|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)== | + | ==Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil== |
| − | Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is a single step [[Wikipedia: Wet oxidation | wet oxidation]] process that transforms organic matter into water, carbon dioxide and, depending on the waste undergoing treatment, an inert mineral solid residue. The process is highly effective and can treat a variety of wet wastes without dewatering. The SCWO technology allows for the complete destruction of persistent and toxic organic contaminants such as [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-dioxane]], and many more.
| + | Removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] compounds from impacted soils is challenging due to the modest volatility and varying properties of most PFAS compounds. Thermal treatment technologies have been developed for treatment of semi-volatile compounds in soils such as dioxins, furans, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and poly-chlorinated biphenyls at temperatures near 325°C. In controlled bench-scale testing, complete removal of targeted PFAS compounds to concentrations below reporting limits of 0.5 µg/kg was demonstrated at temperatures of 400°C<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"> Crownover, E., Oberle, D., Heron, G., Kluger, M., 2019. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation. Remediation Journal, 29(4), pp. 77-81. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21623 doi: 10.1002/rem.21623]</ref>. Three field-scale thermal PFAS treatment projects that have been completed in the US include an in-pile treatment demonstration, an ''in situ'' vadose zone treatment demonstration and a larger scale treatment demonstration with excavated PFAS-impacted soil in a constructed pile. Based on the results, thermal treatment temperatures of at least 400°C and a holding time of 7-10 days are recommended for reaching local and federal PFAS soil standards. The energy requirement to treat typical wet soil ranges from 300 to 400 kWh per cubic yard, exclusive of heat losses which are scale dependent. Extracted vapors have been treated using condensation and granular activated charcoal filtration, with thermal and catalytic oxidation as another option which is currently being evaluated for field scale applications. Compared to other options such as soil washing, the ability to treat on site and to treat all soil fractions is an advantage. |
| | <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)]] | + | *[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] |
| − | * [[PFAS Transport and Fate]] | + | *[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]] |
| − | * [[Chlorinated Solvents]]
| |
| | | | |
| − | '''Contributor(s):''' [[Kobe Nagar]] and [[Dr. Marc Deshusses]] | + | '''Contributors:''' Gorm Heron, Emily Crownover, Patrick Joyce, Ramona Iery |
| | | | |
| − | '''Key Resource(s):''' | + | '''Key Resource:''' |
| − | | + | *Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> |
| − | *Treatment of municipal sewage sludge in supercritical water: A review<ref name="Qian2016">Qian, L., Wang, S., Xu, D., Guo, Y., Tang, X., and Wang, L., 2016. Treatment of municipal sewage sludge in supercritical water: A review. Water Research, 89, pp. 118-131. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.047 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.047] nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shuzhong-Wang/publication/284563832_Treatment_of_Municipal_Sewage_Sludge_in_Supercritical_Water_a_Review/links/5d9b63b6299bf1c363fef63e/Treatment-of-Municipal-Sewage-Sludge-in-Supercritical-Water-a-Review.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. | |
| − | | |
| − | *Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction<ref name="Marrone2013">Marrone, P.A., 2013. Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction. Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 79, pp. 283-288. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2012.12.020 DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2012.12.020] Author’s manuscript available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/9545963.pdf US EPA]</ref>.
