Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Activated Carbon Adsorption)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment==
+
==Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes==  
−
Well-developed ''ex situ'' treatment technologies applicable to treatment of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in drinking water and non-potable groundwater include membrane filtration (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), activated carbon adsorption (granular and powdered), and anion exchange. There are also a variety of separation and destructive technologies in developmental stages. Some of these processes may also be applicable to more complex matrices including wastewater and landfill leachate.
+
Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation (TISR<sup>®</sup>; 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<sup>®</sup> 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.
 
<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)]]
+
*[[Thermal Remediation]]
−
* [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
+
*[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical Resistance Heating]]
−
* [[PFAS Sources]]
+
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]
−
* [[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
+
*[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
  
−
'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Scott Grieco]] and [[James Hatton]]
+
'''Contributors:''' Jonah Munholland, Julia Vidonish, and Craig Divine
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Key Resources:'''
 +
*Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes, Final Report. ESTCP Project ER20-5028<ref>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. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/bab4bc87-b4bc-42df-ad0e-11ea0adf27dc/er20-5028-project-overview Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: ER20-5028 FR DevineEtAl2025.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>.
  
−
*[https://www.waterrf.org/resource/treatment-mitigation-strategies-poly-and-perfluorinated-chemicals Water Research Foundation (Drinking Water): Treatment Mitigation Strategies for PFAS]<ref name="Dickenson2016">Dickenson, E. and Higgins, C., 2016. Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Report Number 4322. Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado. 123 pages. ISBN 978-1-60573-234-3</ref>  
+
*Advances in Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation. Munholland ''et al.'', 2024<ref name="MunhollandEtAl2024">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. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34447-3_18 doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-34447-3_18]&nbsp; [[Media: MunhollandEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Chapter]]</ref>.
  
−
*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council: PFAS Liquids Treatment Technologies]<ref name="ITRC2020">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document and Fact Sheets, PFAS-1. PFAS Team, Washington, DC. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*A Design Tool for Solar Thermal Remediation Using Borehole Heat Exchangers. Ornelles, Falta, and Divine, 2023<ref name="Ornelles">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. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13265 doi: 10.1111/gwat.13265]&nbsp; [https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwat.13265 Free download from NGWA]</ref>.
  
−
*[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717307934 Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review.]<ref name="Kucharzyk2017"> Kucharzyk, K.H., Darlington, R., Benotti, M., Deeb, R. and Hawley, E., 2017. Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Management, 204(2), pp. 757-764. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016]&nbsp;&nbsp; Manuscript available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katarzyna_kate_Kucharzyk/publication/319125507_Novel_treatment_technologies_for_PFAS_compounds_A_critical_review/links/5a06590b4585157013a3be77/Novel-treatment-technologies-for-PFAS-compounds-A-critical-review.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>
+
*Low-Temperature Thermal Remediation: Gaining Traction as a Green Remedial Alternative. Horst, ''et al.'', 2018<ref name="HorstEtAl2018">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. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12295 doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12295]</ref>.
  
−
*[https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ees.2016.0233 Degradation and removal methods for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water]<ref name="Merino2016">Merino, N., Qu, Y., Deeb, R.A., Hawley, E.L., Hoffmann, M.R., and Mahendra, S., 2016. Degradation and Removal Methods for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water. Environmental Engineering Science, 33(9), pp. 615-649.  [https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0233 DOI: 10.1089/ees.2016.0233]</ref>
+
==Introduction==
 +
[[File: MunhollandFig1.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 1: Components and layout of a TISR<sup>®</sup> system]]
 +
TISR<sup>®</sup> utilizes [[Wikipedia: Downhole heat exchanger | 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<sup>®</sup> ensures a more robust and constant heat supply, enabling customization of the system to address specific site challenges and facilitate efficient heat transfer.
  
