Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone)
 
(159 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone==  
+
==Thermal In Situ Sustainable Remediation to Enhance Biotic and Abiotic Reactions and Accelerate Remediation Timeframes==  
−
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] are frequently introduced to the environment through soil surface applications which then transport through the vadose zone to reach underlying groundwater receptors. Due to their unique properties and resulting transport and retention behaviors, PFAS in the vadose zone can be a persistent contaminant source to underlying groundwater systems. Determining the fraction of PFAS present in the mobile porewater relative to the total concentrations in soils is critical to understanding the risk posed by PFAS in vadose zone source areas. Lysimeters are instruments that have been used by agronomists and vadose zone researchers for decades to determine water flux and solute concentrations in unsaturated porewater. Lysimeters have recently been developed as a critical tool for field investigations and characterizations of PFAS impacted source zones.  
+
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 Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
+
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]
 +
*[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
  
−
'''Contributors:''' Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer
+
'''Contributors:''' Jonah Munholland, Julia Vidonish, and Craig Divine
  
 
'''Key Resources:'''
 
'''Key Resources:'''
−
*Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>
+
*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>.
−
*PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>
+
 
−
*Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>
+
*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>.
−
*Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>
+
 
−
*PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>
+
*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>.
 +
 
 +
*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>.
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
Lysimeters are devices that are placed in the subsurface above the groundwater table to monitor the movement of water through the soil<ref name="GossEhlers2009">Goss, M.J., Ehlers, W., 2009. The Role of Lysimeters in the Development of Our Understanding of Soil Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Ecosystems. Soil Use and Management, 25(3), pp. 213–223. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x]</ref><ref>Pütz, T., Fank, J., Flury, M., 2018. Lysimeters in Vadose Zone Research. Vadose Zone Journal, 17 (1), pp. 1-4. [https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035 doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035]&nbsp; [[Media: PutzEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025">Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C.D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., Wilkin, R.T., 2025. Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 59(9), pp. 4215-4229. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c10246 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c10246]</ref>. Lysimeters have historically been used in agricultural sciences for monitoring nutrient or contaminant movement, soil moisture release curves, natural drainage patterns, and dynamics of plant-water interactions<ref name="GossEhlers2009"/><ref>Bergström, L., 1990. Use of Lysimeters to Estimate Leaching of Pesticides in Agricultural Soils. Environmental Pollution, 67 (4), 325–347. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S]</ref><ref>Dabrowska, D., Rykala, W., 2021. A Review of Lysimeter Experiments Carried Out on Municipal Landfill Waste. Toxics, 9(2), Article 26. [https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9020026 doi: 10.3390/toxics9020026]&nbsp; [[Media: Dabrowska Rykala2021.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Fernando, S.U., Galagedara, L., Krishnapillai, M., Cuss, C.W., 2023. Lysimeter Sampling System for Optimal Determination of Trace Elements in Soil Solutions. Water, 15(18), Article 3277. [https://doi.org/10.3390/w15183277 doi: 10.3390/w15183277]&nbsp; [[Media: FernandoEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020">Meissner, R., Rupp, H., Haselow, L., 2020. Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching. In: Climate Change and Soil Interactions. Elsevier, pp. 171-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2]</ref><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993">Rogers, R.D., McConnell, J.W. Jr., 1993. Lysimeter Literature Review, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Numbers: NUREG/CR--6073, EGG--2706. [https://www.osti.gov/] ID: 10183270. [https://doi.org/10.2172/10183270 doi: 10.2172/10183270]&nbsp; [[Media: RogersMcConnell1993.pdf | Open  Access Article]]</ref><ref>Sołtysiak, M., Rakoczy, M., 2019. An Overview of the Experimental Research Use of Lysimeters. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 7(2), pp. 49-56. [https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0012 doi: 10.2478/environ-2019-0012]&nbsp; [[Media: SołtysiakRakoczy2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="Stannard1992">Stannard, D.I., 1992. Tensiometers—Theory, Construction, and Use. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(1), pp. 48-58. [https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10224J doi: 10.1520/GTJ10224J]</ref><ref name="WintonWeber1996">Winton, K., Weber, J.B., 1996. A Review of Field Lysimeter Studies to Describe the Environmental Fate of Pesticides. Weed Technology, 10(1), pp. 202-209. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X00045929 doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00045929]</ref>. Recently, there has been strong interest in the use of lysimeters to measure and monitor movement of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021">Anderson, R.H., 2021. The Case for Direct Measures of Soil-to-Groundwater Contaminant Mass Discharge at AFFF-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(10), pp. 6580-6583. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01543 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01543]</ref><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022">Anderson, R.H., Feild, J.B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., Elsharnouby, O., Krebs, R.K., 2022. Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters. Chemosphere, 308(1), Article 136247. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024">Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Fang, Y., Gonda, N., Zhang, C., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., 2024. PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 264, Article 104359. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Schaum, A., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2023. Leaching of Perfluoroalkyl Acids During Unsaturated Zone Flushing at a Field Site Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(5), pp. 1940-1948. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06903 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06903]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., O’Hare, S., Lemes, M.C.S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. A Field Study to Assess the Role of Air-Water Interfacial Sorption on PFAS Leaching in an AFFF Source Area. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 248, Article 104001. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021">Quinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., Hasbrouck, K., 2021. Application of PFAS-Mobile Lab to Support Adaptive Characterization and Flux-Based Conceptual Site Models at AFFF Releases. Remediation, 31(3), pp. 7-26. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21680 doi: 10.1002/rem.21680]</ref>. PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through land surface application and have been found to be strongly retained within the upper 5 feet of soil<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020">Brusseau, M.L., Anderson, R.H., Guo, B., 2020. PFAS Concentrations in Soils: Background Levels versus Contaminated Sites. Science of The Total Environment, 740, Article 140017. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017]</ref><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024">Bigler, M.C., Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., Jones, S.L., Pritchard, J.C., Higgins, C.P., Hatton, J., 2024. High-Resolution Depth-Discrete Analysis of PFAS Distribution and Leaching for a Vadose-Zone Source at an AFFF-Impacted Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 58(22), pp. 9863-9874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c01615 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c01615]</ref>. PFAS recalcitrance in the vadose zone means that environmental program managers and consultants need a cost-effective way of monitoring concentration conditions within the vadose zone. Repeated soil sampling and extraction processes are time consuming and only give a representative concentration of total PFAS in the matrix<ref name="NickersonEtAl2020">Nickerson, A., Maizel, A.C., Kulkarni, P.R., Adamson, D.T., Kornuc, J. J., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 4952-4962. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00792 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00792]</ref>, not what is readily transportable in mobile porewater<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024">Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D., Real, I., Hao, S., Guelfo, J.L., 2024. Air-Water Interfacial Collapse and Rate-Limited Solid Desorption Control Perfluoroalkyl Acid Leaching from the Vadose Zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 265, Article 104382. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382]&nbsp; [[Media: StultsEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="StultsEtAl2023">Stults, J.F., Choi, Y.J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D.D., Knappe, D.R.U., Illangasekare, T.H., Higgins, C.P., 2023. Predicting Concentration- and Ionic-Strength-Dependent Air–Water Interfacial Partitioning Parameters of PFASs Using Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships (QSPRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 57(13), pp. 5203-5215. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07316 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07316]</ref><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022">Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2022. PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces. Chemosphere, 302, Article 134938. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauGuo2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. Fortunately, lysimeters have been found to be a viable option for monitoring the concentration of PFAS in the mobile porewater phase in the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>. Note that while some lysimeters, known as weighing lysimeters, can directly measure water flux, the most commonly utilized lysimeters in PFAS investigations only provide measurements of porewater concentrations.
+
[[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.
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
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.
 +
 