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Introduction== | | ==Introduction== |
| − | Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is an [[Wikipedia: Advanced oxidation process | advanced oxidation process]] that holds enormous potential for the treatment of a wide range of organic wastes, in particular concentrated wet wastes in slurries such as biosolids, sludges, agricultural wastes, chemical wastes with recalcitrant chemicals such as [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], and many more. SCWO relies on the unique reactivity and transport properties that occur when an aqueous waste stream is brought above the critical point of water (374°C and 218 atm, or 704°F and 3200 psi, see phase diagram in Figure 1). Supercritical water is a dense single phase with transport properties similar to those of a gas, and solvent properties comparable to those of a non-polar solvent
| + | [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] have become prominent emerging contaminants in soil and groundwater. Soil source zones have been identified at locations where the chemicals were produced, handled or used. Few effective options exist for treatments that can meet local and federal soil standards. Over the past 30 plus years, thermal remediation technologies have grown from experimental and innovative prospects to mature and accepted solutions deployed effectively at many sites. More than 600 thermal case studies have been summarized by Horst and colleagues<ref name="HorstEtAl2021">Horst, J., Munholland, J., Hegele, P., Klemmer, M., Gattenby, J., 2021. In Situ Thermal Remediation for Source Areas: Technology Advances and a Review of the Market From 1988–2020. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 41(1), p. 17. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12424 doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12424] [[Media: gwmr.12424.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. [[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]] has been used for higher temperature applications such as removal of [[1,4-Dioxane]]. This article reports recent experience with TCH treatment of PFAS-impacted soil. |
| | | | |
| | + | ==Target Temperature and Duration== |
| | + | PFAS behave differently from most other organics subjected to TCH treatment. While the boiling points of individual PFAS fall in the range of 150-400°C, their chemical and physical behavior creates additional challenges. Some PFAS form ionic species in certain pH ranges and salts under other chemical conditions. This intricate behavior and our limited understanding of what this means for our ability to remove the PFAS from soils means that direct testing of thermal treatment options is warranted. Crownover and colleagues<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> subjected PFAS-laden soil to bench-scale heating to temperatures between 200 and 400°C which showed strong reductions of PFAS concentrations at 350°C and complete removal of many PFAS compounds at 400°C. The soil concentrations of targeted PFAS were reduced to nearly undetectable levels in this study. |
| | | | |
| − | Three technologies are well demonstrated for removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] from drinking water and non-potable groundwater (as described below):
| + | ==Heating Method== |
| − |
| + | For semi-volatile compounds such as dioxins, furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), thermal conduction heating has evolved as the dominant thermal technology because it is capable of achieving soil temperatures higher than the boiling point of water, which are necessary for complete removal of these organic compounds. Temperatures between 200 and 500°C have been required to achieve the desired reduction in contaminant concentrations<ref name="StegemeierVinegar2001">Stegemeier, G.L., Vinegar, H.J., 2001. Thermal Conduction Heating for In-Situ Thermal Desorption of Soils. Ch. 4.6, pp. 1-37. In: Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9780849395864 [[Media: StegemeierVinegar2001.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. TCH has become a popular technology for PFAS treatment because temperatures in the 400°C range are needed. |
| − | * 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.
| + | The energy source for TCH can be electricity (most commonly used), or fossil fuels (typically gas, diesel or fuel oil). Electrically powered TCH offers the largest flexibility for power input which also can be supplied by renewable and sustainable energy sources. |
| − | 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=== | + | ==Energy Usage== |
| − | [[File: revOsmosisPlant.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 1. A RO municipal drinking water plant in Arizona]]
| + | Treating PFAS-impacted soil with heat requires energy to first bring the soil and porewater to the boiling point of water, then to evaporate the porewater until the soil is dry, and finally to heat the dry soil up to the target treatment temperature. The energy demand for wet soils falls in the 300-400 kWh/cy range, dependent on porosity and water saturation. Additional energy is consumed as heat is lost to the surroundings and by vapor treatment equipment, yielding a typical usage of 400-600 kWh/cy total for larger soil treatment volumes. Wetter soils and small treatment volumes drive the energy usage towards the higher number, whereas larger soil volumes and dry soil can be treated with less energy. |
| − | 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.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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] 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] [[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] 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:
| + | ==Vapor Treatment== |
| | + | During the TCH process a significant fraction of the PFAS compounds are volatilized by the heat and then removed from the soil by vacuum extraction. The vapors must be treated and eventually discharged while meeting local and/or federal standards. Two types of vapor treatment have been used in past TCH applications for organics: (1) thermal and catalytic oxidation and (2) condensation followed by granular activated charcoal (GAC) filtration. Due to uncertainties related to thermal destruction of fluorinated compounds and future requirements for treatment temperature and residence time, condensation and GAC filtration have been used in the first three PFAS treatment field demonstrations. It should be noted that PFAS compounds will stick to surfaces and that decontamination of the equipment is important. This could generate additional waste as GAC vessels, pipes and other wetted equipment need careful cleaning with solvents or rinsing agents such as PerfluorAd<sup><small>TM</small></sup>. |
| | | | |
| − | * 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).
| + | ==PFAS Reactivity and Fate== |
| | + | While evaluating initial soil treatment results, Crownover ''et al''<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> noted the lack of complete data sets when the soils were analyzed for non-targeted compounds or extractable precursors. Attempts to establish the fluorine balance suggest that the final fate of the fluorine in the PFAS is not yet fully understood. Transformations are likely occurring in the heated soil as demonstrated in laboratory experiments with and without calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)<small><sub>2</sub></small>) amendment<ref>Koster van Groos, P.G., 2021. Small-Scale Thermal Treatment of Investigation-Derived Wastes Containing PFAS. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/2f1577ac-c8ea-4ae8-804e-c9f97a12edb3/small-scale-thermal-treatment-of-investigation-derived-wastes-idw-containing-pfas Project ER18-1556 Website], [[Media: ER18-1556_Final_Report.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>. Amendments such as Ca(OH)<sub><small>2</small></sub> may be useful in reducing the required treatment temperature by catalyzing PFAS degradation. With thousands of PFAS potentially present, the interactions are complex and may never be fully understood. Therefore, successful thermal treatment may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points – simply to provide a buffer against the uncertainty. |
| | | | |
| − | * 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.