−
==Established PFAS Treatment Technologies==
+
The heating of the subsurface through TISR<sup>®</sup> 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<ref name="MunhollandEtAl2024"/>. This versatility allows TISR<sup>®</sup> to integrate with conventional remediation technologies, enhancing their performance.
−
Three technologies are well demonstrated for removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] from drinking water and non-potable groundwater (as described below):
 
−
 
−
* membrane filtration including [[wikipedia: Reverse osmosis | reverse osmosis (RO)]] and [[Wikipedia: Nanofiltration | nanofiltration (NF)]]
 
−
* granular [[Wikipedia: Activated carbon | activated carbon]] (GAC) and powdered activated carbon (PAC) adsorption
 
−
* [[wikipedia: Ion_exchange | anion exchange (IX)]] 
 
  
−
However, these technologies are less demonstrated for removal of PFAS from more complex matrices such as wastewater and leachate. 
+
One of the key advantages of TISR<sup>®</sup> 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<sup>®</sup> 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.
−
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===
+
==Scientific Principles==
−
[[File: revOsmosisPlant.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 1.  A RO municipal drinking water plant in Arizona]]  
+
[[File: MunhollandFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2: Effect of temperature on hydrolysis rates for VOCs]]
−
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.
+
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.
−
 
−
Full-scale studies using larger effective pore size NF membranes for PFAS removal are limited in number but are promising since NF systems are somewhat less costly than RO and may be nearly as effective in removing PFAS. Recent laboratory or pilot studies have shown good performance of NF membranes<ref name="Steinle-Darling2008">Steinle-Darling, E., and Reinhard, M., 2008. Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of Perfluorochemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(14), pp. 5292-5297.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es703207s DOI: 10.1021/es703207s]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48926882/es703207s20160918-21142-1xmqco5.pdf?1474189169=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DNanofiltration_for_Trace_Organic_Contami.pdf&Expires=1613000850&Signature=N-ZvvjOJX3TSOQzg7od3Q0LulNSZOqqjfummVEUfmiYlC3VasS4FuBHOgY52Xy~7FrKbOLhx0xx8QHdUsR~fbRTMQNXhiqbEslnU2gda2EcZHMMJj0mf-01wIA3jFIywA7IIabmTd3uMUGsIfT1D0PrGY00RmprYIQBoG3Dg~KjoizdfxYfvEgdZw2C~7D47pPiwMSnavZiGuvO0~dbRF8nawL7Prg91xt5BFTNUQQiIrIlMWc4PhVjzE5Su2CUZqnNlYdAW5Ck7B9lKmmVMPiOgz07vFnyp7m-q4UK3woa~aBFW9Wp~hjqN6vfohn8Hocv5oMpZNamhu8vBbPilKw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia].</ref><ref name="Appleman2013">Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R., Bellona, C., and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Nanofiltration and granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, 740-746. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033]</ref><ref name="Soriano2017">Soriano, Á., Gorri, D., and Urtiaga, A., 2017. Efficient treatment of perfluorohexanoic acid by nanofiltration followed by electrochemical degradation of the NF concentrate. Water Research, 112, 147-156.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Soriano2017.pdf | Author’s Manuscript.]]</ref><ref name="Zeng2017">Zeng, C., Tanaka, S., Suzuki, Y., Yukioka, S., and Fujii, S., 2017. Rejection of Trace Level Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) in Pure Water by Loose Nanofiltration Membrane. Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 15(3), pp. 120-127.  [https://doi.org/10.2965/jwet.16-072 DOI: 10.2965/jwet.16-072]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jwet/15/3/15_16-072/_pdf J-STAGE]</ref><ref name="Wang2018">Wang, J., Wang, L., Xu, C., Zhi, R., Miao, R., Liang, T., Yue, X., Lv, Y. and Liu, T., 2018. Perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorobutane sulfonate removal from water by nanofiltration membrane: The roles of solute concentration, ionic strength, and macromolecular organic foulants. Chemical Engineering Journal, 332, pp. 787-797.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061]</ref>.
 
