Enviro Wiki - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2026-04-04T00:48:35Z

Admin:

* navigation
** mainpage|mainpage-description
** Articles|Articles
** Editorial Policy|Editorial Policy
** https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSce_Y9wp_LE8OJtylUhtfuNORF8ssKxYe_xeyqTaXLDOSrC3g/viewform?usp=sf_link|FeedBack
// ** https://www.serdp-estcp.org/|SERDP/ESTCP
* Topic Categories
** Transport & Attenuation Processes|Transport & Attenuation Processes
** Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring|Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring
// ** Climate Change Primer|Climate Change
** Coastal and Estuarine Ecology|Coastal and Estuarine Ecology
** Contaminated Sediments - Introduction|Contaminated Sediments
** Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)|Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)
** Munitions Constituents|Munitions Constituents
** Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)|Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)
** Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)|Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
** Regulatory Issues and Site Management|Regulatory Issues and Site Management
** Remediation Technologies|Remediation Technologies
** Soil & Groundwater Contaminants|Soil & Groundwater Contaminants
* SEARCH
* TOOLBOX
** UPLOAD|upload
** PRINT|printableversion
* LANGUAGES
* Admin Tools
** Contributors|Contributors
** helppage|help

Articles

2026-03-13T21:31:29Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Title!!First Author!!Linking Phrases
|-
|[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||passive sampling, no purge sampling, grab samplers, diffusion samplers, sorptive samplers
|-
|[[ Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||long-term monitoring, LTM, LTM objectives, LTM programs, LTM challenges
|-
|[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
|[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|PFAS, MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]||[[Richelle Allen-King|Allen-King, Richelle]]||
|-
|[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
|[[Dr. Richard Anderson|Anderson, Richard, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS, fate and transport
|-
|[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]||[[Dr. Michael Annable, P.E. |Annable, Michael, Ph.D., P.E.]]||source reduction
|-
|[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
|[[Jennifer Arblaster|Arblaster, Jennifer]]
|PFAS, toxicology, risk assessment
|-
|[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]|| Dr. Amanda Barker |[[Dr. Amanda Barker|Barker, Amanda, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis|Munitions Constituents - Photolysis]]
|[[Dr. Warren Kadoya|Kadoya, Warren, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Samuel Beal|Beal, Samuel, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
|[[Lila Beckley|Beckley, Lila]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
|[[Dr. Barbara Bekins|Bekins, Barbara, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||secondary impacts, water quality (in regards to anaerobic conditions)
|-
|[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||aquifer acidity, base addition
|-
|[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
|[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||
|-
|[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||low pH inhibition
|-
|[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)]]||Burton, Allen, P.E.||toxicity evaluation
|-
|[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]
|[[Dr. Grace Chang|Chang, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Brian P. Chaplin|Chaplin, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|munitions constituents remediation
|-
|[[PFAS Sources]]
|[[Dr. Dora Chiang|Chiang, Dora, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]||[[Dr. Kung-Hui (Bella) Chu |Chu, Kung-Hui (Bella), Ph.D]]||cometabolic biodegradation
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Composting]]
|[[Harry Craig|Craig, Harry]]
|
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||ISCO, chemical oxidation
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||chemical oxidant, oxidant (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||screening, design, implementation, oxidant delivery (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]||[[Dr. Rula Deeb |Deeb, Rula, Ph.D.]]||PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal contaminant(s), metalloid contaminant(s), metal(s), metalloid(s),
|-
|[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal mobility, aqueous speciation, adsorption, precipitation, colloidal transport (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||MNA, attenuation of metal(s), natural attenuation processes, attenuation (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||remediation, in situ technologies, contaminant removal (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||ph buffer, natural pH buffer, engineered pH buffer
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption]]||[[Dr. Katerina Dontsova |Dontsova, Katerina, Ph.D.]]||energetics, sorption
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]||[[Dr. Elizabeth Edwards |Edwards, Elizabeth, Ph.D.]]||hydrocarbon, biodegradation
|-
|[[Source Zone Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||source zone modeling
|-
|[[Plume Response Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||plume response modeling
|-
|[[REMChlor - MD]]
|[[Dr. Ron Falta|Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Dimin Fan|Fan, Dimin, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]||[[Dr. Shahla Farhat |Farhat, Shahla, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Sustainable Remediation]]||[[Paul Favara |Favara, Paul]]||sustainable remediation, social, economic and environmental impacts
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents]]||[[Dr. Kevin Finneran |Finneran, Kevin, Ph.D.]]||Explosives, energetics, insensitive munitions
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]||[[Dr. David Freedman |Freedman, David, Ph.D.]]||biotic reduction, biotic reductive processes, hydrogenolysis, dihaloelimination, coupling, organohalide respiration
|-
|[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Remediation of Stormwater Runoff]]||Fuller, Mark, Ph.D.||energetics, insensitive munitions, stormwater runoff
|-
|[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]||[[Jeff Gamlin |Gamlin, Jeff]]||SBGR, subgrade biogeochemical reactor, bioreactor
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering]]||[[Dr. Jason Gerhard |Gerhard, Jason, Ph.D.]]||smouldering remediation, self-sustaining treatment for active remediation, STAR
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
|[[Richard Wenning|Wenning, Richard]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Scott Grieco |Grieco, Scott, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Stream Restoration]]
|[[Dr. Natalie Griffiths|Griffiths, Natalie, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend|Gschwend, Philip]]
|
|-
|[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]
|[[Dr. Nathan Hall|Hall, Nathan]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]||[[James_Hatton |Hatton, Jim]]||PFAS, Soil source zones
|-
|[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
|[[Dr. Kate Kucharzyk|Kucharzyk, Kate, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
|[[Paul Hatzinger|Hatzinger, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Alternative Endpoints]]||[[Elisabeth Hawley |Hawley, Elisabeth]]||management of complex sites||
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, in situ thermal
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Steam]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Steam Enhanced Extraction
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Electrical Resistance Heating
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal desorption
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, PFAS
|-
|[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
|[[Dr. Brian Hudgens|Hudgens, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|climate change
|-
|[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
|[[Dr. John Hummel|Hummel, John, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|Munitions Constituents - TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling]]||[[Dr. Billy E. Johnson |Johnson, Billy, Ph.D.]]||munitions constituents fate and transport modeling, TREECS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
|[[Jared Johnson|Johnson, Jared]]
|
|-
|[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]
|[[Dr. Paul C. Johnson|Johnson, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology]]||-----||insensitive explosives, insensitive munitions, IMX-101, IMX
|-
|[[Landfarming]]
|[[Dr. Roopa Kamath|Kamath, Roopa, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[NAPL Mobility]]
|[[Andrew Kirkman|Kirkman, Andrew]]
|
|-
|[[Climate Change Primer]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Perchlorate]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||perchlorate
|-
|[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||amendment injection
|-
|[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
|[[Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang|Lang, Johnsie Ray, Ph.D.]]||PFAS
|
|-
|[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
|[[Dr. Gaisheng Liu|Liu, Gaisheng, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]||[[Dr. Barbara Sherwood Lollar, F.R.S.C. |Lollar, Barbara S., FRSC]]||Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Passive Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Guilherme Lotufo|Lotufo, Guilerme, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]||[[Chris Lutes |Lutes, Chris]]||vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||anaerobic bioremediation
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||
|-
|[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Dr. Shaily Mahendra|Mahendra, Shaily, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push, DP, DP machines, DP technology
|-
|[[Direct Push Sampling]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push sampling, soil sampling, groundwater sampling, well installation, soil vapor sampling (in regards to DP)
|-
|[[Direct Push Logging]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push logging, Cone Penetration Testing, CPT, Electrical Conductivity, EC, Hydraulic Profiling Tool, HPT, Membrane Interface Probe, MIP, Optical Imaging Profiler, OIP
|-
|[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]||[[Travis McGuire|McGuire, Travis]]||multi-site studies
|-
|[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data analysis, analysis methods (in regards to LTM)
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data variability (in regards to LTM), LTM evaluation
|-
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction]]||[[Dr. Jimmy Murillo-Gelvez |Murillo-Gelvez, Jimmy, Ph.D.]]
|-
|[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
|Nagar, Kobe
|
|-
|[[Matrix Diffusion]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]||[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]||groundwater flow, advection, dispersion, diffusion, molecular diffusion, mechanical dispersion
|-
|[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||MBT, Molecular Biological Tool(s)
|-
|[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||qPCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction
|-
|[[Sediment Capping]]
|[[Dr. Danny Reible|Reible, Danny]]
|
|-
|[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||SIP, Stable Isotope Probing
|-
|[[Metagenomics]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||metagenomics
|-
|[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]||[[Tom Palaia |Palaia, Tom]]||natural source zone depletion, NSZD
|-
|[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
|[[Dr. Breanna F. Powers|Powers, Breanna, PhD.]]
|
|-
|[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH(s)
|-
|[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
|[[Florent Risacher|Risacher, Florent, M.Sc.]]
|
|-
|[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||TCP, trichloropropane
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||ZVI
|-
|[[Mercury in Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Grace Schwartz|Schwartz, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Munitions Constituents - Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
|[[Dr. Austin Scircle|Scircle, Austin]]
|
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
|[[Dr. Timothy J. Strathmann|Strathmann, Timothy, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution]]||[[Dr. Susan Taylor |Taylor, Susan, Ph.D.]]||explosive(s), dissolution,
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
|[[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard|Thagard, Selma Mededovic, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]
|Thierry, Hugo, Ph.D.
|climate change, invasive species, restoration ecology
|-
|[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Paul Tratnyek |Tratnyek, Paul, Ph.D.]]||In Situ Chemical Reduction, ISCR
|-
|[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||viscosity, viscosity modifiers, viscosity modification
|-
|[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||soil vapor extraction, SVE
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition]]||[[Michael R. Walsh, P.E., M.E.|Walsh, Michael, P.E.]]||explosive deposition, energetics deposition
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
|[[Dr. James Weaver|Weaver, James, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
|[[Dr. Richard Wilkin|Wilkin, Rick, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, In Situ MNA, natural attenuation, natural attenuation processes
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel components)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to chlorinated solvents)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies]]
|[[Dr. John Wilson|Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]
|MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E. |Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]||chlorinated solvents
|-
|[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
|[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E.|Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)
|-
|[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
|[[Dr. Suzanne Witt|Witt, Suzanne, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS destruction
|
|-
|[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
|[[Dr. Lee Slater|Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]
|geophysics, hydrogeophysical methods,
|
|-
|[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
|[[Dr. Brian Pinkard|Pinkard, Brian]]
|
|-
|[[1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Matthew Zenker|Zenker, Matthew]]
|
|-
|[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
|[[Dr. John F. Stults|Stults, Dr. John]]
|PFAS, vadose zone, lysimeter, field investigation
|
|-
|[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]||[[Dr. Yida Fang |Fang, Yida, Ph.D.]]||PFAS destruction
|
|-
|}

Articles

2026-03-13T21:29:10Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Title!!First Author!!Linking Phrases
|-
|[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||passive sampling, no purge sampling, grab samplers, diffusion samplers, sorptive samplers
|-
|[[ Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||long-term monitoring, LTM, LTM objectives, LTM programs, LTM challenges
|-
|[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
|[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|PFAS, MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]||[[Richelle Allen-King|Allen-King, Richelle]]||
|-
|[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
|[[Dr. Richard Anderson|Anderson, Richard, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS, fate and transport
|-
|[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]||[[Dr. Michael Annable, P.E. |Annable, Michael, Ph.D., P.E.]]||source reduction
|-
|[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
|[[Jennifer Arblaster|Arblaster, Jennifer]]
|PFAS, toxicology, risk assessment
|-
|[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]|| Dr. Amanda Barker |[[Dr. Amanda Barker|Barker, Amanda, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis|Munitions Constituents - Photolysis]]
|[[Dr. Warren Kadoya|Kadoya, Warren, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Samuel Beal|Beal, Samuel, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
|[[Lila Beckley|Beckley, Lila]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
|[[Dr. Barbara Bekins|Bekins, Barbara, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||secondary impacts, water quality (in regards to anaerobic conditions)
|-
|[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||aquifer acidity, base addition
|-
|[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
|[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||
|-
|[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||low pH inhibition
|-
|[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)]]||Burton, Allen, P.E.||toxicity evaluation
|-
|[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]
|[[Dr. Grace Chang|Chang, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Brian P. Chaplin|Chaplin, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|munitions constituents remediation
|-
|[[PFAS Sources]]
|[[Dr. Dora Chiang|Chiang, Dora, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]||[[Dr. Kung-Hui (Bella) Chu |Chu, Kung-Hui (Bella), Ph.D]]||cometabolic biodegradation
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Composting]]
|[[Harry Craig|Craig, Harry]]
|
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||ISCO, chemical oxidation
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||chemical oxidant, oxidant (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||screening, design, implementation, oxidant delivery (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]||[[Dr. Rula Deeb |Deeb, Rula, Ph.D.]]||PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal contaminant(s), metalloid contaminant(s), metal(s), metalloid(s),
|-
|[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal mobility, aqueous speciation, adsorption, precipitation, colloidal transport (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||MNA, attenuation of metal(s), natural attenuation processes, attenuation (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||remediation, in situ technologies, contaminant removal (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||ph buffer, natural pH buffer, engineered pH buffer
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption]]||[[Dr. Katerina Dontsova |Dontsova, Katerina, Ph.D.]]||energetics, sorption
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]||[[Dr. Elizabeth Edwards |Edwards, Elizabeth, Ph.D.]]||hydrocarbon, biodegradation
|-
|[[Source Zone Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||source zone modeling
|-
|[[Plume Response Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||plume response modeling
|-
|[[REMChlor - MD]]
|[[Dr. Ron Falta|Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Dimin Fan|Fan, Dimin, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]||[[Dr. Shahla Farhat |Farhat, Shahla, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Sustainable Remediation]]||[[Paul Favara |Favara, Paul]]||sustainable remediation, social, economic and environmental impacts
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents]]||[[Dr. Kevin Finneran |Finneran, Kevin, Ph.D.]]||Explosives, energetics, insensitive munitions
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]||[[Dr. David Freedman |Freedman, David, Ph.D.]]||biotic reduction, biotic reductive processes, hydrogenolysis, dihaloelimination, coupling, organohalide respiration
|-
|[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Remediation of Stormwater Runoff]]||Fuller, Mark, Ph.D.||energetics, insensitive munitions, stormwater runoff
|-
|[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]||[[Jeff Gamlin |Gamlin, Jeff]]||SBGR, subgrade biogeochemical reactor, bioreactor
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering]]||[[Dr. Jason Gerhard |Gerhard, Jason, Ph.D.]]||smouldering remediation, self-sustaining treatment for active remediation, STAR
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
|[[Richard Wenning|Wenning, Richard]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Scott Grieco |Grieco, Scott, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Stream Restoration]]
|[[Dr. Natalie Griffiths|Griffiths, Natalie, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend|Gschwend, Philip]]
|
|-
|[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]
|[[Dr. Nathan Hall|Hall, Nathan]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]||[[James_Hatton |Hatton, Jim]]||PFAS, Soil source zones
|-
|[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
|[[Dr. Kate Kucharzyk|Kucharzyk, Kate, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
|[[Paul Hatzinger|Hatzinger, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Alternative Endpoints]]||[[Elisabeth Hawley |Hawley, Elisabeth]]||management of complex sites||
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, in situ thermal
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Steam]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Steam Enhanced Extraction
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Electrical Resistance Heating
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal desorption
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, PFAS
|-
|[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
|[[Dr. Brian Hudgens|Hudgens, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|climate change
|-
|[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
|[[Dr. John Hummel|Hummel, John, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|Munitions Constituents - TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling]]||[[Dr. Billy E. Johnson |Johnson, Billy, Ph.D.]]||munitions constituents fate and transport modeling, TREECS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
|[[Jared Johnson|Johnson, Jared]]
|
|-
|[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]
|[[Dr. Paul C. Johnson|Johnson, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology]]||-----||insensitive explosives, insensitive munitions, IMX-101, IMX
|-
|[[Landfarming]]
|[[Dr. Roopa Kamath|Kamath, Roopa, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[NAPL Mobility]]
|[[Andrew Kirkman|Kirkman, Andrew]]
|
|-
|[[Climate Change Primer]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Perchlorate]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||perchlorate
|-
|[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||amendment injection
|-
|[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
|[[Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang|Lang, Johnsie Ray, Ph.D.]]||PFAS
|
|-
|[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
|[[Dr. Gaisheng Liu|Liu, Gaisheng, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]||[[Dr. Barbara Sherwood Lollar, F.R.S.C. |Lollar, Barbara S., FRSC]]||Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Passive Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Guilherme Lotufo|Lotufo, Guilerme, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]||[[Chris Lutes |Lutes, Chris]]||vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||anaerobic bioremediation
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||
|-
|[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Dr. Shaily Mahendra|Mahendra, Shaily, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push, DP, DP machines, DP technology
|-
|[[Direct Push Sampling]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push sampling, soil sampling, groundwater sampling, well installation, soil vapor sampling (in regards to DP)
|-
|[[Direct Push Logging]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push logging, Cone Penetration Testing, CPT, Electrical Conductivity, EC, Hydraulic Profiling Tool, HPT, Membrane Interface Probe, MIP, Optical Imaging Profiler, OIP
|-
|[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]||[[Travis McGuire|McGuire, Travis]]||multi-site studies
|-
|[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data analysis, analysis methods (in regards to LTM)
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data variability (in regards to LTM), LTM evaluation
|-
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction]]||[[Dr. Jimmy Murillo-Gelvez |Murillo-Gelvez, Jimmy, Ph.D.]]
|-
|[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
|Nagar, Kobe
|
|-
|[[Matrix Diffusion]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]||[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]||groundwater flow, advection, dispersion, diffusion, molecular diffusion, mechanical dispersion
|-
|[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||MBT, Molecular Biological Tool(s)
|-
|[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||qPCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction
|-
|[[Sediment Capping]]
|[[Dr. Danny Reible|Reible, Danny]]
|
|-
|[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||SIP, Stable Isotope Probing
|-
|[[Metagenomics]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||metagenomics
|-
|[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]||[[Tom Palaia |Palaia, Tom]]||natural source zone depletion, NSZD
|-
|[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
|[[Dr. Breanna F. Powers|Powers, Breanna, PhD.]]
|
|-
|[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH(s)
|-
|[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
|[[Florent Risacher|Risacher, Florent, M.Sc.]]
|
|-
|[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||TCP, trichloropropane
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||ZVI
|-
|[[Mercury in Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Grace Schwartz|Schwartz, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Munitions Constituents - Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
|[[Dr. Austin Scircle|Scircle, Austin]]
|
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
|[[Dr. Timothy J. Strathmann|Strathmann, Timothy, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution]]||[[Dr. Susan Taylor |Taylor, Susan, Ph.D.]]||explosive(s), dissolution,
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
|[[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard|Thagard, Selma Mededovic, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]
|Thierry, Hugo, Ph.D.
|climate change, invasive species, restoration ecology
|-
|[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Paul Tratnyek |Tratnyek, Paul, Ph.D.]]||In Situ Chemical Reduction, ISCR
|-
|[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||viscosity, viscosity modifiers, viscosity modification
|-
|[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||soil vapor extraction, SVE
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition]]||[[Michael R. Walsh, P.E., M.E.|Walsh, Michael, P.E.]]||explosive deposition, energetics deposition
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
|[[Dr. James Weaver|Weaver, James, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
|[[Dr. Richard Wilkin|Wilkin, Rick, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, In Situ MNA, natural attenuation, natural attenuation processes
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel components)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to chlorinated solvents)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies]]
|[[Dr. John Wilson|Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]
|MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E. |Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]||chlorinated solvents
|-
|[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
|[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E.|Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)
|-
|[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
|[[Dr. Suzanne Witt|Witt, Suzanne, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|
|-
|[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
|[[Dr. Lee Slater|Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]
|geophysics, hydrogeophysical methods,
|
|-
|[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
|[[Dr. Brian Pinkard|Pinkard, Brian]]
|
|-
|[[1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Matthew Zenker|Zenker, Matthew]]
|
|-
|[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
|[[Dr. John F. Stults|Stults, Dr. John]]
|PFAS, vadose zone, lysimeter, field investigation
|
|-
|[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]||[[Dr. Yida Fang |Fang, Yida, Ph.D.]]||
|
|-
|}

Articles

2026-03-13T21:25:52Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Title!!First Author!!Linking Phrases
|-
|[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||passive sampling, no purge sampling, grab samplers, diffusion samplers, sorptive samplers
|-
|[[ Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||long-term monitoring, LTM, LTM objectives, LTM programs, LTM challenges
|-
|[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
|[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|PFAS, MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]||[[Richelle Allen-King|Allen-King, Richelle]]||
|-
|[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
|[[Dr. Richard Anderson|Anderson, Richard, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS, fate and transport
|-
|[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]||[[Dr. Michael Annable, P.E. |Annable, Michael, Ph.D., P.E.]]||source reduction
|-
|[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
|[[Jennifer Arblaster|Arblaster, Jennifer]]
|PFAS, toxicology, risk assessment
|-
|[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]|| Dr. Amanda Barker |[[Dr. Amanda Barker|Barker, Amanda, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis|Munitions Constituents - Photolysis]]
|[[Dr. Warren Kadoya|Kadoya, Warren, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Samuel Beal|Beal, Samuel, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
|[[Lila Beckley|Beckley, Lila]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
|[[Dr. Barbara Bekins|Bekins, Barbara, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||secondary impacts, water quality (in regards to anaerobic conditions)
|-
|[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||aquifer acidity, base addition
|-
|[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
|[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||
|-
|[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||low pH inhibition
|-
|[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)]]||[[Burton, Allen, P.E.]]||toxicity evaluation
|-
|[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]
|[[Dr. Grace Chang|Chang, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Brian P. Chaplin|Chaplin, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|munitions constituents remediation
|-
|[[PFAS Sources]]
|[[Dr. Dora Chiang|Chiang, Dora, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]||[[Dr. Kung-Hui (Bella) Chu |Chu, Kung-Hui (Bella), Ph.D]]||cometabolic biodegradation
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Composting]]
|[[Harry Craig|Craig, Harry]]
|
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||ISCO, chemical oxidation
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||chemical oxidant, oxidant (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||screening, design, implementation, oxidant delivery (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]||[[Dr. Rula Deeb |Deeb, Rula, Ph.D.]]||PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal contaminant(s), metalloid contaminant(s), metal(s), metalloid(s),
|-
|[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal mobility, aqueous speciation, adsorption, precipitation, colloidal transport (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||MNA, attenuation of metal(s), natural attenuation processes, attenuation (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||remediation, in situ technologies, contaminant removal (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||ph buffer, natural pH buffer, engineered pH buffer
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption]]||[[Dr. Katerina Dontsova |Dontsova, Katerina, Ph.D.]]||energetics, sorption
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]||[[Dr. Elizabeth Edwards |Edwards, Elizabeth, Ph.D.]]||hydrocarbon, biodegradation
|-
|[[Source Zone Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||source zone modeling
|-
|[[Plume Response Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||plume response modeling
|-
|[[REMChlor - MD]]
|[[Dr. Ron Falta|Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Dimin Fan|Fan, Dimin, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]||[[Dr. Shahla Farhat |Farhat, Shahla, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Sustainable Remediation]]||[[Paul Favara |Favara, Paul]]||sustainable remediation, social, economic and environmental impacts
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents]]||[[Dr. Kevin Finneran |Finneran, Kevin, Ph.D.]]||Explosives, energetics, insensitive munitions
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]||[[Dr. David Freedman |Freedman, David, Ph.D.]]||biotic reduction, biotic reductive processes, hydrogenolysis, dihaloelimination, coupling, organohalide respiration
|-
|[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Remediation of Stormwater Runoff]]||Fuller, Mark, Ph.D.||energetics, insensitive munitions, stormwater runoff
|-
|[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]||[[Jeff Gamlin |Gamlin, Jeff]]||SBGR, subgrade biogeochemical reactor, bioreactor
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering]]||[[Dr. Jason Gerhard |Gerhard, Jason, Ph.D.]]||smouldering remediation, self-sustaining treatment for active remediation, STAR
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
|[[Richard Wenning|Wenning, Richard]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Scott Grieco |Grieco, Scott, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Stream Restoration]]
|[[Dr. Natalie Griffiths|Griffiths, Natalie, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend|Gschwend, Philip]]
|
|-
|[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]
|[[Dr. Nathan Hall|Hall, Nathan]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]||[[James_Hatton |Hatton, Jim]]||PFAS, Soil source zones
|-
|[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
|[[Dr. Kate Kucharzyk|Kucharzyk, Kate, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
|[[Paul Hatzinger|Hatzinger, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Alternative Endpoints]]||[[Elisabeth Hawley |Hawley, Elisabeth]]||management of complex sites||
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, in situ thermal
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Steam]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Steam Enhanced Extraction
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Electrical Resistance Heating
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal desorption
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, PFAS
|-
|[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
|[[Dr. Brian Hudgens|Hudgens, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|climate change
|-
|[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
|[[Dr. John Hummel|Hummel, John, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|Munitions Constituents - TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling]]||[[Dr. Billy E. Johnson |Johnson, Billy, Ph.D.]]||munitions constituents fate and transport modeling, TREECS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
|[[Jared Johnson|Johnson, Jared]]
|
|-
|[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]
|[[Dr. Paul C. Johnson|Johnson, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology]]||-----||insensitive explosives, insensitive munitions, IMX-101, IMX
|-
|[[Landfarming]]
|[[Dr. Roopa Kamath|Kamath, Roopa, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[NAPL Mobility]]
|[[Andrew Kirkman|Kirkman, Andrew]]
|
|-
|[[Climate Change Primer]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Perchlorate]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||perchlorate
|-
|[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||amendment injection
|-
|[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
|[[Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang|Lang, Johnsie Ray, Ph.D.]]||PFAS
|
|-
|[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
|[[Dr. Gaisheng Liu|Liu, Gaisheng, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]||[[Dr. Barbara Sherwood Lollar, F.R.S.C. |Lollar, Barbara S., FRSC]]||Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Passive Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Guilherme Lotufo|Lotufo, Guilerme, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]||[[Chris Lutes |Lutes, Chris]]||vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||anaerobic bioremediation
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||
|-
|[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Dr. Shaily Mahendra|Mahendra, Shaily, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push, DP, DP machines, DP technology
|-
|[[Direct Push Sampling]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push sampling, soil sampling, groundwater sampling, well installation, soil vapor sampling (in regards to DP)
|-
|[[Direct Push Logging]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push logging, Cone Penetration Testing, CPT, Electrical Conductivity, EC, Hydraulic Profiling Tool, HPT, Membrane Interface Probe, MIP, Optical Imaging Profiler, OIP
|-
|[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]||[[Travis McGuire|McGuire, Travis]]||multi-site studies
|-
|[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data analysis, analysis methods (in regards to LTM)
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data variability (in regards to LTM), LTM evaluation
|-
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction]]||[[Dr. Jimmy Murillo-Gelvez |Murillo-Gelvez, Jimmy, Ph.D.]]
|-
|[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
|Nagar, Kobe
|
|-
|[[Matrix Diffusion]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]||[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]||groundwater flow, advection, dispersion, diffusion, molecular diffusion, mechanical dispersion
|-
|[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||MBT, Molecular Biological Tool(s)
|-
|[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||qPCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction
|-
|[[Sediment Capping]]
|[[Dr. Danny Reible|Reible, Danny]]
|
|-
|[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||SIP, Stable Isotope Probing
|-
|[[Metagenomics]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||Metagenomics
|-
|[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]||[[Tom Palaia |Palaia, Tom]]||natural source zone depletion, NSZD
|-
|[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
|[[Dr. Breanna F. Powers|Powers, Breanna, PhD.]]
|
|-
|[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, PAH(s)
|-
|[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
|[[Florent Risacher|Risacher, Florent, M.Sc.]]
|
|-
|[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||TCP, trichloropropane
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||ZVI
|-
|[[Mercury in Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Grace Schwartz|Schwartz, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Munitions Constituents - Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
|[[Dr. Austin Scircle|Scircle, Austin]]
|
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
|[[Dr. Timothy J. Strathmann|Strathmann, Timothy, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution]]||[[Dr. Susan Taylor |Taylor, Susan, Ph.D.]]||explosive(s), dissolution,
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
|[[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard|Thagard, Selma Mededovic, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]
|Thierry, Hugo, Ph.D.
|climate change, invasive species, restoration ecology
|-
|[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Paul Tratnyek |Tratnyek, Paul, Ph.D.]]||In Situ Chemical Reduction, ISCR
|-
|[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||viscosity, viscosity modifiers, viscosity modification
|-
|[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||soil vapor extraction, SVE
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition]]||[[Michael R. Walsh, P.E., M.E.|Walsh, Michael, P.E.]]||explosive deposition, energetics deposition
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
|[[Dr. James Weaver|Weaver, James, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
|[[Dr. Richard Wilkin|Wilkin, Rick, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, In Situ MNA, natural attenuation, natural attenuation processes
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel components)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to chlorinated solvents)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies]]
|[[Dr. John Wilson|Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]
|MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E. |Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]||chlorinated solvents
|-
|[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
|[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E.|Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)
|-
|[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
|[[Dr. Suzanne Witt|Witt, Suzanne, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|
|-
|[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
|[[Dr. Lee Slater|Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]
|geophysics, hydrogeophysical methods,
|
|-
|[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
|[[Dr. Brian Pinkard|Pinkard, Brian]]
|
|-
|[[1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Matthew Zenker|Zenker, Matthew]]
|
|-
|[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
|[[Dr. John F. Stults|Stults, Dr. John]]
|PFAS, vadose zone, lysimeter, field investigation
|
|-
|[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]||[[Dr. Yida Fang |Fang, Yida, Ph.D.]]||
|
|-
|}