| + | ==Case Studies== |
| | + | ===Stockpile Treatment, Eielson AFB, Alaska ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/62098505-de86-43b2-bead-ae8018854141 ESTCP project ER20-5198]<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2023">Crownover, E., Heron, G., Pennell, K., Ramsey, B., Rickabaugh, T., Stallings, P., Stauch, L., Woodcock, M., 2023. Ex Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soils, [[Media: ER20-5198 Final Report.pdf | Final Report.]] Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/62098505-de86-43b2-bead-ae8018854141 Project ER20-5198 Website]</ref>)=== |
| | + | [[File: HeronFig1.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 1. TCH treatment of a PFAS-laden stockpile at Eielson AFB, Alaska<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2023"/>]] |
| | + | Since there has been no approved or widely accepted method for treating soils impacted by PFAS, a common practice has been to excavate PFAS-impacted soil and place it in lined stockpiles. Eielson AFB in Alaska is an example where approximately 50 stockpiles were constructed to temporarily store 150,000 cubic yards of soil. One of the stockpiles containing 134 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was heated to 350-450°C over 90 days (Figure 1). Volatilized PFAS was extracted from the soil using vacuum extraction and treated via condensation and filtration by granular activated charcoal. Under field conditions, PFAS concentration reductions from 230 µg/kg to below 0.5 µg/kg were demonstrated for soils that reached 400°C or higher for 7 days. These soils achieved the Alaska soil standards of 3 µg/kg for PFOS and 1.7 µg/kg for PFOA. Cooler soils near the top of the stockpile had remaining PFOS in the range of 0.5-20 µg/kg with an overall average of 4.1 µg/kg. Sampling of all soils heated to 400°C or higher demonstrated that the soils achieved undetectable levels of targeted PFAS (typical reporting limit was 0.5 µg/kg). |
| | | | |
| − | * 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.
| + | ===''In situ'' Vadose Zone Treatment, Beale AFB, California ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/94949542-f9f7-419d-8028-8ba318495641/er20-5250-project-overview ESTCP project ER20-5250]<ref name="Iery2024">Iery, R. 2024. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/94949542-f9f7-419d-8028-8ba318495641 Project ER20-5250 Website]. [[Media: ER20-5250 Fact Sheet.pdf | Fact Sheet.pdf]]</ref>)=== |
| | + | [[File: HeronFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. ''In situ'' TCH treatment of a PFAS-rich vadose zone hotspot at Beale AFB, California]] |
| | + | A former fire-training area at Beale AFB had PFAS concentrations as high as 1,970 µg/kg in shallow soils. In situ treatment of a PFAS-rich soil was demonstrated using 16 TCH borings installed in the source area to a depth of 18 ft (Figure 2). Soils which reached the target temperatures were reduced to PFAS concentrations below 1 µg/kg. Perched water which entered in one side of the area delayed heating in that area, and soils which were affected had more modest PFAS concentration reductions. As a lesson learned, future in situ TCH treatments will include provisions for minimizing water entering the treated volume<ref name="Iery2024"/>. It was demonstrated that with proper water management, even highly impacted soils can be treated to near non-detect concentrations (greater than 99% reduction). |
| | | | |
| − | * 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.
| + | ===Constructed Pile Treatment, JBER, Alaska ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/eb7311db-6233-4c7f-b23a-e003ac1926c5/pfas-treatment-in-soil-using-thermal-conduction-heating ESTCP Project ER23-8369]<ref name="CrownoverHeron2024">Crownover, E., Heron, G., 2024. PFAS Treatment in Soil Using Thermal Conduction Heating. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/eb7311db-6233-4c7f-b23a-e003ac1926c5/pfas-treatment-in-soil-using-thermal-conduction-heating Project ER23-8369 Website]</ref>)=== |
| | + | [[File: HeronFig3.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 3. Treatment of a 2,000 cubic yard soil pile at JBER, Alaska]] |
| | + | In 2024, a stockpile of 2,000 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was thermally treated at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska<ref name="CrownoverHeron2024"/>. This ESTCP project was implemented in partnership with DOD’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). Three technology demonstrations were conducted at the site where approximately 6,000 cy of PFAS-impacted soil was treated (TCH, smoldering and kiln-style thermal desorption). Figure 3 shows the fully constructed pile used for the TCH demonstration. In August 2024 the soil temperature for the TCH treatment exceeded 400°C in all monitoring locations. At an energy density of 355 kWh/cy, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) standards and EPA Residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for PFAS in soil were achieved. At JBER, all 30 post-treatment soil samples were near or below detection limits for all targeted PFAS compounds using EPA Method 1633. The composite of all 30 soil samples was below all detection limits for EPA Method 1633. Detection limits ranged from 0.0052 µg/kg to 0.19 µg/kg. |
| | | | |
| − | * 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.