  
−
Although membrane RO and NF processes are generally capable of providing uniform removal rates relative to short and long chain PFAS compounds (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature), other aspects of these treatment technologies are more challenging:
+
The effectiveness of TISR<sup>®</sup> in enhancing treatment performance has been demonstrated through several mechanisms, which are discussed below:
  
−
* 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).
+
*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>.
  
−
* 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.
+
*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]].
  
−
* 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.  
+
*[[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.
  
−
* 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.
+
*[[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>.
  
−
* 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.
+
*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.
−
===Activated Carbon Adsorption===
 
−
[[File: GAChouse.JPG | thumb| 500px | Figure 2.  Typical private water supply well GAC installation for removal of VOCs and PFAS. Pressure gages and sample ports installed before the first (or lead) vessel, at the midpoint, and after the second (or lag) vessel allow monitoring for pressure drop due to fouling and for contaminant breakthrough.]]
 
−
Activated carbon is a form of carbon processed to have small pores that increase the surface area available for adsorption of constituents from water. Activated carbon is derived from many source materials, including coconut shells, wood, lignite, and bituminous coal. Different types of activated carbon base materials have varied adsorption characteristics such that some may be better suited to removing certain contaminant compounds than others.  Results from laboratory testing, pilot evaluations, and full-scale system operations suggest that bituminous coal-based GAC is generally the best performing carbon for PFAS removal<ref name="McNamara2018">McNamara, J.D., Franco, R., Mimna, R., and Zappa, L., 2018. Comparison of Activated Carbons for Removal of Perfluorinated Compounds from Drinking Water. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 110(1), pp. E2-E14.  [https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0003 DOI: 10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0003]</ref><ref name="Westreich2018">Westreich, P., Mimna, R., Brewer, J., and Forrester, F., 2018. The removal of short‐chain and long‐chain perfluoroalkyl acids and sulfonates via granular activated carbons: A comparative column study. Remediation Journal, 29(1), pp. 19-26.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21579 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21579]</ref>.
 
  
−
The removal efficiency of individual PFAS compounds using GAC is a function of both the PFAS functional group (carboxylic acid versus sulfonic acid) and also the perfluoro-carbon chain length<ref name="McCleaf2017">McCleaf, P., Englund, S., Östlund, A., Lindegren, K., Wiberg, K., and Ahrens, L., 2017. Removal efficiency of multiple poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in drinking water using granular activated carbon (GAC) and anion exchange (AE) column tests. Water Research, 120, pp. 77-87.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057]</ref><ref name="Eschauzier2012">Eschauzier, C., Beerendonk, E., Scholte-Veenendaal, P., and De Voogt, P., 2012. Impact of Treatment Processes on the Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Acids from the Drinking Water Production Chain. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(3), pp. 1708-1715.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es201662b DOI: 10.1021/es201662b]</ref>
+
These various mechanisms collectively contribute to the improved performance of other active treatments when temperature is moderately increased by utilization of TISR®.
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
+
==Implementation and Practical Considerations==
−
|+ Table 1. Developmental Technologies
+
[[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.
−
! Stage
 
−
! Separation/Transfer
 
−
! Destructive*
 
−
|-
 
−
| Developing
 
−
|
 
−
* Biochar (20, 21, 22)
 
−
* Modified Zeolites (23, 24)
 
−
* Specialty adsorbents
 
−
|
 
−
* Electro-oxidation (32, 33, 34)
 
−
* Heat activated persulfate (35)
 
−
* Alkaline perozone (36)
 
−
* Sonolysis (37, 38, 39, 40)
 
−
* Super Critical Water Oxidation
 
−
|-
 
−
| Maturing and</br>Demonstrated
 
−
|
 
−
* Chemical coagulation (28)
 
−
* Electrocoagulation (29)
 
−
* Foam fractionation (30, 31)
 
−
|
 
−
* Low temperature plasma (41, 42)
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" | * There are several other destructive technologies such as alternative oxidants, and activation</br>methods of oxidants, but for the purpose of this article, the main categories are presented here.
 
−
|}
 
  
 +
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.
  
 +
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.
  