Articles

2026-03-13T21:23:40Z

Admin:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Title!!First Author!!Linking Phrases
|-
|[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||passive sampling, no purge sampling, grab samplers, diffusion samplers, sorptive samplers
|-
|[[ Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]||[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]||long-term monitoring, LTM, LTM objectives, LTM programs, LTM challenges
|-
|[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
|[[Dr. David Adamson, P.E. |Adamson, David, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|PFAS, MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]||[[Richelle Allen-King|Allen-King, Richelle]]||
|-
|[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
|[[Dr. Richard Anderson|Anderson, Richard, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS, fate and transport
|-
|[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]||[[Dr. Michael Annable, P.E. |Annable, Michael, Ph.D., P.E.]]||source reduction
|-
|[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
|[[Jennifer Arblaster|Arblaster, Jennifer]]
|PFAS, toxicology, risk assessment
|-
|[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]|| Dr. Amanda Barker |[[Dr. Amanda Barker|Barker, Amanda, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis|Munitions Constituents - Photolysis]]
|[[Dr. Warren Kadoya|Kadoya, Warren, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Samuel Beal|Beal, Samuel, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
|[[Lila Beckley|Beckley, Lila]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
|[[Dr. Barbara Bekins|Bekins, Barbara, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||secondary impacts, water quality (in regards to anaerobic conditions)
|-
|[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||aquifer acidity, base addition
|-
|[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
|[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||
|-
|[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]||[[Dr. G. Allen Burton]]||toxicity evaluation
|-
|[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)]]||[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E. |Borden, Robert, Ph.D., P.E.]]||low pH inhibition
|-
|[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]
|[[Dr. Grace Chang|Chang, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Brian P. Chaplin|Chaplin, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|munitions constituents remediation
|-
|[[PFAS Sources]]
|[[Dr. Dora Chiang|Chiang, Dora, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]||[[Dr. Kung-Hui (Bella) Chu |Chu, Kung-Hui (Bella), Ph.D]]||cometabolic biodegradation
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Composting]]
|[[Harry Craig|Craig, Harry]]
|
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||ISCO, chemical oxidation
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||chemical oxidant, oxidant (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)]]||[[Dr. Michelle Crimi |Crimi, Michelle, Ph.D]]||screening, design, implementation, oxidant delivery (in regards to ISCO)
|-
|[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]||[[Dr. Rula Deeb |Deeb, Rula, Ph.D.]]||PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal contaminant(s), metalloid contaminant(s), metal(s), metalloid(s),
|-
|[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||metal mobility, aqueous speciation, adsorption, precipitation, colloidal transport (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||MNA, attenuation of metal(s), natural attenuation processes, attenuation (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||remediation, in situ technologies, contaminant removal (in regards to metals)
|-
|[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]||[[Dr. Miles Denham |Denham, Miles, Ph.D.]]||ph buffer, natural pH buffer, engineered pH buffer
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption]]||[[Dr. Katerina Dontsova |Dontsova, Katerina, Ph.D.]]||energetics, sorption
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]||[[Dr. Elizabeth Edwards |Edwards, Elizabeth, Ph.D.]]||hydrocarbon, biodegradation
|-
|[[Source Zone Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||source zone modeling
|-
|[[Plume Response Modeling]]||[[Dr. Ron Falta |Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]||plume response modeling
|-
|[[REMChlor - MD]]
|[[Dr. Ron Falta|Falta, Ron, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Dimin Fan|Fan, Dimin, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]||[[Dr. Shahla Farhat |Farhat, Shahla, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Sustainable Remediation]]||[[Paul Favara |Favara, Paul]]||sustainable remediation, social, economic and environmental impacts
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents]]||[[Dr. Kevin Finneran |Finneran, Kevin, Ph.D.]]||Explosives, energetics, insensitive munitions
|-
|[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]||[[Dr. David Freedman |Freedman, David, Ph.D.]]||biotic reduction, biotic reductive processes, hydrogenolysis, dihaloelimination, coupling, organohalide respiration
|-
|[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Remediation of Stormwater Runoff]]||Fuller, Mark, Ph.D.||energetics, insensitive munitions, stormwater runoff
|-
|[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]||[[Jeff Gamlin |Gamlin, Jeff]]||SBGR, subgrade biogeochemical reactor, bioreactor
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering]]||[[Dr. Jason Gerhard |Gerhard, Jason, Ph.D.]]||smouldering remediation, self-sustaining treatment for active remediation, STAR
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
|[[Richard Wenning|Wenning, Richard]]
|
|-
|[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
|[[Dr. Upal Ghosh|Ghosh, Upal, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
|[[Dr. Scott Grieco |Grieco, Scott, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Stream Restoration]]
|[[Dr. Natalie Griffiths|Griffiths, Natalie, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend|Gschwend, Philip]]
|
|-
|[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]
|[[Dr. Nathan Hall|Hall, Nathan]]
|
|-
|[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]||[[James_Hatton |Hatton, Jim]]||PFAS, Soil source zones
|-
|[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
|[[Dr. Kate Kucharzyk|Kucharzyk, Kate, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
|[[Paul Hatzinger|Hatzinger, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Alternative Endpoints]]||[[Elisabeth Hawley |Hawley, Elisabeth]]||management of complex sites||
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, in situ thermal
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Steam]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Steam Enhanced Extraction
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||Electrical Resistance Heating
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal desorption
|-
|[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation
|-
|[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]||[[Dr. Gorm Heron |Heron, Gorm, Ph.D.]]||thermal remediation, PFAS
|-
|[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
|[[Dr. Brian Hudgens|Hudgens, Brian, Ph.D.]]
|climate change
|-
|[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
|[[Dr. John Hummel|Hummel, John, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|Munitions Constituents - TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling]]||[[Dr. Billy E. Johnson |Johnson, Billy, Ph.D.]]||munitions constituents fate and transport modeling, TREECS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
|[[Jared Johnson|Johnson, Jared]]
|
|-
|[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]
|[[Dr. Paul C. Johnson|Johnson, Paul, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology]]||-----||insensitive explosives, insensitive munitions, IMX-101, IMX
|-
|[[Landfarming]]
|[[Dr. Roopa Kamath|Kamath, Roopa, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[NAPL Mobility]]
|[[Andrew Kirkman|Kirkman, Andrew]]
|
|-
|[[Climate Change Primer]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Perchlorate]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||perchlorate
|-
|[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]||[[Thomas Krug |Krug, Thomas]]||amendment injection
|-
|[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
|[[Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang|Lang, Johnsie Ray, Ph.D.]]||PFAS
|
|-
|[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
|[[Dr. Gaisheng Liu|Liu, Gaisheng, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]||[[Dr. Barbara Sherwood Lollar, F.R.S.C. |Lollar, Barbara S., FRSC]]||Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)
|-
|[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Munitions Constituents - Passive Sampling]]
|[[Dr. Guilherme Lotufo|Lotufo, Guilerme, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]||[[Chris Lutes |Lutes, Chris]]||vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||anaerobic bioremediation
|-
|[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations]]||[[Leah MacKinnon, M.A.Sc., P. Eng.|MacKinnon, Leah]]||
|-
|[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Dr. Shaily Mahendra|Mahendra, Shaily, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push, DP, DP machines, DP technology
|-
|[[Direct Push Sampling]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push sampling, soil sampling, groundwater sampling, well installation, soil vapor sampling (in regards to DP)
|-
|[[Direct Push Logging]]||[[Wesley McCall, M.S., P.G. |McCall, Wesley, M.S., P.G.]]||direct push logging, Cone Penetration Testing, CPT, Electrical Conductivity, EC, Hydraulic Profiling Tool, HPT, Membrane Interface Probe, MIP, Optical Imaging Profiler, OIP
|-
|[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
|[[Dr. Rao Kotamarthi|Kotamarthi, Rao, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]||[[Travis McGuire|McGuire, Travis]]||multi-site studies
|-
|[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data analysis, analysis methods (in regards to LTM)
|-
|[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability]]||[[Dr. Thomas McHugh |McHugh, Thomas, Ph.D.]]||data variability (in regards to LTM), LTM evaluation
|-
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction]]||[[Dr. Jimmy Murillo-Gelvez |Murillo-Gelvez, Jimmy, Ph.D.]]
|-
|[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
|Nagar, Kobe
|
|-
|[[Matrix Diffusion]]
|[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|
|-
|[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]||[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. |Newell, Charles, Ph.D., P.E.]]||groundwater flow, advection, dispersion, diffusion, molecular diffusion, mechanical dispersion
|-
|[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||MBT, Molecular Biological Tool(s)
|-
|[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||qPCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction
|-
|[[Sediment Capping]]
|[[Dr. Danny Reible|Reible, Danny]]
|
|-
|[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||SIP, Stable Isotope Probing
|-
|[[Metagenomics]]||[[Dora Ogles-Taggart |Ogles-Taggart, Dora]]||Metagenomics
|-
|[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]||[[Tom Palaia |Palaia, Tom]]||natural source zone depletion, NSZD
|-
|[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
|[[Dr. Breanna F. Powers|Powers, Breanna, PhD.]]
|
|-
|[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||
|-
|[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]||[[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Richardson, Stephen, Ph.D.]]||Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, PAH(s)
|-
|[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
|[[Florent Risacher|Risacher, Florent, M.Sc.]]
|
|-
|[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||TCP, trichloropropane
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc |Salter-Blanc, Alexandra, Ph.D.]]||ZVI
|-
|[[Mercury in Sediments]]
|[[Dr. Grace Schwartz|Schwartz, Grace, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Munitions Constituents - Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
|[[Dr. Austin Scircle|Scircle, Austin]]
|
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies]]||[[Dr. Lee Slater |Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]||geophysics
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
|[[Dr. Timothy J. Strathmann|Strathmann, Timothy, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution]]||[[Dr. Susan Taylor |Taylor, Susan, Ph.D.]]||explosive(s), dissolution,
|-
|[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
|[[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard|Thagard, Selma Mededovic, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|-
|[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]
|Thierry, Hugo, Ph.D.
|climate change, invasive species, restoration ecology
|-
|[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR)]]||[[Dr. Paul Tratnyek |Tratnyek, Paul, Ph.D.]]||In Situ Chemical Reduction, ISCR
|-
|[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||viscosity, viscosity modifiers, viscosity modification
|-
|[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]||[[Michael Truex |Truex, Michael]]||soil vapor extraction, SVE
|-
|[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition]]||[[Michael R. Walsh, P.E., M.E.|Walsh, Michael, P.E.]]||explosive deposition, energetics deposition
|-
|[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
|[[Dr. James Weaver|Weaver, James, Ph.D.]]
|vapor intrusion
|-
|[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
|[[Dr. Richard Wilkin|Wilkin, Rick, Ph.D.]]
|
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, In Situ MNA, natural attenuation, natural attenuation processes
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to petroleum hydrocarbons and fuel components)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. John Wilson |Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]||MNA, natural attenuation, attenuate (when used in context related to chlorinated solvents)
|-
|[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies]]
|[[Dr. John Wilson|Wilson, John, Ph.D.]]
|MNA, natural attenuation
|-
|[[Chlorinated Solvents]]||[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E. |Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]||chlorinated solvents
|-
|[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
|[[Dr. Bilgen Yuncu, P.E.|Yuncu, Bilgen, Ph.D., P.E.]]
|Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)
|-
|[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
|[[Dr. Suzanne Witt|Witt, Suzanne, Ph.D.]]
|PFAS
|
|-
|[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
|[[Dr. Lee Slater|Slater, Lee, Ph.D.]]
|geophysics, hydrogeophysical methods,
|
|-
|[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
|[[Dr. Brian Pinkard|Pinkard, Brian]]
|
|-
|[[1,4-Dioxane]]
|[[Matthew Zenker|Zenker, Matthew]]
|
|-
|[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
|[[Dr. John F. Stults|Stults, Dr. John]]
|PFAS, vadose zone, lysimeter, field investigation
|
|-
|[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]||[[Dr. Yida Fang |Fang, Yida, Ph.D.]]||
|
|-
|}

Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)

2026-03-13T21:01:13Z

Admin:

Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) | In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Florent Risacher|Florent Risacher, M.Sc]]. and [[Dr. Jason Conder|Dr. Jason Conder]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater<ref>Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4f/RisacherEtAl2023a.pdf Article pdf]</ref>

*Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023">Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f Project Website]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/42/ER20-5261BPUG.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f/er20-5261-project-overview Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP Project ER20-5261]

==Introduction==
Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater<ref>Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2769 doi: 10.1002/etc.2769]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/8d/ConderEtAl2015.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017">Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3884 doi: 10.1002/etc.3884]</ref>. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection<ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016">Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2]</ref>. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics<ref>Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1502 doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/99/PeijnenburgEtAl2014.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995">Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2 doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2]</ref><ref>Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6d/SchroederEtAl2020.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater<ref>Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. [https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/502 Website] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/57/Wise2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016" />.

To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics<ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017" />. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago<ref name="Hesslein1976">Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912 doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c7/Hesslein1976.pdf Article pdf]</ref> and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.

==Peeper Designs==
[[File:RisacherFig1.png|thumb|300px|Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water]]
[[File:RisacherFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Example of Hesslein<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/peeper-samplers USGS]]]
[[File:RisacherFig3.png | thumb |400px| Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)]]
Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.

Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale ''et al.''<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995" />, Serbst ''et al.''<ref>Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C., Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5]</ref>, Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010">Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.403 doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7b/ThomasArthur2010.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, Passeport ''et al.''<ref>Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961]</ref>, and Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).

==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
[[File:RisacherFig4.png | thumb |300px| Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)]]
Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment<ref>Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468 doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9c/CarignanEtAl1994.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. However, recent studies<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.

Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />, or by professional divers for the deepest sites. If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.

During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.

After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.

==Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)==
The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium<ref name="USEPA2017">USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/08/EPA_600_R-16_357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.

Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010" /> studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (''C0'') based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (''Cp,t''), the elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') and the deployment time (''t''):
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 1:'''
|     [[File: Equation1r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''C0''||is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or μg/L), sometimes referred to as ''Cfree ''
|-
| ||''Cp,t''||is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 2:'''
|     [[File: Equation2r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''D''||is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm2/s)
|-
| ||''Dtracer''||is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm2/s)
|}

The elimination rate of the tracer (''Ktracer'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 3:'''
|         [[File: Equation3r2.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''Ctracer,i''||is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''Ctracer,t''||is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />.

==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.

'''Nature and Extent:''' Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C0. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.

'''Sources and Fate:''' A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C0 results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C0 using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C0 and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.

'''Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life:''' Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C0 measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (''in situ'') or surface water (''ex situ''), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals<ref name="USEPA2017" />. C0 measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model<ref>Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4572 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572]</ref> to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.

'''Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life:''' Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C0 and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C0 in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C0-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C0 value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C0 measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C0-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.

'''Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy:''' Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C0 in sediment to C0 in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811328715/aea3073540 Peeper Processing Video]
*[https://sepub-prod-0001-124733793621-us-gov-west-1.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-09/ER20-5261%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?VersionId=malAixSQQM3mWCRiaVaxY8wLdI0jE1PX Fact Sheet]

Passive Sampling of Sediments

2026-03-13T21:00:54Z

Admin:

"Passive sampling" refers to a group of methods used to quantify the availability of organic contaminants to move between different media and/or to react in environmental systems such as indoor air, lake waters, or contaminated sediment beds. To do this, the passive sampling material is deployed in the environmental system and allowed to absorb chemicals of interest via diffusive transfers from the surroundings. Upon recovery of the passive sampler, the accumulated contaminants are measured, and the concentrations in the sampler are interpreted to infer the chemical concentrations in specific surrounding media like porewater in a sediment bed. Such data are then useful inputs for site assessments such as those seeking to quantify fluxes from contaminated sediment beds to overlying waters or to evaluate the risk of significant uptake into benthic infauna and the larger food web.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) | In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds<ref name="Apell2014">Apell, J.N. and Gschwend, P.M., 2014. Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(17), pp. 10301-10307. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es502694g DOI: 10.1021/es502694g]</ref>

*''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data<ref name="Apell2016">Apell, J.N., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. ''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data. Environmental Pollution, 218, pp. 95-101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/53/ApellGschwend2016.pdf Authors’ Manuscript]</ref>

*Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual<ref name="Burgess2017">Burgess, R.M., Kane Driscoll, S.B., Burton, A., Gschwend, P.M., Ghosh, U., Reible, D., Ahn, S., and Thompson, T., 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual, EPA/600/R-16/357. SERDP/ESTCP and U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460. [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryID=308731 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c5/EPA600R16357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig1.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 1. A representation of a clam living in a sediment bed that contains a chemical contaminant (depicted as red hexagons). The contaminant is partly dissolved in the sediment porewater between the solid grains, and partly associated with solid phases, like natural organic matter and "black carbons" such as soots from diesel engines and chars emitted during forest fires. All of these liquid and solid materials can exchange their contaminant loads with one another, with the distributions dependent on the chemical's relative affinity for each material. When an organism like a clam lives in such a system, the chemical contaminant is accumulated into the organism, until the concentration of the chemical in the organism is also equilibrated with the other solids and liquid(s) present.]]
Environmental media such as sediments typically contain many different materials or phases, including liquid solutions (e.g. water, [[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)| nonaqueous phase liquids]] like spilled oils) and diverse solids (e.g., quartz, aluminosilicate clays, and combustion-derived soots). Further, the chemical concentration in the porewater medium includes both molecules that are "truly dissolved" in the water and others that are associated with colloids in the porewater<ref name="Brownawell1986">Brownawell, B.J., and Farrington, J.W., 1986. Biogeochemistry of PCBs in interstitial waters of a coastal marine sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50(1), pp. 157-169. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X]   Free download available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/268631.pdf US EPA].</ref><ref name="Chin1992">Chin, Y.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 1992. Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Marine Porewater Organic Colloids. Environmental Science and Technology, 26(8), pp. 1621-1626. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00032a020 DOI: 10.1021/es00032a020]</ref><ref name="Achman1996">Achman, D.R., Brownawell, B.J., and Zhang, L., 1996. Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary. Estuaries, 19(4), pp. 950-965. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1352310 DOI: 10.2307/1352310]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/55010335/135231020171114-2212-b93vic.pdf Academia.edu]</ref>. As a result, contaminant chemicals distribute among these diverse media (Figure 1) according to their affinity for each and the amount of each phase in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996">Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., MacFarlane, J., and Gschwend, P.M., 1996. Quantification of the Dilute Sedimentary Soot Phase: Implications for PAH Speciation and Bioavailability. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(1), pp. 203-209. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es960317s DOI: 10.1021/es960317s]</ref><ref name="Luthy1997">Luthy, R.G., Aiken, G.R., Brusseau, M.L., Cunningham, S.D., Gschwend, P.M., Pignatello, J.J., Reinhard, M., Traina, S.J., Weber, W.J., and Westall, J.C., 1997. Sequestration of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants by Geosorbents. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(12), pp. 3341-3347. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es970512m DOI: 10.1021/es970512m]</ref><ref name="Lohmann2005">Lohmann, R., MacFarlane, J.K., and Gschwend, P.M., 2005. Importance of Black Carbon to Sorption of Native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(1), pp.141-148. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049424+ DOI: 10.1021/es049424+]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2005">Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T.D., Jonker, M.T., Koelmans, A.A., and van Noort, P.C., 2005. Extensive Sorption of Organic Compounds to Black Carbon, Coal, and Kerogen in Sediments and Soils: Mechanisms and Consequences for Distribution, Bioaccumulation, and Biodegradation. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(18), pp. 6881-6895. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050191b DOI: 10.1021/es050191b]</ref><ref name="Koelmans2009">Koelmans, A.A., Kaag, K., Sneekes, A., and Peeters, E.T.H.M., 2009. Triple Domain in Situ Sorption Modeling of Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorobiphenyls, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in Aquatic Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8847-8853. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es9021188 DOI: 10.1021/es9021188]</ref>. As such, the chemical concentration in any one medium (e.g., truly dissolved in porewater) in a multi-material system like sediment is very hard to know from measures of the total sediment concentration, which unfortunately is the information typically found by analyzing for chemicals in sediment samples.

If an animal such as a clam moves into this system (Figure 1), it will also accumulate the chemical in its tissues from the loads in all the other materials. This can lead to exposures of the chemical to other organisms, including humans, who may eat such animals. Predicting the quantity of contaminant in the animal requires knowledge of the relative affinities of the chemical for the animal versus the sediment materials. For example, if one knew the chemical's truly dissolved concentration in the porewater and could reasonably assume the chemical of interest in the animal has mostly accumulated in its lipids (as is often the case for very hydrophobic compounds), then one could estimate the chemical concentration in the animal (''Canimal'', typically in units of μg/kg animal wet weight) using a lipid-water [[Wikipedia: Partition coefficient | partition coefficient]], ''Klipid-water'', typically in units of (μg/kg lipid)'''/'''(μg/L water), and the porewater concentration of the chemical (''Cporewater'', in μg/L) with Equation 1.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 1.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cporewater'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''flipid''||is the fraction lipids contribute to the total wet weight of the animal (kg lipid/kg animal wet weight), and
|-
| ||''Cporewater''||is the freely dissolved contaminant concentration in the porewater surrounding the animal.
|}

While there is a great deal of information on the values of ''Klipid-water'' for many chemicals<ref name="Schwarzenbach2017">Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 2017. Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition. Ch. 16: Equilibrium Partitioning from Water and Air to Biota, pp. 469-521. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8</ref>, it is often very inaccurate to estimate truly dissolved porewater concentrations from total sediment concentrations using assumptions about the affinity of those chemicals for the solids in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996" />. Further, it is difficult to isolate porewater without colloids and/or measure the very low truly dissolved concentrations of hydrophobic contaminants of concern like [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], nonionic pesticides like [[Wikipedia: DDT | dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins | polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)]]/[[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzofurans | dibenzofurans (PCDFs)]]<ref name="Hawthorne2005">Hawthorne, S.B., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Kreitinger, J.P., 2005. Solid-Phase Microextraction Measurement of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Milliliter Sediment Pore Water Samples and Determination of KDOC Values. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(8), pp. 2795-2803. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0405171 DOI: 10.1021/es0405171]</ref>.

==Passive Samplers==
One approach to address this problem for contaminated sediments is to insert into the sediment films of organic polymers like low density polyethylene (LDPE), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polyoxymethylene (POM) that can absorb such hydrophobic chemicals from their surroundings<ref name="Mayer2000">Mayer, P., Vaes, W.H., Wijnker, F., Legierse, K.C., Kraaij, R., Tolls, J., and Hermens, J.L., 2000. Sensing Dissolved Sediment Porewater Concentrations of Persistent and Bioaccumulative Pollutants Using Disposable Solid-Phase Microextraction Fibers. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(24), pp. 5177-5183. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es001179g DOI: 10.1021/es001179g]</ref><ref name="Booij2003">Booij, K., Hoedemaker, J.R., and Bakker, J.F., 2003. Dissolved PCBs, PAHs, and HCB in Pore Waters and Overlying Waters of Contaminated Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(18), pp. 4213-4220. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034147c DOI: 10.1021/es034147c]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2008">Cornelissen, G., Pettersen, A., Broman, D., Mayer, P., and Breedveld, G.D., 2008. Field testing of equilibrium passive samplers to determine freely dissolved native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(3), pp. 499-508. [https://doi.org/10.1897/07-253.1 DOI: 10.1897/07-253.1]</ref><ref name="Tomaszewski2008">Tomaszewski, J.E., and Luthy, R.G., 2008. Field Deployment of Polyethylene Devices to Measure PCB Concentrations in Pore Water of Contaminated Sediment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(16), pp. 6086-6091. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es800582a DOI: 10.1021/es800582a]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2009">Fernandez, L.A., MacFarlane, J.K., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Measurement of Freely Dissolved PAH Concentrations in Sediment Beds Using Passive Sampling with Low-Density Polyethylene Strips. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(5), pp. 1430-1436. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es802288w DOI: 10.1021/es802288w]</ref><ref name="Arp2015">Arp, H.P.H., Hale, S.E., Elmquist Kruså, M., Cornelissen, G., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Hawthorne, S.B., 2015. Review of polyoxymethylene passive sampling methods for quantifying freely dissolved porewater concentrations of hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(4), pp. 710-720. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2864 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2864]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/etc.2864 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f4/Arp2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Apell2016" />. In this approach, the polymer is inserted in the sediment bed where it absorbs some of the contaminant load via the contaminant's diffusion into the polymer from the surroundings. When the polymer achieves sorptive equilibration with the sediments, the chemical concentration in the polymer, ''Cpolymer'' (μg/kg polymer), can be used to find the corresponding concentration in the porewater, ''Cporewater'' (μg/L), using a polymer-water partition coefficient, ''Kpolymer-water'' ((μg/kg polymer)'''/'''(μg/L water)), that has previously been found in laboratory testing<ref name="Lohmann2012">Lohmann, R., 2012. Critical Review of Low-Density Polyethylene’s Partitioning and Diffusion Coefficients for Trace Organic Contaminants and Implications for Its Use as a Passive Sampler. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 606-618. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202702y DOI: 10.1021/es202702y]</ref><ref name="Ghosh2014">Ghosh, U., Kane Driscoll, S., Burgess, R.M., Jonker, M.T., Reible, D., Gobas, F., Choi, Y., Apitz, S.E., Maruya, K.A., Gala, W.R., Mortimer, M., and Beegan, C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: Practical Guidance for Selection, Calibration, and Implementation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 210-223. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1507 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1507]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.1507 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/37/Ghosh2014.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>, as shown in Equation 2.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 2.
| style="width:600px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Cporewater '''=''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}

Such “passive uptake” by the polymer also reflects the availability of the chemicals for transport to adjacent systems (e.g., overlying surface waters) and for uptake into organisms (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Bioaccumulation | bioaccumulation]]). Thus, one can use the porewater concentrations to estimate the biotic accumulation of the chemicals, too. For example, for the concentration in the animal equilibrated with the sediment, ''Canimal'' (μg/kg animal), would be found by combining Equations 1 and 2 to get Equation 3.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 3.
| style="width:700px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig2a.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2a. Schematic plot of the initial concentrations of a PRC (green lines) in a polyethylene (PE) film inserted in a sediment showing constant concentration across the PE and zero concentration outside the PE. At the same time, a target contaminant of interest (red lines) initially has a constant concentration in the sediment outside the PE and zero concentration inside the PE.]][[File: Gschwend1w2fig2b.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2b. After the PE has been deployed for a time, the PRC is depleted from the PE (green lines), especially near the surfaces contacting the sediment, and its concentration is building up outside the PE and diffusing away into the sediment. Meanwhile, the target chemical leaves the sediment and begins to diffuse into the PE (red lines). The "jumps" in concentration at the PE-sediment boundary reflect the equilibrium partitioning coefficient, ''KPE-sed = CPE '''/''' Csediment''.]]

==Performance Reference Compounds (PRCs)==
Perhaps unsurprisingly, pollutants with low water solubility like PAHs, PCBs, etc. do not diffuse quickly through sediment beds. As a result, their accumulation in polymeric materials in sediments can take a long time to achieve equilibration<ref name="Fernandez2009b">Fernandez, L. A., Harvey, C.F., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Using Performance Reference Compounds in Polyethylene Passive Samplers to Deduce Sediment Porewater Concentrations for Numerous Target Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8888-8894. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es901877a DOI: 10.1021/es901877a]</ref><ref name="Lampert2015">Lampert, D.J., Thomas, C., and Reible, D.D., 2015. Internal and external transport significance for predicting contaminant uptake rates in passive samplers. Chemosphere, 119, pp. 910-916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/44146586/chemosphere_2014.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Apell2016b">Apell, J.N., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. Understanding the rates of nonpolar organic chemical accumulation into passive samplers deployed in the environment: Guidance for passive sampler deployments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(3), pp. 486-492. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1697 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1697]</ref>. This problem was recognized previously for passive samplers called [[Wikipedia: Semipermeable membrane devices | semipermeable membrane devices]] (SPMDs, e.g. polyethylene bags filled with triolein<ref name="Huckins2002">Huckins, J.N., Petty, J.D., Lebo, J.A., Almeida, F.V., Booij, K., Alvarez, D.A., Cranor, W.L., Clark, R.C., and Mogensen, B.B., 2002. Development of the Permeability/Performance Reference Compound Approach for In Situ Calibration of Semipermeable Membrane Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(1), pp. 85-91. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es010991w DOI: 10.1021/es010991w]</ref>) that were deployed in surface waters. As a result, representative chemicals called performance reference compounds (PRCs) were uniformly impregnated into the samplers before their deployment in the environment, and the PRCs' diffusive losses out of the SPMD could then be used to quantify the fractional approach toward equilibration of the sampler with its environmental surroundings<ref name="Booij2002">Booij, K., Smedes, F., and van Weerlee, E.M., 2002. Spiking of performance reference compounds in low density polyethylene and silicone passive water samplers. Chemosphere 46(8), pp.1157-1161. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4 DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4]</ref><ref name="Huckins2002" />. A similar approach can be used for polymers inserted in sediment beds<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />. Commonly, isotopically labeled forms of the compounds of interest such as deuterated or 13C-labelled PAHs or PCBs are homogeneously impregnated into the polymers before their deployments. Upon insertion of the polymer into the sediment bed (or overlying waters or even air), the initially evenly distributed PRCs begin to diffuse out of the sampling polymer and into the surroundings (Figure 2).

Assuming the contaminants of interest undergo the same mass transfer restrictions limiting their rates of uptake into the polymer (e.g., diffusion through the sedimentary porous medium) that are also limiting transfers of the PRCs out of the polymer<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />, then fractional losses of the PRCs during a particular deployment can be used to adjust the accumulated contaminant loads to what they would have been at equilibrium with their surroundings with Equation 4.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 4.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''C(∞)polymer '''=''' C(t)polymer '''/''' fPRC lost'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''fPRC lost''||is the fraction of the PRC lost to outward diffusion,
|-
| ||''C(∞)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer at equilibrium, and
|-
| ||''C(t)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer after deployment time, t.                     
|}

Since investigators are commonly interested in many chemicals at the same time, it is impractical to have a PRC for each contaminant of interest. Instead, a representative set of PRCs is used to characterize the rates of polymer-environment exchange as a function of the PRCs' properties (e.g., diffusivities, partition coefficients), the characteristics of the sediments (e.g., porosity), and the nature of the polymer used (e.g., film thickness, affinity for the chemicals)<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Lampert2015" />. The resulting mass transfer model fit can then be used to estimate the fractional approaches to equilibrium for many other contaminants, whose diffusive and partitioning properties are also known. And these fractions can be used to adjust the target chemical concentrations that have accumulated from the sediment into the same polymeric sampler to find the equilibrated results<ref name="Apell2014" />. Finally, these equilibrated concentrations can be used in Eq. 2 to estimate truly dissolved contaminant concentrations in the sediment's porewater.

==Field Applications==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig3.png | thumb |left| 450px | Figure 3. Passive sampler system made of polyethylene film loaded into an aluminum sheet metal frame, before (left), during (middle), and after (right) deployment in sediment.]]
Polymeric materials can be deployed in sediment in various ways<ref name="Burgess2017" />. PDMS-coated silica fibers, called SPMEs (solid phase micro extraction devices), can be incorporated into slotted rods, while thin films of polymers like LDPE or POM can be incorporated into sheet metal frames. In both cases, such hardware is used to insert the polymers into sediment beds (Figure 3).

Deployment of the assembled passive samplers can be accomplished via poles from a boat<ref name="Apell2014" />, by divers<ref name="Apell2016" />, or by attaching the samplers to a sampling platform lowered off a vessel<ref name="Fernandez2012">Fernandez, L.A., Lao, W., Maruya, K.A., White, C., Burgess, R.M., 2012. Passive Sampling to Measure Baseline Dissolved Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentrations in the Water Column of the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp. 11937-11947. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302139y DOI: 10.1021/es302139y]</ref>. Typically, the method used depends on the water depth. Small buoys on short lines, sometimes with associated water-sampling polymeric materials in mesh bags (see right panel of Figure 3), are attached to the samplers to facilitate the sampler recoveries. After recovery, the samplers are wiped to remove any adhering sediment, biofilm, or precipitates and returned to the laboratory for PRC and target contaminant analyses. The resulting measurements of the accumulated target chemical concentrations can be adjusted using the observed PRC losses and publicly available software programs<ref name="Gschwend2014">Gschwend, P.M., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Apell, J.N., 2014. Guidance Document: Passive PE Sampling in Support of In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sediments – Passive Sampler PRC Calculation Software User’s Guide, US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Project ER-200915. Available from: [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments/Bioavailability/ER-200915 ESTCP].</ref><ref name="Thompson2015">Thompson, J.M., Hsieh, C.H. and Luthy, R.G., 2015. Modeling Uptake of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants into Polyethylene Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2270-2277. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504442s DOI: 10.1021/es504442s]</ref>.

Subsequently, since the passive sampling reveals the concentrations of contaminants in a sediment bed's porewater and the overlying bottom water<ref name="Booij2003" />, the data can be used to estimate bed-to-water column diffusive fluxes of contaminants<ref name="Koelmans2010">Koelmans, A.A., Poot, A., De Lange, H.J., Velzeboer, I., Harmsen, J., and van Noort, P.C.M., 2010. Estimation of In Situ Sediment-to-Water Fluxes of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorobiphenyls and Polybrominated Diphenylethers. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(8), pp. 3014-3020. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es903938z DOI: 10.1021/es903938z]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2012" /> and bioirrigation-affected fluxes<ref name="Apell2018">Apell, J.N., Shull, D.H., Hoyt, A.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Investigating the Effect of Bioirrigation on In Situ Porewater Concentrations and Fluxes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(8), pp. 4565-4573. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05809 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05809]</ref>. The data are also useful for assessing the tendency of the contaminants to accumulate in benthic organisms<ref name="Vinturella2004">Vinturella, A.E., Burgess, R.M., Coull, B.A., Thompson, K.M., and Shine, J.P., 2004. Use of Passive Samplers to Mimic Uptake of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Benthic Polychaetes. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(4), pp. 1154-1160. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034706f DOI: 10.1021/es034706f]</ref><ref name="Yates2011">Yates, K., Pollard, P., Davies, I.M., Webster, L., and Moffat, C.F., 2011. Application of silicone rubber passive samplers to investigate the bioaccumulation of PAHs by Nereis virens from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution, 159(12), pp. 3351-3356. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2015">Fernandez, L.A. and Gschwend, P.M., 2015. Predicting bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria) using field deployments of polyethylene passive samplers. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(5), pp. 993-1000. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2892 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2892]</ref>, and by extension into food webs that include such benthic species<ref name="vonStackelberg2017">von Stackelberg, K., Williams, M.A., Clough, J., and Johnson, M.S., 2017. Spatially explicit bioaccumulation modeling in aquatic environments: Results from 2 demonstration sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(6), pp. 1023-1037. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1927 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1927]</ref>. Furthermore, recent efforts have found that passive sampling observations can be used to infer ''in situ'' transformations of substances like nitro aromatic compounds<ref name="Belles2016">Belles, A., Alary, C., Criquet, J., and Billon, G., 2016. A new application of passive samplers as indicators of in-situ biodegradation processes. Chemosphere, 164, pp. 347-354. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111]</ref> and DDT<ref name="Tcaciuc2018">Tcaciuc, A.P., Borrelli, R., Zaninetta, L.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Passive sampling of DDT, DDE and DDD in sediments: accounting for degradation processes with reaction–diffusion modeling. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(1), pp. 220-231. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00501F DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00501F]   Open access article available from: [https://pubs.rsc.org/--/content/articlehtml/2018/em/c7em00501f Royal Society of Chemistry].</ref>.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Tools/PRC-Correction-Calculator A PRC Correction Calculator for LDPE deployed in sediments]

Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment

2026-03-13T21:00:34Z

Admin:

[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | Contaminated sediments]] in rivers and streams, lakes, coastal harbors, and estuaries have the potential to pose ecological and human health risks. The goals of risk assessment applied to contaminated sediments are to characterize the nature and magnitude of the current and potential threats to human health, wildlife and ecosystem functioning posed by contamination; identify the key factors contributing to the potential health and ecological risks; evaluate how implementation of one or more remedy actions will mitigate the risks in the short and long term; and evaluate the risks and impacts from sediment management, both during and after any dredging or other remedy construction activities.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) | In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Richard Wenning]] and [[Dr. Sabine E. Apitz]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites<ref name="USEPA2005">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. EPA-540-R-05-012. OSWER 9355.0-85. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7e/2005-USEPA-Contaminated_Sediment_Remediation_Guidance_for_Hazardous_Waste_Sites.pdf Report pdf]</ref>

*Principles for Environmental Risk Assessment of the Sediment Compartment<ref name="Tarazona2014">Tarazona, J.V., Versonnen, B., Janssen, C., De Laender, F., Vangheluwe, M. and Knight, D., 2014. Principles for Environmental Risk Assessment of the Sediment Compartment: Proceedings of the Topical Scientific Workshop. 7-8 May 2013. European Chemicals Agency, Helsinki. Document ECHA-14-R-13-EN. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/cc/ECHA-14-R-13-EN.pdf Report pdf]</ref>

*Assessing and managing contaminated sediments:

::Part I, Developing an Effective Investigation and Risk Evaluation Strategy<ref name="Apitz2005a">Apitz, S.E., Davis, J.W., Finkelstein, K., Hohreiter, D.W., Hoke, R., Jensen, R.H., Jersak, J., Kirtay, V.J., Mack, E.E., Magar, V.S. and Moore, D., 2005. Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments: Part I, Developing an Effective Investigation and Risk Evaluation Strategy. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1), pp. 2-8. [https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002.1 DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002.1] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3f/Apitz2005a.pdf Article pdf]</ref>
::Part II, Evaluating Risk and Monitoring Sediment Remedy Effectiveness<ref name="Apitz2005b">Apitz, S.E., Davis, J.W., Finkelstein, K., Hohreiter, D.W., Hoke, R., Jensen, R.H., Jersak, J., Kirtay, V.J., Mack, E.E., Magar, V.S. and Moore, D., 2005b. Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments: Part II, Evaluating Risk and Monitoring Sediment Remedy Effectiveness. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(1), pp.e1-e14. [https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002e.1 DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-002e.1]</ref>

==Introduction==
Improving the management of [[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | contaminated sediments]] is of growing concern globally. Sediment processes in both marine and freshwater environments are important to the function of aquatic ecosystems<ref name="Apitz2012">Apitz, S.E., 2012. Conceptualizing the role of sediment in sustaining ecosystem services: Sediment-Ecosystem Regional Assessment (SEcoRA), Science of the Total Environment, 415, pp. 9-30. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.060 DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.060]</ref>, and many organisms rely on certain sediment quality and quantity characteristics for their life cycle<ref name="Hauer2018">Hauer, C., Leitner, P., Unfer, G., Pulg, U., Habersack, H. and Graf, W., 2018. The Role of Sediment and Sediment Dynamics in the Aquatic Environment. In: Schmutz S., Sendzimir J. (ed.s) Riverine Ecosystem Management. Aquatic Ecology Series, vol. 8, pp. 151-169. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_8 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_8] [https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/27726/1002280.pdf?seque#page=153 Book pdf]</ref>. Human health can also be affected by sediment conditions, either via direct contact, as a result of sediment impacts on water quality, or because of the strong influence sediments can have on the quality of fish and shellfish consumed by people<ref name="Greenfield2015">Greenfield, B.K., Melwani, A.R. and Bay, S.M., 2015. A Tiered Assessment Framework to Evaluate Human Health Risk of Contaminated Sediment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 11(3), pp. 459-473. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1610 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1610]</ref>.

