-exchange_polymers/links/5a3380510f7e9b2a288a2b21/A-comparative-study-of-adsorption-of-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-PFOS-onto-granular-activated-carbon-ion-exchange-polymers-and-non-ion-exchange-polymers.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Woodard2017">Woodard, S., Berry, J., and Newman, B., 2017. Ion exchange resin for PFAS removal and pilot test comparison to GAC. Remediation Journal, 27(3), pp. 19-27.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21515 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21515]</ref>. The higher capacity is believed to be due to combined hydrophobic and ion exchange adsorption mechanisms, whereas GAC mainly relies on hydrophobic attraction. Anion exchange resins can be highly selective, or they can also remove other contaminants based on design requirements and water chemistry. Resins have greater affinity for PFAS subgroup PFSA than for PFCA, and affinity increases with carbon chain length.
 
−
[[Wikipedia: Ion-exchange resin | Anion exchange resins]] are a viable alternative to GAC for ex situ treatment of PFAS anions, and several venders sell resins capable of removing PFAS. Resins available for treating PFAS include regenerable resins that can be used multiple times (Figure 3) and single-use resins that must be disposed or destroyed after use<ref name=" Senevirathna2010"/>. Regenerable resins generate a solvent and brine solution, which is distilled to recover the solvent prior to the brine being adsorbed onto a small quantity of GAC or resin for ultimate disposal. This use of one treatment technology (GAC, IX) to support another (RO) is sometimes referred to as a “treatment train” approach. Single-use resins can be more fully exhausted than regenerable resins can and may be a more cost-effective solution for low concentration PFAS contamination, while regenerable resins may be more cost effective for high concentration contamination.
 
−
==Developing PFAS Treatment Technologies==
 
−
Numerous separation and destructive technologies are in the developmental stages of bench-scale testing or limited field-scale demonstrations. Some of these are listed in Table 1:
 
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
+
===Test Organism Species and Life Stages===
−
|+ Table 1.  Developmental Technologies
 
−
|-
 
−
! Stage
 
−
! Separation/Transfer
 
−
! Destructive*
 
−
|-
 
−
| Developing
 
−
|
 
−
* Biochar (20, 21, 22)
 
−
* Modified Zeolites (23, 24)
 
−
* Specialty adsorbents
 
−
|
 
−
* Electro-oxidation (32, 33, 34)
 
−
* Heat activated persulfate (35)
 
−
* Alkaline perozone (36)
 
−
* Sonolysis (37, 38, 39, 40)
 
−
* Super Critical Water Oxidation
 
−
|-
 
−
| Maturing and</br>Demonstrated
 
−
|
 
−
* Chemical coagulation (28)
 
−
* Electrocoagulation (29)
 
−
* Foam fractionation (30, 31)
 
−
|
 
−
* Low temperature plasma (41, 42)
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" | * There are several other destructive technologies such as alternative oxidants, and activation</br>methods of oxidants, but for the purpose of this article, the main categories are presented here.
 
−
|}
 
  
−
==Conclusions==
 
−
The well established processes for removing PFAS from water all produce residuals that require management, and it is likely that newer processes under development will also produce some residuals.  Often, it is the residuals that limit the usefulness of the process.  For instance, RO and NF may currently provide the most complete treatment of water, but the production of a relatively high volume of PFAS-containing liquid reject (the portion of the liquid that retains the contaminants and is “rejected” from the process) limits their application.  Often, a second treatment technology such as an adsorbent is required to support the main technology by concentrating or treating the residuals. 
 
−
As more testing and operational data on adsorbents are generated, it is becoming evident that no adsorbent technology outperforms the others in all cases.  Whether GAC, ion exchange or another technology is the most technically efficient and cost effective long term option for a given site depends on influent water geochemistry and contaminant concentrations, treatment standards, co-contaminants, duration of treatment, and required flow rates. New generation adsorbents are rapidly being introduced into the market at “evaluation scale” which may provide advantages over commercially available adsorbents.
 
−
Several newer technologies are being evaluated in the lab and in the field which include electro-oxidation, heat-activated persulfate, sonolysis, electrocoagulation, low temperature plasma, super critical water oxidation, and foam fractionation. These and other potential treatments for PFAS are still largely in the developmental stage. Several technologies show promise for improved management of PFAS sites. However, it is unlikely that a single technology will be adequate for full remediation at many sites. A multi-technology treatment train approach may be necessary for effective treatment of this complicated group of compounds.
 
