Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction)
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
==Scientific Principles==
 
==Scientific Principles==
 +
[[File: MunhollandFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2: Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates for VOCs]]
 +
During the TISR<sup>®</sup> heating process, thermal conduction and advection play a crucial role in boosting physical, biological, and chemical processes within the treatment zones, leading to enhanced attenuation, degradation, and removal of contaminants from the subsurface<ref>Dettmer, K., 2002. A Discussion of the Effects of Thermal Remediation Treatments on Microbial Degradation Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC. [[Media: dettmer2002.pdf | free report]]&nbsp; [https://www.clu-in.org/download/techdrct/dettmer.pdf free download from clu-in.org]</ref><ref name="HorstEtAl2018"/>. TISR<sup>®</sup> systems are typically designed to enhance the biological activity and performance of other active technologies, such as [[Wikipedia: Air sparging | air sparge]]/[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) | soil vapor extraction]] (AS/SVE) or [[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | chemical oxidation]], by increasing the subsurface temperature by approximately 10°C to 20°C. The target groundwater temperature is often set to reach up to about 35°C, which is the optimal temperature for promoting the activity of mesophilic microbial communities responsible for biodegradation of certain contaminants. In cases where the objective is to maximize abiotic hydrolysis mechanisms, such as for some chlorinated alkanes, TISR<sup>®</sup> systems can be designed to reach a final groundwater temperature of up to 60°C.
  
 +
The effectiveness of TISR<sup>®</sup> in enhancing treatment performance has been demonstrated through several mechanisms, which are discussed below:
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
+
*Primary dechlorinating bacteria, such as [[Wikipedia: Dehalococcoides | Dehalococcoides]] and [[Wikipedia: Dehalogenimonas | Dehalogenimonas]], are known to be [[Wikipedia: Mesophile | mesophilic]]. Therefore, increasing the temperature can significantly enhance microbial activity and biodegradation by multiple orders of magnitude<ref>Macbeth, T., Truex, M., Powell, T., Michalsen, M., 2012. Combining Low-Energy Electrical Resistance Heating with Biotic and Abiotic Reactions for Treatment of Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL Source Areas. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/877a3b41-6bed-4f4a-b43a-87fbcd9b7f0b/er-200719-project-overview Project ER-200719 webpage]&nbsp; [[Media: Macbeth2012_ER-200719-FR.pdf | free download]]&nbsp; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EbwKbs8scE Project Summary Presentation]</ref>.
−
|+Table 1. EPA SW-846 methods that comprise the LEAF framework
 
−
|-
 
−
!Method
 
−
!Description
 
−
|-
 
−
| 1313 || Liquid-solid partitioning as a function of '''''extract pH''''' using a parallel batch extraction (i.e., equilibrium) procedure (Figure 1)
 
−
|-
 
−
| 1314 || Liquid-solid partitioning as a function of '''''liquid-solid ratio (L/S)''''' for constituents in solid materials using an up-flow '''''percolation''''' column procedure (Figure 3)
 
−
|-
 
−
| 1315 || '''''Mass transfer rates''''' of constituents in monolithic or compacted granular materials using a semi-dynamic tank leaching procedure
 
−
|-
 
−
| 1316 || Liquid-solid partitioning as a function of '''''L/S''''' using a parallel batch extraction (i.e., '''''equilibrium''''') procedure (Figure 2)
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="2" style="background:white;" | Note: Text shown in '''''bold''''' indicates primary condition evaluated in each method.
 
−
|}
 
  
−
==Method Development for PFAS==
+
*Reduced iron minerals, particularly iron sulfides, can participate in the abiotic degradation of chlorinated ethenes and other contaminants. The rates of these reactions generally depend on temperature, following the [[Wikipedia: Arrhenius equation | Arrhenius equation]].
−
Complete details of the development of LEAF Methods 1313A, 1314A, and 1316A for use with PFAS are available in Garrabrants ''et al.'', 2024<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/>. Representative method modifications include:
 
−
* Materials of construction for experimental apparatus: containers used for leaching vessels (Methods 1313A, 1316A) and column construction materials (Method 1314A) evaluated for background PFAS and PFAS uptake.
 