Science-based methods for assessing sediment quality and use of risk-based decision-making in sediment management are important for identifying conditions suspected to adversely affect ecological and human services provided by sediments, and predicting the likely consequences of different sediment management actions<ref name="Bridges2006">Bridges, T.S., Apitz, S.E., Evison, L., Keckler, K., Logan, M., Nadeau, S. and Wenning, R.J., 2006. Risk‐Based Decision Making to Manage Contaminated Sediments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 51-58. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020110 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020110] [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.5630020110 Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Apitz2011">Apitz, S.E., 2011. Integrated Risk Assessments for the Management of Contaminated Sediments in Estuaries and Coastal Systems. In: Wolanski, E. and McLusky, D.S. (eds.) Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science, Vol 4, pp. 311–338. Waltham: Academic Press. ISBN: 9780123747112</ref>.A common approach to achieving the explicit management goals inherent in different sediment assessment frameworks in North America and elsewhere is the use of the ecological risk assessment (ERA)<ref name="USEPA1997a">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States: Volume 1, National Sediment Quality Survey. EPA-823R-97-006. Washington, DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/5a/EPA-823-R-97-006.pdf Report pdf]</ref>. An ERA “evaluates the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects from exposure to a chemical for organisms, such as animals, plants, or microbes, in the environment”<ref name="SETAC2018">Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 2018. Technical Issue Paper: Environmental Risk Assessment of Chemicals. SETAC, Pensacola, FL. 5 pp. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/84/Setac_tip_era2018.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. An ERA provides information relevant to sediment management decision-making <ref name="Stahl2001">Stahl, R.G., Bachman, R., Barton, A., Clark, J., deFur, P., Ells, S., Pittinger, C., Slimak, M., Wentsel, R., 2001. Risk Management: Ecological Risk-Based Decision Making. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, 222 pp. ISBN: 978-1-880611-26-5</ref>. It should be based on sound science and performed in a technically defensible manner that is cost-effective and aimed at protecting human health and the environment<ref name="CNO1999">Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), 1999. Navy Policy for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Letter 5090, Ser N453E/9U595355, dated 05 April 99. Department of the Navy, Washington, DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/56/CNO1999.pdf Report pdf]</ref>.

Sediment risk assessment is a specific application of ERA. It may include aspects of a human health risk assessment, as well, to examine the direct and indirect consequences of sediment conditions on human health. It is increasingly used by governmental agencies to support sediment management in freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments. Strategies for sediment management encompass a wide variety of actions, from removal, capping or treatment of contaminated sediment to the monitoring of natural processes, including sedimentation, binding, and bio- and photo-degradation that serve to reduce the potential threat to aquatic life over time. It is not uncommon to revisit a sediment risk assessment periodically to check how changed environmental conditions reflected in sediment and biotic sampling work has either reduced or exacerbated the threats identified in the initial assessment.

At present, several countries lack common recommendations specific to conducting risk assessment of contaminated sediments<ref name="Bruce2020">Bruce, P., Sobek, A., Ohlsson, Y. and Bradshaw, C., 2020. Risk assessments of contaminated sediments from the perspective of weight of evidence strategies – a Swedish case study. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 27(5), pp. 1366-1387. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2020.1848414 DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2020.1848414] </ref>. In the European Union, sediment has played a secondary role in the Water Framework Directive (WFD), with most quality standards being focused on water with the option for the development of national standards for sediment and biota for bioaccumulative compounds. The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) in 2010 provided guidance on the monitoring of contaminants in sediments and biota, but not on risk-based decision-making<ref name="EC2010">European Commission, 2010. Common Implementation Strategy For The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), Technical Report - 2010 – 041; Guidance document No. 25 On Chemical Monitoring Of Sediment And Biota Under The Water Framework Directive. 82pp. ISBN 978-92-79-16224-4. [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5ff7a8ec-995b-4d90-a140-0cc9b4bf980d Open access article.]</ref>. Additional changes to the strategy were initiated in 2021 to incorporate guidance for management of contaminated sediment <ref name="Brils2020">Brils, J., 2020. Including sediment in European River Basin Management Plans: Twenty years of work by SedNet. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 20(12), pp.4229-4237. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-020-02782-1 DOI: 10.1007/s11368-020-02782-1] [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11368-020-02782-1.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. Sediment risk assessment guidance from Norway, Canada, the Netherlands, and the US are most often referenced when assessing the risks from contaminated sediments<ref name="Bruce2020" /><ref name="Birch2018">Birch, G.F., 2018. A review of chemical-based sediment quality assessment methodologies for the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, pp.218-232. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.039 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.039]</ref><ref name="Kwok2014">Kwok, K.W., Batley, G.E., Wenning, R.J., Zhu, L., Vangheluwe, M. and Lee, S., 2014. Sediment quality guidelines: challenges and opportunities for improving sediment management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(1), pp. 17-27. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-1778-7 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1778-7] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graeme-Batley/publication/236836992_Sediment_quality_guidelines_Challenges_and_opportunities_for_improving_sediment_management/links/0c96052b8a8f5ad0c6000000/Sediment-quality-guidelines-Challenges-and-opportunities-for-improving-sediment-management.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. Some European countries, such as Norway, have focused their risk assessment guidance on the assessment of sediment conditions relative to general chemical thresholds, while in North America, risk assessment guidance focuses on site- or region-specific conditions<ref name="Apitz2008">Apitz, S.E., 2008. Is risk-based, sustainable sediment management consistent with European policy?. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 8(6), p.461-466. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-008-0039-8 DOI: 10.1007/s11368-008-0039-8]</ref>.

There is general consensus from a regulatory perspective, globally, on the importance of sediment risk assessment. Technical guidance documents prepared by Canada<ref name="Fletcher2008">Fletcher, R., Welsh, P. and Fletcher, T., 2008. Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing, and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario. [https://www.ontario.ca/page/ministry-environment-conservation-parks Ontario Ministry of the Environment]. PIBS6658e.</ref><ref name="HealthCanada2017">Health Canada, 2017. Supplemental Guidance on Human Health Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sediments: Direct Contact Pathway, Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada. ISBN: 978-0-660-07989-9. Cat.: H144-41/2017E-PDF. Pub. 160382. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/1/10/HealthCanada2017.pdf Report pdf]</ref> , the European Union<ref name="Tarazona2014" />, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)<ref name="USEPA2005" /> advise a flexible, tiered approach for sediment risk assessment. Sediment quality guidelines in many countries reflect the scientific importance of including certain sediment-specific measurement and biotic assessment endpoints, as well as certain physical sediment processes and chemical transformation processes potentially affecting biotic responses to contaminant exposure in the sediment<ref name="Wenning2005">Wenning, R.J. Batley, G.E., Ingersoll, C.G., and Moore, D.W., (eds), 2005. Use Of Sediment Quality Guidelines And Related Tools For The Assessment Of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL. 815 pp. ISBN 1-880611-71-6.</ref>. New risk assessment methods continue to emerge in the scientific literature<ref name="Benson2018">Benson, N.U., Adedapo, A.E., Fred-Ahmadu, O.H., Williams, A.B., Udosen, E.D., Ayejuyo, O.O. and Olajire, A.A., 2018. A new method for assessment of sediment-associated contamination risks using multivariate statistical approach. MethodsX, 5, pp. 268-276. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.03.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.03.005] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7f/Benson2018.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Saeedi2015">Saeedi, M. and Jamshidi-Zanjani, A., 2015. Development of a new aggregative index to assess potential effect of metals pollution in aquatic sediments. Ecological Indicators, 58, pp. 235-243. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.047 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.047]</ref><ref name="Vaananen2018">Väänänen, K., Leppänen, M.T., Chen, X. and Akkanen, J., 2018. Metal bioavailability in ecological risk assessment of freshwater ecosystems: from science to environmental management. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 147, pp. 430-446. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.08.064 DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.08.064]</ref>. These new methods, however, are likely to be considered supplemental to the more generalized framework shared globally.

==Fundamentals of Sediment Risk Assessment==
[[File: SedRiskFig1.PNG | thumb |700px|Figure 1. Schematic of the sediment risk assessment process]]
Whereas there is strong evidence of anthropogenic impacts on the benthic community at many sediment sites, the degree of toxicity (or even its presence or absence) cannot be predicted with absolute certainty using contaminant concentrations alone<ref name="Apitz2011" />. A sediment ERA should include lines of evidence (LOEs) derived from several different investigations<ref name="Wenning2005" />. One common approach to develop several of these LOEs in a decision framework is the triad approach. Triad-based assessment frameworks require evidence based on sediment chemistry, toxicity, and benthic community structure (possibly including evidence of bioaccumulation) to designate sediment as toxic and requiring management or control<ref name="Chapman1996">Chapman, P.M., Paine, M.D., Arthur, A.D., Taylor, L.A., 1996. A triad study of sediment quality associated with a major, relatively untreated marine sewage discharge. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(1), pp. 47–64. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-326X(95)00108-Y DOI: 10.1016/0025-326X(95)00108-Y]</ref>. In some decision frameworks, particularly those used to establish and rank risks in national or regional programs, all components of the triad are carried out simultaneously, with the various LOEs combined to support weight of evidence (WOE) decision making. In other frameworks, LOEs are tiered to minimize costs by collecting only the data required to make a decision and leaving some potential consequences and uncertainties unresolved.

Figure 1 provides an overview of a sediment risk assessment process. The first step, and a fundamental requirement, in sediment risk assessment involves scoping and planning prior to undertaking work. This is important for optimizing the available assessment resource and conducting an assessment at the appropriate level of detail that is transparent and free, to the extent possible, of any bias or preconceived beliefs concerning the outcome<ref name="Hill2000">Hill, R.A., Chapman, P.M., Mann, G.S. and Lawrence, G.S., 2000. Level of Detail in Ecological Risk Assessments. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(6), pp. 471-477. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00036-9 DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(00)00036-9]</ref>.

===Screening-Level Risk Assessment (SLRA)===
Technical guidance in many countries strongly encourages sediment risk assessment to begin with a Screening-Level Risk Assessment (SLRA)<ref name="USEPA2005" /><ref name="Tarazona2014" /><ref name="Fletcher2008" />. The SLRA is a simplified risk assessment conducted using limited data and often assuming certain, generally conservative and generic, sediment characteristics, sediment contaminant levels, and exposure parameters in the absence of sufficient readily available information<ref name="Hope2006">Hope, B.K., 2006. An examination of ecological risk assessment and management practices. Environment International, 32(8), pp. 983-995. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.005]</ref><ref name="Weinstein2010">Weinstein, J.E., Crawford, K.D., Garner, T.R. and Flemming, A.J., 2010. Screening-level ecological and human health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in stormwater detention pond sediments of Coastal South Carolina, USA. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 178(1-3), pp. 906-916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.024 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.024]</ref><ref name="Rak2008">Rak, A., Maly, M.E., Tracey, G., 2008. A Guide to Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment, TG-090801. Tri-Services Ecological Risk Assessment Working Group (TSERAWG), U.S. Army Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 26 pp. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/67/Rak2008.pdf Report pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA2001">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2001. ECO Update. The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments. EPA 540/F-01/014. Washington, D.C. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3f/EPA_540_F-01_014.pdf Report pdf]</ref>.

The analysis is often semi-quantitative, and typically includes comparisons of various chemical and physical sediment conditions to threshold limits established in national or international regulations or by generally accepted scientific interpretations. US technical guidance encourages the comparison of contaminant measurements in water, sediment, or soil to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sediment screening quick reference tables, or SQuiRT cards, which list quality guidelines from a range of sources, based on differing narrative intent<ref name="Buchman2008">Buchman, M.F., 2008. Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs), NOAA OR&R Report 08-1. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Coastal Protection and Restoration Protection Division. 34 pp. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/SQuiRTs2008.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

The screening level approach is intended to minimize the chances of concluding that there is no risk when, in fact, risk may exist. Thus, the results of an SLRA may indicate contaminants or sediments in certain locations in the original study area initially thought to be of concern are acceptable (i.e., contaminant levels are below threshold levels), or that contaminant levels are high enough to indicate immediate action without further assessment (e.g., contaminant levels are well above probable-effects guidelines). In other cases, or at other locations, SLRA may indicate the need for further examination. Further study may apply site-specific, rather than generic and conservative assumptions, to reduce uncertainty.

===Detailed Risk Assessment===
Detailed sediment risk assessment is conducted when SLRA results indicate one or more sediment contaminants exceed background conditions or regulatory threshold limits. For some contaminants, such as the dioxins and other persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (PBTs), technical guidance may mandate further examination, regardless of whether threshold levels are exceeded<ref name="Solomon2013">Solomon, K., Matthies, M., and Vighi, M., 2013. Assessment of PBTs in the European Union: a critical assessment of the proposed evaluation scheme with reference to plant protection products. Environmental Sciences Europe, 25(1), pp. 1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-25-10 DOI: 10.1186/2190-4715-25-10]  [https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-25-10 Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Matthies2016">Matthies, M., Solomon, K., Vighi, M., Gilman, A. and Tarazona, J.V., 2016. The origin and evolution of assessment criteria for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 18(9), pp. 1114-1128. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EM00311G DOI: 10.1039/C6EM00311G]</ref>. Detailed sediment risk assessment typically follows a three-step framework similar to that described for ecological risk assessment - problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization<ref name="Suter2008">Suter, G.W., 2008. Ecological Risk Assessment in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: A Historical Overview. Integrated Environmental Assessment And Management, 4(3), pp. 285-289. [https://doi.org/10.1897/IEAM_2007-062.1 DOI: 10.1897/IEAM_2007-062.1]</ref>.

US sediment management guidance describes a detailed risk assessment process similar to that followed for US ecological risk assessment<ref name="USEPA2005" />. The first step is problem formulation. It involves defining chemical and physical conditions, delineating the spatial footprint of the sediment area to be examined, and identifying the human uses and ecological features of the sediment. Historical data are included in this initial step to better understand the results of biota, sediment, and water sampling as well as laboratory toxicity testing results. The SLRA is often included as a part of problem formulation.

The second step is analysis, which includes both an exposure assessment and an effects assessment. The exposure assessment includes the identification of pathways by which human and aquatic organisms might directly or indirectly contact contaminants in the sediment. The exposure route (i.e., ingestion, dermal, or inhalation of particulates or gaseous emissions) and both the frequency and duration of contact (i.e., hourly, daily, or seasonally) are determined for each contaminant exposure pathway and human and ecological receptor. The environmental fate of the contaminant, factors affecting uptake, and the overall exposure dose are included in the calculation of the level of contaminant exposure. The effects assessment identifies the possible short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) biological responses associated with different levels of exposure for each contaminant and human and ecological receptor.

The third step is risk-characterization. It involves calculating the risks for each human and ecological receptor posed by each sediment contaminant, as well as the cumulative risk associated with the combined exposure to all contaminants exerting similar biological effects. An uncertainty analysis is often included in this step of the risk assessment to convey where knowledge or data are lacking regarding the presence of the contaminant in the sediment, the biological response associated with exposure to the contaminant, or the behavior of the receptor with respect to contact with the sediment. A sensitivity analysis also may be conducted to convey the range of exposures (lowest, typical, and worst-case) and risks associated with changes in key assumptions and parameter values used in the exposure calculations and effects assessment.

==Key Considerations==
===Stakeholder Engagement===
Stakeholder involvement is widely acknowledged as an important element of [[Wikipedia: Dredging |dredged]] material management<ref name="Collier2014">Collier, Z.A., Bates, M.E., Wood, M.D. and Linkov, I., 2014. Stakeholder engagement in dredged material management decisions. Science of the Total Environment, 496, pp. 248-256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.044 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.07.044] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew-Bates-9/publication/264460412_Stakeholder_Engagement_in_Dredged_Material_Management_Decisions/links/5a9d50fbaca2721e3f32adea/Stakeholder-Engagement-in-Dredged-Material-Management-Decisions.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, sediment remediation<ref name="Oen2010">Oen, A.M.P., Sparrevik, M., Barton, D.N., Nagothu, U.S., Ellen, G.J., Breedveld, G.D., Skei, J. and Slob, A., 2010. Sediment and society: an approach for assessing management of contaminated sediments and stakeholder involvement in Norway. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 10(2), pp. 202-208. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-009-0182-x DOI: 10.1007/s11368-009-0182-x]</ref>, and other environmental and sediment related activities<ref name="Gerrits2004">Gerrits, L. and Edelenbos, J., 2004. Management of Sediments Through Stakeholder Involvement. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 4(4), pp. 239-246. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02991120 DOI: 10.1007/BF02991120]</ref><ref name="Braun2019">Braun, A.B., da Silva Trentin, A.W., Visentin, C. and Thomé, A., 2019. Sustainable remediation through the risk management perspective and stakeholder involvement: A systematic and bibliometric view of the literature. Environmental Pollution, 255(1), p.113221. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113221 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113221]</ref>.

Sediment management, particularly at the watershed or river basin scale, involves a wide variety of different environmental, governmental, and societal issues<ref name="Liu2018">Liu, C., Walling, D.E. and He, Y., 2018. The International Sediment Initiative case studies of sediment problems in river basins and their management. International Journal of Sediment Research, 33(2), pp. 216-219. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2017.05.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsrc.2017.05.005] [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cheng-Liu-43/publication/317032034_Review_The_International_Sediment_Initiative_Case_Studies_of_sediment_problems_in_river_basins_and_their_management/links/5f4f37d2299bf13a319703df/Review-The-International-Sediment-Initiative-Case-Studies-of-sediment-problems-in-river-basins-and-their-management.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. Incorporating these different views, interests, and perspectives into a form that builds consensus for whatever actions and goals are in mind (e.g., commercial ports and shipping, navigation, flood protection, or habitat restoration) necessitates a formal stakeholder engagement process<ref name="Slob2008">Slob, A.F.L., Ellen, G.J. and Gerrits, L., 2008. Sediment management and stakeholder involvement. In: Sustainable Management of Sediment Resources, Vol. 4: Sediment Management at the River Basin Scale, Owens, P.N. (ed.), pp. 199-216. Elsevier. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1872-1990(08)80009-8 DOI: 10.1016/S1872-1990(08)80009-8]</ref>.

Results from a three-year (2008-2010) [https://www.ngi.no/eng/Projects/Sediment-and-society Sediment and Society] research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council point to three important challenges that must be resolved for successful stakeholder engagement: (1) including people who have important management information and local knowledge, but not much influence in the decision-making process; (2) securing resources to ensure participation and (3) engaging and motivating stakeholders to participate early in the sediment remediation planning process<ref name="Oen2010" />.

===Conceptual Site Model===
The preparation of a conceptual site model (CSM) is a fundamental component of problem formulation and the first step in sediment risk assessment. The CSM is a narrative and/or illustrative representation of the physical, chemical and biological processes that control the transport, migration and actual or potential impacts of sediment contamination to human and/or ecological receptors<ref name="NJDEP2019">New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2019. Technical Guidance for Preparation and Submission of a Conceptual Site Model. Version 1.1. Site Remediation and Waste Management Program, Trenton, NJ. 46 pp. [https://www.nj.gov/dep/srp/guidance/srra/csm_tech_guidance.pdf Report pdf].</ref><ref name="USEPA2011">US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Guidance for the Development of Conceptual Models for a Problem Formulation Developed for Registration Review. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. [https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/guidance-development-conceptual-models-problem Website]</ref>. The CSM should include a “food web” because the aquatic food web is an important exposure pathway by which contaminants in the sediment reach humans and pelagic aquatic life<ref name="Arnot2004">Arnot, J.A. and Gobas, F.A., 2004. A Food Web Bioaccumulation Model for Organic Chemicals in Aquatic Ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(10), pp. 2343-2355. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-438 DOI: 10.1897/03-438]</ref>.

The CSM provides an early opportunity for critical examination of the interactions between sediment and the water column and the influence of groundwater inputs, surface runoff, and hydrodynamics. For example, there are situations where impacts in the aquatic food web can be driven by ongoing inputs to the water column from upstream sources, but mistakenly connected to polluted sediments. Other considerations included in a CSM can be socio-economic and include linkages to the ecosystem services provided by sediments<ref name="Broszeit2019">Broszeit, S., Beaumont, N.J., Hooper, T.L., Somerfield, P.J. and Austen, M.C., 2019. Developing conceptual models that link multiple ecosystem services to ecological research to aid management and policy, the UK marine example. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 141, pp.236-243. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.051 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.051] [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X19301511/pdfft?md5=34993d6c3a57b6fb18a8b6329597fcb9&pid=1-s2.0-S0025326X19301511-main.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Wang2021">Wang, J., Lautz, L.S., Nolte, T.M., Posthuma, L., Koopman, K.R., Leuven, R.S. and Hendriks, A.J., 2021. Towards a systematic method for assessing the impact of chemical pollution on ecosystem services of water systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 281, p. 111873. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111873 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111873]  [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720317989/pdfft?md5=daff5e94f8aed44ffce6508afef2308c&pid=1-s2.0-S0301479720317989-main.pdf Article pdf.]</ref>, or the social, economic and environmental impacts of sediment management alternatives. In such cases where the sediment risk assessment is intended to address the longer-term societal benefits of different management actions (including no action), the CSM could be viewed as part of a sustainable development strategy, or SustCSM<ref name="McNally2020">McNally, A.D., Fitzpatrick, A.G., Harrison, D., Busey, A., and Apitz, S.E., 2020. Tiered approach to sustainability analysis in sediment remediation decision making. Remediation Journal, 31(1), pp. 29-44. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21661 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21661] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/rem.21661 Open access article].</ref><ref name="Holland2011">Holland, K.S., Lewis, R.E., Tipton, K., Karnis, S., Dona, C., Petrovskis, E., and Hook, C., 2011. Framework for Integrating Sustainability Into Remediation Projects. Remediation Journal, 21(3), pp. 7-38. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20288 DOI: 10.1002/rem.20288].</ref>. At a minimum, however, the purpose of the CSM is to illustrate the scope of the risk assessment and guide the quantification of exposure and risk.

===Environmental Fate===
An important consideration in exposure analysis is the determination of the bioavailable fraction of the contaminant in the sediment. There are two considerations. First, the adverse condition may be buried deep enough in sediments to be below the biologically available zone; typically, conditions in sediment below a depth of 5 cm will not contact burrowing benthic organisms<ref name="Anderson2010">Anderson, R.H., Prues, A.G. and Kravitz, M.J., 2010. Determination of the biologically relevant sampling depth for terrestrial ecological risk assessments. Geoderma, 154(3-4), pp.336-339. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.11.004 DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.11.004]</ref>. If there is no prospect for the adverse condition to come closer to the surface, then the risk assessment could conclude the risk of exposure is insignificant. The second consideration relates to chemistry and the factors involved in the binding to sediment particles or the chemical form of the substance in the sediment<ref name="Eggleton2004">Eggleton, J. and Thomas, K.V., 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environment International, 30(7), pp. 973-980. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.001]</ref>. However, these assumptions should be examined in the context of [[Climate Change Primer | climate change]], and the likelihood of more frequent and extreme events, putting burial at risk, higher temperatures and changing biogeochemical conditions, which may alter environmental fate of contaminants, compared to historical studies.

The above contaminant bioavailability considerations are important factors influencing assumptions in the risk assessment about contaminant exposure<ref name="Peijnenburg2020">Peijnenburg, W.J., 2020. Implementation of bioavailability in prospective and retrospective risk assessment of chemicals in soils and sediments. In: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 100, Bioavailability of Organic Chemicals in Soil and Sediment, Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Parsons, J.R. (ed.s), pp.391-422. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_516 DOI: 10.1007/698_2020_516]</ref><ref name="Ortega-Calvo2015">Ortega-Calvo, J.J., Harmsen, J., Parsons, J.R., Semple, K.T., Aitken, M.D., Ajao, C., Eadsforth, C., Galay-Burgos, M., Naidu, R., Oliver, R. and Peijnenburg, W.J., 2015. From Bioavailability Science to Regulation of Organic Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 49, 10255−10264. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02412] [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b02412 Open access article].</ref>. There have been recent advances in the use of sorbent amendments applied to contaminated sediments that alter sediment geochemistry, increase contaminant binding, and reduce contaminant exposure risks to people and the environment<ref name="Ghosh2011">Ghosh, U., Luthy, R.G., Cornelissen, G., Werner, D. and Menzie, C.A., 2011. In-situ sorbent amendments: a new direction in contaminated sediment management. Environmental Science and Technology, 45, 4, 1163–1168. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102694h DOI: 10.1021/es102694h] [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es102694h Open access article.]</ref>. [[Passive Sampling of Sediments | Passive sampling techniques]] have emerged to quantify chemical binding to sediment and determine the freely dissolved concentration that is bioavailable.

===Assessment and Measurement Endpoints===
Assessment and measurement endpoints used in sediment risk assessment are comparable to those described in USEPA ecological risk assessment guidance<ref name="USEPA2005" /><ref name="USEPA1992">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-92/001. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/94/EPA-630-R-92-001.pdf Report pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA1996">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Eco Update: Ecological Significance and Selection of Candidate Assessment Endpoints. EPA/540/F-95/037. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/fa/EPA_540-F-95-037.pdf Report pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA1997b">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments - Interim Final, EPA 540/R-97/006. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/72/EPA_540-R-97-006.pdf Report pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA1998">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/55/EPA_630-R-95-002F.pdf Report pdf]</ref>. A sediment risk assessment, and ecological risk assessments more broadly, must have clearly defined endpoints that are socially and biologically relevant, accessible to prediction and measurement, and susceptible to the hazard being assessed<ref name="USEPA1992" />.

Assessment endpoints for humans include both carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects. Due to their assumed higher levels of exposure, human receptors in sediment risk assessment typically include recreational, commercial, and subsistence fishermen, i.e., people who might be at increased risk from eating fish or contacting the sediment or water on a regular basis such as indigenous peoples, immigrants from fishing cultures, and subsistence fishers who rely upon fish as a major source of protein. Special considerations are given to women of child-bearing age, pregnant women and young children. Assessment endpoints for ecological receptors focus on benthic organisms, resident fish, piscivorous and other predatory birds and marine mammals. Endpoints typically include mortality, reproductive success and population susceptibility to disease or similar adverse chronic conditions.

Measurement endpoints are related quantitatively to each assessment endpoint. Whenever practical, multiple measurement endpoints are chosen to provide additional lines of evidence for each assessment endpoint. For example, for humans, it might be possible to measure contaminant levels in both food items and human blood or tissue. For predatory fish, birds and mammals, it might be possible to measure contaminants in both prey and predator tissues. Measurement endpoints can be selected to assess non-chemical stressors as well, such as habitat alteration and water turbidity. Typically, measurement endpoints are compared to measurements at a reference site to ascertain the degree of departure from local natural or background conditions.

===Sediment Toxicity Testing===
Sediment bioassays are an integral part of effects characterization when assessing the risks posed by contaminated sediments and developing sediment quality guidelines<ref name="USEPA2014">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2014. Toxicity Testing and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Benthic Invertebrates. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d0/USEPA2014.pdf Report pdf]</ref><ref name="Simpson2016a">Simpson, S., Campana, O., Ho, K., 2016. Chapter 7, Sediment Toxicity Testing. In: J. Blasco, P.M. Chapman, O. Campana, M. Hampel (ed.s), Marine Ecotoxicology: Current Knowledge and Future Issues. Academic Press Incorporated. pp. 199-237. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803371-5.00007-2 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803371-5.00007-2]</ref>. The selection of appropriate sediment bioassays is dependent on the questions being addressed, the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediment matrix, the nature of the contaminant(s) of concern, and preferences of the supervising regulatory authority for the test method and test organisms<ref name="Amiard-Triquet2015">Amiard-Triquet, C., Amiard, J.C. and Mouneyrac, C. (ed.s), 2015. Aquatic Ecotoxicology: Advancing Tools For Dealing With Emerging Risks. Academic Press, NY. ISBN #9780128009499. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800949-9.12001-7 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800949-9.12001-7]</ref>. Bioassay procedures have been standardized in several countries, and it is not unusual for different test methods to be required in different countries for the same sediment management purpose<ref name="DelValls2004">DelValls, T.A., Andres, A., Belzunce, M.J., Buceta, J.L., Casado-Martinez, M.C., Castro, R., Riba, I., Viguri, J.R. and Blasco, J., 2004. Chemical and ecotoxicological guidelines for managing disposal of dredged material. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 23(10-11), pp. 819-828. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.014]</ref>. Guidance documents in Australia, Canada, Europe and the US cover the wide range of sediment bioassay procedures most often used in risk assessment<ref name="Bat2005">Bat, L., 2005. A Review of Sediment Toxicity Bioassays Using the Amphipods and Polychaetes. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 5(2), pp. 119-139. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/84/Bat2005.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Keddy1995">Keddy, C.J., Greene, J.C. and Bonnell, M.A., 1995. Review of Whole-Organism Bioassays: Soil, Freshwater Sediment, and Freshwater Assessment in Canada. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 30(3), pp. 221-251. [https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1995.1027 DOI: 10.1006/eesa.1995.1027]</ref><ref name="Giesy1990">Giesy, J.P., Rosiu, C.J., Graney, R.L. and Henry, M.G., 1990. Benthic invertebrate bioassays with toxic sediment and pore water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9(2), pp. 233-248. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620090214 DOI: 10.1002/etc.5620090214]</ref><ref name="Simpson2016b">Simpson, S. and Batley, G. (ed.s), 2016. Sediment Quality Assessment: A Practical Guide, Second Edition. 358 pp. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. ISBN # 9781486303847.</ref><ref name="Moore2019">Moore, D.W., Farrar, D., Altman, S. and Bridges, T.S., 2019. Comparison of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Laboratory Bioassay Endpoints with Benthic Community Responses in Field‐Exposed Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 38(8), pp. 1784-1802. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4454 DOI: 10.1002/etc.4454]</ref>.

In general, sediment toxicity tests focus on either (acute) lethality in whole organisms (typically benthic infaunal species such as amphipods and polychaetes) following short-term or acute exposures (<14 days) or (chronic) sublethal responses (e.g., reduced growth or reproduction or both) following longer-term exposures<ref name="Simpson2016a" />. It is not unusual in sediment risk assessment to rely on more than one sediment bioassay. Both acute and chronic tests involving either solid-phase or pore-water sediment fractions can be useful to discern the contributions of different contaminants in whole sediment by examining the response of different endpoints in different test organisms<ref name="Keddy1995" /><ref name="Giesy1990" />. The application of more specialized techniques such as toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs) have also proved useful to help identify contaminants or contaminant classes most likely responsible for toxicity and to exclude potentially confounding factors such as ammonia<ref name="Ho2013">Ho, K.T. and Burgess, R.M., 2013. What's causing toxicity in sediments? Results of 20 years of toxicity identification and evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(11), pp. 2424-2432. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2359 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2359]</ref><ref name="Bailey2016">Bailey, H.C., Curran, C.A., Arth, P., Lo, B.P. and Gossett, R., 2016. Application of sediment toxicity identification evaluation techniques to a site with multiple contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(10), pp. 2456-2465. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3488 DOI: 10.1002/etc.3488]</ref>.

===Uncertainty===
As part of the overall analysis of risk from exposure to certain sediment conditions, it is generally understood there is a moderate degree of uncertainty associated with sampling and the environmental fate of contaminants; an order of magnitude of uncertainty associated with ecological exposure and dose-response; and greater than an order of magnitude of uncertainty associated with the quantification of potential human health effects<ref name="DiGuardo2018">Di Guardo, A., Gouin, T., MacLeod, M. and Scheringer, M., 2018. Environmental fate and exposure models: advances and challenges in 21st century chemical risk assessment. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(1), pp. 58-71. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00568G DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00568G] [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/em/c7em00568g Open access article.]</ref>. The sources of uncertainty and significance to sediment risk assessment can vary widely, thereby affecting confidence in the decisions made based on risk assessment<ref name="Reckhow1994">Reckhow, K.H., 1994. Water quality simulation modeling and uncertainty analysis for risk assessment and decision making. Ecological Modelling, 72(1-2), pp.1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(94)90143-0 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3800(94)90143-0]</ref><ref name="Chapman2002">Chapman, P.M., Ho, K.T., Munns Jr, W.R., Solomon, K. and Weinstein, M.P., 2002. Issues in sediment toxicity and ecological risk assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(4), pp. 271-278. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00329-0 DOI: 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00329-0]</ref>.

Consequently, technical guidance in several countries encourages including a quantitative uncertainty analysis in sediment risk assessment<ref name="USEPA2005" /><ref name="Tarazona2014" /><ref name="Apitz2005a" /><ref name="Apitz2005b" />. The aim of uncertainty analysis is to express either quantitatively or qualitatively the limitations inherent in predicting exposures and effects and, ultimately, the level of overall risk posed by sediment conditions<ref name="Batley2002">Batley, G.E., Burton, G.A., Chapman, P.M. and Forbes, V.E., 2002. Uncertainties in Sediment Quality Weight-of-Evidence (WOE) Assessments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8(7), pp. 1517-1547. [https://doi.org/10.1080/20028091057466 DOI: 10.1080/20028091057466]</ref>. Sediment risk assessment increasingly relies on a weight-of-evidence process to improve the certainty of conclusions about whether or not impairment exists due to sediment contamination, and, if so, which stressors and biological species (or ecological responses) are of greatest concern<ref name="Burton2002">Burton, G.A., Batley, G.E., Chapman, P.M., Forbes, V.E., Smith, E.P., Reynoldson, T., Schlekat, C.E., Besten, P.J.D., Bailer, A.J., Green, A.S. and Dwyer, R.L., 2002. A Weight-of-Evidence Framework for Assessing Sediment (or Other) Contamination: Improving Certainty in the Decision-Making Process. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8(7), pp. 1675-1696. [https://doi.org/10.1080/20028091056854 DOI: 10.1080/20028091056854]</ref>. Recent advancements, including the use of Bayesian networks and geographic information systems, also help capture the range of variability in both measured and predicted exposures and responses<ref name="Holsman2017">Holsman, K., Samhouri, J., Cook, G., Hazen, E., Olsen, E., Dillard, M., Kasperski, S., Gaichas, S., Kelble, C.R., Fogarty, M. and Andrews, K., 2017. An ecosystem‐based approach to marine risk assessment. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 3(1), p. e01256. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1256 DOI: 10.1002/ehs2.1256]  [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ehs2.1256?needAccess=true Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Marcot2019">Marcot, B.G. and Penman, T.D., 2019. Advances in Bayesian network modelling: Integration of modelling technologies. Environmental Modelling and Software, 111, pp. 386-393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.016 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.09.016]</ref><ref name="Men2019">Men, C., Liu, R., Wang, Q., Guo, L., Miao, Y. and Shen, Z., 2019. Uncertainty analysis in source apportionment of heavy metals in road dust based on positive matrix factorization model and geographic information system. Science of The Total Environment, 652, pp. 27-39. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.212 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.212]</ref>. The level of sophistication applied to the uncertainty analysis is a subjective consideration and often decided by regulatory pressures, public perceptions, and the likely cost (not only economic, but also social and environmental) of mitigating or removing the contamination.