| + | ==Advantages and Disadvantages== |
| | + | Thermal treatment of PFAS in soils is energy intensive, and the cost of that energy may be prohibitive for some clients. Also, while it often is the least costly option for complete PFAS removal when compared to excavation followed by offsite disposal or destruction, heating soil to treatment temperatures on site or ''in situ'' typically takes longer than excavation. Major advantages include: |
| | + | *On site or ''in situ'' treatment eliminates the need to transport and dispose of the contaminated soil |
| | + | *Site liabilities are removed once and for all |
| | + | *Treatment costs are competitive with excavation, transportation and off-site treatment or disposal. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Activated Carbon Adsorption=== | + | ==Recommendations== |
| − | [[File: GAChouse.JPG | thumb| 500px | Figure 2. Typical private water supply well GAC installation for removal PFAS. Pressure gages and sample ports located 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.]]
| + | Recent research suggests: |
| − | 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>.
| + | *Successful thermal treatment of PFAS may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points |
| − | | + | *Prevention of influx of water into treatment zone may be necessary. |
| − | 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):
| + | Future studies should examine the potential for enhanced degradation during the thermal process by using soil amendments and/or manipulation of the local geochemistry to reduce the required treatment temperatures and therefore also reduce energy demand. |
| − | * perfluoro-sulfonate acids (PFSAs) are more efficiently removed than perfluoro-carboxylic acids (PFCAs) of the same chain length | |
| − | * long chain compounds of the same functional group are removed better than the shorter chains
| |
| − | 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. PAC has most often been used as a temporary treatment because costs associated with disposal and replacement of the used PAC tend to preclude using it for long-term treatment. A typical GAC installation for a private drinking water well is shown in Figure 2. 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°C to 1400°C). The reactivated GAC is then brought back to the site and reused. Thus, GAC can ultimately be a destructive treatment technology.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[File: IXcycle.png | thumb | 400px | left | Figure 3. Operational cycle of a packed bed reactor with anion exchange resin beads]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Anion Exchange===
| |
| − | 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] 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 higher concentration contamination.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Developing PFAS Treatment Technologies==
| |
| − | {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
| |
| − | |+ Table 1. Developmental Technologies
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | ! Stage
| |
| − | ! Separation/Transfer
| |
| − | ! Destructive*
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Developing
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Biochar<ref name="Guo2017">Guo, W., Huo, S., Feng, J., and Lu, X., 2017. Adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on corn straw-derived biochar prepared at different pyrolytic temperatures. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 78, pp. 265-271. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2017.06.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtice.2017.06.013]</ref><ref name="Kupryianchyk2016">Kupryianchyk, D., Hale, S.E., Breedveld, G.D., and Cornelissen, G., 2016. Treatment of sites contaminated with perfluorinated compounds using biochar amendment. Chemosphere, 142, pp. 35-40. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.085 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.085] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Hale3/publication/276067521_Treatment_of_sites_contaminated_with_perfluorinated_compounds_using_biochar_amendment/links/5cdbe03b299bf14d959895d9/Treatment-of-sites-contaminated-with-perfluorinated-compounds-using-biochar-amendment.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Inyang2017">Inyang, M., and Dickenson, E.R., 2017. The use of carbon adsorbents for the removal of perfluoroalkyl acids from potable reuse systems. Chemosphere, 184, pp. 168-175. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.161 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.161]</ref>
| |
| − | * Modified Zeolites<ref name="Espana2015">Espana, V.A.A., Mallavarapu, M., and Naidu, R., 2015. Treatment technologies for aqueous perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA): A critical review with an emphasis on field testing. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 4, pp. 168-181. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2015.06.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2015.06.001] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ravi_Naidu2/publication/341241612_Recent_advances_in_the_analysis_of_per-and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances_PFAS-A_review/links/5eb9e3d892851cd50dab441c/Recent-advances-in-the-analysis-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-PFAS-A-review.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="CETCO2019">CETCO, 2019. FLUORO-SORB® Adsorbent (product sales brochure). [https://www.mineralstech.com/docs/default-source/performance-materials-documents/cetco/environmental-products/brochures/ps_fluorosorb_am_en_201905_v1.pdf Free download] [[Media: FluoroSorb2019.pdf | Fluoro-Sorb.pdf]]</ref>