 +
==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:
 +
 
 +
*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>.
 +
 
 +
*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]].
  
−
==PFAS Background==
+
*[[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 are a broad class of chemicals with highly variable chemical structures<ref>Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es981355+ doi: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref><ref name="MoodyField2000">Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 2000. Perfluorinated Surfactants and the Environmental Implications of Their Use in Fire-Fighting Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(18), pp. 3864-3870. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es991359u doi: 10.1021/es991359u]</ref><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020">Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Trier, X., Wang, Z., 2020. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(12), pp. 2345-2373. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G doi: 10.1039/D0EM00291G]&nbsp; [[Media: GlügeEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. One characteristic feature of PFAS is that they are fluorosurfactants, distinct from more traditional hydrocarbon surfactants<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="Brusseau2018">Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2018.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref>Dave, N., Joshi, T., 2017. A Concise Review on Surfactants and Its Significance. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(3), pp. 663-672. [https://doi.org/10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672 doi: 10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672]&nbsp; [[Media: DaveJoshi2017.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>García, R.A., Chiaia-Hernández, A.C., Lara-Martin, P.A., Loos, M., Hollender, J., Oetjen, K., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., 2019. Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in Afffs and Afff-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(14), pp. 8068-8077. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01895 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01895]</ref>. Fluorosurfactants typically have a fully or partially fluorinated, hydrophobic tail with ionic (cationic, zwitterionic, or anionic) head group that is hydrophilic<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020"/>. The hydrophobic tail and ionic head group mean PFAS are very stable at hydrophobic adsorption interfaces when present in the aqueous phase<ref>Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs): Environmental Challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 20(3), pp. 192-212. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004]</ref>. Examples of these interfaces include naturally occurring organic matter in soils and the air-water interface in the vadose zone<ref>Schaefer, C.E., Culina, V., Nguyen, D., Field, J., 2019. Uptake of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances at the Air–Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), pp. 12442-12448. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04008 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04008]</ref><ref>Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air–Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348]</ref><ref>Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., 2019. Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the Air-Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 6(8), pp. 487-491. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355 doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355]</ref><ref>Li, F., Fang, X., Zhou, Z., Liao, X., Zou, J., Yuan, B., Sun, W., 2019. Adsorption of Perfluorinated Acids onto Soils: Kinetics, Isotherms, and Influences of Soil Properties. Science of The Total Environment, 649, pp. 504-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209]</ref><ref>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>. Their strong adsorption to both soil organic matter and the air-water interface is a major contributor to elevated concentrations of PFAS observed in the upper 5 feet of the soil column<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020"/><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024"/>. While several other PFAS partitioning processes exist<ref name="Brusseau2018"/>, adsorption to solid phase soils and air-water interfaces are the two primary processes present at nearly all PFAS sites<ref>Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035]</ref>. The total PFAS mass obtained from a vadose zone soil sample contains the solid phase, air-water interfacial, and aqueous phase PFAS mass, which can be converted to porewater concentrations using Equation 1<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>.</br>
 