−
* Reagents and eluant composition: eluant composition was optimized to use 1 mM CaCl2 to reduce formation of colloidal matter; Method 1313A pH adjustment now conducted with nonoxidizing HCl.
 
−
* Experimental conditions: Longer equilibration times (e.g., Method 1313, 1316) may be required due to slow desorption kinetics of certain PFAS from soil and organic matrices, implementation of settling to facilitate separation of solids from eluates.
 
−
* Eluate processing (all methods): Use of centrifugation in lieu of eluate filtering, sonication of bottle prior to eluate subsampling.
 
  
−
==Batch Test Demonstration Studies==
+
*[[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | Hydrolysis]] rates for certain compounds exhibit high temperature dependence. For example, a 10°C increase can lead to a 50% reduction in the half-life of [[Wikipedia: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)]]<ref>Suthersan, S., Horst, J., Klemmer, M., Malone, D., 2012. Temperature-Activated Auto-Decomposition Reactions: An Under-Utilized In Situ Remediation Solution. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 32(3), pp. 34-40. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01407.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01407.x]</ref>. Figure 2 presents the calculated temperature-dependent hydrolysis rates for 13 common [[Wikipedia: Volatile organic compound | volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]] at a pH of 7.
−
PFAS-specific adaptations were tested in batch test demonstration studies, which included triplicate implementation of Methods 1313A and 1316A in four AFFF-impacted site soils.
 
  
−
[[File: GuelfoFig1.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 1: Figure 1. a) Overview of LEAF Method 1313A and b) PFHxS leaching as a function of pH<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/>. Definitions: lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) and method detection limit (MDL)]]
+
*[[Wikipedia: Henry's law | Henry's Law]] constant, [[Wikipedia: Vapor pressure | vapor pressure]], solubility, and viscosity values are also temperature dependent. For instance, the Henry's Law constant values for many VOCs, including [[Wikipedia: Tetrachloroethylene | tetrachloroethene (PCE)]], have been observed to double between 8 and 24°C<ref>Chen, F., Freedman, D.L., Falta, R.W., Murdoch, L.C., 2012. Henry's law constants of chlorinated solvents at elevated temperatures. Chemosphere, 86(2), pp.156-165. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.10.004]</ref>.
−
'''Draft Method 1313A''' was used to evaluate pH-dependent leaching in PFAS-contaminated soils in parallel batch extractions where each set of batch reactors is prepared and equilibrated at different pH (Figure 1).  Short-chain PFAS (≤6 fluorinated carbons) generally showed little to no variation in leaching across the tested pH range of 2-13 (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid | PFHxS]], Figure 1), whereas long-chain PFAS exhibited increased leaching at higher pH<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/>. This trend is consistent with previous findings showing that soil-water partitioning coefficients (''K<sub>d</sub>'') decrease as pH increases (e.g., Higgins and Luthy 2006)<ref name="HigginsLuthy2006">Higgins, C.P., Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251–7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n doi: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref>. The most pronounced pH effects were observed for perfluoroalkyl sulfonamides (FASAs) such as [[Wikipedia: Perfluorooctanesulfonamide | perfluorooctane sulfonamide (FOSA)]], which transition from neutral to anionic forms within the circumneutral pH range (~pH 6). The anionic form has a lower ''K<sub>d</sub>'' and results in higher leaching concentrations<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/><ref name="NguyenEtAl2020">Nguyen, T.M.H., Bräunig, J., Thompson, K., Thompson, J., Kabiri, S., Navarro, D.A., Kookana, R.S., Grimison, C., Barnes, C.M., Higgins, C.P., McLaughlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., 2020. Influences of Chemical Properties, Soil Properties, and Solution pH on Soil–Water Partitioning Coefficients of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science and Technology, 54(24), pp. 15883–15892. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05705 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05705]&nbsp; [[Media: NguyenEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. For many site management scenarios where pH is circumneutral, variations in anionic PFAS leaching are expected to be small over the relevant pH range. In such cases, when testing time and costs are primary considerations, Method 1313A may be a lower priority relative to evaluating leaching as a function of L/S (Method 1316A, Method 1314A).  Different considerations may be needed where FASAs or PFAS with multiple, ionizable functional groups (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Zwitterion | zwitterions]]) are of concern.
 