| |
| − | * Specialty adsorbents<ref name="Zhang2011">Zhang, Q., Deng, S., Yu, G., and Huang, J., 2011. Removal of perfluorooctane sulfonate from aqueous solution by crosslinked chitosan beads: sorption kinetics and uptake mechanism. Bioresource Technology, 102(3), pp. 2265-2271. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.040 DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.040]</ref><ref name="Cao2016">Cao, F., Wang, L., Ren, X., and Sun, H., 2016. Synthesis of a perfluorooctanoic acid molecularly imprinted polymer for the selective removal of perfluorooctanoic acid in an aqueous environment. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133(15). [https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43192 DOI: 10.1002/app.43192]</ref><ref name="Hu2016">Hu, L., Li, Y., and Zhang, W., 2016. Characterization and application of surface-molecular-imprinted-polymer modified TiO2 nanotubes for removal of perfluorinated chemicals. Water Science and Technology, 74(6), pp. 1417-1425. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.321 DOI: 10.2166/wst.2016.321] [[Media: Hu2016.pdf | Free access article.]]</ref>
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Electro-oxidation<ref name="Zhang2016">Zhang, C., Tang, J., Peng, C., and Jin, M., 2016. Degradation of perfluorinated compounds in wastewater treatment plant effluents by electrochemical oxidation with Nano-ZnO coated electrodes. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 221, pp. 1145-1150. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2016.06.093 DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2016.06.093]</ref><ref name="Urtiaga2015">Urtiaga, A., Fernández-González, C., Gómez-Lavín, S., and Ortiz, I., 2015. Kinetics of the electrochemical mineralization of perfluorooctanoic acid on ultrananocrystalline boron doped conductive diamond electrodes. Chemosphere, 129, pp. 20-26. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.090] Free download from: [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39233145/00b7d53b67db54fca5000000.pdf?1445006282=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DKinetics_of_the_electrochemical_minerali.pdf&Expires=1613074964&Signature=Bfvds3n9udSs5F9J00Embf8MRJxumQVJoaj5jEni5mqPnmo2QFGGN3fUvWISkRD1yKfoIhNEDQ0a-ISxfZ9vW9jBTkTjN7ud7aSC3rBelIFdtFasfpEXgPvnqsLfKRTWI5S~QRsHbvK5XbwnKo2VyFAmUcuJUjVFP1PK1kEY9-gB2d-8FwSJWbCAAd83fNWm3zHzbOvdchJ~fjAqlydgq7Pu~AwEeH4Zl1LhcYxajzcenTSiBWmMStfOUpTyETSCpSwF7XKuhKMYGePsit8fAWpxH4dleYWmvOi9Gc9YyTB32qBziOTfeqjhTsA-uqECz9bxyD65voHUW7sEchkrKw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Schaefer2018">Schaefer, C.E., Choyke, S., Ferguson, P.L., Andaya, C., Burant, A., Maizel, A., Strathmann, T.J. and Higgins, C.P., 2018. Electrochemical Transformations of Perfluoroalkyl Acid (PFAA) Precursors and PFAAs in Groundwater Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(18), pp. 10689-10697. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02726 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02726]</ref>
| |
| − | * Heat activated persulfate<ref name="Park2016">Park, S., Lee, L.S., Medina, V. F., Zull, A., and Waisner, S., 2016. Heat-activated persulfate oxidation of PFOA, 6: 2 fluorotelomer sulfonate, and PFOS under conditions suitable for in-situ groundwater remediation. Chemosphere, 145, pp. 376-383. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.097 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.097]</ref>
| |
| − | * Alkaline perozone<ref name="Lin2012">Lin, A.Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Chang, C.Y., Hong, P.A., and Hsueh, H.F., 2012. Removal of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate via ozonation under alkaline condition. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 243, pp. 272-277. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.10.029 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.10.029]</ref>
| |
| − | * Sonolysis<ref name="Campbell2015">Campbell, T., Hoffmann, M.R., 2015. Sonochemical degradation of perfluorinated surfactants: Power and multiple frequency effects. Separation and Purification Technology, 156(3), pp. 1019-1027. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.053 DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.053] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tammy_Campbell5/publication/282583363_Sonochemical_Degradation_of_Perfluorinated_Surfactants_Power_and_Multiple_Frequency_Effects/links/5bfc40bd92851cbcdd74449b/Sonochemical-Degradation-of-Perfluorinated-Surfactants-Power-and-Multiple-Frequency-Effects.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Cheng2010">Cheng, J., Vecitis, C.D., Park, H., Mader, B.T., Hoffmann, M.R., 2010. Sonochemical Degradation of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Groundwater: Kinetic Effects of Matrix Inorganics. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(1), pp. 445-450. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902651g DOI: 10.1021/es902651g]</ref><ref name="Gole2018a">Gole, V.L., Sierra-Alvarez, R., Peng, H., Giesy, J.P., Deymier, P., Keswani, M., 2018. Sono-chemical treatment of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl compounds in aqueous film-forming foams by use of a large-scale multi-transducer dual-frequency based acoustic reactor. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 45, pp. 213-222. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.02.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.02.014] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350417718301937 Open access article.] [[Media: Gole2018a.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Gole2018b">Gole, V.L., Fishgold, A., Sierra-Alvarez, R., Deymier, P., Keswani, M., 2018. Treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) using a large-scale sonochemical reactor. Separation and Purification Technology, 194, pp. 104-110. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.009 DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.009]</ref>
| |
| − | * Super Critical Water Oxidation
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Maturing and</br>Demonstrated
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Chemical coagulation<ref name="Cornelsen2015">Cornelsen Ltd., 2015. PerfluorAd, PFC Water Treatment Solution (product sales site). [http://www.cornelsen.co.uk/perfluorad-pfc-treatment/ Website]</ref>
| |
| − | * Electrocoagulation<ref name="Wang2016">Wang, Y., Lin, H., Jin, F., Niu, J., Zhao, J., Bi, Y., and Li, Y., 2016. Electrocoagulation mechanism of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) on a zinc anode: Influence of cathodes and anions. Science of the Total Environment, 557, pp. 542-550. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.114 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.114]</ref>
| |
| − | * Foam fractionation<ref name="Horst2018">Horst, J., McDonough, J., Ross, I., Dickson, M., Miles, J., Hurst, J., and Storch, P., 2018. Water Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 38(2), pp. 13-23. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12281 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12281]</ref><ref name="EPC2017">EPC Media Group Pty Ltd., 2017. OPEC systems delivers PFAS contamination breakthrough. Waste + Water Management Australia, 44(3), 26-27. [https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.253699294687114 DOI: 10.3316/informit.253699294687114] ISSN: 1838-7098</ref>
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | * Low temperature plasma<ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp. 1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Singh2019">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Anderson, R.H., Richardson, S.D., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2019. Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds from Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) in a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(19), pp. 11375-11382. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02964 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02964]</ref>
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | 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.
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | 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:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <br clear="left" />
| |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |
| − |
| |
| | <references /> | | <references /> |
| | | | |
| | ==See Also== | | ==See Also== |
Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil
Removal of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) compounds from impacted soils is challenging due to the modest volatility and varying properties of most PFAS compounds. Thermal treatment technologies have been developed for treatment of semi-volatile compounds in soils such as dioxins, furans, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and poly-chlorinated biphenyls at temperatures near 325°C. In controlled bench-scale testing, complete removal of targeted PFAS compounds to concentrations below reporting limits of 0.5 µg/kg was demonstrated at temperatures of 400°C[1]. Three field-scale thermal PFAS treatment projects that have been completed in the US include an in-pile treatment demonstration, an in situ vadose zone treatment demonstration and a larger scale treatment demonstration with excavated PFAS-impacted soil in a constructed pile. Based on the results, thermal treatment temperatures of at least 400°C and a holding time of 7-10 days are recommended for reaching local and federal PFAS soil standards. The energy requirement to treat typical wet soil ranges from 300 to 400 kWh per cubic yard, exclusive of heat losses which are scale dependent. Extracted vapors have been treated using condensation and granular activated charcoal filtration, with thermal and catalytic oxidation as another option which is currently being evaluated for field scale applications. Compared to other options such as soil washing, the ability to treat on site and to treat all soil fractions is an advantage.