==Role in Sediment Management==
Whether or not remediation of contaminated sediments is warranted depends on the magnitude of direct or indirect health risks to humans, ecological threats to aquatic biota, and the extent of risk reduction that can be achieved by removal or containment of the contamination<ref name="Kvasnicka2020">Kvasnicka, J., Burton Jr, G.A., Semrau, J. and Jolliet, O., 2020. Dredging Contaminated Sediments: Is it Worth the Risks? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(3), pp. 515-516. [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/etc.4679 DOI: 10.1002/etc.4679]  [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/etc.4679 Open access article.]</ref>. As all sediment management also introduces risk pathways, such as sediment re-suspension leading to contaminant release, possible impacts due to land, water and energy usage, and risk to workers, remedial decision-making should also consider the risks posed by the remedial process. There are two types of remediation risks inherent in sediment remediation - engineering and biological. Sediment remedy implementation risks are predominantly short-term engineering issues associated with applying the remedy such that worker and community health and safety are protected, and equipment failures and accidents are minimized<ref name="Wenning2006">Wenning, R.J., Sorensen, M. and Magar, V.S., 2006. Importance of Implementation and Residual Risk Analyses in Sediment Remediation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 59-65. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020111 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020111] [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.5630020111 Open access article.]</ref>. Sediment residual risks are predominantly longer-term concerns associated with the consequences of residual chronic exposures and effects to humans, aquatic biota, and wildlife after the remedy has been implemented<ref name="Wenning2006" />.

In addition to evaluating sediment conditions prior to remediation, sediment risk assessment can be useful to predict the extent to which engineering risks, contaminant exposure pathways, and different human and wildlife populations at risk might change with different remediation options<ref name="NRC2001">National Research Council (NRC), 2001. A Risk‐Management Strategy For PCB Contaminated Sediments. Committee On Remediation Of PCB‐Contaminated Sediments, Board On Environmental Studies And Toxicology. National Academies Press, Washington DC. 452 pp. ISBN: 0-309-58873-1 [https://doi.org/10.17226/10041 DOI: 10.17226/10041] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b4/10041.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. Decision tools such as multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), or sustainability assessment<ref name="Apitz2018">Apitz, S.E., Fitzpatrick, A., McNally, A., Harrison, D., Coughlin, C., and Edwards, D.A., 2018. Stakeholder Value-Linked Sustainability Assessment: Evaluating Remedial Alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 14(1), pp. 43-62. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1998 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1998] [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.1998 Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Fitzpatrick2018">Fitzpatrick, A., Apitz, S.E., Harrison, D., Ruffle, B., and Edwards, D.A., 2018. The Portland Harbor Superfund Site Sustainability Project: Introduction. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 14(1), pp. 17-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1997 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.197]  [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.1997 Open access article.]</ref>, for example, incorporate elements from sediment risk assessment to support remediation decision making<ref name="Linkov2006a">Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G., Seager, T.P., Bridges, T., Gardner, K.H., Rogers, S.H., Belluck, D.A. and Meyer, A., 2006. Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments. Risk Analysis, 26(1), pp. 61-78. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x]  [https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyceomaha Open access article.]</ref>. Sediment risk assessment also plays an important role in the implementation of monitored natural recovery (MNR) as a remediation strategy<ref name="Magar2006">Magar, V.S. and Wenning, R.J., 2006. The role of monitored natural recovery in sediment remediation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 66-74. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020112 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020112]  [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.5630020112 Open access article.]</ref>. Insofar as ecological recovery is affected by surface‐sediment‐contaminant concentrations, the primary recovery processes for MNR are natural sediment burial and transformation of the contaminant to less toxic forms by biological or chemical processes<ref name="Magar2009">Magar, V.S., Chadwick, D.B., Bridges, T.S., Fuchsman, P.C., Conder, J.M., Dekker, T.J., Steevens, J.A., Gustavson, K.E. and Mills, M.A., 2009. Technical Guide: Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments/In-place-Remediation/ER-200622/(language)/eng-US ER-0622]. 277 pp. [https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512822.pdf Report pdf]</ref>.

Since risk reduction is the long‐term goal of contaminated sediment management<ref name="Apitz2002">Apitz, S.E. and Power, E.A., 2002. From Risk Assessment to Sediment Management: An International Perspective. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2(2), pp. 61-66. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02987872 DOI: 10.1007/BF02987872]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sabine-Apitz/publication/225649107_From_risk_assessment_to_sediment_management_An_international_perspective/links/09e4150cb2df7c6331000000/From-risk-assessment-to-sediment-management-An-international-perspective.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>, predicting the rate at which contaminant exposures and risks are mitigated by sedimentation and degradation over time can be aided by including parameters in the risk assessment that calculate the rate of contaminant removal or decay in the sediment. Evaluating sediment management options in terms of risk reduction involves assessing risks for the plausible range of environmental conditions expected in the affected waterbody, which includes the current state of the site as well as the conditions that might occur during the remedy implementation and long after the work is complete and the ecosystem stabilizes<ref name="Linkov2006b">Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Benjamin, S.L. and Belluck, D.A., 2006. From Optimization to Adaptation: Shifting Paradigms in Environmental Management and Their Application to Remedial Decisions. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2(1), pp. 92-98. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.5630020116 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.5630020116] [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.5630020116 Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Reible2003">Reible, D., Hayes, D., Lue-Hing, C., Patterson, J., Bhowmik, N., Johnson, M. and Teal, J., 2003. Comparison of the Long-Term Risks of Removal and In Situ Management of Contaminated Sediments in the Fox River. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 12(3), pp. 325-344. [https://doi.org/10.1080/713610975 DOI: 10.1080/713610975]</ref>.

==Summary==
Effective sediment risk assessment begins with an initial scoping and planning exercise. The work proceeds to a SLRA and, if warranted, detailed risk assessment using a process comparable to an ERA. The key elements of sediment risk assessment must include a well‐designed and site‐specific CSM; a transparent and well‐thought‐out biological and chemical data collection and analysis plan; carefully selected reference sites and decision criteria; and an explicit discussion of uncertainty. If the sediment risk assessment concludes that unacceptable risks exist, the plausible risk management strategies must be identified, evaluated, selected, implemented, and their success monitored relative to the outcomes predicted in the risk assessment.

Sediment risk assessments are designed to simulate and predict plausible interactions between contaminants or other stressors and both ecological and human receptors. The intent is to derive meaningful insights that provide conclusions that are both rational and protective, in that they err on the side of over-estimating the likely environmental risks. Although conservative assumptions should always be used early in the sediment risk assessment process, final decisions should be supported by refined, realistic estimates of risk provided by site‐specific data and sound analytical approaches. It is increasingly evident after nearly 50 years of application that sediment risk assessment is most useful when supported by a well‐designed, site‐specific, and tiered assessment process<ref name="Bridges2005">Bridges, T., Berry, W., Della Sala, S., Dorn, P., Ells, S., Gries, T., Ireland, S., Maher, E., Menzie, C., Porebski, L., and Stronkhorst, J., 2005. Chapter 6: A framework for assessing and managing risks from contaminated sediments. In: Use of sediment quality guidelines and related tools for the assessment of contaminated sediments. Wenning, Batley, Ingersoll, and Moore, editors. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), pp. 227–266. ISBN: 1-880611-71-6</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

Contaminated Sediments - Introduction

2026-03-13T21:00:04Z

Admin:

Sediments are unconsolidated particulate materials found at the bottom of natural and manmade surface water bodies. They may include clay, silt, sand, gravel, decaying organic matter, or shells. Discharge of contaminants to surface water can result in contamination of sediments and potentially adverse impacts to receptors including [[Wikipedia: Benthic zone | benthic]] and water-column invertebrates, fish, wildlife, plants, and human populations. Contaminant sources include contaminated wastewater, surface water runoff, stormwater discharge, or groundwater, as well as atmospheric deposition, and spills and releases. Common contaminants include petroleum products, [[wikipedia:Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia:Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds | dioxins]], pesticides, metals, radionuclides, and excess nutrients<ref name="USEPA2019S">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2019. Superfund Contaminated Sediments: Guidance and Technical Support [https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-contaminated-sediments-guidance-and-technical-support website]</ref><ref name="ITRC2011">ITRC, 2011. Incorporating Bioavailability Considerations into the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediment Sites. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/30/2011-ITRC_incorporating_bioavailability_Considerations_into_the_Evaluation_of_Contaminated_Sediment_Sites.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

This article provides a brief introduction to the major topics associated with contaminated sediment management and remediation. It is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject of contaminated sediments, but rather to be a curated resource on key aspects of contaminated sediments that have seen major innovations in recent years. It also provides links to more in-depth enviro.wiki discussions on the key topics as well as links to major resources on the subject of contaminated sediments.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s)''':

*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) | In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Upal Ghosh]]

'''Key Resource(s)''':

*[https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds_remedy-selection/ ITRC - Contaminated Sediments Remediation]<ref name="ITRC2014">ITRC, 2014. Contaminated Sediments Remediation [https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds_remedy-selection/Content/2%20Remedy%20Evaluation%20Framework.htm Website]</ref>
*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6f/2002-USEPA-_Principles_for_Managing_Contaminated_Sediment_Risks_at_Hazardous_Waste_Sites.pdf USEPA – Sediment Risk Management Principles]<ref>USEPA, 2002. Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites. OSWER Directive 9285.6–08. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6f/2002-USEPA-_Principles_for_Managing_Contaminated_Sediment_Risks_at_Hazardous_Waste_Sites.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>
*[https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-contaminated-sediments-guidance-and-technical-support USEPA - Superfund Contaminated Sediments: Guidance and Technical Support]<ref name="USEPA2019S" />

==Introduction==
[[File:Ghosh1w2Fig1.png|thumb|450px|Figure 1. Key Exposure Pathways for Human Health Risk at Contaminated Sediment Sites. [https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds-bioavailability/index.htm Source]]]
Discharge of contaminants to lakes, rivers, and estuaries can result in contamination of the underlying sediments and potential adverse impacts to critical receptors including benthic and water-column invertebrates, fish, wildlife, plants and human populations. Contaminated sediments are often located in sensitive aquatic environments and sometimes may require corrective measures to reduce exposure to human and ecological receptors<ref name="ITRC2011" />.

In most cases, the Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) in sediments are relatively immobile and long-lived. This includes petroleum products, [[wikipedia:Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], [[Polycyclic_Aromatic_Hydrocarbons_(PAHs)| polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia:Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds | dioxins]], metals (mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, nickel, zinc, tin), radionuclides, and excess nutrients<ref name="ITRC2011" />. Some of the contaminants (like metals and PAHs) primarily pose a risk to benthic organisms present in the sediments, while the bioaccumulative chemicals (PCBs, dioxins) are more likely to impact higher trophic organisms such as fish and humans.

==Sediment Risk Assessment and Management==
[[File:Ghosh1w2Fig2.png|thumb|450px|Figure 2.Physical Transport and Ecological Receptor Processes for Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) in a Freshwater System. [https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds-bioavailability/index.htm Source]]]
Effective risk management and remediation of contaminated sediments requires an understanding of how contaminants are released from sediment, transported, and taken up by receptors<ref name="ITRC2011" />. A clear understanding of important exposure pathways based on site-specific information is needed for the formulation of a robust site conceptual model. Figure 1 illustrates typical transport pathways between sediment and receptors in a freshwater system. A substantial portion of the total mass of a contaminant present in sediment is often not available to potential receptors due to a variety of “…physical, chemical, and biological interactions that determine the exposure of plants and animals to chemicals associated with soils and sediments” <ref>National Research Council, 2003. Bioavailability of Contaminants in Soils and Sediments: Processes, Tools, and Applications. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 432p. https://doi.org/10.17226/10523 [https://www.nap.edu/download/10523 free download]</ref>. As a result, contaminant “bioavailability” must be incorporated into Conceptual Site Models (CSMs) and risk assessments<ref name="ITRC2011" />.

Important processes controlling contaminant bioavailability include physical (advection/diffusion, resuspension/deposition, burial, bioturbation, and ebullition/gas transport), chemical (sorption/desorption, transformation/degradation, oxidation/reduction) and biological (uptake, bioconcentration or bioaccumulation, biotransformation)<ref name="ITRC2011" />. Important physical transport and ecological receptor processes for contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) in a typical freshwater ecosystem are illustrated in Figure 2.

==Risk Management and Remedy Selection==
Risk management at contaminated sediment sites typically follows the guidance established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Superfund program. Once the nature and magnitude of risk has been established, several options exist for the management of the risk including institutional controls such as site access control or fish consumption advisories, relying on the natural process of attenuation, and/or active remedies of the contaminated sediments. The USEPA has developed [https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-contaminated-sediments-guidance-and-technical-support technical guidance] to facilitate characterization, risk management, and remediation of contaminated sediment sites and encourage national consistency in these processes.

During selection of a remedy to address contaminated sediment, the USEPA recommends a risk-based approach that accounts for short-term and long-term risks. In addition, the remedy selected must maintain consistency with the [https://www.epa.gov/emergency-response/national-oil-and-hazardous-substances-pollution-contingency-plan-ncp-overview National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan’s] nine remedy selection criteria set forth in [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/300.430 40 CFR Part 300.430(e)9(iii)] as follows:

#Protection of human health and the environment,
#Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements,
#Long-term effectiveness and permanence,
#Toxicity, mobility or volume reduction through treatment,
#Short-term effectiveness,
#Implementability,
#Cost,
#State agency acceptance, and
#Community acceptance.

[[File:Ghosh1w2Fig3.png|thumb|450px|Figure 3. Sediment removal being conducted at the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Superfund Site in Missoula County, Montana. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Excavation.jpg Source]]]
The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) has also developed a [https://www.itrcweb.org/contseds_remedy-selection/Content/2%20Remedy%20Evaluation%20Framework.htm remedy selection framework] to help project managers evaluate remedial technologies and develop alternatives based on site-specific data. This framework includes:

#Review of site characteristics,
#Remedial zone identification and mapping,
#Screening remedial technologies,
#Detailed evaluation remedial technologies,
#Development of remedial action alternatives, and
#Evaluation of remedial action alternatives<ref name="ITRC2014" />.

==Remedial Technologies==
Commonly employed technologies for sediment remediation include monitored natural recovery, enhanced monitored natural recovery, ''in situ'' treatment, capping, and removal<ref name="ITRC2014" />.

'''Monitored natural recovery (MNR) ''' is defined as a remediation practice that relies on natural processes to decrease chemical contaminants in sediment to acceptable concentrations within a reasonable time frame <ref>National Research Council, 2000. Natural Attenuation for Groundwater Remediation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9792 [https://www.nap.edu/download/9792 free download]</ref>. Enhanced MNR (EMNR) applies material or amendments to enhance these natural recovery processes (such as the addition of a thin-layer cap or a carbon amendment). Parallel natural or enhanced processes, taken together with observed and predicted reductions of contaminant concentrations in fish tissue, sediments, and water provide multiple lines of evidence to support the selection of MNR/EMNR as the primary remedial strategy<ref>Magar, V.S., Chadwick, D.B., Bridges, T.S., Fuchsman, P.C., Conder, J.M., Dekker, T.J., Steevens, J.A., Gustavson, K.E. and Mills, M.A., 2009. Monitored natural recovery at contaminated sediment sites. Environ International Corp Arlington Va. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/fd/2009-Magar-Technical_Guide.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Important processes to consider in assessments of MNR/EMNR include contaminant burial, dispersion, sorption, precipitation, and chemical, biological and radioactive transformations<ref name="ITRC2014" />.

'''''In situ'' treatment''' commonly involves the addition of treatment amendments to accelerate contaminant removal and/or immobilize the contaminant<ref name="ITRC2014" />. Amendments that have been considered for sediment treatment include organophilic clay, zeolites, bauxite, iron oxide/hydroxide, apatite, and zero valent iron<ref>O'Day, P.A. and Vlassopoulos, D., 2010. Mineral-based amendments for remediation. Elements, 6(6), pp.375-381 [https://doi.org/10.2113/gselements.6.6.375 doi: 10.2113/gselements.6.6.375]</ref>. However, the most common approach is addition of activated carbon (AC) as a thin-layer cap or incorporated into the sediment<ref>Ghosh, U., Luthy, R.G., Cornelissen, G., Werner, D. and Menzie, C.A., 2011. In-situ sorbent amendments: a new direction in contaminated sediment management. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102694h doi: 10.1021/es102694h]</ref>. 

'''Capping''' is the process of placing a clean layer of sand, sediments or other material over contaminated sediments in order to mitigate risk posed by those sediments<ref name="ITRC2014" />. The cap can include geotextiles and armoring layers to improve stability and enhance habitat. 

'''Removal (dredging or excavation) ''' physically removes the contaminated sediment from the ecosystem and is most effective for hot spots and major sources but may be less effective for overall risk reduction because of resuspension and residual contamination<ref name="ITRC2014" />. Once removed, the contaminated sediments are treated or disposed at an offsite location. Figure 3 shows sediment excavation at the Milltown Reservoir Sediments Superfund Site.

==References==

<references />

==See Also==

*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments Managing Contaminated Sediments]
*[https://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/140524.pdf EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy]
*[https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/174471.pdf#1819 Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites]
*[https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/196834.pdf Remediating Contaminated Sediment Sites – Clarification of Several Key Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study and Risk Management Recommendations, and Updated Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group Operating Procedures]

Main Page

2026-03-13T20:59:20Z

Admin:

<center>
{| class="MainPageBG" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; border-spacing:0px;"
|-
| style="width:55%;" |<center><big>Welcome to '''ENVIRO''' '''Wiki'''</big> Peer Reviewed. Accessible. Written By Experts</center>
| style="width:40%;" |<center> ''Developed and brought to you by '' [[File:MainLogo-serdp-estcp.png|link=https://www.serdp-estcp.org |frameless|center|350px]]''Your Environmental Information Gateway''
</center>
|-
| The goal of ENVIRO Wiki is to make scientific and engineering research results more accessible to environmental professionals, facilitating the permitting, design and implementation of environmental projects. Articles are written and edited by invited experts (see [[Contributors]]) to summarize current knowledge for the target audience on an array of topics, with cross-linked references to reports and technical literature. 
|<center> [[#Table of Contents|See Table of Contents]]
</center>
<inputbox> type=fulltext
placeholder=Search Enviro Wiki
break=no </inputbox>
|}
</center>

{| role="presentation" id="mp-upper" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; margin-top:3px; border-spacing: 0px; "

| id="mp-left" class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; padding:0; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Featured article: PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment</h2>
<div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:0.0em 1.0em;">[[File:XiongFig1.png|400px|left|link=PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]<dailyfeaturedpage></dailyfeaturedpage>  

[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment|(Full article...)]] </div>

| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |


| id="mp-right" class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; padding:0; horizontal-align:center; vertical-align:top;" |
<h2 id="mp-itn-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Enviro Wiki Highlights</h2>
<div id="mp-itn" style="padding:0.0em 0.5em;">

<slideshow sequence="random" transition="fade" refresh="7500">

[[File:WH Picture1.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Matrix Diffusion|Molecular diffusion slowly transports solutes into clay-rich, lower permeability zones]]
[[File:WH Picture2.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)|Typical subgrade biogeochemical reactor (SBGR) layout. The SBGR is an in situ remediation technology for treatment of contaminated source areas and groundwater plume hot spots ]]
[[File:WH Picture3.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|An Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) log with electrical conductivity (EC) on left, injection pressure in middle, and flow rate on the right]]
[[File:WH Picture4.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=PH Buffering in Aquifers|Diagram of mineral surface exchanging hydrogen ions with varying pH. The surface of most aquifer minerals carries an electrical charge that varies with pH]]
[[File:WH Picture5.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons|Comparison of the longitudinal redox zonation concept (A) and the plume fringe concept (B). Both concepts describe the spatial distribution of electron acceptors and respiration processes in a hydrocarbon contaminant plume]]
[[File:WH Picture6.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|Schematic of an Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) probe. HPT were developed to better understand formation permeability and the distribution of permeable and low permeability zones in unconsolidated formations]]
[[File:WH Picture7.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)|In situ chemical oxidation using (a) direct-push injection probes or (b) well-to-well flushing to delivery oxidants (shown in blue) into a target treatment zone of groundwater contaminated by dense nonaqueous phase liquid compounds (shown in red)]]
[[File:WH Picture8.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Geophysical Methods - Case_Studies|High-resolution 3D cross-borehole electrical imaging of contaminated fractured rock at the former Naval Air Warfare Center in New Jersey. Cross-borehole resistivity tomography imaging is a geophysical technique that can be used for site characterization and monitoring by observing variations in the electrical properties of subsurface materials]]
[[File:WH Picture9.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Stable_Isotope_Probing_(SIP)|Stable isotope probing (SIP) in use: Loading, deployment and recovery of Bio-Trap® passive sampler with 13C-labeled benzene. Stable isotope probing (SIP) is used to conclusively determine whether in situ biodegradation of a contaminant is occurring]]
[[File:WH Picture10.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=1,2,3-Trichloropropane|Summary of anticipated, primary reaction pathways for degradation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). TCP is a man-made chemical that was used in the past primarily as a solvent and extractive agent, a paint and varnish remover, and as a cleaning and degreasing agent]]
[[File:WH Picture11.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels|Distribution of BTEX plume lengths from 604 hydrocarbon sites. Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is one of the most commonly used remediation approaches for groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and certain fuel additives such as fuel oxygenates or lead scavengers]]
[[File:WH Picture12.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive|No-purge and passive sampling methods eliminate the pre-purging step for groundwater sample collection and represent alternatives to conventional sampling methods that rely on low-flow purging of a well prior to collection. The Snap SamplerTM is an example of a passive grab sampler]]
[[File:WH Picture13.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)|Conceptualization of Vapor Transport-related Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) processes at a Petroleum Release Site]]
[[File:WH Picture14.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)|Conceptual diagram of basic Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system for vadose zone remediation. (SVE) is a common and typically effective physical treatment process for remediation of volatile contaminants in vadose zone (unsaturated) soils]]
[[File:WH Picture15.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation|Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) mixed in field during early pilot test. EVO is commonly added as a slowly fermentable substrate to stimulate the in situ anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, explosives, perchlorate, chromate, and other contaminants]]
[[File:WH Picture16.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Vapor_Intrusion_(VI)|Key elements of vapor intrusion pathways]]
[[File:WH Picture17.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Sorption_of_Organic_Contaminants|Batch reactor experiments to generate points on a sorption isotherm]]
[[File:WH Picture18.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Metagenomics|Results for metagenomic analysis of a groundwater sample obtained from a site impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons]]
[[File:WH Picture19.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perchlorate|Perchlorate releases and drinking water detections]]
[[File:WH Picture20.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Mass_Flux_and_Mass_Discharge|Data input screen for ESTCP Mass Flux Toolkit]]
[[File:WH Picture21.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic_Design_Considerations|Amendment addition for biobarrier]]
[[File:WH Picture22.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)|Thermal Remediation - Desorption schematic]]
[[File:WH_Picture23.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Contaminated_Sediments_-_Introduction |Key exposure pathways for human health risk from contaminated sediments]]
[[File:WH_Picture24.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFAS)| The PFAS family of compounds]]

</slideshow>
</div>
|}

{| id="mp-upper" style="width: 95%; margin:3px 0 0 0; "
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
{| id="mp-left" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f9f9f9;"
| style="padding:2px;" |<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2_2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Table of Contents </h2>
{| style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
'''[[Transport & Attenuation Processes | Attenuation & Transport Processes]]'''

*[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]
*[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]
*[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]
*[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]
*[[Matrix Diffusion]]
*[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater | Mobility of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
*[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
**[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]

'''[[Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring]]'''

*[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
*[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)|Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]
*[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]
**[[Direct Push Logging |Direct Push Logging]]
**[[Direct Push Sampling |Direct Push Sampling]]
*[[Geophysical Methods | Geophysical Methods]]
**[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies |Case Studies]]
**[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
*[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]
*[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)|Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis |LTM Data Analysis]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability |LTM Data Variability]]
*[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs |Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs)]]
**[[Metagenomics]]
**[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
**[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]
**[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]
*[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill |Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
*[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]

'''[[Climate Change Primer | Climate Change]]'''

*[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
*[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
*[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
*[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
*[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]

'''[[Coastal and Estuarine Ecology]]'''

*[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | Contaminated Sediments]]'''

*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) | In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
**[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''[[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)]]'''

*[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
*[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]
*[[NAPL Mobility]]

'''[[Munitions Constituents]]'''

*[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction|Abiotic Reduction]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation|Alkaline Degradation]]
**[[Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Matter Enhanced Alkaline Hydrolysis]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Composting|Composting]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition |Deposition]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution |Dissolution]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment|Electrochemical Treatment]]
*[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Passive Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis |Photolysis]]
*[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents |Remediation of Stormwater Runoff ]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling |Soil Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption |Sorption]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology |Toxicology]]
*[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|TREECS™]]

'''[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]'''

*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents| MNA of Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels| MNA of Fuels]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids| MNA of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies| Transitioning from Active Remedies]]

'''[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]'''

*[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
**[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction | Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination]]
*[[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]
*[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Regulatory Issues and Site Management]]'''

*[[Alternative Endpoints]]
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
*[[REMChlor - MD | REMChlor-MD]]
*[[Source Zone Modeling]]
*[[Sustainable Remediation]]

'''[[Remediation Technologies]]'''
*[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]
*[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic|Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations | Design Considerations]]
**[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]
**[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts | Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]
*[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO) | Design Considerations]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO) | Oxidant Selection]]
*[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR) | In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR) | Zero-Valent Iron (ZVI)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
*[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]
*[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]
*[[Landfarming]]
*[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation | Remediation of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]
*[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]
*[[Stream Restoration]]
*[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Thermal Remediation]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering | Smoldering]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Steam | Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)]]
**[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]

'''[[Soil & Groundwater Contaminants]]'''

*[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]
*[[1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants|Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
*[[Perchlorate|Perchlorate]]
*[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
*[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]
|}
|}
|}

Main Page

2026-03-03T22:48:51Z

Admin:

<center>
{| class="MainPageBG" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; border-spacing:0px;"
|-
| style="width:55%;" |<center><big>Welcome to '''ENVIRO''' '''Wiki'''</big> Peer Reviewed. Accessible. Written By Experts</center>
| style="width:40%;" |<center> ''Developed and brought to you by '' [[File:MainLogo-serdp-estcp.png|link=https://www.serdp-estcp.org |frameless|center|350px]]''Your Environmental Information Gateway''
</center>
|-
| The goal of ENVIRO Wiki is to make scientific and engineering research results more accessible to environmental professionals, facilitating the permitting, design and implementation of environmental projects. Articles are written and edited by invited experts (see [[Contributors]]) to summarize current knowledge for the target audience on an array of topics, with cross-linked references to reports and technical literature. 
|<center> [[#Table of Contents|See Table of Contents]]
</center>
<inputbox> type=fulltext
placeholder=Search Enviro Wiki
break=no </inputbox>
|}
</center>

{| role="presentation" id="mp-upper" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; margin-top:3px; border-spacing: 0px; "

| id="mp-left" class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; padding:0; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Featured article: PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment</h2>
<div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:0.0em 1.0em;">[[File:XiongFig1.png|400px|left|link=PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]<dailyfeaturedpage></dailyfeaturedpage>  

[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment|(Full article...)]] </div>

| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |


| id="mp-right" class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; padding:0; horizontal-align:center; vertical-align:top;" |
<h2 id="mp-itn-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Enviro Wiki Highlights</h2>
<div id="mp-itn" style="padding:0.0em 0.5em;">

<slideshow sequence="random" transition="fade" refresh="7500">

[[File:WH Picture1.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Matrix Diffusion|Molecular diffusion slowly transports solutes into clay-rich, lower permeability zones]]
[[File:WH Picture2.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)|Typical subgrade biogeochemical reactor (SBGR) layout. The SBGR is an in situ remediation technology for treatment of contaminated source areas and groundwater plume hot spots ]]
[[File:WH Picture3.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|An Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) log with electrical conductivity (EC) on left, injection pressure in middle, and flow rate on the right]]
[[File:WH Picture4.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=PH Buffering in Aquifers|Diagram of mineral surface exchanging hydrogen ions with varying pH. The surface of most aquifer minerals carries an electrical charge that varies with pH]]
[[File:WH Picture5.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons|Comparison of the longitudinal redox zonation concept (A) and the plume fringe concept (B). Both concepts describe the spatial distribution of electron acceptors and respiration processes in a hydrocarbon contaminant plume]]
[[File:WH Picture6.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|Schematic of an Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) probe. HPT were developed to better understand formation permeability and the distribution of permeable and low permeability zones in unconsolidated formations]]
[[File:WH Picture7.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)|In situ chemical oxidation using (a) direct-push injection probes or (b) well-to-well flushing to delivery oxidants (shown in blue) into a target treatment zone of groundwater contaminated by dense nonaqueous phase liquid compounds (shown in red)]]
[[File:WH Picture8.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Geophysical Methods - Case_Studies|High-resolution 3D cross-borehole electrical imaging of contaminated fractured rock at the former Naval Air Warfare Center in New Jersey. Cross-borehole resistivity tomography imaging is a geophysical technique that can be used for site characterization and monitoring by observing variations in the electrical properties of subsurface materials]]
[[File:WH Picture9.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Stable_Isotope_Probing_(SIP)|Stable isotope probing (SIP) in use: Loading, deployment and recovery of Bio-Trap® passive sampler with 13C-labeled benzene. Stable isotope probing (SIP) is used to conclusively determine whether in situ biodegradation of a contaminant is occurring]]
[[File:WH Picture10.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=1,2,3-Trichloropropane|Summary of anticipated, primary reaction pathways for degradation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). TCP is a man-made chemical that was used in the past primarily as a solvent and extractive agent, a paint and varnish remover, and as a cleaning and degreasing agent]]
[[File:WH Picture11.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels|Distribution of BTEX plume lengths from 604 hydrocarbon sites. Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is one of the most commonly used remediation approaches for groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and certain fuel additives such as fuel oxygenates or lead scavengers]]
[[File:WH Picture12.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive|No-purge and passive sampling methods eliminate the pre-purging step for groundwater sample collection and represent alternatives to conventional sampling methods that rely on low-flow purging of a well prior to collection. The Snap SamplerTM is an example of a passive grab sampler]]
[[File:WH Picture13.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)|Conceptualization of Vapor Transport-related Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) processes at a Petroleum Release Site]]
[[File:WH Picture14.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)|Conceptual diagram of basic Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system for vadose zone remediation. (SVE) is a common and typically effective physical treatment process for remediation of volatile contaminants in vadose zone (unsaturated) soils]]
[[File:WH Picture15.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation|Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) mixed in field during early pilot test. EVO is commonly added as a slowly fermentable substrate to stimulate the in situ anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, explosives, perchlorate, chromate, and other contaminants]]
[[File:WH Picture16.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Vapor_Intrusion_(VI)|Key elements of vapor intrusion pathways]]
[[File:WH Picture17.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Sorption_of_Organic_Contaminants|Batch reactor experiments to generate points on a sorption isotherm]]
[[File:WH Picture18.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Metagenomics|Results for metagenomic analysis of a groundwater sample obtained from a site impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons]]
[[File:WH Picture19.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perchlorate|Perchlorate releases and drinking water detections]]
[[File:WH Picture20.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Mass_Flux_and_Mass_Discharge|Data input screen for ESTCP Mass Flux Toolkit]]
[[File:WH Picture21.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic_Design_Considerations|Amendment addition for biobarrier]]
[[File:WH Picture22.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)|Thermal Remediation - Desorption schematic]]
[[File:WH_Picture23.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Contaminated_Sediments_-_Introduction |Key exposure pathways for human health risk from contaminated sediments]]
[[File:WH_Picture24.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFAS)| The PFAS family of compounds]]

</slideshow>
</div>
|}

{| id="mp-upper" style="width: 95%; margin:3px 0 0 0; "
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
{| id="mp-left" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f9f9f9;"
| style="padding:2px;" |<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2_2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Table of Contents </h2>
{| style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
'''[[Transport & Attenuation Processes | Attenuation & Transport Processes]]'''

*[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]
*[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]
*[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]
*[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]
*[[Matrix Diffusion]]
*[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater | Mobility of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
*[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
**[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]

'''[[Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring]]'''

*[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
*[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)|Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]
*[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]
**[[Direct Push Logging |Direct Push Logging]]
**[[Direct Push Sampling |Direct Push Sampling]]
*[[Geophysical Methods | Geophysical Methods]]
**[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies |Case Studies]]
**[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
*[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]
*[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)|Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis |LTM Data Analysis]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability |LTM Data Variability]]
*[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs |Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs)]]
**[[Metagenomics]]
**[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
**[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]
**[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]
*[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill |Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
*[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]

'''[[Climate Change Primer | Climate Change]]'''

*[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
*[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
*[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
*[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
*[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]

'''[[Coastal and Estuarine Ecology]]'''

*[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | Contaminated Sediments]]'''

*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
**[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''[[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)]]'''

*[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
*[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]
*[[NAPL Mobility]]

'''[[Munitions Constituents]]'''

*[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction|Abiotic Reduction]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation|Alkaline Degradation]]
**[[Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Matter Enhanced Alkaline Hydrolysis]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Composting|Composting]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition |Deposition]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution |Dissolution]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment|Electrochemical Treatment]]
*[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Passive Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis |Photolysis]]
*[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents |Remediation of Stormwater Runoff ]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling |Soil Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption |Sorption]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology |Toxicology]]
*[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|TREECS™]]