  
−
[[File: GuelfoFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2: a) Overview of LEAF Method 1316A and b) PFHxS leaching as a function of L/S ratio evaluated in parallel batch leaching vessels<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/>]]
+
*Rates of other processes that often limit the pace of remediation, such as dissolution, desorption, and [[Matrix Diffusion | back diffusion]], are positively correlated with temperature. This results in an enhanced bioavailability of contaminant mass that may otherwise be inaccessible.
−
'''Draft Method 1316A''' was used to evaluate L/S-dependent leaching of PFAS in impacted soils using parallel batch extractions where each set of batch reactors is prepared and equilibrated at a different L/S. (Figure 2).  Methods 1314A and 1316A are similar in intent as they both evaluate leaching as a function of L/S; however, the experimental approach differs.  Method 1314A uses a flow-through column configuration (Figure 3; discussed further below).  Method 1314A may better simulate field conditions, but Method 1316A is simpler and less costly to implement.  Trends in Method 1314A and 1316A are expected to be qualitatively similar but leaching concentrations are expected to exhibit differences. Despite this, leaching studies comparing Methods 1314A and 1316A for inorganics showed that cumulative release results were within one order of magnitude<ref>Lopez Meza, S., Garrabrants, A.C., van der Sloot, H., Kosson, D.S., 2008. Comparison of the Release of Constituents from Granular Materials under Batch and Column Testing. Waste Management, 28(10), pp. 1853–1867. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.11.009 doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.11.009]</ref>.  
 
  
−
Method 1316A and Method 1314A may also provide different insights into transport mechanisms. Because Method 1316A is performed using equilibrated batch reactors at varying L/S, results can be used to develop equilibrium desorption isotherms and calculate desorption coefficients (e.g., ''K<sub><small>d,desorption</small></sub>''). Studies have shown that ''K<sub><small>d,desorption</small></sub>'' values for PFAS may be greater than ''K<sub><small>d</small></sub>'', an effect often attributed to desorption hysteresis<ref>Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. Desorption Isotherms for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Soil Collected from an Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Source Area. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 148(1), Article 04021074. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001952 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001952]</ref>. Consequently Method 1316A provides a straightforward method to estimate site-specific desorption parameters. Although sorption parameters can also be inferred from column (Method 1314A) data, interpretation is often complicated by nonequilibrium processes.  Conversely, the column data can be valuable for quantifying those additional mechanisms providing transport parameters that can describe rate-limited transport (e.g., fraction of non-equilibrium sorption sites and sorption rates) and other dynamic behavior.
+
These various mechanisms collectively contribute to the improved performance of other active treatments when temperature is moderately increased by utilization of TISR®.
  
−
As anticipated, trends in PFAS leaching obtained during the Method 1316A and Method 1314A demonstrations were qualitatively similar. These are further discussed below.
+
==Implementation and Practical Considerations==
 +
[[File: MunhollandFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3: Transformation of 1,1-DCE and VC following installation of a TISR<sup>®</sup> system]]
 +
TISR<sup>®</sup> has proven successful in reducing contaminant concentrations across diverse hydrogeologic settings, including those with low and complex hydraulic conductivity conditions. Figure 3 shows a sharp initial decrease in [[Wikipedia: 1,1-Dichloroethylene | 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE)]] concentrations due to enhanced biodegradation, and then a temporary small increase followed by subsequent decreases in 1,1-DCE concentrations to below detection limits, possibly the result of temperature-enhanced desorption or dissolution of 1,1-DCE from the aquifer. There is also a temporary increase and then decrease in the concentrations of [[Wikipedia: Vinyl chloride | vinyl chloride (VC)]] (a biodegradation product) to very low levels.  
  
−
==Column Test Demonstration Studies==
+
The TISR<sup>®</sup> system construction utilizes off-the-shelf modular components, promoting cost-efficiency, reusability, and a reduced carbon footprint. Waste heat can supplement or replace the solar setup, and remote monitoring through dashboard apps reduces operation and maintenance costs. TISR® projects typically achieve an average capital cost payback within 1 to 3 years due to accelerated rates of remediation.
−
[[File: GuelfoFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. a) Overview of LEAF Method 1314A and b) PFHxS leaching as a function of ∑(L/S) evaluated in saturated up-flow column tests<ref name="GarrabrantsEtAl2024"/>. Note that acrylic here simply refers to the column material of construction used in this round of Method 1314 testing.]]
 