  
−
==Soil Treatment==
+
<br clear="left"/>
−
[[File: DiGuiseppi1w2Fig1.PNG |thumb|600px| Figure 1. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil stabilization project at a military base in Australia. Image courtesy of RemBind&trade;.]]
 
−
Addressing recalcitrant contaminants in soil has traditionally been done through containment/capping or excavation and off-site disposal or treatment.  Containment/capping may be an acceptable solution for PFAS in some locations.  However, containment/capping is not considered ideal given the history of releases from engineered landfills and restrictions on use of land containing capped soils.  Innovative treatment approaches for PFAS include stabilization with amendments and thermal treatment. 
 
  
−
===Excavation and Disposal===  
+
==Advantages==
−
Excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of PFAS-impacted soils is the only well-developed treatment technology option and may be acceptable for small quantities of soil, such as those generated during characterization activities (i.e., investigation derived waste, IDW). Disposal in non-hazardous landfills is allowable in most states. However, some landfill operators are choosing to restrict acceptance of PFAS-containing waste and soils as a protection against future liability. In addition, the US EPA and some states are considering or have designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, which would reduce the number of facilities where disposal of PFAS-contaminated soil would be allowed<ref name="EPA2019">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019. EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan: EPA 823R18004. Washington, DC. [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA823R18004.pdf | Report.pdf]]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA100K20002.pdf | 2020 Update]]</ref>. Treatment of excavated soils is commonly performed using incineration or other high temperature thermal methods<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. Recent negative publicity regarding incomplete combustion of PFAS in incinerators<ref name="Hogue2020">Cheryl Hogue, 2020. Incineration may spread, not break down PFAS. Chemical and Engineering News, American Chemical Society. [https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Incincerators-spread-break-down-PFAS/98/web/2020/04 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hogue2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> has caused some states to ban PFAS incineration<ref name="NYSS2020">New York State Senate, 2020. An ACT prohibiting the incineration of aqueous film-forming foam containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in certain cities. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s7880/amendment/b Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NYsenate2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
 +
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies<ref>Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref><ref>Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref>Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]]. 
 +
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
 +
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
 +
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS. 
 +
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
 +
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.
  
−
===Stabilization===
+
==Limitations==
−
[[File:DiGuiseppi1w2Fig2.PNG|thumb|600px| Figure 2. A portable infrared thermal treatment unit for PFAS-impacted soils<ref name="DiGuiseppi2019"/>.]]
+
Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.
−
Various amendments have been manufactured to sorb PFAS to reduce leaching from soil. Although this is a non-destructive approach, stabilization can reduce mass flux from a source area or allow soils to be placed in landfills with reduced potential for leaching. Amendments sorb PFAS through hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions and are applied to soil through ''in situ'' soil mixing or ''ex situ'' stabilization (Figure 1). Effectiveness of amendments varies depending on site conditions, PFAS types present, and mixing conditions<ref name="ITRCwNs2020"/>. Good results have been observed in bench and field scale tests with a variety of cationic clays (natural or chemically modified) and zeolites<ref name="OchoaHerrera2008">Ochoa-Herrera, V., and Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2008. Removal of perfluorinated surfactants by sorption onto granular activated carbon, zeolites and sludge. Chemosphere, 72(10), pp. 1588-1593.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.029 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.029]</ref><ref name="Rattanaoudom2012">Rattanaoudom, R., Visvanathan, C., and Boontanon, S.K., 2012. Removal of Concentrated PFOS and PFOA in Synthetic Industrial Wastewater by Powder Activated Carbon and Hydrotalcite. Journal of Water Sustainability, 2(4), pp. 245-248.  [http://www.jwsponline.com/uploadpic/Magazine/pp%20245-258.pdf Open access article.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Rattanaoudom2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Ziltek2017">Ziltek, 2017. RemBind: Frequently Asked Questions.  [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5503db4d546e22f6d2feb2/t/5c733787f9619ae6c84674c9/1551054727451/RemBind+FAQs.pdf Free download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: RemBind2017.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Bench-scale tests have shown that activated carbon sorbents reduce leachability of PFAS from soils<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><ref name="Yu2009">Yu, Q., Zhang, R., Deng, S., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate on activated carbons and resin: Kinetic and isotherm study. Water Research, 43(4), pp. 1150-1158.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.001]</ref><ref name="Szabo2017">Szabo, J., Hall, J., Magnuson, M., Panguluri, S., and Meiners, G., 2017. Treatment of Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Wash Water Using Granular Activated Carbon and Mixed Media, EPA/600/R-17/175. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC.  [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHSRC&direntryid=337098 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA600R17175.PDF | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  A commercial product developed in Australia ([https://rembind.com/ RemBind&trade;]) combines the cation exchange binding capability of clays, the hydrophobic sorption and [[Wikipedia: Van der Waals force | van der Waals]] attraction of organic material, and the electrostatic interactions of aluminum hydroxide to create a highly effective soil stabilizer.  This material has been mixed into soil at 1 to 5% ratio by weight in ''ex situ'' applications and been demonstrated to reduce leachability by greater than 99 percent<ref name="Nolan2015">Nolan, A., Anderson, P., McKay, D., Cartwright, L., and McLean, C., 2015. Treatment of PFCs in Soils, Sediments and Water, WC35. Program and Proceedings, CleanUp Conference 2015. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC Care), Melbourne, Australia. pp. 374-375.  [https://www.crccare.com/files/dmfile/CLEANUP_2015_PROCEEDINGS-web.pdf Free download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CRCCare2015.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
*Environmental factors, such as the presence of elevated concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), dissolved oxygen, or nitrate, can inhibit the efficacy of UV/sulfite treatment systems by scavenging available hydrated electrons. Those interferences are commonly managed through chemical additions, reaction optimization, and/or dilution, and are therefore not considered likely to hinder treatment success.
 +
*Coloration in waste streams may also impact the effectiveness of the UV/sulfite treatment system by blocking the transmission of UV light, thus reducing the UV lamp's effective path length. To address this, pre-treatment may be necessary to enable UV/sulfite destruction of PFAS in the waste stream. Pre-treatment may include the use of strong oxidants or coagulants to consume or remove UV-absorbing constituents.
 +
*The degradation efficiency is strongly influenced by PFAS molecular structure, with fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTS) and [[Wikipedia: Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid | perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)]] exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.
  