'''[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]'''

*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents| MNA of Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels| MNA of Fuels]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids| MNA of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies| Transitioning from Active Remedies]]

'''[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]'''

*[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
**[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction | Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination]]
*[[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]
*[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Regulatory Issues and Site Management]]'''

*[[Alternative Endpoints]]
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
*[[REMChlor - MD | REMChlor-MD]]
*[[Source Zone Modeling]]
*[[Sustainable Remediation]]

'''[[Remediation Technologies]]'''
*[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]
*[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic|Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations | Design Considerations]]
**[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]
**[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts | Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]
*[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO) | Design Considerations]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO) | Oxidant Selection]]
*[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR) | In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR) | Zero-Valent Iron (ZVI)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
*[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]
*[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]
*[[Landfarming]]
*[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation | Remediation of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]
*[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]
*[[Stream Restoration]]
*[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Thermal Remediation]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering | Smoldering]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Steam | Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)]]
**[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]

'''[[Soil & Groundwater Contaminants]]'''

*[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]
*[[1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants|Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
*[[Perchlorate|Perchlorate]]
*[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
*[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]
|}
|}
|}

Main Page

2026-03-03T22:48:10Z

Admin:

<center>
{| class="MainPageBG" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; border-spacing:0px;"
|-
| style="width:55%;" |<center><big>Welcome to '''ENVIRO''' '''Wiki'''</big> Peer Reviewed. Accessible. Written By Experts</center>
| style="width:40%;" |<center> ''Developed and brought to you by '' [[File:MainLogo-serdp-estcp.png|link=https://www.serdp-estcp.org |frameless|center|350px]]''Your Environmental Information Gateway''
</center>
|-
| The goal of ENVIRO Wiki is to make scientific and engineering research results more accessible to environmental professionals, facilitating the permitting, design and implementation of environmental projects. Articles are written and edited by invited experts (see [[Contributors]]) to summarize current knowledge for the target audience on an array of topics, with cross-linked references to reports and technical literature. 
|<center> [[#Table of Contents|See Table of Contents]]
</center>
<inputbox> type=fulltext
placeholder=Search Enviro Wiki
break=no </inputbox>
|}
</center>

{| role="presentation" id="mp-upper" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; margin-top:3px; border-spacing: 0px; "

| id="mp-left" class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; padding:0; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Featured article: PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment</h2>
<div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:0.0em 1.0em;">[[File:XiongFig1.png|400px|left|link=PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]<dailyfeaturedpage></dailyfeaturedpage>  

[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment|(Full article...)]] </div>

| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |


| id="mp-right" class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; padding:0; horizontal-align:center; vertical-align:top;" |
<h2 id="mp-itn-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Enviro Wiki Highlights</h2>
<div id="mp-itn" style="padding:0.0em 0.5em;">

<slideshow sequence="random" transition="fade" refresh="7500">

[[File:WH Picture1.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Matrix Diffusion|Molecular diffusion slowly transports solutes into clay-rich, lower permeability zones]]
[[File:WH Picture2.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)|Typical subgrade biogeochemical reactor (SBGR) layout. The SBGR is an in situ remediation technology for treatment of contaminated source areas and groundwater plume hot spots ]]
[[File:WH Picture3.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|An Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) log with electrical conductivity (EC) on left, injection pressure in middle, and flow rate on the right]]
[[File:WH Picture4.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=PH Buffering in Aquifers|Diagram of mineral surface exchanging hydrogen ions with varying pH. The surface of most aquifer minerals carries an electrical charge that varies with pH]]
[[File:WH Picture5.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons|Comparison of the longitudinal redox zonation concept (A) and the plume fringe concept (B). Both concepts describe the spatial distribution of electron acceptors and respiration processes in a hydrocarbon contaminant plume]]
[[File:WH Picture6.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|Schematic of an Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) probe. HPT were developed to better understand formation permeability and the distribution of permeable and low permeability zones in unconsolidated formations]]
[[File:WH Picture7.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)|In situ chemical oxidation using (a) direct-push injection probes or (b) well-to-well flushing to delivery oxidants (shown in blue) into a target treatment zone of groundwater contaminated by dense nonaqueous phase liquid compounds (shown in red)]]
[[File:WH Picture8.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Geophysical Methods - Case_Studies|High-resolution 3D cross-borehole electrical imaging of contaminated fractured rock at the former Naval Air Warfare Center in New Jersey. Cross-borehole resistivity tomography imaging is a geophysical technique that can be used for site characterization and monitoring by observing variations in the electrical properties of subsurface materials]]
[[File:WH Picture9.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Stable_Isotope_Probing_(SIP)|Stable isotope probing (SIP) in use: Loading, deployment and recovery of Bio-Trap® passive sampler with 13C-labeled benzene. Stable isotope probing (SIP) is used to conclusively determine whether in situ biodegradation of a contaminant is occurring]]
[[File:WH Picture10.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=1,2,3-Trichloropropane|Summary of anticipated, primary reaction pathways for degradation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). TCP is a man-made chemical that was used in the past primarily as a solvent and extractive agent, a paint and varnish remover, and as a cleaning and degreasing agent]]
[[File:WH Picture11.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels|Distribution of BTEX plume lengths from 604 hydrocarbon sites. Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is one of the most commonly used remediation approaches for groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and certain fuel additives such as fuel oxygenates or lead scavengers]]
[[File:WH Picture12.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive|No-purge and passive sampling methods eliminate the pre-purging step for groundwater sample collection and represent alternatives to conventional sampling methods that rely on low-flow purging of a well prior to collection. The Snap SamplerTM is an example of a passive grab sampler]]
[[File:WH Picture13.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)|Conceptualization of Vapor Transport-related Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) processes at a Petroleum Release Site]]
[[File:WH Picture14.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)|Conceptual diagram of basic Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system for vadose zone remediation. (SVE) is a common and typically effective physical treatment process for remediation of volatile contaminants in vadose zone (unsaturated) soils]]
[[File:WH Picture15.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation|Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) mixed in field during early pilot test. EVO is commonly added as a slowly fermentable substrate to stimulate the in situ anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, explosives, perchlorate, chromate, and other contaminants]]
[[File:WH Picture16.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Vapor_Intrusion_(VI)|Key elements of vapor intrusion pathways]]
[[File:WH Picture17.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Sorption_of_Organic_Contaminants|Batch reactor experiments to generate points on a sorption isotherm]]
[[File:WH Picture18.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Metagenomics|Results for metagenomic analysis of a groundwater sample obtained from a site impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons]]
[[File:WH Picture19.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perchlorate|Perchlorate releases and drinking water detections]]
[[File:WH Picture20.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Mass_Flux_and_Mass_Discharge|Data input screen for ESTCP Mass Flux Toolkit]]
[[File:WH Picture21.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic_Design_Considerations|Amendment addition for biobarrier]]
[[File:WH Picture22.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)|Thermal Remediation - Desorption schematic]]
[[File:WH_Picture23.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Contaminated_Sediments_-_Introduction |Key exposure pathways for human health risk from contaminated sediments]]
[[File:WH_Picture24.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFAS)| The PFAS family of compounds]]

</slideshow>
</div>
|}

{| id="mp-upper" style="width: 95%; margin:3px 0 0 0; "
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
{| id="mp-left" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f9f9f9;"
| style="padding:2px;" |<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2_2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Table of Contents </h2>
{| style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
'''[[Transport & Attenuation Processes | Attenuation & Transport Processes]]'''

*[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]
*[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]
*[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]
*[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]
*[[Matrix Diffusion]]
*[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater | Mobility of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
*[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
**[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]

'''[[Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring]]'''

*[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
*[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)|Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]
*[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]
**[[Direct Push Logging |Direct Push Logging]]
**[[Direct Push Sampling |Direct Push Sampling]]
*[[Geophysical Methods | Geophysical Methods]]
**[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies |Case Studies]]
**[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
*[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]
*[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)|Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis |LTM Data Analysis]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability |LTM Data Variability]]
*[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs |Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs)]]
**[[Metagenomics]]
**[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
**[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]
**[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]
*[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill |Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
*[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]

'''[[Climate Change Primer | Climate Change]]'''

*[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
*[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
*[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
*[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
*[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]

'''[[Coastal and Estuarine Ecology]]'''

*[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | Contaminated Sediments]]'''

*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
**[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''[[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)]]'''

*[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
*[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]
*[[NAPL Mobility]]

'''[[Munitions Constituents]]'''

*[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction|Abiotic Reduction]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation|Alkaline Degradation]]
**[[Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Matter Enhanced Alkaline Hydrolysis]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Composting|Composting]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition |Deposition]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution |Dissolution]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment|Electrochemical Treatment]]
*[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Passive Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis |Photolysis]]
*[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents |Remediation of Stormwater Runoff ]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling |Soil Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption |Sorption]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology |Toxicology]]
*[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|TREECS™]]

'''[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]'''

*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents| MNA of Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels| MNA of Fuels]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids| MNA of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies| Transitioning from Active Remedies]]

'''[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]'''

*[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
**[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction | Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination]]
*[[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]
*[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Regulatory Issues and Site Management]]'''

*[[Alternative Endpoints]]
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
*[[REMChlor - MD | REMChlor-MD]]
*[[Source Zone Modeling]]
*[[Sustainable Remediation]]

'''[[Remediation Technologies]]'''
*[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]
*[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic|Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations | Design Considerations]]
**[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]
**[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts | Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]
*[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO) | Design Considerations]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO) | Oxidant Selection]]
*[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR) | In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR) | Zero-Valent Iron (ZVI)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
*[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]
*[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]
*[[Landfarming]]
*[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation | Remediation of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]
*[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]
*[[Stream Restoration]]
*[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Thermal Remediation]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering | Smoldering]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Steam | Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)]]
**[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]

'''[[Soil & Groundwater Contaminants]]'''

*[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]
*[[1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants|Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
*[[Perchlorate|Perchlorate]]
*[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
*[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]
|}
|}
|}

Passive Sampling of Sediments

2026-03-03T22:47:23Z

Admin:

"Passive sampling" refers to a group of methods used to quantify the availability of organic contaminants to move between different media and/or to react in environmental systems such as indoor air, lake waters, or contaminated sediment beds. To do this, the passive sampling material is deployed in the environmental system and allowed to absorb chemicals of interest via diffusive transfers from the surroundings. Upon recovery of the passive sampler, the accumulated contaminants are measured, and the concentrations in the sampler are interpreted to infer the chemical concentrations in specific surrounding media like porewater in a sediment bed. Such data are then useful inputs for site assessments such as those seeking to quantify fluxes from contaminated sediment beds to overlying waters or to evaluate the risk of significant uptake into benthic infauna and the larger food web.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds<ref name="Apell2014">Apell, J.N. and Gschwend, P.M., 2014. Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(17), pp. 10301-10307. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es502694g DOI: 10.1021/es502694g]</ref>

*''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data<ref name="Apell2016">Apell, J.N., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. ''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data. Environmental Pollution, 218, pp. 95-101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/53/ApellGschwend2016.pdf Authors’ Manuscript]</ref>

*Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual<ref name="Burgess2017">Burgess, R.M., Kane Driscoll, S.B., Burton, A., Gschwend, P.M., Ghosh, U., Reible, D., Ahn, S., and Thompson, T., 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual, EPA/600/R-16/357. SERDP/ESTCP and U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460. [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryID=308731 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c5/EPA600R16357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig1.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 1. A representation of a clam living in a sediment bed that contains a chemical contaminant (depicted as red hexagons). The contaminant is partly dissolved in the sediment porewater between the solid grains, and partly associated with solid phases, like natural organic matter and "black carbons" such as soots from diesel engines and chars emitted during forest fires. All of these liquid and solid materials can exchange their contaminant loads with one another, with the distributions dependent on the chemical's relative affinity for each material. When an organism like a clam lives in such a system, the chemical contaminant is accumulated into the organism, until the concentration of the chemical in the organism is also equilibrated with the other solids and liquid(s) present.]]
Environmental media such as sediments typically contain many different materials or phases, including liquid solutions (e.g. water, [[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)| nonaqueous phase liquids]] like spilled oils) and diverse solids (e.g., quartz, aluminosilicate clays, and combustion-derived soots). Further, the chemical concentration in the porewater medium includes both molecules that are "truly dissolved" in the water and others that are associated with colloids in the porewater<ref name="Brownawell1986">Brownawell, B.J., and Farrington, J.W., 1986. Biogeochemistry of PCBs in interstitial waters of a coastal marine sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50(1), pp. 157-169. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X]   Free download available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/268631.pdf US EPA].</ref><ref name="Chin1992">Chin, Y.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 1992. Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Marine Porewater Organic Colloids. Environmental Science and Technology, 26(8), pp. 1621-1626. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00032a020 DOI: 10.1021/es00032a020]</ref><ref name="Achman1996">Achman, D.R., Brownawell, B.J., and Zhang, L., 1996. Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary. Estuaries, 19(4), pp. 950-965. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1352310 DOI: 10.2307/1352310]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/55010335/135231020171114-2212-b93vic.pdf Academia.edu]</ref>. As a result, contaminant chemicals distribute among these diverse media (Figure 1) according to their affinity for each and the amount of each phase in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996">Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., MacFarlane, J., and Gschwend, P.M., 1996. Quantification of the Dilute Sedimentary Soot Phase: Implications for PAH Speciation and Bioavailability. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(1), pp. 203-209. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es960317s DOI: 10.1021/es960317s]</ref><ref name="Luthy1997">Luthy, R.G., Aiken, G.R., Brusseau, M.L., Cunningham, S.D., Gschwend, P.M., Pignatello, J.J., Reinhard, M., Traina, S.J., Weber, W.J., and Westall, J.C., 1997. Sequestration of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants by Geosorbents. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(12), pp. 3341-3347. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es970512m DOI: 10.1021/es970512m]</ref><ref name="Lohmann2005">Lohmann, R., MacFarlane, J.K., and Gschwend, P.M., 2005. Importance of Black Carbon to Sorption of Native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(1), pp.141-148. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049424+ DOI: 10.1021/es049424+]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2005">Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T.D., Jonker, M.T., Koelmans, A.A., and van Noort, P.C., 2005. Extensive Sorption of Organic Compounds to Black Carbon, Coal, and Kerogen in Sediments and Soils: Mechanisms and Consequences for Distribution, Bioaccumulation, and Biodegradation. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(18), pp. 6881-6895. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050191b DOI: 10.1021/es050191b]</ref><ref name="Koelmans2009">Koelmans, A.A., Kaag, K., Sneekes, A., and Peeters, E.T.H.M., 2009. Triple Domain in Situ Sorption Modeling of Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorobiphenyls, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in Aquatic Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8847-8853. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es9021188 DOI: 10.1021/es9021188]</ref>. As such, the chemical concentration in any one medium (e.g., truly dissolved in porewater) in a multi-material system like sediment is very hard to know from measures of the total sediment concentration, which unfortunately is the information typically found by analyzing for chemicals in sediment samples.

If an animal such as a clam moves into this system (Figure 1), it will also accumulate the chemical in its tissues from the loads in all the other materials. This can lead to exposures of the chemical to other organisms, including humans, who may eat such animals. Predicting the quantity of contaminant in the animal requires knowledge of the relative affinities of the chemical for the animal versus the sediment materials. For example, if one knew the chemical's truly dissolved concentration in the porewater and could reasonably assume the chemical of interest in the animal has mostly accumulated in its lipids (as is often the case for very hydrophobic compounds), then one could estimate the chemical concentration in the animal (''Canimal'', typically in units of μg/kg animal wet weight) using a lipid-water [[Wikipedia: Partition coefficient | partition coefficient]], ''Klipid-water'', typically in units of (μg/kg lipid)'''/'''(μg/L water), and the porewater concentration of the chemical (''Cporewater'', in μg/L) with Equation 1.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 1.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cporewater'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''flipid''||is the fraction lipids contribute to the total wet weight of the animal (kg lipid/kg animal wet weight), and
|-
| ||''Cporewater''||is the freely dissolved contaminant concentration in the porewater surrounding the animal.
|}

While there is a great deal of information on the values of ''Klipid-water'' for many chemicals<ref name="Schwarzenbach2017">Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 2017. Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition. Ch. 16: Equilibrium Partitioning from Water and Air to Biota, pp. 469-521. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8</ref>, it is often very inaccurate to estimate truly dissolved porewater concentrations from total sediment concentrations using assumptions about the affinity of those chemicals for the solids in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996" />. Further, it is difficult to isolate porewater without colloids and/or measure the very low truly dissolved concentrations of hydrophobic contaminants of concern like [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], nonionic pesticides like [[Wikipedia: DDT | dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins | polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)]]/[[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzofurans | dibenzofurans (PCDFs)]]<ref name="Hawthorne2005">Hawthorne, S.B., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Kreitinger, J.P., 2005. Solid-Phase Microextraction Measurement of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Milliliter Sediment Pore Water Samples and Determination of KDOC Values. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(8), pp. 2795-2803. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0405171 DOI: 10.1021/es0405171]</ref>.

==Passive Samplers==
One approach to address this problem for contaminated sediments is to insert into the sediment films of organic polymers like low density polyethylene (LDPE), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polyoxymethylene (POM) that can absorb such hydrophobic chemicals from their surroundings<ref name="Mayer2000">Mayer, P., Vaes, W.H., Wijnker, F., Legierse, K.C., Kraaij, R., Tolls, J., and Hermens, J.L., 2000. Sensing Dissolved Sediment Porewater Concentrations of Persistent and Bioaccumulative Pollutants Using Disposable Solid-Phase Microextraction Fibers. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(24), pp. 5177-5183. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es001179g DOI: 10.1021/es001179g]</ref><ref name="Booij2003">Booij, K., Hoedemaker, J.R., and Bakker, J.F., 2003. Dissolved PCBs, PAHs, and HCB in Pore Waters and Overlying Waters of Contaminated Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(18), pp. 4213-4220. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034147c DOI: 10.1021/es034147c]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2008">Cornelissen, G., Pettersen, A., Broman, D., Mayer, P., and Breedveld, G.D., 2008. Field testing of equilibrium passive samplers to determine freely dissolved native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(3), pp. 499-508. [https://doi.org/10.1897/07-253.1 DOI: 10.1897/07-253.1]</ref><ref name="Tomaszewski2008">Tomaszewski, J.E., and Luthy, R.G., 2008. Field Deployment of Polyethylene Devices to Measure PCB Concentrations in Pore Water of Contaminated Sediment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(16), pp. 6086-6091. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es800582a DOI: 10.1021/es800582a]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2009">Fernandez, L.A., MacFarlane, J.K., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Measurement of Freely Dissolved PAH Concentrations in Sediment Beds Using Passive Sampling with Low-Density Polyethylene Strips. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(5), pp. 1430-1436. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es802288w DOI: 10.1021/es802288w]</ref><ref name="Arp2015">Arp, H.P.H., Hale, S.E., Elmquist Kruså, M., Cornelissen, G., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Hawthorne, S.B., 2015. Review of polyoxymethylene passive sampling methods for quantifying freely dissolved porewater concentrations of hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(4), pp. 710-720. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2864 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2864]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/etc.2864 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f4/Arp2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Apell2016" />. In this approach, the polymer is inserted in the sediment bed where it absorbs some of the contaminant load via the contaminant's diffusion into the polymer from the surroundings. When the polymer achieves sorptive equilibration with the sediments, the chemical concentration in the polymer, ''Cpolymer'' (μg/kg polymer), can be used to find the corresponding concentration in the porewater, ''Cporewater'' (μg/L), using a polymer-water partition coefficient, ''Kpolymer-water'' ((μg/kg polymer)'''/'''(μg/L water)), that has previously been found in laboratory testing<ref name="Lohmann2012">Lohmann, R., 2012. Critical Review of Low-Density Polyethylene’s Partitioning and Diffusion Coefficients for Trace Organic Contaminants and Implications for Its Use as a Passive Sampler. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 606-618. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202702y DOI: 10.1021/es202702y]</ref><ref name="Ghosh2014">Ghosh, U., Kane Driscoll, S., Burgess, R.M., Jonker, M.T., Reible, D., Gobas, F., Choi, Y., Apitz, S.E., Maruya, K.A., Gala, W.R., Mortimer, M., and Beegan, C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: Practical Guidance for Selection, Calibration, and Implementation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 210-223. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1507 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1507]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.1507 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/37/Ghosh2014.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>, as shown in Equation 2.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 2.
| style="width:600px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Cporewater '''=''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}

Such “passive uptake” by the polymer also reflects the availability of the chemicals for transport to adjacent systems (e.g., overlying surface waters) and for uptake into organisms (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Bioaccumulation | bioaccumulation]]). Thus, one can use the porewater concentrations to estimate the biotic accumulation of the chemicals, too. For example, for the concentration in the animal equilibrated with the sediment, ''Canimal'' (μg/kg animal), would be found by combining Equations 1 and 2 to get Equation 3.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 3.
| style="width:700px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig2a.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2a. Schematic plot of the initial concentrations of a PRC (green lines) in a polyethylene (PE) film inserted in a sediment showing constant concentration across the PE and zero concentration outside the PE. At the same time, a target contaminant of interest (red lines) initially has a constant concentration in the sediment outside the PE and zero concentration inside the PE.]][[File: Gschwend1w2fig2b.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2b. After the PE has been deployed for a time, the PRC is depleted from the PE (green lines), especially near the surfaces contacting the sediment, and its concentration is building up outside the PE and diffusing away into the sediment. Meanwhile, the target chemical leaves the sediment and begins to diffuse into the PE (red lines). The "jumps" in concentration at the PE-sediment boundary reflect the equilibrium partitioning coefficient, ''KPE-sed = CPE '''/''' Csediment''.]]

==Performance Reference Compounds (PRCs)==
Perhaps unsurprisingly, pollutants with low water solubility like PAHs, PCBs, etc. do not diffuse quickly through sediment beds. As a result, their accumulation in polymeric materials in sediments can take a long time to achieve equilibration<ref name="Fernandez2009b">Fernandez, L. A., Harvey, C.F., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Using Performance Reference Compounds in Polyethylene Passive Samplers to Deduce Sediment Porewater Concentrations for Numerous Target Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8888-8894. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es901877a DOI: 10.1021/es901877a]</ref><ref name="Lampert2015">Lampert, D.J., Thomas, C., and Reible, D.D., 2015. Internal and external transport significance for predicting contaminant uptake rates in passive samplers. Chemosphere, 119, pp. 910-916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/44146586/chemosphere_2014.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Apell2016b">Apell, J.N., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. Understanding the rates of nonpolar organic chemical accumulation into passive samplers deployed in the environment: Guidance for passive sampler deployments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(3), pp. 486-492. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1697 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1697]</ref>. This problem was recognized previously for passive samplers called [[Wikipedia: Semipermeable membrane devices | semipermeable membrane devices]] (SPMDs, e.g. polyethylene bags filled with triolein<ref name="Huckins2002">Huckins, J.N., Petty, J.D., Lebo, J.A., Almeida, F.V., Booij, K., Alvarez, D.A., Cranor, W.L., Clark, R.C., and Mogensen, B.B., 2002. Development of the Permeability/Performance Reference Compound Approach for In Situ Calibration of Semipermeable Membrane Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(1), pp. 85-91. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es010991w DOI: 10.1021/es010991w]</ref>) that were deployed in surface waters. As a result, representative chemicals called performance reference compounds (PRCs) were uniformly impregnated into the samplers before their deployment in the environment, and the PRCs' diffusive losses out of the SPMD could then be used to quantify the fractional approach toward equilibration of the sampler with its environmental surroundings<ref name="Booij2002">Booij, K., Smedes, F., and van Weerlee, E.M., 2002. Spiking of performance reference compounds in low density polyethylene and silicone passive water samplers. Chemosphere 46(8), pp.1157-1161. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4 DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4]</ref><ref name="Huckins2002" />. A similar approach can be used for polymers inserted in sediment beds<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />. Commonly, isotopically labeled forms of the compounds of interest such as deuterated or 13C-labelled PAHs or PCBs are homogeneously impregnated into the polymers before their deployments. Upon insertion of the polymer into the sediment bed (or overlying waters or even air), the initially evenly distributed PRCs begin to diffuse out of the sampling polymer and into the surroundings (Figure 2).

Assuming the contaminants of interest undergo the same mass transfer restrictions limiting their rates of uptake into the polymer (e.g., diffusion through the sedimentary porous medium) that are also limiting transfers of the PRCs out of the polymer<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />, then fractional losses of the PRCs during a particular deployment can be used to adjust the accumulated contaminant loads to what they would have been at equilibrium with their surroundings with Equation 4.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 4.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''C(∞)polymer '''=''' C(t)polymer '''/''' fPRC lost'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''fPRC lost''||is the fraction of the PRC lost to outward diffusion,
|-
| ||''C(∞)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer at equilibrium, and
|-
| ||''C(t)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer after deployment time, t.                     
|}

Since investigators are commonly interested in many chemicals at the same time, it is impractical to have a PRC for each contaminant of interest. Instead, a representative set of PRCs is used to characterize the rates of polymer-environment exchange as a function of the PRCs' properties (e.g., diffusivities, partition coefficients), the characteristics of the sediments (e.g., porosity), and the nature of the polymer used (e.g., film thickness, affinity for the chemicals)<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Lampert2015" />. The resulting mass transfer model fit can then be used to estimate the fractional approaches to equilibrium for many other contaminants, whose diffusive and partitioning properties are also known. And these fractions can be used to adjust the target chemical concentrations that have accumulated from the sediment into the same polymeric sampler to find the equilibrated results<ref name="Apell2014" />. Finally, these equilibrated concentrations can be used in Eq. 2 to estimate truly dissolved contaminant concentrations in the sediment's porewater.

==Field Applications==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig3.png | thumb |left| 450px | Figure 3. Passive sampler system made of polyethylene film loaded into an aluminum sheet metal frame, before (left), during (middle), and after (right) deployment in sediment.]]
Polymeric materials can be deployed in sediment in various ways<ref name="Burgess2017" />. PDMS-coated silica fibers, called SPMEs (solid phase micro extraction devices), can be incorporated into slotted rods, while thin films of polymers like LDPE or POM can be incorporated into sheet metal frames. In both cases, such hardware is used to insert the polymers into sediment beds (Figure 3).

Deployment of the assembled passive samplers can be accomplished via poles from a boat<ref name="Apell2014" />, by divers<ref name="Apell2016" />, or by attaching the samplers to a sampling platform lowered off a vessel<ref name="Fernandez2012">Fernandez, L.A., Lao, W., Maruya, K.A., White, C., Burgess, R.M., 2012. Passive Sampling to Measure Baseline Dissolved Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentrations in the Water Column of the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp. 11937-11947. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302139y DOI: 10.1021/es302139y]</ref>. Typically, the method used depends on the water depth. Small buoys on short lines, sometimes with associated water-sampling polymeric materials in mesh bags (see right panel of Figure 3), are attached to the samplers to facilitate the sampler recoveries. After recovery, the samplers are wiped to remove any adhering sediment, biofilm, or precipitates and returned to the laboratory for PRC and target contaminant analyses. The resulting measurements of the accumulated target chemical concentrations can be adjusted using the observed PRC losses and publicly available software programs<ref name="Gschwend2014">Gschwend, P.M., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Apell, J.N., 2014. Guidance Document: Passive PE Sampling in Support of In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sediments – Passive Sampler PRC Calculation Software User’s Guide, US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Project ER-200915. Available from: [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments/Bioavailability/ER-200915 ESTCP].</ref><ref name="Thompson2015">Thompson, J.M., Hsieh, C.H. and Luthy, R.G., 2015. Modeling Uptake of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants into Polyethylene Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2270-2277. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504442s DOI: 10.1021/es504442s]</ref>.

Subsequently, since the passive sampling reveals the concentrations of contaminants in a sediment bed's porewater and the overlying bottom water<ref name="Booij2003" />, the data can be used to estimate bed-to-water column diffusive fluxes of contaminants<ref name="Koelmans2010">Koelmans, A.A., Poot, A., De Lange, H.J., Velzeboer, I., Harmsen, J., and van Noort, P.C.M., 2010. Estimation of In Situ Sediment-to-Water Fluxes of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorobiphenyls and Polybrominated Diphenylethers. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(8), pp. 3014-3020. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es903938z DOI: 10.1021/es903938z]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2012" /> and bioirrigation-affected fluxes<ref name="Apell2018">Apell, J.N., Shull, D.H., Hoyt, A.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Investigating the Effect of Bioirrigation on In Situ Porewater Concentrations and Fluxes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(8), pp. 4565-4573. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05809 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05809]</ref>. The data are also useful for assessing the tendency of the contaminants to accumulate in benthic organisms<ref name="Vinturella2004">Vinturella, A.E., Burgess, R.M., Coull, B.A., Thompson, K.M., and Shine, J.P., 2004. Use of Passive Samplers to Mimic Uptake of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Benthic Polychaetes. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(4), pp. 1154-1160. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034706f DOI: 10.1021/es034706f]</ref><ref name="Yates2011">Yates, K., Pollard, P., Davies, I.M., Webster, L., and Moffat, C.F., 2011. Application of silicone rubber passive samplers to investigate the bioaccumulation of PAHs by Nereis virens from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution, 159(12), pp. 3351-3356. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2015">Fernandez, L.A. and Gschwend, P.M., 2015. Predicting bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria) using field deployments of polyethylene passive samplers. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(5), pp. 993-1000. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2892 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2892]</ref>, and by extension into food webs that include such benthic species<ref name="vonStackelberg2017">von Stackelberg, K., Williams, M.A., Clough, J., and Johnson, M.S., 2017. Spatially explicit bioaccumulation modeling in aquatic environments: Results from 2 demonstration sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(6), pp. 1023-1037. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1927 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1927]</ref>. Furthermore, recent efforts have found that passive sampling observations can be used to infer ''in situ'' transformations of substances like nitro aromatic compounds<ref name="Belles2016">Belles, A., Alary, C., Criquet, J., and Billon, G., 2016. A new application of passive samplers as indicators of in-situ biodegradation processes. Chemosphere, 164, pp. 347-354. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111]</ref> and DDT<ref name="Tcaciuc2018">Tcaciuc, A.P., Borrelli, R., Zaninetta, L.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Passive sampling of DDT, DDE and DDD in sediments: accounting for degradation processes with reaction–diffusion modeling. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(1), pp. 220-231. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00501F DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00501F]   Open access article available from: [https://pubs.rsc.org/--/content/articlehtml/2018/em/c7em00501f Royal Society of Chemistry].</ref>.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Tools/PRC-Correction-Calculator A PRC Correction Calculator for LDPE deployed in sediments]

Passive Sampling of Sediments

2026-03-03T22:46:49Z

Admin:

"Passive sampling" refers to a group of methods used to quantify the availability of organic contaminants to move between different media and/or to react in environmental systems such as indoor air, lake waters, or contaminated sediment beds. To do this, the passive sampling material is deployed in the environmental system and allowed to absorb chemicals of interest via diffusive transfers from the surroundings. Upon recovery of the passive sampler, the accumulated contaminants are measured, and the concentrations in the sampler are interpreted to infer the chemical concentrations in specific surrounding media like porewater in a sediment bed. Such data are then useful inputs for site assessments such as those seeking to quantify fluxes from contaminated sediment beds to overlying waters or to evaluate the risk of significant uptake into benthic infauna and the larger food web.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds<ref name="Apell2014">Apell, J.N. and Gschwend, P.M., 2014. Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(17), pp. 10301-10307. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es502694g DOI: 10.1021/es502694g]</ref>

*''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data<ref name="Apell2016">Apell, J.N., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. ''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data. Environmental Pollution, 218, pp. 95-101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/53/ApellGschwend2016.pdf Authors’ Manuscript]</ref>

*Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual<ref name="Burgess2017">Burgess, R.M., Kane Driscoll, S.B., Burton, A., Gschwend, P.M., Ghosh, U., Reible, D., Ahn, S., and Thompson, T., 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual, EPA/600/R-16/357. SERDP/ESTCP and U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460. [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryID=308731 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c5/EPA600R16357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig1.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 1. A representation of a clam living in a sediment bed that contains a chemical contaminant (depicted as red hexagons). The contaminant is partly dissolved in the sediment porewater between the solid grains, and partly associated with solid phases, like natural organic matter and "black carbons" such as soots from diesel engines and chars emitted during forest fires. All of these liquid and solid materials can exchange their contaminant loads with one another, with the distributions dependent on the chemical's relative affinity for each material. When an organism like a clam lives in such a system, the chemical contaminant is accumulated into the organism, until the concentration of the chemical in the organism is also equilibrated with the other solids and liquid(s) present.]]
Environmental media such as sediments typically contain many different materials or phases, including liquid solutions (e.g. water, [[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)| nonaqueous phase liquids]] like spilled oils) and diverse solids (e.g., quartz, aluminosilicate clays, and combustion-derived soots). Further, the chemical concentration in the porewater medium includes both molecules that are "truly dissolved" in the water and others that are associated with colloids in the porewater<ref name="Brownawell1986">Brownawell, B.J., and Farrington, J.W., 1986. Biogeochemistry of PCBs in interstitial waters of a coastal marine sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50(1), pp. 157-169. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X]   Free download available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/268631.pdf US EPA].</ref><ref name="Chin1992">Chin, Y.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 1992. Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Marine Porewater Organic Colloids. Environmental Science and Technology, 26(8), pp. 1621-1626. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00032a020 DOI: 10.1021/es00032a020]</ref><ref name="Achman1996">Achman, D.R., Brownawell, B.J., and Zhang, L., 1996. Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary. Estuaries, 19(4), pp. 950-965. [https://doi.org/10.2307/1352310 DOI: 10.2307/1352310]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/55010335/135231020171114-2212-b93vic.pdf Academia.edu]</ref>. As a result, contaminant chemicals distribute among these diverse media (Figure 1) according to their affinity for each and the amount of each phase in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996">Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., MacFarlane, J., and Gschwend, P.M., 1996. Quantification of the Dilute Sedimentary Soot Phase: Implications for PAH Speciation and Bioavailability. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(1), pp. 203-209. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es960317s DOI: 10.1021/es960317s]</ref><ref name="Luthy1997">Luthy, R.G., Aiken, G.R., Brusseau, M.L., Cunningham, S.D., Gschwend, P.M., Pignatello, J.J., Reinhard, M., Traina, S.J., Weber, W.J., and Westall, J.C., 1997. Sequestration of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants by Geosorbents. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(12), pp. 3341-3347. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es970512m DOI: 10.1021/es970512m]</ref><ref name="Lohmann2005">Lohmann, R., MacFarlane, J.K., and Gschwend, P.M., 2005. Importance of Black Carbon to Sorption of Native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(1), pp.141-148. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049424+ DOI: 10.1021/es049424+]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2005">Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T.D., Jonker, M.T., Koelmans, A.A., and van Noort, P.C., 2005. Extensive Sorption of Organic Compounds to Black Carbon, Coal, and Kerogen in Sediments and Soils: Mechanisms and Consequences for Distribution, Bioaccumulation, and Biodegradation. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(18), pp. 6881-6895. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050191b DOI: 10.1021/es050191b]</ref><ref name="Koelmans2009">Koelmans, A.A., Kaag, K., Sneekes, A., and Peeters, E.T.H.M., 2009. Triple Domain in Situ Sorption Modeling of Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorobiphenyls, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in Aquatic Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8847-8853. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es9021188 DOI: 10.1021/es9021188]</ref>. As such, the chemical concentration in any one medium (e.g., truly dissolved in porewater) in a multi-material system like sediment is very hard to know from measures of the total sediment concentration, which unfortunately is the information typically found by analyzing for chemicals in sediment samples.