−
PFAS-specific adaptations were tested in column test demonstration studies, which included triplicate implementation of Method 1314A in three AFFF-impacted site soils.
 
  
−
'''Draft Method 1314A''' was implemented in saturated, up-flow columns to evaluate leaching of PFAS as a function of cumulative L/S (∑(L/S)); Figure 3; total volume of water that has passed through the column divided by the soil mass in the column). As noted, the intent of Method 1314a and 1316a is similar, and in both tests, similar qualitative results were observed. For example, short-chain PFAS exhibited high initial concentrations that decreased rapidly. However, in Method 1314a, these rapid drops in short-chain PFAS tended to occur by ∑(L/S) ≈  2 (e.g., Site 1 and 3 soils, Figure 3) whereas in some cases, such as for PFHxS, Method 1316A produced slightly flatter elution curves than Method 1314A (Figures 2b and 3b). Long-chain PFAS generally displayed flatter elution profiles than short-chain PFAS across both methods. These trends are consistent with chain length dependent sorption documented in the literature<ref name="HigginsLuthy2006"/><ref name="NguyenEtAl2020"/><ref>Guelfo, J.L., Higgins, C.P., 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(9), pp. 4164–4171. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3048043 doi: 10.1021/es3048043]</ref>. Although column modeling is beyond the scope of this article, prior studies have shown that saturated transport can be influenced by rate-limited desorption, particularly for long-chain PFAS<ref>Doria-Manzur, A., Gray, E.P., Streets, S.S., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Transport from Biosolids-Amended Soils: An Experimental and Numerical Approach. Water Research, 288(Part B), Article 124674. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2025.124674 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2025.124674]&nbsp; [[Media: Doria-ManzurEtAl2026.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Guelfo, J.L., Wunsch, A., McCray, J., Stults, J.F., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs): Column Experiments and Modeling. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 233, Article 103661. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2020.103661 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2020.103661]&nbsp; [[Media: GuelfoEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. As noted, data from Methods 1316A and 1314A can support estimation of transport parameters representing equilibrium and nonequilibrium behavior, respectively.
+
When implementing TISR<sup>®</sup>, [[Wikipedia: Solar irradiance | solar insolation]] and groundwater velocity must be considered for optimal equipment sizing and cycling. Depending on remedial goals and site history and conditions, the TISR<sup>®</sup> system and target temperatures may be designed to enhance specific remedial mechanisms (e.g. hydrolysis over bioremediation). Recently Ornelles ''et al.''<ref name="Ornelles"/> developed an easy to use Excel-based model that can be used to optimize TISR<sup>®</sup> design and predict subsurface temperature changes over time. Frequent monitoring of the temperature and microbial community composition relative to targets is useful for evaluating treatment effectiveness and optimizing system performance. The system and target temperatures can be customized to enhance specific remedial mechanisms based on site conditions and goals.  
  
−
==LEAF Screening Evaluations==
+
==Summary==
−
[[File: GuelfoFig4.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 4. Example screening assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) using total content and data from Methods 1313A and 1314A.  Figure format adapted from Garrabrants ''et al''. 2021<ref>Garrabrants, A.C., Kosson, D.S., Brown, K.G., Fagnant, D.P., Helms, G., Thorneloe, S.A., 2021. Methodology for Scenario-Based Assessments and Demonstration of Treatment Effectiveness Using the Leaching Environmental Assessment Framework (LEAF). Journal of Hazardous Materials, 406, Article 124635. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124635 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124635]&nbsp; [[Media: GarrabrantsEtAl2021.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>.]]
+
TISR<sup>®</sup> is a cost-effective and adaptable technology that can be customized to address specific site challenges. It can be used as a standalone solution or be integrated with existing remediation strategies to enhance their effectiveness. TISR<sup>®</sup> is particularly effective in challenging hydrogeological conditions and can be optimized to suit specific treatment mechanisms. By shortening the active remediation timeframe, TISR<sup>®</sup> reduces lifecycle costs and minimizes the carbon footprint associated with the remediation process.
−
LEAF provides a standardized, robust approach for evaluating PFAS release from impacted granular materials under a range of environmental conditions. The tests are complementary, capture a range of conditions, and vary in ease of implementation. This provides the flexibility for users to select the test or test combinations that best suit their project objectives, timeline, and budget. A common use of LEAF data is in screening level assessments. These are stepwise assessments that establish increasingly refined maximum leaching concentrations, ''C<sub><small>leach,max</small></sub>'' (Figure 4), which can then be compared to regulatory limits such as maximum contaminant levels, when available. For example, a stepwise screening assessment might include:
 