−
:: <big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq1.png | 400 px]]</br>
 
−
Where ''C<sub>p</sub>'' is the porewater concentration, ''C<sub>t</sub>'' is the total PFAS concentration, ''ρ<sub>b</sub>'' is the bulk density of the soil, ''θ<sub>w</sub>'' is the volumetric water content, ''R<sub>d</sub>'' is the PFAS retardation factor, ''K<sub>d</sub>'' is the solid phase adsorption coefficient, ''K<sub>ia</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial adsorption coefficient, and ''A<sub>aw</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial area. The air-water interfacial area of the soil is primarily a function of both the soil properties and the degree of volumetric water saturation in the soil. There are several methods of estimating air-water interfacial areas including thermodynamic functions based on the soil moisture retention curve. However, the thermodynamic function has been shown to underestimate air-water interfacial area<ref name="Brusseau2023">Brusseau, M.L., 2023. Determining Air-Water Interfacial Areas for the Retention and Transport of PFAS and Other Interfacially Active Solutes in Unsaturated Porous Media. Science of The Total Environment, 884, Article 163730. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2023.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref>, and must typically be scaled using empirical scaling factors. An empirical method recently developed to estimate air-water interfacial area is presented in Equation 2<ref name="Brusseau2023"/>.</br>
 
−
:: <big>'''Equation 2:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq2.png | 400 px]]</br>
 
−
Where ''S<sub>w</sub>'' is the water phase saturation as a ratio of the water content over the volumetric soil porosity, and ''d<sub>50</sub>'' is the median grain diameter.
 
  
−
==Lysimeters Background==
+
*[[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>.
−
[[File: StultsFig1.png |thumb|600 px|Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2024<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>, which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2023<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/]]
 
−
Lysimeters,&nbsp;generally&nbsp;speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993"/>. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.
 
−
# <u>Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b):</u> These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
 
−
# <u>Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c):</u> These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves<ref name="Stannard1992"/><ref name="WintonWeber1996"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/><ref>van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. [https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x]</ref>. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
 
−
# <u>Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d):</u> Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.
 
  
−
==Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater==
+
*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.
−
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
 
−
|+Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
 
−
|-
 
−
!Site
 
−
!PFAS
 
−
!Field</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 
−
!Lab Core</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 
−
!Predicted</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
|Site A||PFOS||6.2 ± 3.4||3.0 ± 0.37||6.6 ± 3.3
 
−
|-
 
−
|Site B||PFOS||2.2 ± 2.0||0.78 ± 0.38||2.8
 
−
|-
 
−
|rowspan="3"|Site C||PFOS||13 ± 4.1||680 ± 460||164 ± 75
 
−
|-
 
−
|8:2 FTS||1.2 ± 0.46||52 ± 13||16 ± 6.0
 
−
|-
 
−
|PFHpS||0.36 ± 0.051||2.9 ± 2.0||5.9 ± 3.4
 
−
|}
 
−
[[File: StultsFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>]]
 
−
[[File: StultsFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>.]]
 
−
Schaefer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>&nbsp;measured&nbsp;PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.
 