If an animal such as a clam moves into this system (Figure 1), it will also accumulate the chemical in its tissues from the loads in all the other materials. This can lead to exposures of the chemical to other organisms, including humans, who may eat such animals. Predicting the quantity of contaminant in the animal requires knowledge of the relative affinities of the chemical for the animal versus the sediment materials. For example, if one knew the chemical's truly dissolved concentration in the porewater and could reasonably assume the chemical of interest in the animal has mostly accumulated in its lipids (as is often the case for very hydrophobic compounds), then one could estimate the chemical concentration in the animal (''Canimal'', typically in units of μg/kg animal wet weight) using a lipid-water [[Wikipedia: Partition coefficient | partition coefficient]], ''Klipid-water'', typically in units of (μg/kg lipid)'''/'''(μg/L water), and the porewater concentration of the chemical (''Cporewater'', in μg/L) with Equation 1.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 1.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cporewater'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''flipid''||is the fraction lipids contribute to the total wet weight of the animal (kg lipid/kg animal wet weight), and
|-
| ||''Cporewater''||is the freely dissolved contaminant concentration in the porewater surrounding the animal.
|}

While there is a great deal of information on the values of ''Klipid-water'' for many chemicals<ref name="Schwarzenbach2017">Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 2017. Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition. Ch. 16: Equilibrium Partitioning from Water and Air to Biota, pp. 469-521. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8</ref>, it is often very inaccurate to estimate truly dissolved porewater concentrations from total sediment concentrations using assumptions about the affinity of those chemicals for the solids in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996" />. Further, it is difficult to isolate porewater without colloids and/or measure the very low truly dissolved concentrations of hydrophobic contaminants of concern like [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], nonionic pesticides like [[Wikipedia: DDT | dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins | polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)]]/[[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzofurans | dibenzofurans (PCDFs)]]<ref name="Hawthorne2005">Hawthorne, S.B., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Kreitinger, J.P., 2005. Solid-Phase Microextraction Measurement of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Milliliter Sediment Pore Water Samples and Determination of KDOC Values. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(8), pp. 2795-2803. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0405171 DOI: 10.1021/es0405171]</ref>.

==Passive Samplers==
One approach to address this problem for contaminated sediments is to insert into the sediment films of organic polymers like low density polyethylene (LDPE), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polyoxymethylene (POM) that can absorb such hydrophobic chemicals from their surroundings<ref name="Mayer2000">Mayer, P., Vaes, W.H., Wijnker, F., Legierse, K.C., Kraaij, R., Tolls, J., and Hermens, J.L., 2000. Sensing Dissolved Sediment Porewater Concentrations of Persistent and Bioaccumulative Pollutants Using Disposable Solid-Phase Microextraction Fibers. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(24), pp. 5177-5183. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es001179g DOI: 10.1021/es001179g]</ref><ref name="Booij2003">Booij, K., Hoedemaker, J.R., and Bakker, J.F., 2003. Dissolved PCBs, PAHs, and HCB in Pore Waters and Overlying Waters of Contaminated Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 37(18), pp. 4213-4220. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034147c DOI: 10.1021/es034147c]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2008">Cornelissen, G., Pettersen, A., Broman, D., Mayer, P., and Breedveld, G.D., 2008. Field testing of equilibrium passive samplers to determine freely dissolved native polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(3), pp. 499-508. [https://doi.org/10.1897/07-253.1 DOI: 10.1897/07-253.1]</ref><ref name="Tomaszewski2008">Tomaszewski, J.E., and Luthy, R.G., 2008. Field Deployment of Polyethylene Devices to Measure PCB Concentrations in Pore Water of Contaminated Sediment. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(16), pp. 6086-6091. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es800582a DOI: 10.1021/es800582a]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2009">Fernandez, L.A., MacFarlane, J.K., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Measurement of Freely Dissolved PAH Concentrations in Sediment Beds Using Passive Sampling with Low-Density Polyethylene Strips. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(5), pp. 1430-1436. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es802288w DOI: 10.1021/es802288w]</ref><ref name="Arp2015">Arp, H.P.H., Hale, S.E., Elmquist Kruså, M., Cornelissen, G., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Hawthorne, S.B., 2015. Review of polyoxymethylene passive sampling methods for quantifying freely dissolved porewater concentrations of hydrophobic organic contaminants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(4), pp. 710-720. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2864 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2864]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/etc.2864 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f4/Arp2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Apell2016" />. In this approach, the polymer is inserted in the sediment bed where it absorbs some of the contaminant load via the contaminant's diffusion into the polymer from the surroundings. When the polymer achieves sorptive equilibration with the sediments, the chemical concentration in the polymer, ''Cpolymer'' (μg/kg polymer), can be used to find the corresponding concentration in the porewater, ''Cporewater'' (μg/L), using a polymer-water partition coefficient, ''Kpolymer-water'' ((μg/kg polymer)'''/'''(μg/L water)), that has previously been found in laboratory testing<ref name="Lohmann2012">Lohmann, R., 2012. Critical Review of Low-Density Polyethylene’s Partitioning and Diffusion Coefficients for Trace Organic Contaminants and Implications for Its Use as a Passive Sampler. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 606-618. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202702y DOI: 10.1021/es202702y]</ref><ref name="Ghosh2014">Ghosh, U., Kane Driscoll, S., Burgess, R.M., Jonker, M.T., Reible, D., Gobas, F., Choi, Y., Apitz, S.E., Maruya, K.A., Gala, W.R., Mortimer, M., and Beegan, C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: Practical Guidance for Selection, Calibration, and Implementation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 210-223. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1507 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1507]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.1507 Free access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/37/Ghosh2014.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>, as shown in Equation 2.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 2.
| style="width:600px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Cporewater '''=''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}

Such “passive uptake” by the polymer also reflects the availability of the chemicals for transport to adjacent systems (e.g., overlying surface waters) and for uptake into organisms (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Bioaccumulation | bioaccumulation]]). Thus, one can use the porewater concentrations to estimate the biotic accumulation of the chemicals, too. For example, for the concentration in the animal equilibrated with the sediment, ''Canimal'' (μg/kg animal), would be found by combining Equations 1 and 2 to get Equation 3.
{|
|
|-
|        ||Equation 3.
| style="width:700px; text-align:center;" |<big>'''''Canimal '''=''' flipid '''x''' Klipid-water '''x''' Cpolymer '''/''' Kpolymer-water'''''</big>
|}
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig2a.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2a. Schematic plot of the initial concentrations of a PRC (green lines) in a polyethylene (PE) film inserted in a sediment showing constant concentration across the PE and zero concentration outside the PE. At the same time, a target contaminant of interest (red lines) initially has a constant concentration in the sediment outside the PE and zero concentration inside the PE.]][[File: Gschwend1w2fig2b.PNG | thumb | 300px | Figure 2b. After the PE has been deployed for a time, the PRC is depleted from the PE (green lines), especially near the surfaces contacting the sediment, and its concentration is building up outside the PE and diffusing away into the sediment. Meanwhile, the target chemical leaves the sediment and begins to diffuse into the PE (red lines). The "jumps" in concentration at the PE-sediment boundary reflect the equilibrium partitioning coefficient, ''KPE-sed = CPE '''/''' Csediment''.]]

==Performance Reference Compounds (PRCs)==
Perhaps unsurprisingly, pollutants with low water solubility like PAHs, PCBs, etc. do not diffuse quickly through sediment beds. As a result, their accumulation in polymeric materials in sediments can take a long time to achieve equilibration<ref name="Fernandez2009b">Fernandez, L. A., Harvey, C.F., and Gschwend, P.M., 2009. Using Performance Reference Compounds in Polyethylene Passive Samplers to Deduce Sediment Porewater Concentrations for Numerous Target Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8888-8894. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es901877a DOI: 10.1021/es901877a]</ref><ref name="Lampert2015">Lampert, D.J., Thomas, C., and Reible, D.D., 2015. Internal and external transport significance for predicting contaminant uptake rates in passive samplers. Chemosphere, 119, pp. 910-916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.063]   Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/44146586/chemosphere_2014.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Apell2016b">Apell, J.N., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. Understanding the rates of nonpolar organic chemical accumulation into passive samplers deployed in the environment: Guidance for passive sampler deployments. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 12(3), pp. 486-492. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1697 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1697]</ref>. This problem was recognized previously for passive samplers called [[Wikipedia: Semipermeable membrane devices | semipermeable membrane devices]] (SPMDs, e.g. polyethylene bags filled with triolein<ref name="Huckins2002">Huckins, J.N., Petty, J.D., Lebo, J.A., Almeida, F.V., Booij, K., Alvarez, D.A., Cranor, W.L., Clark, R.C., and Mogensen, B.B., 2002. Development of the Permeability/Performance Reference Compound Approach for In Situ Calibration of Semipermeable Membrane Devices. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(1), pp. 85-91. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es010991w DOI: 10.1021/es010991w]</ref>) that were deployed in surface waters. As a result, representative chemicals called performance reference compounds (PRCs) were uniformly impregnated into the samplers before their deployment in the environment, and the PRCs' diffusive losses out of the SPMD could then be used to quantify the fractional approach toward equilibration of the sampler with its environmental surroundings<ref name="Booij2002">Booij, K., Smedes, F., and van Weerlee, E.M., 2002. Spiking of performance reference compounds in low density polyethylene and silicone passive water samplers. Chemosphere 46(8), pp.1157-1161. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4 DOI: 10.1016/S0045-6535(01)00200-4]</ref><ref name="Huckins2002" />. A similar approach can be used for polymers inserted in sediment beds<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />. Commonly, isotopically labeled forms of the compounds of interest such as deuterated or 13C-labelled PAHs or PCBs are homogeneously impregnated into the polymers before their deployments. Upon insertion of the polymer into the sediment bed (or overlying waters or even air), the initially evenly distributed PRCs begin to diffuse out of the sampling polymer and into the surroundings (Figure 2).

Assuming the contaminants of interest undergo the same mass transfer restrictions limiting their rates of uptake into the polymer (e.g., diffusion through the sedimentary porous medium) that are also limiting transfers of the PRCs out of the polymer<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Apell2014" />, then fractional losses of the PRCs during a particular deployment can be used to adjust the accumulated contaminant loads to what they would have been at equilibrium with their surroundings with Equation 4.
{|
|
|-
| ||Equation 4.
| style="text-align:center;" |<big>'''''C(∞)polymer '''=''' C(t)polymer '''/''' fPRC lost'''''</big>
|-
|where:
|-
| ||''fPRC lost''||is the fraction of the PRC lost to outward diffusion,
|-
| ||''C(∞)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer at equilibrium, and
|-
| ||''C(t)polymer''||is the concentration of the contaminant in the polymer after deployment time, t.                     
|}

Since investigators are commonly interested in many chemicals at the same time, it is impractical to have a PRC for each contaminant of interest. Instead, a representative set of PRCs is used to characterize the rates of polymer-environment exchange as a function of the PRCs' properties (e.g., diffusivities, partition coefficients), the characteristics of the sediments (e.g., porosity), and the nature of the polymer used (e.g., film thickness, affinity for the chemicals)<ref name="Fernandez2009b" /><ref name="Lampert2015" />. The resulting mass transfer model fit can then be used to estimate the fractional approaches to equilibrium for many other contaminants, whose diffusive and partitioning properties are also known. And these fractions can be used to adjust the target chemical concentrations that have accumulated from the sediment into the same polymeric sampler to find the equilibrated results<ref name="Apell2014" />. Finally, these equilibrated concentrations can be used in Eq. 2 to estimate truly dissolved contaminant concentrations in the sediment's porewater.

==Field Applications==
[[File: Gschwend1w2fig3.png | thumb |left| 450px | Figure 3. Passive sampler system made of polyethylene film loaded into an aluminum sheet metal frame, before (left), during (middle), and after (right) deployment in sediment.]]
Polymeric materials can be deployed in sediment in various ways<ref name="Burgess2017" />. PDMS-coated silica fibers, called SPMEs (solid phase micro extraction devices), can be incorporated into slotted rods, while thin films of polymers like LDPE or POM can be incorporated into sheet metal frames. In both cases, such hardware is used to insert the polymers into sediment beds (Figure 3).

Deployment of the assembled passive samplers can be accomplished via poles from a boat<ref name="Apell2014" />, by divers<ref name="Apell2016" />, or by attaching the samplers to a sampling platform lowered off a vessel<ref name="Fernandez2012">Fernandez, L.A., Lao, W., Maruya, K.A., White, C., Burgess, R.M., 2012. Passive Sampling to Measure Baseline Dissolved Persistent Organic Pollutant Concentrations in the Water Column of the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp. 11937-11947. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302139y DOI: 10.1021/es302139y]</ref>. Typically, the method used depends on the water depth. Small buoys on short lines, sometimes with associated water-sampling polymeric materials in mesh bags (see right panel of Figure 3), are attached to the samplers to facilitate the sampler recoveries. After recovery, the samplers are wiped to remove any adhering sediment, biofilm, or precipitates and returned to the laboratory for PRC and target contaminant analyses. The resulting measurements of the accumulated target chemical concentrations can be adjusted using the observed PRC losses and publicly available software programs<ref name="Gschwend2014">Gschwend, P.M., Tcaciuc, A.P., and Apell, J.N., 2014. Guidance Document: Passive PE Sampling in Support of In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sediments – Passive Sampler PRC Calculation Software User’s Guide, US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program Project ER-200915. Available from: [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Sediments/Bioavailability/ER-200915 ESTCP].</ref><ref name="Thompson2015">Thompson, J.M., Hsieh, C.H. and Luthy, R.G., 2015. Modeling Uptake of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants into Polyethylene Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(4), pp. 2270-2277. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504442s DOI: 10.1021/es504442s]</ref>.

Subsequently, since the passive sampling reveals the concentrations of contaminants in a sediment bed's porewater and the overlying bottom water<ref name="Booij2003" />, the data can be used to estimate bed-to-water column diffusive fluxes of contaminants<ref name="Koelmans2010">Koelmans, A.A., Poot, A., De Lange, H.J., Velzeboer, I., Harmsen, J., and van Noort, P.C.M., 2010. Estimation of In Situ Sediment-to-Water Fluxes of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorobiphenyls and Polybrominated Diphenylethers. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(8), pp. 3014-3020. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es903938z DOI: 10.1021/es903938z]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2012" /> and bioirrigation-affected fluxes<ref name="Apell2018">Apell, J.N., Shull, D.H., Hoyt, A.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Investigating the Effect of Bioirrigation on In Situ Porewater Concentrations and Fluxes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Using Passive Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(8), pp. 4565-4573. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05809 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05809]</ref>. The data are also useful for assessing the tendency of the contaminants to accumulate in benthic organisms<ref name="Vinturella2004">Vinturella, A.E., Burgess, R.M., Coull, B.A., Thompson, K.M., and Shine, J.P., 2004. Use of Passive Samplers to Mimic Uptake of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Benthic Polychaetes. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(4), pp. 1154-1160. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034706f DOI: 10.1021/es034706f]</ref><ref name="Yates2011">Yates, K., Pollard, P., Davies, I.M., Webster, L., and Moffat, C.F., 2011. Application of silicone rubber passive samplers to investigate the bioaccumulation of PAHs by Nereis virens from marine sediments. Environmental Pollution, 159(12), pp. 3351-3356. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.08.038]</ref><ref name="Fernandez2015">Fernandez, L.A. and Gschwend, P.M., 2015. Predicting bioaccumulation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria) using field deployments of polyethylene passive samplers. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(5), pp. 993-1000. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2892 DOI: 10.1002/etc.2892]</ref>, and by extension into food webs that include such benthic species<ref name="vonStackelberg2017">von Stackelberg, K., Williams, M.A., Clough, J., and Johnson, M.S., 2017. Spatially explicit bioaccumulation modeling in aquatic environments: Results from 2 demonstration sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 13(6), pp. 1023-1037. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1927 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1927]</ref>. Furthermore, recent efforts have found that passive sampling observations can be used to infer ''in situ'' transformations of substances like nitro aromatic compounds<ref name="Belles2016">Belles, A., Alary, C., Criquet, J., and Billon, G., 2016. A new application of passive samplers as indicators of in-situ biodegradation processes. Chemosphere, 164, pp. 347-354. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.111]</ref> and DDT<ref name="Tcaciuc2018">Tcaciuc, A.P., Borrelli, R., Zaninetta, L.M., and Gschwend, P.M., 2018. Passive sampling of DDT, DDE and DDD in sediments: accounting for degradation processes with reaction–diffusion modeling. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 20(1), pp. 220-231. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EM00501F DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00501F]   Open access article available from: [https://pubs.rsc.org/--/content/articlehtml/2018/em/c7em00501f Royal Society of Chemistry].</ref>.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Tools-and-Training/Tools/PRC-Correction-Calculator A PRC Correction Calculator for LDPE deployed in sediments]

Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)

2026-03-03T22:46:07Z

Admin:

Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Florent Risacher|Florent Risacher, M.Sc]]. and [[Dr. Jason Conder|Dr. Jason Conder]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater<ref>Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4f/RisacherEtAl2023a.pdf Article pdf]</ref>

*Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023">Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f Project Website]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/42/ER20-5261BPUG.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f/er20-5261-project-overview Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP Project ER20-5261]

==Introduction==
Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater<ref>Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2769 doi: 10.1002/etc.2769]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/8d/ConderEtAl2015.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017">Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3884 doi: 10.1002/etc.3884]</ref>. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection<ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016">Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2]</ref>. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics<ref>Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1502 doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/99/PeijnenburgEtAl2014.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995">Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2 doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2]</ref><ref>Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6d/SchroederEtAl2020.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater<ref>Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. [https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/502 Website] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/57/Wise2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016" />.

To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics<ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017" />. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago<ref name="Hesslein1976">Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912 doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c7/Hesslein1976.pdf Article pdf]</ref> and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.

==Peeper Designs==
[[File:RisacherFig1.png|thumb|300px|Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water]]
[[File:RisacherFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Example of Hesslein<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/peeper-samplers USGS]]]
[[File:RisacherFig3.png | thumb |400px| Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)]]
Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.

Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale ''et al.''<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995" />, Serbst ''et al.''<ref>Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C., Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5]</ref>, Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010">Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.403 doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7b/ThomasArthur2010.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, Passeport ''et al.''<ref>Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961]</ref>, and Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).

==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
[[File:RisacherFig4.png | thumb |300px| Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)]]
Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment<ref>Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468 doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9c/CarignanEtAl1994.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. However, recent studies<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.

Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />, or by professional divers for the deepest sites. If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.

During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.

After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.

==Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)==
The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium<ref name="USEPA2017">USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/08/EPA_600_R-16_357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.

Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010" /> studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (''C0'') based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (''Cp,t''), the elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') and the deployment time (''t''):
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 1:'''
|     [[File: Equation1r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''C0''||is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or μg/L), sometimes referred to as ''Cfree ''
|-
| ||''Cp,t''||is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 2:'''
|     [[File: Equation2r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''D''||is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm2/s)
|-
| ||''Dtracer''||is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm2/s)
|}

The elimination rate of the tracer (''Ktracer'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 3:'''
|         [[File: Equation3r2.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''Ctracer,i''||is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''Ctracer,t''||is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />.

==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.

'''Nature and Extent:''' Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C0. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.

'''Sources and Fate:''' A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C0 results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C0 using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C0 and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.

'''Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life:''' Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C0 measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (''in situ'') or surface water (''ex situ''), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals<ref name="USEPA2017" />. C0 measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model<ref>Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4572 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572]</ref> to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.

'''Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life:''' Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C0 and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C0 in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C0-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C0 value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C0 measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C0-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.

'''Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy:''' Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C0 in sediment to C0 in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811328715/aea3073540 Peeper Processing Video]
*[https://sepub-prod-0001-124733793621-us-gov-west-1.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-09/ER20-5261%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?VersionId=malAixSQQM3mWCRiaVaxY8wLdI0jE1PX Fact Sheet]

Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)

2026-03-03T22:45:53Z

Admin:

Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Florent Risacher|Florent Risacher, M.Sc]]. and [[Dr. Jason Conder|Dr. Jason Conder]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater<ref>Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4f/RisacherEtAl2023a.pdf Article pdf]</ref>

*Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023">Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f Project Website]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/42/ER20-5261BPUG.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f/er20-5261-project-overview Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP Project ER20-5261]

==Introduction==
Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater<ref>Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2769 doi: 10.1002/etc.2769]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/8d/ConderEtAl2015.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017">Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3884 doi: 10.1002/etc.3884]</ref>. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection<ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016">Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2]</ref>. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics<ref>Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1502 doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/99/PeijnenburgEtAl2014.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995">Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2 doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2]</ref><ref>Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6d/SchroederEtAl2020.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater<ref>Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. [https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/502 Website] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/57/Wise2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016" />.

To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics<ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017" />. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago<ref name="Hesslein1976">Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912 doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c7/Hesslein1976.pdf Article pdf]</ref> and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.

==Peeper Designs==
[[File:RisacherFig1.png|thumb|300px|Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water]]
[[File:RisacherFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Example of Hesslein<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/peeper-samplers USGS]]]
[[File:RisacherFig3.png | thumb |400px| Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)]]
Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.

Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design<ref name="Hesslein1976" /> (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale ''et al.''<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995" />, Serbst ''et al.''<ref>Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C., Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5]</ref>, Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010">Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.403 doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7b/ThomasArthur2010.pdf Article pdf]</ref>, Passeport ''et al.''<ref>Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961]</ref>, and Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).

==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
[[File:RisacherFig4.png | thumb |300px| Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)]]
Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment<ref>Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468 doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9c/CarignanEtAl1994.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. However, recent studies<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.

Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />, or by professional divers for the deepest sites. If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.

During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.

After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.

==Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)==
The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium<ref name="USEPA2017">USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/08/EPA_600_R-16_357.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.

Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010" /> studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" /> showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (''C0'') based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (''Cp,t''), the elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') and the deployment time (''t''):
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 1:'''
|     [[File: Equation1r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''C0''||is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or μg/L), sometimes referred to as ''Cfree ''
|-
| ||''Cp,t''||is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 2:'''
|     [[File: Equation2r.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''K''||is the elimination rate of the target analyte
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''D''||is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm2/s)
|-
| ||''Dtracer''||is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm2/s)
|}

The elimination rate of the tracer (''Ktracer'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 
{|
| ||'''Equation 3:'''
|         [[File: Equation3r2.png]]
|-
|Where:|| ||
|-
| ||''Ktracer''||is the elimination rate of the tracer
|-
| ||''Ctracer,i''||is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''Ctracer,t''||is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
|-
| ||''t''||is the deployment time (days)
|}

Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023" />.

==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.

'''Nature and Extent:''' Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C0. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.

'''Sources and Fate:''' A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C0 results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C0 using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C0 and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.

'''Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life:''' Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C0 measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (''in situ'') or surface water (''ex situ''), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals<ref name="USEPA2017" />. C0 measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model<ref>Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4572 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572]</ref> to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.

'''Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life:''' Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C0 and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C0 in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C0-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C0 value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C0 measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C0-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.

'''Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy:''' Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C0 in sediment to C0 in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
*[https://vimeo.com/811328715/aea3073540 Peeper Processing Video]
*[https://sepub-prod-0001-124733793621-us-gov-west-1.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-09/ER20-5261%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?VersionId=malAixSQQM3mWCRiaVaxY8wLdI0jE1PX Fact Sheet]

In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)

2026-03-03T22:16:42Z

Admin:

The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate in weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr. and Austin Crane

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020">Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M., Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4799 doi: 10.1002/etc.4799]</ref>
*An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017">Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3696 doi: 10.1002/etc.3696]</ref>
*Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003GR1.txt Free Download]  [[Media: EPA2007.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/88a8f9ba-542b-4b98-bfa4-f693435535cd/er18-1181-project-overview In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification - ESTCP Project ER18-1181]<ref>In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification- ESTCP Project ER18-1181 [[Media: ER18-1181Ph.II.pdf | Final Report]]</ref>

==Introduction==
In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<ref>Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/owm0255.pdf Free Download from US EPA]  [[Media: usepa1992.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>, can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ''ex situ'' organism exposures<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.

The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods<ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-409.1 doi: 10.1897/03-409.1]</ref><ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-468.1 doi: 10.1897/03-468.1]</ref><ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/><ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | metals]], pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)]], and [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>.

==System Components and Validation==
[[File: CraneFig1.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.]]
The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water ''in situ''. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.

===Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver]]
Given the importance of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies<ref>Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.</ref>. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.

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

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

===Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber===
[[File: CraneFig3.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.]]
Porewater is naturally anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.

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

===iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers===
[[File: CraneFig4.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.]]
At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>, the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an ''in situ'' exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.

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

===Pumping Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig5.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.]]
Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps ([https://ecotechmarine.com/ EcoTech Marine]). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries ([https://www.bioennopower.com/ Bioenno Power]).

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

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

==Study Design Considerations==
===Diagnostic Resin Treatments===
Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.
*[https://www.dupont.com/products/ambersorb560.html DuPont Ambersorb 560] for removal of 1,4-dioxane and other organic chemicals<ref>Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21402 doi: 10.1002/rem.21402]</ref>
*C18 for nonpolar organic chemicals
*[https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us Bio-Rad] [https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/chelex-100-resin?ID=6448ab3e-b96a-4162-9124-7b7d2330288e Chelex] for metals
*Granular activated carbon for metals, general organic chemicals, sulfide<ref>Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011]</ref>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=Shop&isocode=en_US&keyword=oasis%20hlb&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=best-sellers&xcid=ppc-ppc_23916&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14746094146&gbraid=0AAAAAD_uR00nhlNwrhhegNh06pBODTgiN&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PsppE0raci2IhvGnAAe5ijciNcetLaGZo5qA3g3r4Z_La7YAPJtzShoC6LoQAvD_BwE Oasis HLB] for general organic chemicals<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=All&enableHL=true&isocode=en_US&keyword=Oasis%20WAX%20&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=most-relevant Oasis WAX] for PFAS, organic chemicals of mixed polarity<ref>Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. [https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica5020012 doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012]  [[Media: IannoneEtAl2024.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Zeolite for ammonia, other organic chemicals

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

===Test Organism Species and Life Stages===
Practitioners can also select different organism species and life stages for use in the iTIE system, depending on site characteristics and study goals. The iTIE system can accommodate various small test organisms, including embryo-stage fish and most macroinvertebrates. The following common toxicity tests can be adapted for application within iTIE systems<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1994. Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update, 2(2), 4 pages. Publication No. 9345.0.05I [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/v2no2.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: usepa1994.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>.
<ul>Freshwater acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Daphnia magna | ''Daphnia magna'']] or [[Wikipedia: Daphnia pulex | ''Daphnia pulex'']] 24-, 48-, and 96-hour survival
<ul>Freshwater chronic toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Ceriodaphnia dubia | ''Ceriodaphnia dubia'']] 7-day survival and reproduction
*''D. magna'' 7-day survival and reproduction
*[[Wikipedia: Fathead minnow | ''Pimephales promelas'']] 7-day embryo-larval survival and teratogenicity
*[[Wikipedia: Hyalella azteca | ''Hyalella Azteca'']] 10- or 30-day survival and reproduction
<ul>Marine acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Americamysis bahia | ''Americamysis bahia'']] 24- and 48-hour survival
<ul>Marine chronic toxicity:</ul>
*''Americamysis'' survival, growth and fecundity
*[[Wikipedia: Topsmelt silverside | ''Atherinops affinis'']] embryo-larval survival and growth

Acute toxicity is quantifiable via organism survival rates immediately following the termination of an iTIE system field deployment. Chronic toxicity can be quantified by continuing to culture and observe test organisms in-lab. Common chronic endpoints include stunted growth, altered development such as teratogenicity in larval fish, decreased reproduction rates, and changes in gene expression.

Several gene expression endpoints have been detectable in bioassays following an iTIE system deployment and in-lab culturing period. Steigmeyer ''et al.''<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/> were able to detect changes in the expression of two genes in ''D. magna'' after a 24-hour exposure to bisphenol A. In a separate study, Nichols<ref>Nichols, E., 2023. Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stressors at Impaired Sites. Masters thesis, University of Michigan. University of Michigan Library Deep Blue Documents. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/176142/Nichols_Elizabeth_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Free Download]  [[Media: Nichols2023.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref> found a significant decline in acetylcholinesterase activity in ''H. azteca'' after a 24-hour exposure to chlorpyrifos. These results indicate a potential to adapt other gene expression bioassays for use in conjunction with iTIE system field exposures to prove stressor-causality linkages.

===Cost Effectiveness Study===
Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/> conducted a cost effectiveness study comparing the iTIE technology with the traditional US EPA Phase 1 TIE method. Comparisons were based on the estimated time required to complete various sub-tasks within each method. Sub-tasks included organism care, equipment preparation, mobilization and deployment, test maintenance, test termination, demobilization, and test termination analyses. It was ultimately estimated that the iTIE protocol requires 47% less time (67 fewer hours) to complete than the Phase 1 TIE method, with the largest time differences in equipment preparation, deployment, test maintenance, and demobilization. It is important to note that the iTIE method may require additional initial costs for equipment and training.

==Field Application==
[[File: CraneFig6.png | thumb | left | 400px | Figure 6. iTIES deployment at the Rouge River, Detroit, MI. In the foreground is the iTIE Cooler Sub-System, which contains iTIE resin treatments and test organism groups, as well as the oxygenation coil and sample collection bottles. Next to the iTIE Cooler are the two pump cases. The Trident can be seen above the pump cases, installed in the river channel near shore.]]
The iTIE system has been successfully deployed at a variety of marine and freshwater sites during the proof-of-concept phase of prototype development. One example is the 2024 iTIE system deployment completed near the mouth of the Rouge River in Detroit, MI (Figure 6). The Rouge River watershed has a long history of industrialization, with a legacy of chemical dumping, channelization, damming, and urban runoff<ref>Ridgway, J., Cave, K., DeMaria, A., O’Meara, J., Hartig, J. H., 2018. The Rouge River Area of Concern—A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 21(4), pp. 398-408. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816 doi: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816]</ref>. This has led to degraded environmental conditions, with previous detections of a wide range of chemicals including heavy metals and various organics.

[[File: CraneFig7.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 7. Survival and healthy development of ''P. promelas'' embryos and larvae following a 48-hour iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater as embryos for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days.]]
[[File: CraneFig8.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 8. Survival of ''C. dilutus'' larvae after an iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days. Error bars show standard deviation.]]
An iTIE system deployment was designed and completed to determine which chemical classes are most responsible for causing toxicity at the site. Resin treatments included glass wool (inert, non-fractionating substance), Chelex (metals sorption), Oasis HLB (general organics sorption), and Oasis WAX (organics sorption, with a high affinity for PFAS). The study utilized fathead minnow (''P. promelas'') embryos, due to their relative sensitivity to metals and PAHs, as well as second-instar midge ([[Wikipedia: Chironomus |''Chironomus dilutus'']]) larvae due to their relative sensitivity to PFAS.

The test organisms were exposed to fractionated porewater ''in situ'' for 48 hours. Following exposure, organisms were cultured for an additional five days, and survival was recorded (Figures 7 and 8). Moderate declines in survival were seen in both species in the glass wool treatment, indicating toxicity at the site. For ''P. promelas'', the highest proportion of healthy development occurred in the Chelex treatment, supporting the hypothesis that metals are a dominant cause of toxicity. ''C. dilutus'' had the greatest survival in the Oasis WAX treatment, suggesting that an organic stressor class like PFAS is also present at harmful concentrations in the river.

Water chemical analyses of fractionated and unfractionated water samples were completed to support biological results. Analyses were conducted for a range of stressor classes including metals, PAHs, PCBs, an organophosphate pesticide (chlorpyrifos), a PFAS compound (PFOS) and a pyrethroid insecticide (permethrin). Of these analytes, only heavy metals and PFOS were detected. Some chemical classes including PAHs and PCBs were not detected at the site.
To reach similar conclusions using traditional Phase 1 TIE methods, one would need to complete the following tests: baseline toxicity, filtration, aeration, EDTA, C18 SPE, and methanol elution of C18 SPE. The iTIE method allows the same conclusions to be drawn with significantly less time and effort required.

==Summary==
The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation technology and protocol is a powerful tool that investigators can use to strengthen causal linkages between chemical stressors and ecological toxicity. By fractionating sampled water and exposing test organisms ''in situ'', investigators can gather toxicity response data while minimizing sample manipulation and accurately representing environmental conditions.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)

2026-03-03T22:02:31Z

Admin:

The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate in weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr. and Austin Crane

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020">Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M., Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4799 doi: 10.1002/etc.4799]</ref>
*An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017">Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3696 doi: 10.1002/etc.3696]</ref>
*Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003GR1.txt Free Download]  [[Media: EPA2007.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>
*In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification<ref>In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/88a8f9ba-542b-4b98-bfa4-f693435535cd/er18-1181-project-overview Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1181Ph.II.pdf | Final Report]]</ref>

==Introduction==
In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<ref>Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/owm0255.pdf Free Download from US EPA]  [[Media: usepa1992.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>, can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ''ex situ'' organism exposures<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.

The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods<ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-409.1 doi: 10.1897/03-409.1]</ref><ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-468.1 doi: 10.1897/03-468.1]</ref><ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/><ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | metals]], pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)]], and [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>.