−
#Assume the maximum leaching concentration is represented by the total content (total initial mass of contaminant present) leaching into the first L/S.
 
−
#Assume only the available content leaches into the first L/S where available content is the maximum mass released over pH 2-13 measured using Method 1313a. For many PFAS, total content is equal to available content meaning that all of the PFAS mass is available for leaching.
 
−
#Assume the leaching concentration at natural pH (measured in Method 1313A at natural pH or Method 1316A at L/S of 10) is maximum leaching concentration adjusted to the first L/S.
 
−
#Consider the maximum leaching concentration over the L/S range (Method 1314A or Method 1316A) and the upper estimate of leaching, or ''C<sub><small>leach,max</small></sub>'', is the concentration from either Step 3 or Step 4, whichever is greater.
 
−
 
 
−
Screening assessments may be sufficient to meet project goals, but when additional refinements of leaching estimates are needed, site-specific data (e.g., infiltration) can be combined with test data and computational approaches (e.g., fate and transport models) for more site-specific estimates of leaching.  Example scenarios where LEAF may be used to evaluate PFAS-impacted solids include 1) estimating PFAS release from AFFF-impacted soils, 2) estimating PFAS release from biosolids-amended soils at land application sites, 3) providing transport parameters to model PFAS transport from the source zone to the saturated zone, and 4) evaluating PFAS release from treatment residuals such as soils or sediments treated by soil washing or thermal approaches.
 
−
 
 
−
==Summary and Ongoing Research==
 
−
The LEAF framework offers a reliable, replicable approach to evaluating PFAS release from solids. With recent adaptations for PFAS-specific considerations, LEAF methods provide valuable tools for regulators and practitioners in managing PFAS-contaminated materials and assessing long-term environmental risks.  However, there are key areas of ongoing research, including:
 
−
*An interlab validation of Methods 1313A, 1314A, and 1316A in coordination with the EPA
 
−
*Optimization and demonstration of Method 1315A for use with PFAS-impacted solids
 
−
*Evaluation of an unsaturated Method 1314A protocol to assess the need for and ability of LEAF testing to capture air-water interfacial partitioning of PFAS
 
−
*Application of the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay for evaluating the maximum additional PFAS leaching that may occur as a result of polyfluoroalkyl precursor transformation
 
−
*Comparison of LEAF testing data to previously collected field-scale enhanced flushing data collected from the same site
 
−
 
 
−
Additionally, there are key areas for consideration in future research:
 
−
*Collection of paired field-laboratory data under ambient conditions to further validate the applicability of LEAF assessments for estimation of field-relevant PFAS leaching and mobility
 
−
*Consideration of biotransformation in modeling and interpretation of LEAF data, as the state of the science regarding biotransformation of polyfluoroalkyl substances to terminal perfluoroalkyl acids advances
 
−
 
 
−
==Other LEAF Resources==
 
−
There are numerous  resources describing the development of the LEAF leaching methods for inorganics. They are not specific to PFAS, but are still valuable resources focused on LEAF implementation, applications, and management of LEAF data. They include:
 
−
*[https://www.vanderbilt.edu/leaching/leach-xs-lite/ Leach XS Lite] - a tool for LEAF data management and visualization; free to download after registering for a free license key
 
−
*[https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/how-guide-leaching-environmental-assessment-framework LEAF “How-To” Guide] - guidance on LEAF background, implementation, test result interpretation; includes case studies
 
−
*[https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/leaching-environmental-assessment-framework-leaf-methods-and-guidance USEPA LEAF Methods and Guidance] homepage
 
 
<br clear="right"/>
 
<br clear="right"/>
  
Line 108: Line 63:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 +
[https://vimeo.com/1019489395 TISR<sup>®</sup> Explanation Video]

Latest revision as of 19:44, 13 October 2026

Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes

Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation (TISR®; US Pat. Nos. 10,384,246 and 10,688,545) is a cost-effective and adaptable low temperature thermal remediation technology that accelerates contaminant treatment. It achieves this by enhancing biotic and abiotic contaminant degradation rates through a modest increase in subsurface temperature. TISR® is suitable for a wide range of hydrogeologic settings. It also offers reduced operational costs, a lower carbon footprint, and possibly shorter remedial timeframes than more conventional methods.