−
===Thermal Treatment===
+
==State of the Practice==
−
[[File:DiGuiseppi1w2Fig3.PNG|thumb|600px| Figure 3. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil washing plant in Australia<ref name="Grimison2020"/>.]]
+
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
−
''Incineration:'' Incineration is a well-developed technology for organics destruction, including PFAS-impacted soils. Incineration is generally defined as high temperature (>1,100&deg;C) thermal destruction of waste, and PFAS are thought to mineralize at high temperatures. Generally, incinerators treat off-gasses by thermal oxidation with temperatures as high as 1,400&deg;C, and vaporized combustion products can be captured using condensation and wet scrubbing<ref name="ITRCwNs2020"/>. Some regulatory officials have expressed concern about possible PFAS emissions in off-gas from these incinerators, and the authors are not aware of any published evidence demonstrating complete mineralization of multiple PFAS in incinerators at the time of this posting. In general, incineration is designed to provide “5 nines of destruction” – destruction of 99.999% of the contaminants, although incinerators are not designed to specifically treat PFAS to this standard. In the absence of approved industry standard test methods, the US EPA is developing off-gas/stack testing procedures capable of detecting PFAS at the levels considered to be harmful<ref name="EPA2018">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. PFAS Research and Development, Community Engagement in Fayetteville, North Carolina. [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement-north-carolina-meeting-materials Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPAFayetteville2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]  
−
 