==System Components and Validation==
[[File: CraneFig1.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.]]
The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water ''in situ''. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.

===Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver]]
Given the importance of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies<ref>Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.</ref>. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.

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

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

===Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber===
[[File: CraneFig3.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.]]
Porewater is naturally anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.

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

===iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers===
[[File: CraneFig4.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.]]
At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>, the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an ''in situ'' exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.

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

===Pumping Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig5.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.]]
Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps ([https://ecotechmarine.com/ EcoTech Marine]). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries ([https://www.bioennopower.com/ Bioenno Power]).

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

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

==Study Design Considerations==
===Diagnostic Resin Treatments===
Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.
*[https://www.dupont.com/products/ambersorb560.html DuPont Ambersorb 560] for removal of 1,4-dioxane and other organic chemicals<ref>Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21402 doi: 10.1002/rem.21402]</ref>
*C18 for nonpolar organic chemicals
*[https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us Bio-Rad] [https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/chelex-100-resin?ID=6448ab3e-b96a-4162-9124-7b7d2330288e Chelex] for metals
*Granular activated carbon for metals, general organic chemicals, sulfide<ref>Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011]</ref>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=Shop&isocode=en_US&keyword=oasis%20hlb&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=best-sellers&xcid=ppc-ppc_23916&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14746094146&gbraid=0AAAAAD_uR00nhlNwrhhegNh06pBODTgiN&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PsppE0raci2IhvGnAAe5ijciNcetLaGZo5qA3g3r4Z_La7YAPJtzShoC6LoQAvD_BwE Oasis HLB] for general organic chemicals<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=All&enableHL=true&isocode=en_US&keyword=Oasis%20WAX%20&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=most-relevant Oasis WAX] for PFAS, organic chemicals of mixed polarity<ref>Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. [https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica5020012 doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012]  [[Media: IannoneEtAl2024.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Zeolite for ammonia, other organic chemicals

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

===Test Organism Species and Life Stages===
Practitioners can also select different organism species and life stages for use in the iTIE system, depending on site characteristics and study goals. The iTIE system can accommodate various small test organisms, including embryo-stage fish and most macroinvertebrates. The following common toxicity tests can be adapted for application within iTIE systems<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1994. Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update, 2(2), 4 pages. Publication No. 9345.0.05I [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/v2no2.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: usepa1994.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref>.
<ul>Freshwater acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Daphnia magna | ''Daphnia magna'']] or [[Wikipedia: Daphnia pulex | ''Daphnia pulex'']] 24-, 48-, and 96-hour survival
<ul>Freshwater chronic toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Ceriodaphnia dubia | ''Ceriodaphnia dubia'']] 7-day survival and reproduction
*''D. magna'' 7-day survival and reproduction
*[[Wikipedia: Fathead minnow | ''Pimephales promelas'']] 7-day embryo-larval survival and teratogenicity
*[[Wikipedia: Hyalella azteca | ''Hyalella Azteca'']] 10- or 30-day survival and reproduction
<ul>Marine acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Americamysis bahia | ''Americamysis bahia'']] 24- and 48-hour survival
<ul>Marine chronic toxicity:</ul>
*''Americamysis'' survival, growth and fecundity
*[[Wikipedia: Topsmelt silverside | ''Atherinops affinis'']] embryo-larval survival and growth

Acute toxicity is quantifiable via organism survival rates immediately following the termination of an iTIE system field deployment. Chronic toxicity can be quantified by continuing to culture and observe test organisms in-lab. Common chronic endpoints include stunted growth, altered development such as teratogenicity in larval fish, decreased reproduction rates, and changes in gene expression.

Several gene expression endpoints have been detectable in bioassays following an iTIE system deployment and in-lab culturing period. Steigmeyer ''et al.''<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/> were able to detect changes in the expression of two genes in ''D. magna'' after a 24-hour exposure to bisphenol A. In a separate study, Nichols<ref>Nichols, E., 2023. Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stressors at Impaired Sites. Masters thesis, University of Michigan. University of Michigan Library Deep Blue Documents. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/176142/Nichols_Elizabeth_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Free Download]  [[Media: Nichols2023.pdf | Report pdf]]</ref> found a significant decline in acetylcholinesterase activity in ''H. azteca'' after a 24-hour exposure to chlorpyrifos. These results indicate a potential to adapt other gene expression bioassays for use in conjunction with iTIE system field exposures to prove stressor-causality linkages.

===Cost Effectiveness Study===
Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/> conducted a cost effectiveness study comparing the iTIE technology with the traditional US EPA Phase 1 TIE method. Comparisons were based on the estimated time required to complete various sub-tasks within each method. Sub-tasks included organism care, equipment preparation, mobilization and deployment, test maintenance, test termination, demobilization, and test termination analyses. It was ultimately estimated that the iTIE protocol requires 47% less time (67 fewer hours) to complete than the Phase 1 TIE method, with the largest time differences in equipment preparation, deployment, test maintenance, and demobilization. It is important to note that the iTIE method may require additional initial costs for equipment and training.

==Field Application==
[[File: CraneFig6.png | thumb | left | 400px | Figure 6. iTIES deployment at the Rouge River, Detroit, MI. In the foreground is the iTIE Cooler Sub-System, which contains iTIE resin treatments and test organism groups, as well as the oxygenation coil and sample collection bottles. Next to the iTIE Cooler are the two pump cases. The Trident can be seen above the pump cases, installed in the river channel near shore.]]
The iTIE system has been successfully deployed at a variety of marine and freshwater sites during the proof-of-concept phase of prototype development. One example is the 2024 iTIE system deployment completed near the mouth of the Rouge River in Detroit, MI (Figure 6). The Rouge River watershed has a long history of industrialization, with a legacy of chemical dumping, channelization, damming, and urban runoff<ref>Ridgway, J., Cave, K., DeMaria, A., O’Meara, J., Hartig, J. H., 2018. The Rouge River Area of Concern—A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 21(4), pp. 398-408. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816 doi: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816]</ref>. This has led to degraded environmental conditions, with previous detections of a wide range of chemicals including heavy metals and various organics.

[[File: CraneFig7.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 7. Survival and healthy development of ''P. promelas'' embryos and larvae following a 48-hour iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater as embryos for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days.]]
[[File: CraneFig8.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 8. Survival of ''C. dilutus'' larvae after an iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days. Error bars show standard deviation.]]
An iTIE system deployment was designed and completed to determine which chemical classes are most responsible for causing toxicity at the site. Resin treatments included glass wool (inert, non-fractionating substance), Chelex (metals sorption), Oasis HLB (general organics sorption), and Oasis WAX (organics sorption, with a high affinity for PFAS). The study utilized fathead minnow (''P. promelas'') embryos, due to their relative sensitivity to metals and PAHs, as well as second-instar midge ([[Wikipedia: Chironomus |''Chironomus dilutus'']]) larvae due to their relative sensitivity to PFAS.

The test organisms were exposed to fractionated porewater ''in situ'' for 48 hours. Following exposure, organisms were cultured for an additional five days, and survival was recorded (Figures 7 and 8). Moderate declines in survival were seen in both species in the glass wool treatment, indicating toxicity at the site. For ''P. promelas'', the highest proportion of healthy development occurred in the Chelex treatment, supporting the hypothesis that metals are a dominant cause of toxicity. ''C. dilutus'' had the greatest survival in the Oasis WAX treatment, suggesting that an organic stressor class like PFAS is also present at harmful concentrations in the river.

Water chemical analyses of fractionated and unfractionated water samples were completed to support biological results. Analyses were conducted for a range of stressor classes including metals, PAHs, PCBs, an organophosphate pesticide (chlorpyrifos), a PFAS compound (PFOS) and a pyrethroid insecticide (permethrin). Of these analytes, only heavy metals and PFOS were detected. Some chemical classes including PAHs and PCBs were not detected at the site.
To reach similar conclusions using traditional Phase 1 TIE methods, one would need to complete the following tests: baseline toxicity, filtration, aeration, EDTA, C18 SPE, and methanol elution of C18 SPE. The iTIE method allows the same conclusions to be drawn with significantly less time and effort required.

==Summary==
The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation technology and protocol is a powerful tool that investigators can use to strengthen causal linkages between chemical stressors and ecological toxicity. By fractionating sampled water and exposing test organisms ''in situ'', investigators can gather toxicity response data while minimizing sample manipulation and accurately representing environmental conditions.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)

2026-03-03T21:48:25Z

Admin:

The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate in weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr. and Austin Crane

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020">Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M., Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4799 doi: 10.1002/etc.4799]</ref>
*An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017">Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3696 doi: 10.1002/etc.3696]</ref>
*Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003GR1.txt Free Download]  [[Media: EPA2007.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
*In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification<ref>In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/88a8f9ba-542b-4b98-bfa4-f693435535cd/er18-1181-project-overview Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1181Ph.II.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>

==Introduction==
In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<ref>Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/owm0255.pdf Free Download from US EPA]  [[Media: usepa1992.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>, can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ''ex situ'' organism exposures<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.

The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods<ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-409.1 doi: 10.1897/03-409.1]</ref><ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-468.1 doi: 10.1897/03-468.1]</ref><ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/><ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | metals]], pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)]], and [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>.

==System Components and Validation==
[[File: CraneFig1.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.]]
The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water ''in situ''. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.

===Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver]]
Given the importance of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies<ref>Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.</ref>. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.

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

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

===Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber===
[[File: CraneFig3.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.]]
Porewater is naturally anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.

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

===iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers===
[[File: CraneFig4.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.]]
At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>, the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an ''in situ'' exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.

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

===Pumping Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig5.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.]]
Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps ([https://ecotechmarine.com/ EcoTech Marine]). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries ([https://www.bioennopower.com/ Bioenno Power]).

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

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

==Study Design Considerations==
===Diagnostic Resin Treatments===
Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.
*[https://www.dupont.com/products/ambersorb560.html DuPont Ambersorb 560] for removal of 1,4-dioxane and other organic chemicals<ref>Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21402 doi: 10.1002/rem.21402]</ref>
*C18 for nonpolar organic chemicals
*[https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us Bio-Rad] [https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/chelex-100-resin?ID=6448ab3e-b96a-4162-9124-7b7d2330288e Chelex] for metals
*Granular activated carbon for metals, general organic chemicals, sulfide<ref>Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011]</ref>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=Shop&isocode=en_US&keyword=oasis%20hlb&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=best-sellers&xcid=ppc-ppc_23916&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14746094146&gbraid=0AAAAAD_uR00nhlNwrhhegNh06pBODTgiN&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PsppE0raci2IhvGnAAe5ijciNcetLaGZo5qA3g3r4Z_La7YAPJtzShoC6LoQAvD_BwE Oasis HLB] for general organic chemicals<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=All&enableHL=true&isocode=en_US&keyword=Oasis%20WAX%20&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=most-relevant Oasis WAX] for PFAS, organic chemicals of mixed polarity<ref>Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. [https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica5020012 doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012]  [[Media: IannoneEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Zeolite for ammonia, other organic chemicals

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

===Test Organism Species and Life Stages===
Practitioners can also select different organism species and life stages for use in the iTIE system, depending on site characteristics and study goals. The iTIE system can accommodate various small test organisms, including embryo-stage fish and most macroinvertebrates. The following common toxicity tests can be adapted for application within iTIE systems<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1994. Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update, 2(2), 4 pages. Publication No. 9345.0.05I [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/v2no2.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: usepa1994.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
<ul>Freshwater acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Daphnia magna | ''Daphnia magna'']] or [[Wikipedia: Daphnia pulex | ''Daphnia pulex'']] 24-, 48-, and 96-hour survival
<ul>Freshwater chronic toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Ceriodaphnia dubia | ''Ceriodaphnia dubia'']] 7-day survival and reproduction
*''D. magna'' 7-day survival and reproduction
*[[Wikipedia: Fathead minnow | ''Pimephales promelas'']] 7-day embryo-larval survival and teratogenicity
*[[Wikipedia: Hyalella azteca | ''Hyalella Azteca'']] 10- or 30-day survival and reproduction
<ul>Marine acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Americamysis bahia | ''Americamysis bahia'']] 24- and 48-hour survival
<ul>Marine chronic toxicity:</ul>
*''Americamysis'' survival, growth and fecundity
*[[Wikipedia: Topsmelt silverside | ''Atherinops affinis'']] embryo-larval survival and growth

Acute toxicity is quantifiable via organism survival rates immediately following the termination of an iTIE system field deployment. Chronic toxicity can be quantified by continuing to culture and observe test organisms in-lab. Common chronic endpoints include stunted growth, altered development such as teratogenicity in larval fish, decreased reproduction rates, and changes in gene expression.

Several gene expression endpoints have been detectable in bioassays following an iTIE system deployment and in-lab culturing period. Steigmeyer ''et al.''<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/> were able to detect changes in the expression of two genes in ''D. magna'' after a 24-hour exposure to bisphenol A. In a separate study, Nichols<ref>Nichols, E., 2023. Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stressors at Impaired Sites. Masters thesis, University of Michigan. University of Michigan Library Deep Blue Documents. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/176142/Nichols_Elizabeth_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Free Download]  [[Media: Nichols2023.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> found a significant decline in acetylcholinesterase activity in ''H. azteca'' after a 24-hour exposure to chlorpyrifos. These results indicate a potential to adapt other gene expression bioassays for use in conjunction with iTIE system field exposures to prove stressor-causality linkages.

===Cost Effectiveness Study===
Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/> conducted a cost effectiveness study comparing the iTIE technology with the traditional US EPA Phase 1 TIE method. Comparisons were based on the estimated time required to complete various sub-tasks within each method. Sub-tasks included organism care, equipment preparation, mobilization and deployment, test maintenance, test termination, demobilization, and test termination analyses. It was ultimately estimated that the iTIE protocol requires 47% less time (67 fewer hours) to complete than the Phase 1 TIE method, with the largest time differences in equipment preparation, deployment, test maintenance, and demobilization. It is important to note that the iTIE method may require additional initial costs for equipment and training.

==Field Application==
[[File: CraneFig6.png | thumb | left | 400px | Figure 6. iTIES deployment at the Rouge River, Detroit, MI. In the foreground is the iTIE Cooler Sub-System, which contains iTIE resin treatments and test organism groups, as well as the oxygenation coil and sample collection bottles. Next to the iTIE Cooler are the two pump cases. The Trident can be seen above the pump cases, installed in the river channel near shore.]]
The iTIE system has been successfully deployed at a variety of marine and freshwater sites during the proof-of-concept phase of prototype development. One example is the 2024 iTIE system deployment completed near the mouth of the Rouge River in Detroit, MI (Figure 6). The Rouge River watershed has a long history of industrialization, with a legacy of chemical dumping, channelization, damming, and urban runoff<ref>Ridgway, J., Cave, K., DeMaria, A., O’Meara, J., Hartig, J. H., 2018. The Rouge River Area of Concern—A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 21(4), pp. 398-408. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816 doi: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816]</ref>. This has led to degraded environmental conditions, with previous detections of a wide range of chemicals including heavy metals and various organics.

[[File: CraneFig7.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 7. Survival and healthy development of ''P. promelas'' embryos and larvae following a 48-hour iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater as embryos for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days.]]
[[File: CraneFig8.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 8. Survival of ''C. dilutus'' larvae after an iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days. Error bars show standard deviation.]]
An iTIE system deployment was designed and completed to determine which chemical classes are most responsible for causing toxicity at the site. Resin treatments included glass wool (inert, non-fractionating substance), Chelex (metals sorption), Oasis HLB (general organics sorption), and Oasis WAX (organics sorption, with a high affinity for PFAS). The study utilized fathead minnow (''P. promelas'') embryos, due to their relative sensitivity to metals and PAHs, as well as second-instar midge ([[Wikipedia: Chironomus |''Chironomus dilutus'']]) larvae due to their relative sensitivity to PFAS.

The test organisms were exposed to fractionated porewater ''in situ'' for 48 hours. Following exposure, organisms were cultured for an additional five days, and survival was recorded (Figures 7 and 8). Moderate declines in survival were seen in both species in the glass wool treatment, indicating toxicity at the site. For ''P. promelas'', the highest proportion of healthy development occurred in the Chelex treatment, supporting the hypothesis that metals are a dominant cause of toxicity. ''C. dilutus'' had the greatest survival in the Oasis WAX treatment, suggesting that an organic stressor class like PFAS is also present at harmful concentrations in the river.

Water chemical analyses of fractionated and unfractionated water samples were completed to support biological results. Analyses were conducted for a range of stressor classes including metals, PAHs, PCBs, an organophosphate pesticide (chlorpyrifos), a PFAS compound (PFOS) and a pyrethroid insecticide (permethrin). Of these analytes, only heavy metals and PFOS were detected. Some chemical classes including PAHs and PCBs were not detected at the site.
To reach similar conclusions using traditional Phase 1 TIE methods, one would need to complete the following tests: baseline toxicity, filtration, aeration, EDTA, C18 SPE, and methanol elution of C18 SPE. The iTIE method allows the same conclusions to be drawn with significantly less time and effort required.

==Summary==
The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation technology and protocol is a powerful tool that investigators can use to strengthen causal linkages between chemical stressors and ecological toxicity. By fractionating sampled water and exposing test organisms ''in situ'', investigators can gather toxicity response data while minimizing sample manipulation and accurately representing environmental conditions.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE)

2026-03-03T21:47:53Z

Admin:

The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation system is a tool to incorporate in weight-of-evidence studies at sites with numerous chemical toxicant classes present. The technology works by continuously sampling site water, immediately fractionating the water using diagnostic sorptive resins, and then exposing test organisms to the water to observe toxicity responses with minimal sample manipulation. It is compatible with various resins, test organisms, and common acute and chronic toxicity tests, and can be deployed at sites with a wide variety of physical and logistical considerations.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' Dr. G. Allen Burton Jr. and Austin Crane

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*A Novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020">Burton, G.A., Cervi, E.C., Meyer, K., Steigmeyer, A., Verhamme, E., Daley, J., Hudson, M., Colvin, M., Rosen, G., 2020. A novel In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) System for Determining which Chemicals Drive Impairments at Contaminated Sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 39(9), pp. 1746-1754. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4799 doi: 10.1002/etc.4799]</ref>
*An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017">Steigmeyer, A.J., Zhang, J., Daley, J.M., Zhang, X., Burton, G.A. Jr., 2017. An in situ toxicity identification and evaluation water analysis system: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(6), pp. 1636-1643. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3696 doi: 10.1002/etc.3696]</ref>
*Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) Phases I, II, and III Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-07/080. 145 pages. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1003GR1.txt Free Download]  [[Media: EPA2007.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
*In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification<ref>In Situ Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) Technology for Assessing Contaminated Sediments, Remediation Success, Recontamination and Source Identification [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/88a8f9ba-542b-4b98-bfa4-f693435535cd/er18-1181-project-overview Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1181Ph.II.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>

==Introduction==
In waterways impacted by numerous naturally occurring and anthropogenic chemical stressors, it is crucial for environmental practitioners to be able to identify which chemical classes are causing the highest degrees of toxicity to aquatic life. Previously developed methods, including the Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) protocol developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<ref>Norberg-King, T., Mount, D.I., Amato, J.R., Jensen, D.A., Thompson, J.A., 1992. Toxicity identification evaluation: Characterization of chronically toxic effluents: Phase I. Publication No. EPA/600/6-91/005F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/owm0255.pdf Free Download from US EPA]  [[Media: usepa1992.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>, can be confounded by sample manipulation artifacts and temporal limitations of ''ex situ'' organism exposures<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>. These factors may disrupt causal linkages and mislead investigators during site characterization and management decision-making. The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation (iTIE) technology was developed to allow users to strengthen stressor-causality linkages and rank chemical classes of concern at impaired sites, with high degrees of ecological realism.

The technology has undergone a series of improvements in recent years, with the most recent prototype being robust, operable in a wide variety of site conditions, and cost-effective compared to alternative site characterization methods<ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part I: Laboratory validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2844-2850. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-409.1 doi: 10.1897/03-409.1]</ref><ref>Burton, G.A. Jr., Nordstrom, J.F., 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method part II: Field validation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(12), pp. 2851-2855. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-468.1 doi: 10.1897/03-468.1]</ref><ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/><ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>. The latest prototype can be used in any of the following settings: in marine, estuarine, or freshwater sites; to study surface water or sediment pore water; in shallow waters easily accessible by foot or in deep waters only accessible by pier or boat. It can be used to study sites impacted by a wide variety of stressors including ammonia, [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | metals]], pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)]], and [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], among others. The technology is applicable to studies of acute toxicity via organism survival or of chronic toxicity via responses in growth, reproduction, or gene expression<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>.

==System Components and Validation==
[[File: CraneFig1.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 1: A schematic diagram of the iTIE system prototype. The system is divided into three sub-systems: 1) the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System (blue); 2) the Pumping Sub-System (red); and 3) the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System (green). Water first enters the system through the Pore Water/Surface Water Collection Sub-System. Porewater can be collected using Trident-style probes, or surface water can be collected using a simple weighted probe. The water is composited in a manifold before being pumped to the rest of the iTIE system by the booster pump. Once in the iTIE Resin, Exposure, and Sampling Sub-System, the water is gently oxygenated by the Oxygen Coil, separated from gas bubbles by the Drip Chamber, and diverted to separate iTIE Resin and Exposure Chambers (or iTIE units) by the Splitting Manifold. Water movement through each iTIE unit is controlled by a dedicated Regulation Pump. Finally, the water is gathered in Sample Collection bottles for analysis.]]
The latest iTIE prototype consists of an array of sorptive resins that differentially fractionate sampled water, and a series of corresponding flow-through organism chambers that receive the treated water ''in situ''. Resin treatments can be selected depending on the chemicals suspected to be present at each site to selectively sequester certain chemical of concern (CoC) classes from the whole water, leaving a smaller subset of chemicals in the resulting water fraction for chemical and toxicological characterization. Test organism species and life stages can also be chosen depending on factors including site characteristics and study goals. In the full iTIE protocol, site water is continuously sampled either from the sediment pore spaces or the water column at a site, gently oxygenated, diverted to different iTIE units for fractionation and organism exposure, and collected in sample bottles for off-site chemical analysis (Figure 1). All iTIE system components are housed within waterproof Pelican cases, which allow for ease of transport and temperature control.

===Porewater and Surface Water Collection Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2: a) Trident probe with auxiliary sensors attached, b) a Trident probe with end caps removed (the red arrow identifies the intermediate space where glass beads are packed to filter suspended solids), c) a Trident probe being installed using a series of push poles and a fence post driver]]
Given the importance of sediment porewater to ecosystem structure and function, investigators may employ the iTIE system to evaluate the toxic effects associated with the impacted sediment porewater. To accomplish this, the iTIE system utilizes the Trident probe, originally developed for Department of Defense site characterization studies<ref>Chadwick, D.B., Harre, B., Smith, C.F., Groves, J.G., Paulsen, R.J., 2003. Coastal Contaminant Migration Monitoring: The Trident Probe and UltraSeep System. Hardware Description, Protocols, and Procedures. Technical Report 1902. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.</ref>. The main body of the Trident is comprised of a stainless-steel frame with six hollow probes (Figure 2). Each probe contains a layer of inert glass beads, which filters suspended solids from the sampled water. The water is drawn through each probe into a composite manifold and transported to the rest of the iTIE system using a high-precision peristaltic pump.

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

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

===Oxygen Coil, Overflow Bag and Drip Chamber===
[[File: CraneFig3.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 3. Contents of the iTIE system cooler. The pictured HDPE rack (47.6 cm length x 29.7 cm width x 33.7 cm height) is removable from the iTIE cooler. Water enters the system at the red circle, flows through the oxygen coil, and then travels to each of the individual iTIE units where diagnostic resins and organisms are located. The water then briefly leaves the cooler to travel through peristaltic regulation pumps before being gathered in sample collection bottles.]]
Porewater is naturally anoxic due to limited mixing with aerated surface water and high oxygen demand of sediments, which may cause organism mortality and interfere with iTIE results. To preclude this, sampled porewater is exposed to an oxygen coil. This consists of an interior silicone tube connected to a pressurized oxygen canister, threaded through an exterior reinforced PVC tube through which water is slowly pumped (Figure 3). Pump rates are optimized to ensure adequate aeration of the water. In addition to elevating DO levels, the oxygen coil facilitates the oxidation of dissolved sulfides, which naturally occur in some marine sediments and may otherwise cause toxicity to organisms if left in its reduced form.

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

===iTIE Units: Fractionation and Organism Exposure Chambers===
[[File: CraneFig4.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 4. A diagram of the iTIE prototype. Water flows upward into each resin chamber through the unit bottom. After being chemically fractionated in the resin chamber, water travels into the organism chamber, where test organisms have been placed. Water is drawn through the units by high-precision peristaltic pumps.]]
At the core of the iTIE system are separate dual-chamber iTIE units, each with a resin fractionation chamber and an organism exposure chamber (Figure 4). Developed by Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/>, the iTIE prototype is constructed from acrylic, with rubber O-rings to connect each piece. Each iTIE unit can contain a different diagnostic resin matrix, customizable to remove specific chemical classes from the water. Sampled water flows into each unit through the bottom and is differentially fractionated by the resin matrix as it travels upward. Then it reaches the organism chamber, where test organisms are placed for exposure. The organism chamber inlet and outlet are covered by mesh to prevent the escape of the test organisms. This continuous flow-through design allows practitioners to capture the temporal heterogeneity of ambient water conditions over the duration of an ''in situ'' exposure. Currently, the iTIE system can support four independent iTIE treatment units.

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

===Pumping Sub-system===
[[File: CraneFig5.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 5. The iTIE system pumping sub-system. The sub-system consists of: A) a single booster pump, which is directly connected to the water sampling device and feeds water to the rest of the iTIE system, and B) a set of four regulation pumps, which each connect to the outflow of an individual iTIE unit. Each pump set is housed in a waterproof case with self-contained rechargeable battery power. A tablet is mounted inside the lid of the four pump case, which can be used to program and operate all of the pumps when connected to the internet.]]
Water movement through the system is driven by a series of high-precision, programmable peristaltic pumps ([https://ecotechmarine.com/ EcoTech Marine]). Each pump set is housed in a Pelican storm travel case. Power is supplied to each pump by internal rechargeable lithium-iron phosphate batteries ([https://www.bioennopower.com/ Bioenno Power]).

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

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

==Study Design Considerations==
===Diagnostic Resin Treatments===
Several commercially available resins have been verified for use in the iTIE system. Investigators can select resins based on stressor classes of interest at each site. Each resin selectively removes a CoC class from site water prior to organism exposure.
*[https://www.dupont.com/products/ambersorb560.html DuPont Ambersorb 560] for removal of 1,4-dioxane and other organic chemicals<ref>Woodard, S., Mohr, T., Nickelsen, M.G., 2014. Synthetic media: A promising new treatment technology for 1,4-dioxane. Remediation Journal, 24(4), pp. 27-40. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21402 doi: 10.1002/rem.21402]</ref>
*C18 for nonpolar organic chemicals
*[https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us Bio-Rad] [https://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/product/chelex-100-resin?ID=6448ab3e-b96a-4162-9124-7b7d2330288e Chelex] for metals
*Granular activated carbon for metals, general organic chemicals, sulfide<ref>Lemos, B.R.S., Teixeira, I.F., de Mesquita, J.P., Ribeiro, R.R., Donnici, C.L., Lago, R.M., 2012. Use of modified activated carbon for the oxidation of aqueous sulfide. Carbon, 50(3), pp. 1386-1393. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2011.11.011]</ref>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=Shop&isocode=en_US&keyword=oasis%20hlb&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=best-sellers&xcid=ppc-ppc_23916&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=14746094146&gbraid=0AAAAAD_uR00nhlNwrhhegNh06pBODTgiN&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PsppE0raci2IhvGnAAe5ijciNcetLaGZo5qA3g3r4Z_La7YAPJtzShoC6LoQAvD_BwE Oasis HLB] for general organic chemicals<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/>
*[https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en.html Waters] [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/search.html?category=All&enableHL=true&isocode=en_US&keyword=Oasis%20WAX%20&multiselect=true&page=1&rows=12&sort=most-relevant Oasis WAX] for PFAS, organic chemicals of mixed polarity<ref>Iannone, A., Carriera, F., Di Fiore, C., Avino, P., 2024. Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Analysis in Environmental Matrices: An Overview of the Extraction and Chromatographic Detection Methods. Analytica, 5(2), pp. 187-202. [https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica5020012 doi: 10.3390/analytica5020012]  [[Media: IannoneEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Zeolite for ammonia, other organic chemicals

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

===Test Organism Species and Life Stages===
Practitioners can also select different organism species and life stages for use in the iTIE system, depending on site characteristics and study goals. The iTIE system can accommodate various small test organisms, including embryo-stage fish and most macroinvertebrates. The following common toxicity tests can be adapted for application within iTIE systems<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1994. Catalogue of Standard Toxicity Tests for Ecological Risk Assessment. ECO Update, 2(2), 4 pages. Publication No. 9345.0.05I [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/v2no2.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: usepa1994.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
<ul>Freshwater acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Daphnia magna | ''Daphnia magna'']] or [[Wikipedia: Daphnia pulex | ''Daphnia pulex'']] 24-, 48-, and 96-hour survival
<ul>Freshwater chronic toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Ceriodaphnia dubia | ''Ceriodaphnia dubia'']] 7-day survival and reproduction
*''D. magna'' 7-day survival and reproduction
*[[Wikipedia: Fathead minnow | ''Pimephales promelas'']] 7-day embryo-larval survival and teratogenicity
*[[Wikipedia: Hyalella azteca | ''Hyalella Azteca'']] 10- or 30-day survival and reproduction
<ul>Marine acute toxicity:</ul>
*[[Wikipedia: Americamysis bahia | ''Americamysis bahia'']] 24- and 48-hour survival
<ul>Marine chronic toxicity:</ul>
*''Americamysis'' survival, growth and fecundity
*[[Wikipedia: Topsmelt silverside | ''Atherinops affinis'']] embryo-larval survival and growth

Acute toxicity is quantifiable via organism survival rates immediately following the termination of an iTIE system field deployment. Chronic toxicity can be quantified by continuing to culture and observe test organisms in-lab. Common chronic endpoints include stunted growth, altered development such as teratogenicity in larval fish, decreased reproduction rates, and changes in gene expression.

Several gene expression endpoints have been detectable in bioassays following an iTIE system deployment and in-lab culturing period. Steigmeyer ''et al.''<ref name="SteigmeyerEtAl2017"/> were able to detect changes in the expression of two genes in ''D. magna'' after a 24-hour exposure to bisphenol A. In a separate study, Nichols<ref>Nichols, E., 2023. Methods for Identification and Prioritization of Stressors at Impaired Sites. Masters thesis, University of Michigan. University of Michigan Library Deep Blue Documents. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/176142/Nichols_Elizabeth_thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Free Download]  [[Media: Nichols2023.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> found a significant decline in acetylcholinesterase activity in ''H. azteca'' after a 24-hour exposure to chlorpyrifos. These results indicate a potential to adapt other gene expression bioassays for use in conjunction with iTIE system field exposures to prove stressor-causality linkages.

===Cost Effectiveness Study===
Burton ''et al.''<ref name="BurtonEtAl2020"/> conducted a cost effectiveness study comparing the iTIE technology with the traditional US EPA Phase 1 TIE method. Comparisons were based on the estimated time required to complete various sub-tasks within each method. Sub-tasks included organism care, equipment preparation, mobilization and deployment, test maintenance, test termination, demobilization, and test termination analyses. It was ultimately estimated that the iTIE protocol requires 47% less time (67 fewer hours) to complete than the Phase 1 TIE method, with the largest time differences in equipment preparation, deployment, test maintenance, and demobilization. It is important to note that the iTIE method may require additional initial costs for equipment and training.

==Field Application==
[[File: CraneFig6.png | thumb | left | 400px | Figure 6. iTIES deployment at the Rouge River, Detroit, MI. In the foreground is the iTIE Cooler Sub-System, which contains iTIE resin treatments and test organism groups, as well as the oxygenation coil and sample collection bottles. Next to the iTIE Cooler are the two pump cases. The Trident can be seen above the pump cases, installed in the river channel near shore.]]
The iTIE system has been successfully deployed at a variety of marine and freshwater sites during the proof-of-concept phase of prototype development. One example is the 2024 iTIE system deployment completed near the mouth of the Rouge River in Detroit, MI (Figure 6). The Rouge River watershed has a long history of industrialization, with a legacy of chemical dumping, channelization, damming, and urban runoff<ref>Ridgway, J., Cave, K., DeMaria, A., O’Meara, J., Hartig, J. H., 2018. The Rouge River Area of Concern—A multi-year, multi-level successful approach to restoration of Impaired Beneficial Uses. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 21(4), pp. 398-408. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816 doi: 10.1080/14634988.2018.1528816]</ref>. This has led to degraded environmental conditions, with previous detections of a wide range of chemicals including heavy metals and various organics.

[[File: CraneFig7.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 7. Survival and healthy development of ''P. promelas'' embryos and larvae following a 48-hour iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater as embryos for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days.]]
[[File: CraneFig8.png | thumb | 300px | Figure 8. Survival of ''C. dilutus'' larvae after an iTIE exposure near the mouth of the Rouge River. Organisms were exposed to site porewater for 48 hours and cultured post-exposure for an additional 5 days. Error bars show standard deviation.]]
An iTIE system deployment was designed and completed to determine which chemical classes are most responsible for causing toxicity at the site. Resin treatments included glass wool (inert, non-fractionating substance), Chelex (metals sorption), Oasis HLB (general organics sorption), and Oasis WAX (organics sorption, with a high affinity for PFAS). The study utilized fathead minnow (''P. promelas'') embryos, due to their relative sensitivity to metals and PAHs, as well as second-instar midge ([[Wikipedia: Chironomus |''Chironomus dilutus'']]) larvae due to their relative sensitivity to PFAS.

The test organisms were exposed to fractionated porewater ''in situ'' for 48 hours. Following exposure, organisms were cultured for an additional five days, and survival was recorded (Figures 7 and 8). Moderate declines in survival were seen in both species in the glass wool treatment, indicating toxicity at the site. For ''P. promelas'', the highest proportion of healthy development occurred in the Chelex treatment, supporting the hypothesis that metals are a dominant cause of toxicity. ''C. dilutus'' had the greatest survival in the Oasis WAX treatment, suggesting that an organic stressor class like PFAS is also present at harmful concentrations in the river.