Related Article(s):

Contributors: Jonah Munholland, Julia Vidonish, and Craig Divine

Key Resources:

  • Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes, Final Report. ESTCP Project ER20-5028[1].
  • Advances in Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation. Munholland et al., 2024[2].
  • A Design Tool for Solar Thermal Remediation Using Borehole Heat Exchangers. Ornelles, Falta, and Divine, 2023[3].
  • Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation: Gaining Traction as a Green Remedial Alternative. Horst, et al., 2018[4].

Introduction

File:MunhollandFig1.png
Figure 1: Components and layout of a TISR® system

TISR® utilizes borehole heat exchangers (BHEs) to heat target treatment areas in the subsurface. This is achieved through a combination of solar collectors, which harness solar radiation as heat, and the utilization of other heat sources such as waste heat or hybrid heating with heat pumps. That heat is then transferred to the subsurface via a closed loop circulation system connected to the BHEs (Figure 1). By incorporating these additional heat sources, TISR® ensures a more robust and constant heat supply, enabling customization of the system to address specific site challenges and facilitate efficient heat transfer.

The heating of the subsurface through TISR® accelerates various processes such as biodegradation, abiotic reactions, and contaminant desorption and dissolution. The technology is also suitable for diverse hydrogeologic environments, including sites with low permeability zones, due to the relatively uniform thermal conductivity of geologic materials, which is unaffected by grain size[2]. This versatility allows TISR® to integrate with conventional remediation technologies, enhancing their performance.

One of the key advantages of TISR® is its ability to accelerate treatment processes while minimizing energy consumption. By harnessing renewable and sustainable energy sources such as solar radiation and effectively utilizing waste heat or hybrid heating with heat pumps, TISR® delivers an efficient, cost-effective remediation solution. Compatibility with multiple conventional remediation technologies makes it an effective option for addressing a variety of contamination challenges.

Scientific Principles

File:MunhollandFig2.png
Figure 2: Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates for VOCs

During the TISR® heating process, thermal conduction and advection play a crucial role in boosting physical, biological, and chemical processes within the treatment zones, leading to enhanced attenuation, degradation, and removal of contaminants from the subsurface[5][4]. TISR® systems are typically designed to enhance the biological activity and performance of other active technologies, such as air sparge/ soil vapor extraction (AS/SVE) or chemical oxidation, by increasing the subsurface temperature by approximately 10°C to 20°C. The target groundwater temperature is often set to reach up to about 35°C, which is the optimal temperature for promoting the activity of mesophilic microbial communities responsible for biodegradation of certain contaminants. In cases where the objective is to maximize abiotic hydrolysis mechanisms, such as for some chlorinated alkanes, TISR® systems can be designed to reach a final groundwater temperature of up to 60°C.

The effectiveness of TISR® in enhancing treatment performance has been demonstrated through several mechanisms, which are discussed below:

  • Primary dechlorinating bacteria, such as Dehalococcoides and Dehalogenimonas, are known to be mesophilic. Therefore, increasing the temperature can significantly enhance microbial activity and biodegradation by multiple orders of magnitude[6].
  • Reduced iron minerals, particularly iron sulfides, can participate in the abiotic degradation of chlorinated ethenes and other contaminants. The rates of these reactions generally depend on temperature, following the Arrhenius equation.
  • Rates of other processes that often limit the pace of remediation, such as dissolution, desorption, and back diffusion, are positively correlated with temperature. This results in an enhanced bioavailability of contaminant mass that may otherwise be inaccessible.

These various mechanisms collectively contribute to the improved performance of other active treatments when temperature is moderately increased by utilization of TISR®.