Related Article(s):
Contributors: Gorm Heron, Emily Crownover, Patrick Joyce, Ramona Iery
Key Resource:
- Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation[1]
Introduction
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have become prominent emerging contaminants in soil and groundwater. Soil source zones have been identified at locations where the chemicals were produced, handled or used. Few effective options exist for treatments that can meet local and federal soil standards. Over the past 30 plus years, thermal remediation technologies have grown from experimental and innovative prospects to mature and accepted solutions deployed effectively at many sites. More than 600 thermal case studies have been summarized by Horst and colleagues[2]. Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH) has been used for higher temperature applications such as removal of 1,4-Dioxane. This article reports recent experience with TCH treatment of PFAS-impacted soil.
Target Temperature and Duration
PFAS behave differently from most other organics subjected to TCH treatment. While the boiling points of individual PFAS fall in the range of 150-400°C, their chemical and physical behavior creates additional challenges. Some PFAS form ionic species in certain pH ranges and salts under other chemical conditions. This intricate behavior and our limited understanding of what this means for our ability to remove the PFAS from soils means that direct testing of thermal treatment options is warranted. Crownover and colleagues[1] subjected PFAS-laden soil to bench-scale heating to temperatures between 200 and 400°C which showed strong reductions of PFAS concentrations at 350°C and complete removal of many PFAS compounds at 400°C. The soil concentrations of targeted PFAS were reduced to nearly undetectable levels in this study.
Heating Method
For semi-volatile compounds such as dioxins, furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), thermal conduction heating has evolved as the dominant thermal technology because it is capable of achieving soil temperatures higher than the boiling point of water, which are necessary for complete removal of these organic compounds. Temperatures between 200 and 500°C have been required to achieve the desired reduction in contaminant concentrations[3]. TCH has become a popular technology for PFAS treatment because temperatures in the 400°C range are needed.
The energy source for TCH can be electricity (most commonly used), or fossil fuels (typically gas, diesel or fuel oil). Electrically powered TCH offers the largest flexibility for power input which also can be supplied by renewable and sustainable energy sources.
Energy Usage
Treating PFAS-impacted soil with heat requires energy to first bring the soil and porewater to the boiling point of water, then to evaporate the porewater until the soil is dry, and finally to heat the dry soil up to the target treatment temperature. The energy demand for wet soils falls in the 300-400 kWh/cy range, dependent on porosity and water saturation. Additional energy is consumed as heat is lost to the surroundings and by vapor treatment equipment, yielding a typical usage of 400-600 kWh/cy total for larger soil treatment volumes. Wetter soils and small treatment volumes drive the energy usage towards the higher number, whereas larger soil volumes and dry soil can be treated with less energy.
Vapor Treatment
During the TCH process a significant fraction of the PFAS compounds are volatilized by the heat and then removed from the soil by vacuum extraction. The vapors must be treated and eventually discharged while meeting local and/or federal standards. Two types of vapor treatment have been used in past TCH applications for organics: (1) thermal and catalytic oxidation and (2) condensation followed by granular activated charcoal (GAC) filtration. Due to uncertainties related to thermal destruction of fluorinated compounds and future requirements for treatment temperature and residence time, condensation and GAC filtration have been used in the first three PFAS treatment field demonstrations. It should be noted that PFAS compounds will stick to surfaces and that decontamination of the equipment is important. This could generate additional waste as GAC vessels, pipes and other wetted equipment need careful cleaning with solvents or rinsing agents such as PerfluorAdTM.
PFAS Reactivity and Fate
While evaluating initial soil treatment results, Crownover et al[1] noted the lack of complete data sets when the soils were analyzed for non-targeted compounds or extractable precursors. Attempts to establish the fluorine balance suggest that the final fate of the fluorine in the PFAS is not yet fully understood. Transformations are likely occurring in the heated soil as demonstrated in laboratory experiments with and without calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) amendment[4]. Amendments such as Ca(OH)2 may be useful in reducing the required treatment temperature by catalyzing PFAS degradation. With thousands of PFAS potentially present, the interactions are complex and may never be fully understood. Therefore, successful thermal treatment may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points – simply to provide a buffer against the uncertainty.
Case Studies
Figure 1. TCH treatment of a PFAS-laden stockpile at Eielson AFB, Alaska
[5]Since there has been no approved or widely accepted method for treating soils impacted by PFAS, a common practice has been to excavate PFAS-impacted soil and place it in lined stockpiles. Eielson AFB in Alaska is an example where approximately 50 stockpiles were constructed to temporarily store 150,000 cubic yards of soil. One of the stockpiles containing 134 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was heated to 350-450°C over 90 days (Figure 1). Volatilized PFAS was extracted from the soil using vacuum extraction and treated via condensation and filtration by granular activated charcoal. Under field conditions, PFAS concentration reductions from 230 µg/kg to below 0.5 µg/kg were demonstrated for soils that reached 400°C or higher for 7 days. These soils achieved the Alaska soil standards of 3 µg/kg for PFOS and 1.7 µg/kg for PFOA. Cooler soils near the top of the stockpile had remaining PFOS in the range of 0.5-20 µg/kg with an overall average of 4.1 µg/kg. Sampling of all soils heated to 400°C or higher demonstrated that the soils achieved undetectable levels of targeted PFAS (typical reporting limit was 0.5 µg/kg).