−
PFAS are a class of highly fluorinated compounds including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and many other compounds with a variety of industrial and consumer uses.  These compounds are often highly resistant to treatment<ref name="Kissa2001">Kissa, Erik, 2001. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents: Second Edition. Surfactant Science Series, Volume 97. Marcel Dekker, Inc., CRC Press, New York. 640 pages.  ISBN 978-0824704728</ref> and the more mobile compounds are often problematic in groundwater systems<ref name="Backe2013">Backe, W.J., Day, T.C., and Field, J.A., 2013. Zwitterionic, Cationic, and Anionic Fluorinated Chemicals in Aqueous Film Forming Foam Formulations and Groundwater from U.S. Military Bases by Nonaqueous Large-Volume Injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(10), pp. 5226-5234. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3034999 DOI: 10.1021/es3034999]</ref>. The US EPA has published lifetime drinking water health advisories for the combined concentration of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for two common and recalcitrant PFAS: PFOS, a perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid (PFSA), and PFOA, a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (PFCA)<ref name="EPApfos2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA 822-R-16-004. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC.  [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf Free download from US EPA]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA-2016-pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="EPApfoa2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), EPA 822-R-16-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf Free download from US EPA] &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA-2016-pfoa_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.(See [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] for nomenclature.)
+
==Summary==
−
 
+
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.
−
While many of the earliest sites where these compounds were detected in groundwater were manufacturing sites, some recent detections have been attributed to fire training activities associated with aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF).  AFFF is the US Department of Defense (DoD) designation for Class B firefighting foam containing PFAS, which is required for fighting fires involving petroleum liquids. Fire training areas and other source areas where AFFF was released at the surface have the potential to be ongoing sources of groundwater contamination<ref name="Houtz2013"/>. (See also [[PFAS Sources]].)
+
<br clear="right"/>
−
 
 
−
No national soil cleanup standards have been promulgated by the US EPA, although Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) have been calculated and published for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS)<ref name="EPA2020">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) – User's Guide. Washington, DC.  [https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-users-guide Website]</ref> and data are available to calculate RSLs for PFOA and PFOS<ref name="ITRCwNs2020">Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. PFAS Water and Soil Values Table. PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: PFAS Fact Sheets. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ITRCPFASWaterandSoilValuesTables_NOV-2020-FINAL.xlsx Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ITRCPFASWaterandSoilTables2020.xlsx | 2020 Water and Soil Tables (excel file)]]</ref>. Several states have promulgated standards<ref name="AKDEC2020">Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC), 2020. 18 AAC 75, Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control. Anchorage, AK.  [https://dec.alaska.gov/media/1055/18-aac-75.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: AKDEC2020_18aac75.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> or screening levels<ref name="MEDEP2018">Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP), 2018. Maine Remedial Action Guidelines (RAGs) for Sites Contaminated with Hazardous Substances. Augusta, ME.  [https://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/publications/guidance/rags/ME-Remedial-Action-Guidelines-10-19-18cc.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: MEDEP2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="EGLE2020">Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), 2020. Cleanup Criteria Requirements for Response Activity (Formerly the Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels). Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI. [https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3311_4109_9846-251790--,00.html Website]</ref><ref name="NEDEE2018">Nebraska Department of Energy and Environment (NE DEE), 2018. Voluntary Cleanup Program Remedial Goals, Table A-1: Groundwater and Soil Remediation Goals. Lincoln, NE.  [http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/Publica.nsf/D243C2B56E34EA8486256F2700698997/Body/Attach%202-6%20Table%20A-1%20VCP%20LUT%20Sept%202018.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NDEE2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="NCDEQ2020">North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), 2020. Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. Raleigh, NC.  [https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/risk-based-remediation/1.Combined-Notes-PSRGs.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NCDEQ2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="TCEQ2021">Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2021. Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), Tier 1 Protective Concentration Levels (PCL) Tables.  [http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/remediation/trrp/2021PCL%20Tables.xlsx Free Download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: TRRP2021PCLTables.xlsx | 2021 PCL Tables (excel file)]]</ref> for soil concentrations protective of groundwater, which are several orders of magnitude lower than direct dermal exposure guidelines. These single-digit part per billion criteria will likely drive remedial actions in PFAS source areas in the future.  At present, the lack of federally promulgated standards and uncertainty about future standards causes temporary stockpiling of PFAS-impacted soils on sites with soil generated from construction or investigation activities.
 