+
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
−
''Thermal Desorption:'' Thermal Desorption of PFAS from soil has been demonstrated at the field scale in Australia and the US (Alaska)<ref name="Nolan2015"/> using a rotary kiln operating at temperatures in the range of 900&deg;C or less with treatment times of 10-15 minutes<ref name="Burke2015">Burke, Jill, 2019. Fairbanks incinerator shows promise for cleaning toxic soil. Channel 2-KTUU, October 8.  [https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Fairbanks-incinerator-shows-promise-for-cleaning-toxic-soil-562593631.html Website]</ref>. At these temperatures, some PFAS are mineralized, releasing fluorine that must be captured in off-gas treatment systems.  Some PFAS would not be destroyed at these temperatures and therefore must be captured in off-gas treatment systems.  Several bench-scale tests have been performed that have narrowed down the optimal temperature for desorption to between 350&deg;C and 400&deg;C<ref name="Hatton2019">Hatton, J., Dasu, K., Richter, R., Fitzpatrick, T., and Higgins, C., 2019. Field Demonstration of Infrared Thermal Treatment of PFAS-impacted Soils from Subsurface Investigations. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER18-1603, Alexandria, VA.  [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER18-1603 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SERDP ER18-1603.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="DiGuiseppi2019">DiGuiseppi, W., Richter, R., and Riggle, M., 2019. Low Temperature Desorption of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. The Military Engineer, 111(719), pp. 52-53. Society of American Military Engineers, Washington, DC.  [http://online.fliphtml5.com/fedq/sdoo/#p=54 Open access article.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: DiGuiseppi2019.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. A US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) field-scale demonstration was performed in Oregon, where thermal desorption was conducted at 400&deg;C over several days, and the PFAS were captured on vapor-phase activated carbon and incinerated<ref name="Hatton2019"/>. An ''in situ'' thermal desorption project has been funded under the US DoD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to demonstrate that vadose zone soil can be heated to the requisite 350&deg;C and held there for the appropriate length of time to desorb and capture PFAS from soil source areas<ref name="Iery2020">Iery, R., 2020. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5250.   [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER20-5250 Website]</ref>.
+
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
−
 
+
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
−
===Soil Washing===
 
−
Soil washing has been applied to PFAS in a handful of pilot projects<ref name="Torneman2012">Torneman, N., 2012. Remedial Methods and Strategies for PFCs. Fourth Joint Nordic Meeting on Remediation of Contaminated Sites, NORDROCS 2012, Oslo, Norway.  [http://nordrocs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Session-VI-torsdag-1-Torneman-short-paper.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Torneman2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Toase2018">Toase, D., 2018. Application of enhanced soil washing techniques to PFAS contaminated source zones. Emerging Contaminants Summit 2018, Westminster, Colorado.</ref><ref name="Grimison2018">Grimison, C., Barthelme, S., Nolan, A., Cole, J., Morrell, C., 2018. Integrated Soil and Water System for Treatment of PFAS Impacted Source Areas, 18E138P. Australasian Land and Groundwater Association (ALGA), Sydney, Australia.  [https://landandgroundwater.com/media/18E138P_-_Charles_Grimison.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Grimison2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> and one full-scale implementation in Australia. This approach requires a large-scale engineered plant to handle the various liquid and solid waste streams generated. Soil washing is less suitable for clay-rich soils, where aggregation of the particulates occurs and is difficult to prevent or mitigate. Treatment of the liquid rinse water waste stream is required, which would then rely on conventional water treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange. Additionally, in some cases flocculated sludge is generated, which would require treatment or disposal offsite. At present, the only full-scale soil washing demonstration is occurring in Australia, where a vendor has constructed and is operating a 10 million AUD$ treatment plant in anticipation of future treatment of soils generated from remedial actions at Australian Defense installations. Some Australian installations are stockpiling soils due to the lack of cost-effective soil treatment options. According to the vendor, this system generates no solid waste, instead feeding any solids back into the front end of the process for further removal of PFAS<ref name="Grimison2020">Grimison, C., Brookman, I., Hunt, J., and Lucas, J., 2020. Remediation of PFAS-related impacts – ongoing scrutiny and review, Ventia Submission to PFAS Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Australia. [https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a209e924-2b7e-4727-bccf-30bef5304bba&subId=691428  Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Grimison2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Conclusions==
 
−
Several well-developed remedial technologies have been applied to address soil contaminated with PFAS.  Unfortunately, none of the available techniques are ideal, with some reducing leachability but leaving the PFAS-impacted soil in place, while others result in destruction of the contaminants but require high energy inputs with associated high cost.  
 
−
<br clear="left" />
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
 
<references />
 
<references />
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Latest revision as of 10:17, 13 February 2026

In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)

The in situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate into weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.

Related Article(s):

Contributors: Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr., Austin Crane

Key Resources:

  • A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites[1]
  • An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation[2]
  • Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document- [3]
  • In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification- [4]

Introduction

In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[5], can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ex situ organism exposures[1]. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The in situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.

The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods[6][7][1][2]. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression[1].

System Components and Validation

Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.

The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water in situ. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.

Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system

Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver

Given the importance of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies[8]. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.