  
−
Data from sites A and B showed reasonably good agreement (within ½ order of magnitude) for most PFAS measured in the systems. At site C, more hydrophobic constituents (> C6 PFAS) tended to have higher concentrations in the lab core than the field site while less hydrophobic constituents (< C6) had higher concentrations in the field than lab cores. Site D showed substantially greater (1 order of magnitude or more) PFAS concentrations measured in the laboratory-collected porewater sample compared to what was measured in the field lysimeters. This discrepancy for the Site D soil can likely be attributed to soil heterogeneity (as indicated by ground penetrating radar) and the fact that the soil consisted of back-filled materials rather than undisturbed native soils.
+
These various mechanisms collectively contribute to the improved performance of other active treatments when temperature is moderately increased by utilization of TISR®.
−
 
−
Site&nbsp;C&nbsp;showed&nbsp;elevated PFAS concentrations in the laboratory collected porewater for the more surface-active compounds. This increase was attributed to the soil wetting that occurred at the bench scale, which was reasonably described by the model shown in Equations 1 and 2 (see Table 1<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>). Equations 1 and 2 were also used to predict PFAS porewater concentrations (using porous cup lysimeters) in a highly instrumented test cell<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>(Figure 3). The ability to predict soil concentrations from recurring porewater samples is critical to the practical application of lysimeters in field settings<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>.
 
  
−
Results from suction lysimeters studies and field lysimeter studies show that PFAS concentrations in porewater predicted from soil concentrations using Equations 1 and 2 generally have reasonable agreement with measured ''in situ'' porewater data when air-water interfacial partitioning is considered. Results show that for less hydrophobic components like PFOA, the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption is less significant than for highly hydrophobic components like PFOS. The soil for the field lysimeter in Figure 3 was a sandy soil with a relatively low air-water interfacial area. The effect of air-water interfacial partitioning is expected to be much more significant for a greater range of PFAS in soils with high capillary pressure (i.e. silts/clays) with higher associated air-water interfacial areas<ref name="Brusseau2023"/><ref>Peng, S., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Air-Water Interfacial Area and Capillary Pressure: Porous-Medium Texture Effects and an Empirical Function. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(7), pp. 829-832. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515 doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515]</ref><ref>Brusseau, M.L., Peng, S., Schnaar, G., Costanza-Robinson, M.S., 2006. Relationships among Air-Water Interfacial Area, Capillary Pressure, and Water Saturation for a Sandy Porous Medium. Water Resources Research, 42(3), Article W03501, 5 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004058 doi: 10.1029/2005WR004058]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauEtAl2006.pdf | Free Access Article]]</ref>.
+
==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.  
  
−
==Summary and Recommendations==
+
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.
−
The majority of research with lysimeters for PFAS site investigations has been done using porous cup suction lysimeters<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. Porous cup suction lysimeters are advantageous because they can be routinely sampled or sampled after specific wetting or drying events much like groundwater wells. This sampling is easier and more efficient than routinely collecting soil samples from the same locations. Co-locating lysimeters with soil samples is important for establishing the baseline soil concentration levels at the lysimeter location and developing correlations between the soil concentrations and the mobile porewater concentration<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Appropriate standard operation procedures for lysimeter installation and operation have been established and have been reviewed in recent literature<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>. Lysimeters should typically be installed near the source area and just above the maximum groundwater level elevation to obtain accurate results of porewater concentrations year round. Depending upon the geology and vertical PFAS distribution in the soil, multilevel lysimeter installations should also be considered.
 
  
−
Results from several lysimeters studies across multiple field sites and modelling analysis has shown that lysimeters can produce reasonable results between field and laboratory studies<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/>. Transient effects of wetting and drying as well as media heterogeneity affects appear to be responsible for some variability and uncertainty in lysimeter based PFAS measurements in the vadose zone. These mobile porewater concentrations can be coupled with effective recharge estimates and simplified modelling approaches to determine mass flux from the vadose zone to the underlying groundwater<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024"/><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/><ref>Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., MacBeth, T., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Laboratory Validation of a Simplified Model for Estimating Equilibrium PFAS Mass Leaching from Unsaturated Soils. Science of The Total Environment, 970, Article 179036. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036]</ref><ref>Smith, J. Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2024. An Integrated Analytical Modeling Framework for Determining Site-Specific Soil Screening Levels for PFAS. Water Research, 252, Article121236. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236]</ref>.
+
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.  
  
−
Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:
+
==Summary==
−
#<u>Collect larger datasets of PFAS concentrations</u> to determine how transient wetting or drying periods and media type affect PFAS concentrations in the mobile porewater. Some research has shown that non-equilibrium processes can occur in the vadose zone, which can affect grab sample concentration in the porewater at specific time periods.  
+
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.
−
#<u>More work should be done with flux averaging lysimeters</u> like the drainage cup or wicking lysimeter. These lysimeters can directly measure net recharge and provide time averaged concentrations of PFAS in water over the sampling period. However, there is little work detailing their potential applications in PFAS research, or operational considerations for their use in remedial investigations for PFAS.
+
<br clear="right"/>
−
#<u>Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying</u> in the vadose zone using ''in situ'' soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
 
−
#<u>Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data</u> are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 80: 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"