−
 
 
−
==Soil Treatment==
 
−
[[File: DiGuiseppi1w2Fig1.PNG |thumb|600px| Figure 1. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil stabilization project at a military base in Australia. Image courtesy of RemBind&trade;.]]
 
−
Addressing recalcitrant contaminants in soil has traditionally been done through containment/capping or excavation and off-site disposal or treatment.  Containment/capping may be an acceptable solution for PFAS in some locations.  However, containment/capping is not considered ideal given the history of releases from engineered landfills and restrictions on use of land containing capped soils.  Innovative treatment approaches for PFAS include stabilization with amendments and thermal treatment. 
 
−
 
 
−
===Excavation and Disposal===
 
−
Excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of PFAS-impacted soils is the only well-developed treatment technology option and may be acceptable for small quantities of soil, such as those generated during characterization activities (i.e., investigation derived waste, IDW). Disposal in non-hazardous landfills is allowable in most states. However, some landfill operators are choosing to restrict acceptance of PFAS-containing waste and soils as a protection against future liability. In addition, the US EPA and some states are considering or have designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances,  which would reduce the number of facilities where disposal of PFAS-contaminated soil would be allowed<ref name="EPA2019">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019. EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan: EPA 823R18004. Washington, DC.  [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA823R18004.pdf | Report.pdf]]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA100K20002.pdf | 2020 Update]]</ref>. Treatment of excavated soils is commonly performed using incineration or other high temperature thermal methods<ref name="ITRC2020"/>. Recent negative publicity regarding incomplete combustion of PFAS in incinerators<ref name="Hogue2020">Cheryl Hogue, 2020. Incineration may spread, not break down PFAS. Chemical and Engineering News, American Chemical Society.  [https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/Incincerators-spread-break-down-PFAS/98/web/2020/04 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hogue2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> has caused some states to ban PFAS incineration<ref name="NYSS2020">New York State Senate, 2020. An ACT prohibiting the incineration of aqueous film-forming foam containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in certain cities. [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s7880/amendment/b Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: NYsenate2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Stabilization===
 
−
[[File:DiGuiseppi1w2Fig2.PNG|thumb|600px| Figure 2. A portable infrared thermal treatment unit for PFAS-impacted soils<ref name="DiGuiseppi2019"/>.]]
 