The Trident also includes an adjustable stopper plate, which forms a seal against the sediment and prevents the inadvertent dilution of porewater samples with surface water. (Figure 2). Preliminary laboratory results indicate that the Trident is extremely effective in collecting porewater samples with minimal surface water infiltration in sediments ranging from coarse sand to fine clay. Underwater cameras, sensors, passive samplers, and other auxiliary equipment can be attached to the Trident probe frame to provide supplemental data.

Alternatively, practitioners may employ the iTIE system to evaluate site surface water. To sample surface water, weighted intake tubes can collect surface water from the water column using a peristaltic pump.

Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber

Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.

Porewater is naturally anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.

Gas bubbles may form in the oxygen coil over the course of a deployment. These can be disruptive, decreasing water sample volumes and posing a danger to sensitive organisms like daphnids. To account for this, the water travels to a drip chamber after exiting the oxygen coil, which allows gas bubbles to be separated and diverted to an overflow system. The sample water then flows to a manifold which divides the flow into different paths to each of the treatment units for fractionation and organism exposure.

iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers

Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.

At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton et al.[1], the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an in situ exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.

After being exposed to test organisms, water is collected in sample bottles. The bottles can be pre-loaded with preservation reagents to allow for later chemical analysis. Sample bottles can be composed of polyethylene, glass or other materials depending on the CoC.

Pumping Sub-system

Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.

Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps (EcoTech Marine). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries (Bioenno Power).

First, water is supplied to the system by a booster pump (Figure 5A). This pump is situated between the water sampling sub-system and the oxygen coil. The booster pump: 1) facilitates pore water collection, especially from sediments with high fine particle fractions; 2) helps water overcome vertical lifts to travel to the iTIE system; and 3) prevents vacuums from forming in the iTIE system interior, which can accelerate the formation of disruptive gas bubbles in the oxygen coil. The booster pump should be programmed to supply an excess of water to prevent vacuum formation.

Second, a set of four regulation pumps ensure precise flow rates through each independent iTIE unit (Figure 5B). Each regulation pump pulls water from the top of an iTIE unit and then dispenses that water into a sample bottle for further analysis.

Study Design Considerations

Diagnostic Resin Treatments

Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.

Resins must be adequately conditioned prior to use. Otherwise, they may inadequately adsorb toxicants or cause stress to organisms. New resins should be tested for efficacy and toxicity before being used in an iTIE system.

Test Organism Species and Life Stages


Advantages

A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by eaq-, low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:

  • High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS: While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies[12][13][14], the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA).
  • High defluorination ratio: As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
  • No harmful byproducts: While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
  • Ambient pressure and low temperature: The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
  • Low energy consumption: The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., supercritical water oxidation)[15].
  • Co-contaminant destruction: The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride[16][17][18][19].

Limitations

Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.

  • Environmental factors, such as the presence of elevated concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), dissolved oxygen, or nitrate, can inhibit the efficacy of UV/sulfite treatment systems by scavenging available hydrated electrons. Those interferences are commonly managed through chemical additions, reaction optimization, and/or dilution, and are therefore not considered likely to hinder treatment success.
  • Coloration in waste streams may also impact the effectiveness of the UV/sulfite treatment system by blocking the transmission of UV light, thus reducing the UV lamp's effective path length. To address this, pre-treatment may be necessary to enable UV/sulfite destruction of PFAS in the waste stream. Pre-treatment may include the use of strong oxidants or coagulants to consume or remove UV-absorbing constituents.
  • The degradation efficiency is strongly influenced by PFAS molecular structure, with fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTS) and perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS) exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.

State of the Practice

Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[20] for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.
Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM[20]) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM[20]; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.

The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM[20] system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay, adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.

  • Under the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER21-5152, a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[20] was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an in situ foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
  • Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF) and EradiFluorTM[20] was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM[20] was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM[20]. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M., Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. doi: 10.1002/etc.4799
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. doi: 10.1002/etc.3696
  3. ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. Free Download  Report.pdf
  4. ^ In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification Project Website  Final Report.pdf
  5. ^ Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Free Download from US EPA  Report.pdf
  6. ^ Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. doi: 10.1897/03-409.1
  7. ^ Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. doi: 10.1897/03-468.1
  8. ^ Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.
  9. ^ Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. doi: 10.1002/rem.21402
  10. ^ Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011
  11. ^ Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012  Open Access Article
  12. ^ Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452
  13. ^ Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158
  14. ^ Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170
  15. ^ Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916
  16. ^ Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026
  17. ^ Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086
  18. ^ Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. doi: 10.1021/es3008535
  19. ^ Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named EradiFluor

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=17990"