In situ Vadose Zone Treatment, Beale AFB, California (ESTCP project ER20-5250[6])
Figure 2.
In situ TCH treatment of a PFAS-rich vadose zone hotspot at Beale AFB, California
A former fire-training area at Beale AFB had PFAS concentrations as high as 1,970 µg/kg in shallow soils. In situ treatment of a PFAS-rich soil was demonstrated using 16 TCH borings installed in the source area to a depth of 18 ft (Figure 2). Soils which reached the target temperatures were reduced to PFAS concentrations below 1 µg/kg. Perched water which entered in one side of the area delayed heating in that area, and soils which were affected had more modest PFAS concentration reductions. As a lesson learned, future in situ TCH treatments will include provisions for minimizing water entering the treated volume[6]. It was demonstrated that with proper water management, even highly impacted soils can be treated to near non-detect concentrations (greater than 99% reduction).
Figure 3. Treatment of a 2,000 cubic yard soil pile at JBER, Alaska
In 2024, a stockpile of 2,000 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was thermally treated at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska[7]. This ESTCP project was implemented in partnership with DOD’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). Three technology demonstrations were conducted at the site where approximately 6,000 cy of PFAS-impacted soil was treated (TCH, smoldering and kiln-style thermal desorption). Figure 3 shows the fully constructed pile used for the TCH demonstration. In August 2024 the soil temperature for the TCH treatment exceeded 400°C in all monitoring locations. At an energy density of 355 kWh/cy, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) standards and EPA Residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for PFAS in soil were achieved. At JBER, all 30 post-treatment soil samples were near or below detection limits for all targeted PFAS compounds using EPA Method 1633. The composite of all 30 soil samples was below all detection limits for EPA Method 1633. Detection limits ranged from 0.0052 µg/kg to 0.19 µg/kg.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Thermal treatment of PFAS in soils is energy intensive, and the cost of that energy may be prohibitive for some clients. Also, while it often is the least costly option for complete PFAS removal when compared to excavation followed by offsite disposal or destruction, heating soil to treatment temperatures on site or in situ typically takes longer than excavation. Major advantages include:
- On site or in situ treatment eliminates the need to transport and dispose of the contaminated soil
- Site liabilities are removed once and for all
- Treatment costs are competitive with excavation, transportation and off-site treatment or disposal.
Recommendations
Recent research suggests:
- Successful thermal treatment of PFAS may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points
- Prevention of influx of water into treatment zone may be necessary.
Future studies should examine the potential for enhanced degradation during the thermal process by using soil amendments and/or manipulation of the local geochemistry to reduce the required treatment temperatures and therefore also reduce energy demand.
References
- ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Crownover, E., Oberle, D., Heron, G., Kluger, M., 2019. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation. Remediation Journal, 29(4), pp. 77-81. doi: 10.1002/rem.21623
- ^ Horst, J., Munholland, J., Hegele, P., Klemmer, M., Gattenby, J., 2021. In Situ Thermal Remediation for Source Areas: Technology Advances and a Review of the Market From 1988–2020. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 41(1), p. 17. doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12424 Open Access Manuscript
- ^ Stegemeier, G.L., Vinegar, H.J., 2001. Thermal Conduction Heating for In-Situ Thermal Desorption of Soils. Ch. 4.6, pp. 1-37. In: Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9780849395864 Open Access Article
- ^ Koster van Groos, P.G., 2021. Small-Scale Thermal Treatment of Investigation-Derived Wastes Containing PFAS. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER18-1556 Website, Final Report.pdf
- ^ 5.0 5.1 Crownover, E., Heron, G., Pennell, K., Ramsey, B., Rickabaugh, T., Stallings, P., Stauch, L., Woodcock, M., 2023. Ex Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soils, Final Report. Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5198 Website
- ^ 6.0 6.1 Iery, R. 2024. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5250 Website. Fact Sheet.pdf
- ^ 7.0 7.1 Crownover, E., Heron, G., 2024. PFAS Treatment in Soil Using Thermal Conduction Heating. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER23-8369 Website
See Also