Implementation and Practical Considerations

File:MunhollandFig3.png
Figure 3: Transformation of 1,1-DCE and VC following installation of a TISR® system

TISR® has proven successful in reducing contaminant concentrations across diverse hydrogeologic settings, including those with low and complex hydraulic conductivity conditions. Figure 3 shows a sharp initial decrease in 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE) concentrations due to enhanced biodegradation, and then a temporary small increase followed by subsequent decreases in 1,1-DCE concentrations to below detection limits, possibly the result of temperature-enhanced desorption or dissolution of 1,1-DCE from the aquifer. There is also a temporary increase and then decrease in the concentrations of vinyl chloride (VC) (a biodegradation product) to very low levels.

The TISR® system construction utilizes off-the-shelf modular components, promoting cost-efficiency, reusability, and a reduced carbon footprint. Waste heat can supplement or replace the solar setup, and remote monitoring through dashboard apps reduces operation and maintenance costs. TISR® projects typically achieve an average capital cost payback within 1 to 3 years due to accelerated rates of remediation.

When implementing TISR®, solar insolation and groundwater velocity must be considered for optimal equipment sizing and cycling. Depending on remedial goals and site history and conditions, the TISR® system and target temperatures may be designed to enhance specific remedial mechanisms (e.g. hydrolysis over bioremediation). Recently Ornelles et al.[3] developed an easy to use Excel-based model that can be used to optimize TISR® design and predict subsurface temperature changes over time. Frequent monitoring of the temperature and microbial community composition relative to targets is useful for evaluating treatment effectiveness and optimizing system performance. The system and target temperatures can be customized to enhance specific remedial mechanisms based on site conditions and goals.

Summary

TISR® is a cost-effective and adaptable technology that can be customized to address specific site challenges. It can be used as a standalone solution or be integrated with existing remediation strategies to enhance their effectiveness. TISR® is particularly effective in challenging hydrogeological conditions and can be optimized to suit specific treatment mechanisms. By shortening the active remediation timeframe, TISR® reduces lifecycle costs and minimizes the carbon footprint associated with the remediation process.

References

  1. ^ Divine, C., Munholland, J., Zardouzian, E., Justicia-Leon, S., Aspinall, J.V., Randhawa, D., Falta, R., Freedman, D., Becker, M., 2025. Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes, Final Report. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5028. Project Website  Final Report.pdf
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Munholland, J, Rosso, D., Randhawa, D., Devine, C., Pennington, A., 2024. Advances in Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation. In: García-Rincón, J., Gatsios, E., Lenhard, R.J., Atekwana, E.A., Naidu, R. (eds), Advances in the Characterisation and Remediation of Sites Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Chapter 18 pp. 623-653. Environmental Contamination Remediation and Management series, Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34447-3_18  Open Access Chapter
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 Ornelles, A.D., Falta, R.W., Divine, C.E., 2023. A Design Tool for Solar Thermal Remediation Using Borehole Heat Exchangers. Ground Water, 61(2), pp. 245-254. doi: 10.1111/gwat.13265  Free download from NGWA
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 Horst, J., Flanders, C., Klemmer, M., Randhawa, D.S., Rosso, D., 2018. Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation: Gaining Traction as a Green Remedial Alternative. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 38(3), pp. 18-27. doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12295
  5. ^ Dettmer, K., 2002. A Discussion of the Effects of Thermal Remediation Treatments on Microbial Degradation Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Technology Innovation Office, Washington, DC. free report  free download from clu-in.org
  6. ^ Macbeth, T., Truex, M., Powell, T., Michalsen, M., 2012. Combining Low-Energy Electrical Resistance Heating with Biotic and Abiotic Reactions for Treatment of Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL Source Areas. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER-200719 webpage  free download  Project Summary Presentation
  7. ^ Suthersan, S., Horst, J., Klemmer, M., Malone, D., 2012. Temperature-Activated Auto-Decomposition Reactions: An Under-Utilized In Situ Remediation Solution. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 32(3), pp. 34-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01407.x
  8. ^ Chen, F., Freedman, D.L., Falta, R.W., Murdoch, L.C., 2012. Henry's law constants of chlorinated solvents at elevated temperatures. Chemosphere, 86(2), pp.156-165. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.10.004

See Also

TISR® Explanation Video

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=18253"