−
Various amendments have been manufactured to sorb PFAS to reduce leaching from soil.  Although this is a non-destructive approach, stabilization can reduce mass flux from a source area or allow soils to be placed in landfills with reduced potential for leaching. Amendments sorb PFAS through hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions and are applied to soil through ''in situ'' soil mixing or ''ex situ'' stabilization (Figure 1). Effectiveness of amendments varies depending on site conditions, PFAS types present, and mixing conditions<ref name="ITRCwNs2020"/>. Good results have been observed in bench and field scale tests with a variety of cationic clays (natural or chemically modified) and zeolites<ref name="OchoaHerrera2008">Ochoa-Herrera, V., and Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2008. Removal of perfluorinated surfactants by sorption onto granular activated carbon, zeolites and sludge. Chemosphere, 72(10), pp. 1588-1593.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.029 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.029]</ref><ref name="Rattanaoudom2012">Rattanaoudom, R., Visvanathan, C., and Boontanon, S.K., 2012. Removal of Concentrated PFOS and PFOA in Synthetic Industrial Wastewater by Powder Activated Carbon and Hydrotalcite. Journal of Water Sustainability, 2(4), pp. 245-248.  [http://www.jwsponline.com/uploadpic/Magazine/pp%20245-258.pdf Open access article.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Rattanaoudom2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Ziltek2017">Ziltek, 2017. RemBind: Frequently Asked Questions.  [https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5503db4d546e22f6d2feb2/t/5c733787f9619ae6c84674c9/1551054727451/RemBind+FAQs.pdf Free download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: RemBind2017.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Bench-scale tests have shown that activated carbon sorbents reduce leachability of PFAS from soils<ref name="Du2014">Du, Z., Deng, S., Bei, Y., Huang, Q., Wang, B., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2014. Adsorption behavior and mechanism of perfluorinated compounds on various adsorbents – A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 274, pp. 443-454.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038]</ref><ref name="Yu2009">Yu, Q., Zhang, R., Deng, S., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate on activated carbons and resin: Kinetic and isotherm study. Water Research, 43(4), pp. 1150-1158.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.001]</ref><ref name="Szabo2017">Szabo, J., Hall, J., Magnuson, M., Panguluri, S., and Meiners, G., 2017. Treatment of Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Wash Water Using Granular Activated Carbon and Mixed Media, EPA/600/R-17/175. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC.  [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHSRC&direntryid=337098 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA600R17175.PDF | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  A commercial product developed in Australia ([https://rembind.com/ RemBind&trade;]) combines the cation exchange binding capability of clays, the hydrophobic sorption and [[Wikipedia: Van der Waals force | van der Waals]] attraction of organic material, and the electrostatic interactions of aluminum hydroxide to create a highly effective soil stabilizer.  This material has been mixed into soil at 1 to 5% ratio by weight in ''ex situ'' applications and been demonstrated to reduce leachability by greater than 99 percent<ref name="Nolan2015">Nolan, A., Anderson, P., McKay, D., Cartwright, L., and McLean, C., 2015. Treatment of PFCs in Soils, Sediments and Water, WC35. Program and Proceedings, CleanUp Conference 2015. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC Care), Melbourne, Australia. pp. 374-375.  [https://www.crccare.com/files/dmfile/CLEANUP_2015_PROCEEDINGS-web.pdf Free download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CRCCare2015.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Thermal Treatment===
 
−
[[File:DiGuiseppi1w2Fig3.PNG|thumb|600px| Figure 3. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil washing plant in Australia<ref name="Grimison2020"/>.]]
 
−
''Incineration:'' Incineration is a well-developed technology for organics destruction, including PFAS-impacted soils. Incineration is generally defined as high temperature (>1,100&deg;C) thermal destruction of waste, and PFAS are thought to mineralize at high temperatures.  Generally, incinerators treat off-gasses by thermal oxidation with temperatures as high as 1,400&deg;C, and vaporized combustion products can be captured using condensation and wet scrubbing<ref name="ITRCwNs2020"/>. Some regulatory officials have expressed concern about possible PFAS emissions in off-gas from these incinerators, and the authors are not aware of any published evidence demonstrating complete mineralization of multiple PFAS in incinerators at the time of this posting.  In general, incineration is designed to provide “5 nines of destruction” – destruction of 99.999% of the contaminants, although incinerators are not designed to specifically treat PFAS to this standard.  In the absence of approved industry standard test methods, the US EPA is developing off-gas/stack testing procedures capable of detecting PFAS at the levels considered to be harmful<ref name="EPA2018">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. PFAS Research and Development, Community Engagement in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement-north-carolina-meeting-materials Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPAFayetteville2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
''Thermal Desorption:'' Thermal Desorption of PFAS from soil has been demonstrated at the field scale in Australia and the US (Alaska)<ref name="Nolan2015"/> using a rotary kiln operating at temperatures in the range of 900&deg;C or less with treatment times of 10-15 minutes<ref name="Burke2015">Burke, Jill, 2019. Fairbanks incinerator shows promise for cleaning toxic soil. Channel 2-KTUU, October 8.  [https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Fairbanks-incinerator-shows-promise-for-cleaning-toxic-soil-562593631.html Website]</ref>. At these temperatures, some PFAS are mineralized, releasing fluorine that must be captured in off-gas treatment systems. Some PFAS would not be destroyed at these temperatures and therefore must be captured in off-gas treatment systems.  Several bench-scale tests have been performed that have narrowed down the optimal temperature for desorption to between 350&deg;C and 400&deg;C<ref name="Hatton2019">Hatton, J., Dasu, K., Richter, R., Fitzpatrick, T., and Higgins, C., 2019. Field Demonstration of Infrared Thermal Treatment of PFAS-impacted Soils from Subsurface Investigations. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER18-1603, Alexandria, VA.  [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER18-1603 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SERDP ER18-1603.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="DiGuiseppi2019">DiGuiseppi, W., Richter, R., and Riggle, M., 2019. Low Temperature Desorption of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. The Military Engineer, 111(719), pp. 52-53. Society of American Military Engineers, Washington, DC.  [http://online.fliphtml5.com/fedq/sdoo/#p=54 Open access article.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: DiGuiseppi2019.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. A US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) field-scale demonstration was performed in Oregon, where thermal desorption was conducted at 400&deg;C over several days, and the PFAS were captured on vapor-phase activated carbon and incinerated<ref name="Hatton2019"/>. An ''in situ'' thermal desorption project has been funded under the US DoD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to demonstrate that vadose zone soil can be heated to the requisite 350&deg;C and held there for the appropriate length of time to desorb and capture PFAS from soil source areas<ref name="Iery2020">Iery, R., 2020. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5250.  [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER20-5250 Website]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Soil Washing===
 
−
Soil washing has been applied to PFAS in a handful of pilot projects<ref name="Torneman2012">Torneman, N., 2012. Remedial Methods and Strategies for PFCs. Fourth Joint Nordic Meeting on Remediation of Contaminated Sites, NORDROCS 2012, Oslo, Norway.  [http://nordrocs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Session-VI-torsdag-1-Torneman-short-paper.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Torneman2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Toase2018">Toase, D., 2018. Application of enhanced soil washing techniques to PFAS contaminated source zones. Emerging Contaminants Summit 2018, Westminster, Colorado.</ref><ref name="Grimison2018">Grimison, C., Barthelme, S., Nolan, A., Cole, J., Morrell, C., 2018. Integrated Soil and Water System for Treatment of PFAS Impacted Source Areas, 18E138P. Australasian Land and Groundwater Association (ALGA), Sydney, Australia.  [https://landandgroundwater.com/media/18E138P_-_Charles_Grimison.pdf Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Grimison2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> and one full-scale implementation in Australia. This approach requires a large-scale engineered plant to handle the various liquid and solid waste streams generated. Soil washing is less suitable for clay-rich soils, where aggregation of the particulates occurs and is difficult to prevent or mitigate. Treatment of the liquid rinse water waste stream is required, which would then rely on conventional water treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange. Additionally, in some cases flocculated sludge is generated, which would require treatment or disposal offsite. At present, the only full-scale soil washing demonstration is occurring in Australia, where a vendor has constructed and is operating a 10 million AUD$ treatment plant in anticipation of future treatment of soils generated from remedial actions at Australian Defense installations. Some Australian installations are stockpiling soils due to the lack of cost-effective soil treatment options. According to the vendor, this system generates no solid waste, instead feeding any solids back into the front end of the process for further removal of PFAS<ref name="Grimison2020">Grimison, C., Brookman, I., Hunt, J., and Lucas, J., 2020. Remediation of PFAS-related impacts – ongoing scrutiny and review, Ventia Submission to PFAS Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Australia. [https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a209e924-2b7e-4727-bccf-30bef5304bba&subId=691428  Free download.]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Grimison2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Conclusions==
 
−
Several well-developed remedial technologies have been applied to address soil contaminated with PFAS.  Unfortunately, none of the available techniques are ideal, with some reducing leachability but leaving the PFAS-impacted soil in place, while others result in destruction of the contaminants but require high energy inputs with associated high cost.  
 
−
<br clear="left" />
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
 
<references />
 
<references />
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 +
[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"