Water chemical analyses of fractionated and unfractionated water samples were completed to support biological results. Analyses were conducted for a range of stressor classes including metals, PAHs, PCBs, an organophosphate pesticide (chlorpyrifos), a PFAS compound (PFOS) and a pyrethroid insecticide (permethrin). Of these analytes, only heavy metals and PFOS were detected. Some chemical classes including PAHs and PCBs were not detected at the site.
To reach similar conclusions using traditional Phase 1 TIE methods, one would need to complete the following tests: baseline toxicity, filtration, aeration, EDTA, C18 SPE, and methanol elution of C18 SPE. The iTIE method allows the same conclusions to be drawn with significantly less time and effort required.

==Summary==
The ''in situ'' Toxicity Identification Evaluation technology and protocol is a powerful tool that investigators can use to strengthen causal linkages between chemical stressors and ecological toxicity. By fractionating sampled water and exposing test organisms ''in situ'', investigators can gather toxicity response data while minimizing sample manipulation and accurately representing environmental conditions.
 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-03-02T20:11:20Z

Admin:

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*[https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ EradiFluorTM]<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., and Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., and Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., and Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., and Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., and Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction

2026-03-02T20:10:56Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) is a [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] destruction technology predicated on [[Wikipedia: Ultraviolet | ultraviolet (UV)]] light-activated photochemical reactions. The destruction efficiency of this process is enhanced by the use of a [[Wikipedia: Surfactant | surfactant]] to confine PFAS molecules in self-assembled [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]]. The photochemical reaction produces [[Wikipedia: Solvated electron | hydrated electrons]] from an electron donor that associates with the micelle. </onlyinclude>The hydrated electrons have sufficient energy to rapidly cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds of PFAS molecules due to the association of the electron donor with the micelle. Micelle-accelerated PRD is a highly efficient method to destroy PFAS in a wide variety of water matrices.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Suzanne Witt]], [[Dr. Meng Wang]], and [[Dr. Denise Kay]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement<ref name="ChenEtAl2020">Chen, Z., Li, C., Gao, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Wu, B., Gu, C., 2020. Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 5178–5185. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06599 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06599]</ref>
*[https://www.enviro.wiki/images/0/04/TianEtAl2016.pdf Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite]<ref name="TianEtAl2016">Tian, H., Gao, J., Li, H., Boyd, S.A., Gu, C., 2016. Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 32949. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32949 doi: 10.1038/srep32949]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/04/TianEtAl2016.pdf Article]</ref>
*Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons<ref name="ChenEtAl2019">Chen, Z., Tian, H., Li, H., Li, J. S., Hong, R., Sheng, F., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons. Chemosphere, 235, pp. 1180–1188. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032]</ref>
*[https://www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d8/ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf ER21-7569: Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction]<ref name="WittEtAl2023">Kay, D., Witt, S., Wang, M., 2023. Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction: Final Report. ESTCP Project ER21-7569. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a Project Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d8/ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf Final Report.pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File:WittFig1.png | thumb |600px|Figure 1. Schematic of PRD mechanism<ref name="WittEtAl2023" />]]
The Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) process is based on a patented chemical reaction that breaks fluorine-carbon bonds and disassembles PFAS molecules in a linear fashion beginning with the [[Wikipedia: Hydrophile | hydrophilic]] functional groups and proceeding through shorter molecules to complete mineralization. Figure 1 shows how PRD is facilitated by adding [[Wikipedia: Cetrimonium bromide | cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)]] to form a surfactant micelle cage that traps PFAS. A non-toxic proprietary chemical is added to solution to associate with the micelle surface and produce hydrated electrons via stimulation with UV light. <onlyinclude>These highly reactive hydrated electrons have the energy required to cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds resulting in the final products of fluoride, water, and simple carbon molecules</onlyinclude> (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Formic acid | formic acid]] and [[Wikipedia: Acetic acid | acetic acid]]). The methods, mechanisms, theory, and reactions described herein have been published in peer reviewed literature<ref name="ChenEtAl2020" /><ref name="TianEtAl2016" /><ref name="ChenEtAl2019" /><ref name="WittEtAl2023" /><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>

==Advantages and Disadvantages==

===Advantages===
In comparison to other reported PFAS destruction techniques, PRD offers several advantages:

*Relative to UV/sodium sulfite and UV/sodium iodide systems, the fitted degradation rates in the micelle-accelerated PRD reaction system were ~18 and ~36 times higher, indicating the key role of the self-assembled micelle in creating a confined space for rapid PFAS destruction<ref name="ChenEtAl2020" />. The negatively charged hydrated electron associated with the positively charged cetyltrimethylammonium ion (CTA+) forms the surfactant micelle to trap molecules with similar structures, selectively mineralizing compounds with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups (e.g., PFAS).
*The PRD reaction does not require solid catalysts or electrodes, which can be expensive to acquire and difficult to regenerate or dispose.
*The aqueous solution is not heated or pressurized, and the UV wavelength used does not cause direct water [[Wikipedia: Photodissociation | photolysis]], therefore the energy input to the system is more directly employed to destroy PFAS, resulting in greater energy efficiency.
*<onlyinclude>Since the reaction is performed at ambient temperature and pressure, there are limited concerns regarding environmental health and safety or volatilization of PFAS compared to heated and pressurized systems. </onlyinclude>
*<onlyinclude>Due to the reductive nature of the reaction, there is no formation of unwanted byproducts resulting from oxidative processes</onlyinclude>, such as [[Wikipedia: Perchlorate | perchlorate]] generation during electrochemical oxidation<ref>Veciana, M., Bräunig, J., Farhat, A., Pype, M. L., Freguia, S., Carvalho, G., Keller, J., Ledezma, P., 2022. Electrochemical Oxidation Processes for PFAS Removal from Contaminated Water and Wastewater: Fundamentals, Gaps and Opportunities towards Practical Implementation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 434, Article 128886. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886]</ref><ref>Trojanowicz, M., Bojanowska-Czajka, A., Bartosiewicz, I., Kulisa, K., 2018. Advanced Oxidation/Reduction Processes Treatment for Aqueous Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) – A Review of Recent Advances. Chemical Engineering Journal, 336, pp. 170–199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153]</ref><ref>Wanninayake, D.M., 2021. Comparison of Currently Available PFAS Remediation Technologies in Water: A Review. Journal of Environmental Management, 283, Article 111977. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977]</ref><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>
*Aqueous fluoride ions are the primary end products of PRD, enabling real-time reaction monitoring with a fluoride [[Wikipedia: Ion-selective electrode | ion selective electrode (ISE)]], which is far less expensive and faster than relying on PFAS analytical data alone to monitor system performance.

===Disadvantages===

*The CTAB additive is only partially consumed during the reaction, and although CTAB is not problematic when discharged to downstream treatment processes that incorporate aerobic digestors, CTAB can be toxic to surface waters and anaerobic digestors. Therefore, disposal options for treated solutions will need to be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Possible options include removal of CTAB from solution for reuse in subsequent PRD treatments, or implementation of an oxidation reaction to degrade CTAB.
*<onlyinclude>The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). </onlyinclude>It is hypothesized that in high TDS solutions (e.g., ion exchange still bottoms with TDS of 200,000 parts per million (ppm)), the presence of ionic species inhibits the association of the electron donor with the micelle, thus decreasing the reaction rate.
*<onlyinclude>The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with very low UV transmissivity. Low UV transmissivity (i.e., < 1 %) prevents the penetration of UV light into the solution, such that the utilization efficiency of UV light decreases. </onlyinclude>

==State of the Art==

===Technical Performance===
[[File:WittFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Enspired SolutionsTM commercial PRD PFAS destruction equipment, the PFASigatorTM. Dimensions are 8 feet long by 4 feet wide by 9 feet tall.]]
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
|+Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
|-
!Analytes
!
!GW
!FF
!AFFF Rinsate
!AFFF (diluted 10X)
!IDW NF
|-
|Σ Total PFASa (ND=0)
| rowspan="9" style="background-color:white;" |% Decrease (Initial Concentration, μg/L)
|93% (370)||96% (32,000)||89% (57,000)||86 % (770,000)||84% (82)
|-
|Σ Total PFAS (ND=MDL)||93% (400)||86% (32,000)||90% (59,000)||71% (770,000)||88% (110)
|-
|Σ Total PFAS (ND=RL)||94% (460)||96% (32,000)||91% (66,000)||34% (770,000)||92% (170)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFASb (ND=0)||>99% (180)||>99% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||92% (390,000)||95% (50)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL)||>99% (180)||98% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||88% (390,000)||95% (52)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL)||>99% (190)||93% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||79% (390,000)||95% (55)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFASc (ND=0)||91% (180)||98% (20,000)||85% (20,000)||82% (400,000)||94% (53)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=MDL)||91% (190)||94% (20,000)||85% (20,000)||79% (400,000)||86% (58)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=RL)||92% (200)||87% (20,000)||86% (21,000)||70% (400,000)||87% (65)
|-
|Fluorine mass balanced|| ||106%||109%||110%||65%||98%
|-
|Sorbed organic fluorinee|| ||4%||4%||33%||N/A||31%
|-
| colspan="7" style="background-color:white; text-align:left" |Notes: GW = groundwater GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate ND = non-detect MDL = Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit aTotal PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors bHighly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA cHigh priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA dRatio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations ePercent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment 
|}
 
The PRD reaction has been validated at the bench scale for the destruction of PFAS in a variety of environmental samples from Department of Defense (DoD) sites (Table 1). Enspired SolutionsTM has designed and manufactured a fully automatic commercial-scale piece of equipment called PFASigatorTM, specializing in PRD PFAS destruction (Figure 2). This equipment is modular and scalable, has a small footprint, and can be used alone or in series with existing water treatment trains. The PFASigatorTM employs commercially available UV reactors and monitoring meters that have been used in the water industry for decades. The system has been tested on PRD efficiency operational parameters, and key metrics were proven to be consistent with benchtop studies.

Bench scale PRD tests were performed for the following samples collected from DoD sites: groundwater (GW), groundwater foam fractionate (FF), firefighting truck rinsate ([[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | AFFF]] rinsate), 3M Lightwater AFFF, investigation derived waste nanofiltrate (IDW NF), [[Wikipedia: Ion exchange | ion exchange]] still bottom (IX SB), and Ansulite AFFF. The PRD treatment was more effective in low conductivity/low TDS solutions. Generally, PRD reaction rates decrease for solutions with a TDS > 10,000 ppm, with an upper limit of 30,000 ppm. Ansulite AFFF and IX SB samples showed low destruction efficiencies during initial screening tests, which was primarily attributed to their high TDS concentrations. Benchtop testing data are shown in Table 1 for the remaining five sample matrices.

During treatment, PFOS and PFOA concentrations decreased 96% to >99% and 77% to 97%, respectively. For the PFAS where drinking water [https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) recently established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency] (PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA), concentrations decreased >99% for GW, 93% for FF, 95% for AFFF Rinsate and IDW NF, and 79% for AFFF (diluted 10x) during the treatment time allotted. Meanwhile, the total PFAS concentrations, including all 40 known PFAS analytes and unidentified perfluorocarboxylic acid (PFCA) precursors, decreased from 34% to 96% following treatment. All of these concentration reduction values were calculated by using reporting limits (RL) as the concentrations for non-detects.

Excellent fluorine/fluoride mass balance was achieved. There was nearly a 1:1 conversion of organic fluorine to free inorganic fluoride ion during treatment of GW, FF and AFFF Rinsate. The 3M Lightwater AFFF (diluted 10x) achieved only 65% fluorine mass balance, but this was likely due to high adsorption of PFAS to the reactor.

===Application===
<onlyinclude>Due to the first-order kinetics of PRD, destruction of PFAS is generally most energy efficient when paired with pre-concentration technologies, such as [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation (FF)]], [[Wikipedia: Nanofiltration | nanofiltration]], [[Wikipedia: Reverse osmosis | reverse osmosis]], or [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment | resin/carbon adsorption]], that remove PFAS from water. </onlyinclude>Application of the PFASigatorTM for destruction of PFAS in the concentrate thus produced is therefore proposed as a part of a PFAS treatment train that includes a pre-concentration step, unless the target media is already concentrated (e.g. AFFF).

The first pilot study with the PFASigatorTM was conducted in late 2023 at an industrial facility in Michigan with PFAS-impacted groundwater. The goal of the pilot study was to treat the groundwater to below the limits for regulatory discharge permits. For the pilot demonstration, the PFASigatorTM was paired with an FF unit, which pre-concentrated the PFAS into a foamate that was pumped into the PFASigatorTM for batch PFAS destruction. Residual PFAS remaining after the destruction batch was treated by looping back the PFASigatorTM effluent to the FF system influent. During the one-month field pilot duration, site-specific discharge limits were met, and steady state operation between the FF unit and PFASigatorTM was achieved such that the PFASigatorTM destroyed the required concentrated PFAS mass and no off-site disposal of PFAS contaminated waste was required.

 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)

2026-03-02T20:10:36Z

Admin:

Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is a single step [[Wikipedia: Wet oxidation | wet oxidation]] process that transforms organic matter into water, carbon dioxide and, depending on the waste undergoing treatment, an inert mineral solid residue. The process is highly effective and can treat a variety of wet wastes without dewatering. The SCWO technology allows for the complete destruction of persistent and toxic organic contaminants such as [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-dioxane]], and many more.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Kobe Nagar]] and [[Dr. Marc A. Deshusses]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Supercritical Water Oxidation as an Innovative Technology for PFAS Destruction<ref>Krause M. J., Thoma E.; Sahle-Damesessie E., Crone B., Whitehill A., Shields E., and Gullett B., 2022. Supercritical Water Oxidation as an Innovative Technology for PFAS Destruction. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 148 (2), 05021006. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001957 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001957]</ref>.
*Treatment of municipal sewage sludge in supercritical water: A review<ref name="Qian2016">Qian, L., Wang, S., Xu, D., Guo, Y., Tang, X., and Wang, L., 2016. Treatment of municipal sewage sludge in supercritical water: A review. Water Research, 89, pp. 118-131. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.047 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.047]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shuzhong-Wang/publication/284563832_Treatment_of_Municipal_Sewage_Sludge_in_Supercritical_Water_a_Review/links/5d9b63b6299bf1c363fef63e/Treatment-of-Municipal-Sewage-Sludge-in-Supercritical-Water-a-Review.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.
*Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction<ref name="Marrone2013">Marrone, P.A., 2013. Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction. Journal of Supercritical Fluids, 79, pp. 283-288. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2012.12.020 DOI: 10.1016/j.supflu.2012.12.020]   Author’s manuscript available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/9545963.pdf US EPA]</ref>.

==Introduction==
[[File: Nagar1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 400px | Figure 1. Water phase diagram showing the supercritical water region (not to scale).]]
Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) is an [[Wikipedia: Advanced oxidation process | advanced oxidation process]] that holds enormous potential for the treatment of a wide range of organic wastes, in particular concentrated wet wastes in slurries such as biosolids, sludges, agricultural wastes, chemical wastes with recalcitrant chemicals such as [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], and many more. SCWO relies on the unique reactivity and transport properties that occur when an aqueous waste stream is brought above the critical point of water (374°C and 218 atm, or 704°F and 3200 psi, see phase diagram in Figure 1). [[Wikipedia: Supercritical fluid | Supercritical water]] is a dense single phase with transport properties similar to those of a gas, and solvent properties comparable to those of a non-polar solvent<ref name="Tassaing2002">Tassaing, T., Danten, Y., and Besnard, M., 2002. Infrared spectroscopic study of hydrogen bonding in water at high temperature and pressure. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 101(1-3), pp. 149-158. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7322(02)00089-2 DOI: 10.1016/S0167-7322(02)00089-2]</ref>. Oxygen is fully soluble in supercritical water, resulting in extremely rapid and complete oxidation of all organics to carbon dioxide, clean water (that can be reused), and some non-leachable inorganic salts.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; float:left; margin-right:15px;"
|+Table 1. Comparison of SCWO with other thermal technologies
|-
!Technology
!SCWO
!SCWG
!HTL/HTC
!WAO
|-
|Temperature||>380°C||>380°C||250-300°C||150-320°C
|-
|Pressure||>240 bar||>240 bar||40-200 bar||10-200 bar
|-
|Oxidant||Required||None||None||Required
|-
|Reaction time||2-10 sec.||40-90 sec.||30 min. to 2 hr.s||30 min. to 3 hr.s
|-
|Corrosion potential||Moderate to high||Moderate||Low||Low to moderate
|-
|Risk of reactor plugging||Moderate to high||High||High||Low
|-
|Reaction||Exothermic||Endothermic||Endothermic||Exothermic
|-
|Useable products||CO2 + clean H2O + heat + minerals||Syngas (H2 + CH4 + CO)||Biocrude/Biochar||Possible H2O, volatile fatty acids
|-
|By-products||None||Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N, contaminated water||Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N, contaminated water||Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N, contaminated water
|-
|Fate of feedstock N, if any||N2 gas||NH4+ in liquid effluent||NH4+ in liquid effluent + N in (by)-products||NH4+ in liquid effluent + N in (by)-products
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:white;" |Notes: SCWG = supercritical water gasification, HTL/HTC = [[Wikipedia: Hydrothermal liquefaction | hydrothermal liquefaction]]/carbonization, WAO = wet air oxidation
|}

For SCWO to be economical, the heat from the oxidation reaction is recovered and used in part to heat the influent stream, while the excess heat can be converted to electricity. Depending on the concentration of waste in the feedstock, SCWO reactors can be operated autothermally, i.e., no outside input of heat is required. Typical reaction times are in the order of 2-10 seconds, resulting in SCWO systems that are quite compact compared to other technologies (see Table 1). The process does not generate harmful by-products such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or Sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), or odors<ref name="Bermejo">Bermejo, M.D. and Cocero, M.J., 2006. Supercritical water oxidation: A technical review. AIChE Journal, 52(11) pp. 3933-3951. [https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.10993 DOI: 10.1002/aic.10993]</ref>. Typically, if present, ammonia and organic nitrogen in the waste undergoing treatment are converted to nitrogen gas, while phosphorous precipitates as phosphates and can be recovered. When [[Wikipedia: Halogen | halogen]] containing contaminants are treated (e.g., [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| PFAS]]), halogen-carbon bonds are generally broken and [[Wikipedia: Halide | halide]] anions are released in solution (e.g., F- when treating PFAS or Cl- when treating [[Wikipedia: Trichloroethylene | trichloroethene (TCE)]] and [[Wikipedia: Tetrachloroethylene | tetrachloroethene (PCE)]]).

==Advantages and Disadvantages==
There are many advantages to SCWO treatment. SCWO is a destructive treatment in that the compounds treated are mineralized to simple elements or harmless molecules (e.g., water and carbon dioxide) rather than just being transferred to another medium. Another advantage is the absence of reaction by-products, incompletely oxidized contaminants or unreacted harmful oxidants (e.g., ozone). SCWO is an extremely rapid and effective reaction (typical reaction times are in the order of 5-10 seconds) making it possible to build systems that are very compact and have a high throughput. SCWO is also a very clean process. The highly oxidizing environment makes it possible to effectively treat all sorts of organic contaminants, often recalcitrant to other processes, with very high (>99%) destruction efficiencies. This includes treatment of trace contaminants, slurries of biosolids, waste oil, food wastes, plastics, or emerging contaminants such as PFAS or 1,4-dioxane. Also, the relatively moderate temperatures (380-600°C) compared to other destructive technologies such as incineration, combined with the presence of supercritical water prevent the formation of NOx and SOx compounds. Lastly, SCWO treatment does not require drying of the waste, and both liquids and slurries can be treated using SCWO.

There are several disadvantages to SCWO treatment. First, a significant amount of energy needs to be expended to bring the oxidant and the waste undergoing treatment to the critical point of water. Although a large fraction of this energy can be efficiently recovered in heat exchangers, compensating for heat losses constrains SCWO to the treatment of concentrated wastes with sufficient organic content for the exothermic oxidation reaction to provide the necessary heat. Typically, a minimum calorific content of around 2 MJ/kg (which generally corresponds to a chemical oxygen demand of about 120-150 g/L) is needed for autothermal operation. For more dilute streams, external heating or supplementation of fuel (diesel, alcohol, waste oil, etc.) can be implemented, but it can rapidly become cost prohibitive. Thus, SCWO is currently not economical for very large volumes (>50,000 gallon/day) of very dilute waste streams. A second limitation is related to the pumping of the waste. Because the process is conducted at high pressure (240 bars or 3500 psi), positive displacement pumps are required. This limits SCWO to liquids and slurries that can be pumped. Waste streams that contain excessive grit or abrasive materials, and soils cannot currently be processed using SCWO.

The many appealing benefits of supercritical water processing have stimulated engineers and entrepreneurs to invest significant efforts and resources in the development of the technology. Today, after roughly 30 years of development, commercial deployment is on the horizon<ref name="Marrone2013" />. Technical challenges that have slowed down commercial deployment of SCWO are linked to the complex nature of a high-pressure, high-temperature process. Critical issues include reactor materials selection to resist corrosion (typically high nickel alloys are used), reactor designs and construction to withstand the corrosive nature of the reactive mass, dealing with highly exothermic reactions at high pressure and high temperature, plugging of the reactor by minerals deposits, and energy recovery for autothermal operation. Another challenge was the unrealistic goal of some companies entering the SCWO market to produce power from waste streams (often wastewater sludge) at a competitive cost (3-5 cents/kWh). This was not feasible with the available technology, which led to several business failures.

The value proposition of treating recalcitrant wastes using SCWO is markedly different, especially in today’s context of increasing liability for trace levels of emerging contaminants such as PFAS. SCWO may prove to be the optimal treatment technology for many highly concentrated aqueous waste streams.
[[File: Nagar1w2Fig2.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 2. Duke SCWO pilot-scale system (during construction, thermal insulation removed). The system is housed in a standard 20 ft shipping container and can treat about 1 ton (or 270 gallons) of waste per day.]]

==State of the Art==
[[File: Nagar1w2Fig3.png | thumb |left| 400px | Figure 3. Landfill leachate (left) and SCWO treated effluent (right). Effluent is odorless.]]
Relatively few large scale SCWO systems exist. Researchers at Duke University ([http://sanitation.pratt.duke.edu/community-treatment/about-community-treatment-project Deshusses lab]) have designed and built a prototype pilot-scale SCWO system housed in a standard 20-foot shipping container (Figure 2). This project was funded by the Reinvent the Toilet program of the [https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]. The pilot system is a continuous process designed to treat 1 ton of sludge per day at 10-20% dry solids content. The unit has been undergoing testing at Duke since early 2015. The design includes moderate preheating of the waste slurry, followed by mixing with supercritical water (~600°C) and air, which serves as the oxidant. This internal mixing rapidly brings the waste undergoing treatment to supercritical conditions thereby minimizing corrosion and the risks of waste charring and associated reactor plugging. The organics in the sludge are rapidly oxidized to CO2, while the heat of oxidation is recovered to heat the influent waste. The reactor is a single tubular reactor. The high supercritical fluid velocity in the system helps with controlling mineral salts deposition in the reactor. The system is well instrumented, and operation is controlled using a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system with historian software for trends analysis and reporting of key performance indicators (e.g., temperatures and pressures, pollutant destruction). Experiments conducted with this pilot plant have shown effective treatment of a wide variety of otherwise problematic wastes such as primary, secondary and digested sludge slurries, landfill leachate (see Figure 3), animal waste, and co-contaminants including waste oil, food wastes, and plastics. The results are consistent with other SCWO studies and show very rapid treatment of all wastes with near complete conversion (often >99.9%) of organics to CO2. Total nitrogen and phosphorous removal are generally over 95% and 98%, respectively. Emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]], [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-dioxane]] and [[Wikipedia: Microplastics | microplastics]] are also treated with destruction generally exceeding 99%.
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; float:left; margin-right:15px;"
|+Table 2. Results for influent biosolids and treated effluent using Duke University SCWO pilot-scale plant
|-
!Substance
!Residual (ng/L)
!Removal
|-
|PFBA||10.20||99.86%
|-
|PFHxA||5.15||99.89%
|-
|PFNA||1.07||99.90%
|-
|PFDA||0.80||99.97%
|-
|PFUnA||<1.10||>99.89%
|-
|PFBS||<0.19||>99.98%
|-
|PFPes||<0.29||>99.98%
|-
|PFHxS||0.28||99.99%
|-
|PFOS||0.65||99.99%
|-
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" |Note: Similar destruction efficiencies were obtained when treating AFFF solutions.
|}

Early projections for treatment costs (Capital Expenditures + Operating Expenditures) for slurries are in the range of $12 to $90 per ton (or $0.04 to $0.37 per gallon) depending on system scale and contaminant concentration, with a majority of the cost coming from amortizing the equipment. These cost projections make SCWO treatment very competitive compared to other treatment technologies for high-strength wastes. When treating large volumes of water, combining SCWO with another technology (e.g., nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, or adsorption onto GAC) should be considered so that only the concentrated brines or spent sorbent are treated using SCWO, thereby increasing the cost effectiveness of the overall treatment.

==SCWO for the Treatment of PFAS and AFFF==
Several reports have indicated that PFAS can be treated using SCWO<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]   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>. Several runs treating biosolids known to contain PFAS as well as dilutions of pure [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)]] have also been conducted with the Duke SCWO system. Typical results are shown in Table 2. They indicate very effective treatment performance, with for example 110,000 ng/L PFOS in the feed reduced to 0.79 ng/L in the effluent, and many other PFAS reduced to below their detection limits. No HF was found in the effluent gas, and all the fluorine from the destroyed PFAS was accounted for as fluoride in the effluent water. These results show the ability of the SCWO process to destroy PFAS to levels well below the EPA health advisory levels of 70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA. The [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] project number [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5350/ER20-5350 ER20-5350]<ref name="Deshusses2020">Deshusses, M.A., 2020. Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project number ER20-5350. [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5350/ER20-5350 Project website]</ref> launched in June 2020 will assess the technical feasibility of using supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) for the complete destruction of PFAS in a variety of relevant waste streams and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment. In parallel to the ESTCP demonstration, commercial deployment of the SCWO technology developed at Duke is conducted by [http://www.374water.com 374Water], a social impact, cleantech company dedicated to the commercialization of supercritical water oxidation. 374Water offers modular SCWO systems for the treatment of a variety of [https://otc.duke.edu/news/oc-san-a-major-california-utility-purchases-a-374water-airscwotm-system/ wastes including biosolids and PFAS contaminated matrices].

==References==

<references />

==See Also==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/supercritical-water-oxidation-scwo-for-complete-pfas-destruction?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fsupercritical-water-oxidation-scwo-for-complete-pfas-destruction SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction]

PFAS Transport and Fate

2026-03-02T20:09:55Z

Admin:

The transport and fate of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present. Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment. PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain.
Understanding PFAS transport and fate is necessary for evaluating the potential risk from a PFAS release and for predictions about PFAS occurrence, migration, and persistence, and about the potential vectors for exposure. This knowledge is important for site characterization, identification of potential sources of PFAS to the site, development of an appropriate conceptual site model (CSM), and selection and predicted performance of remediation strategies.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s): '''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s): '''
[[Dr. Richard Anderson]] and [[Dr. Mark Brusseau]]

'''Key Resource(s): '''

*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC 2020]<ref name="ITRC2020">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. Technical/Regulatory Guidance: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC, PFAS Team, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2e/ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface]<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]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf Article pdf]</ref>.

==Introduction==
The transport and fate of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] is a rapidly evolving field of science, with many questions that are not yet resolved. Much of the currently available information is based on a few well-studied PFAS compounds. However, there is a large number and variety of PFAS with a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect their behavior in the environment. The transport and fate of some PFAS could differ significantly from the compounds studied to date. Nevertheless, information about the behavior of some PFAS in the environment can be ascertained from the results of currently available research.

PFAS transport and fate in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present. Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) are strong acids and are anionic in the environmentally-relevant pH range. They are extremely persistent in the environment and do not degrade or transform under typical environmental conditions. Polyfluoroalkyl substances (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) include compounds that have the potential to degrade to PFAAs. These compounds are commonly referred to as PFAA precursors or just ‘precursors’. Because some polyfluoroalkyl substances can degrade into PFAA via biotic or abiotic degradation pathways, PFAAs are sometimes referred to as “terminal PFAS” or “terminal degradation products”.
The most important molecular properties controlling PFAA transport are the carbon chain length and functional moieties of the headgroups (e.g., sulfonate, carboxylate). The molecular properties of PFAA precursors are more varied, with different carbon chain lengths, headgroups and ionic states<ref name="Buck2011">Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., de Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S.A., and van Leeuwen, S.P.J., 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4): pp. 513-541. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.258]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.258 Open Access Article]</ref><ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. American Chemical Society. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]   [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 Free Download from ACS]</ref> (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]]). All of these properties can influence transport and fate of PFAA precursors in the environment.

Important environmental characteristics include the nature of the source (mode of input into the environment), the length of time that the source was active, and the magnitude of the input, as well as precipitation and infiltration rates, depth to groundwater, surface water and groundwater flow rates and interactions, prevailing atmospheric conditions, the properties of the porous-media (e.g., soil and sediment) and aqueous solution, microbiological factors, and the presence of additional fluid phases such as air and non-aqueous phase liquids [[Wikipedia: Non-aqueous phase liquid | (NAPLs)]] in the vadose zone and water-saturated source. In the subsurface, soil characteristics (texture, organic carbon content, clay mineralogy, metal-oxide content, solid surface area, surface charge, and exchange capacity) and solution characteristics (pH, redox potential, major ion chemistry, and co-contaminants) can influence PFAS transport and fate.

==PFAS Transport and Fate Processes==
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 600px | Figure 1. Illustration of PFAS partitioning and transformation processes. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment (Figure 1). PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain. However, PFAS uptake and bioaccumulation is not discussed in this article (see “Environmental Concern” section of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]).

*'''Transport:''' PFAS can be transported substantial distances in the atmosphere<ref name="Ahrens2012">Ahrens, L., Harner, T., Shoeib, M., Lane, D.A. and Murphy, J.G., 2012. Improved Characterization of Gas–Particle Partitioning for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere Using Annular Diffusion Denuder Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7199-7206. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es300898s DOI: 10.1021/es300898s]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Harner/publication/225046057_Improved_Characterization_of_Gas-Particle_Partitioning_for_Per-_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_in_the_Atmosphere_Using_Annular_Diffusion_Denuder_Samplers/links/5cc730c4299bf12097893fdc/Improved-Characterization-of-Gas-Particle-Partitioning-for-Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl-Substances-in-the-Atmosphere-Using-Annular-Diffusion-Denuder-Samplers.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>, surface water<ref name="Taniyasu2013">Taniyasu, S., Yamashita, N., Moon, H.B., Kwok, K.Y., Lam, P.K., Horii, Y., Petrick, G. and Kannan, K., 2013. Does wet precipitation represent local and regional atmospheric transportation by perfluorinated alkyl substances? Environment International, 55, pp. 25-32. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005]</ref>, soil<ref name="Braunig2017">Bräunig, J., Baduel, C., Heffernan, A., Rotander, A., Donaldson, E. and Mueller, J.F., 2017. Fate and redistribution of perfluoroalkyl acids through AFFF-impacted groundwater. Science of the Total Environment, 596, pp. 360-368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095]</ref>, and groundwater<ref name="Weber2017">Weber, A.K., Barber, L.B., LeBlanc, D.R., Sunderland, E.M. and Vecitis, C.D., 2017. Geochemical and Hydrologic Factors Controlling Subsurface Transport of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(8), pp. 4269-4279. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05573 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05573]   [https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/weber2017_final.pdf Free Download]</ref>. The primary mechanisms controlling PFAS transport are [[Wikipedia:Advection | advection]] and [[Wikipedia:Dispersive_mass_transfer | dispersion]], similar to other dissolved compounds. For additional information on transport in groundwater, see [[Advection and Groundwater Flow]] and [[Dispersion and Diffusion]].

*'''Partitioning:''' Partitioning of PFAS between the mobile and immobile phases is one of the most important processes controlling the rate of migration in the environment. The primary mobile phases are typically air and water. Relatively immobile phases include stream sediments, soils, aquifer material, NAPLs, and interfaces between different phases (air-water, NAPL-water). Partitioning of a significant portion of the PFAS mass into an immobile phase increases the amount of material stored in the system and slows the apparent rate of migration in the mobile phase – a phenomenon that has been observed in field metadata<ref name="Anderson2019">Anderson, R.H., Adamson, D.T. and Stroo, H.F., 2019. Partitioning of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances from soil to groundwater within aqueous film-forming foam source zones. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 220, pp. 59-65. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011]   Manuscript available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Stroo3/publication/329227107_Partitioning_of_poly-_and_perfluoroalkyl_substances_from_soil_to_groundwater_WITHIN_aqueous_film-forming_foam_source_zones/links/5e56996b299bf1bdb83e2f69/Partitioning-of-poly-and-perfluoroalkyl-substances-from-soil-to-groundwater-WITHIN-aqueous-film-forming-foam-source-zones.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.

*'''Transformation:''' Transformation of PFAS is controlled by the molecular structure of the individual compounds. Perfluorinated compounds, including PFAAs, are resistant to abiotic and biotic transformation reactions under typical conditions and highly persistent in the environment. In contrast, precursors can be transformed by both abiotic and biotic processes, often resulting in the production of so-called “terminal” PFAA daughter products.

==Transport and Partitioning in the Atmosphere==
Air serves as a transport media for PFAS, particularly for uncharged polyfluorinated PFAS. Airborne PFAS transport contributes to global distribution and can lead to localized deposition to soils and surface water in the vicinity of emission sources<ref name="Simcik2005">Simcik, M.F. and Dorweiler, K.J., 2005. Ratio of Perfluorochemical Concentrations as a Tracer of Atmospheric Deposition to Surface Waters. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(22), pp. 8678-8683. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0511218 DOI: 10.1021/es0511218]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt_Simcik/publication/7444956_Ratio_of_Perfluorochemical_Concentrations_as_a_Tracer_of_Atmospheric_Deposition_to_Surface_Waters/links/5f035861299bf1881603c3be/Ratio-of-Perfluorochemical-Concentrations-as-a-Tracer-of-Atmospheric-Deposition-to-Surface-Waters.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006">Prevedouros, K., Cousins, I.T., Buck, R.C. and Korzeniowski, S.H., 2006. Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(1), pp. 32-44. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475 DOI: 10.1021/es0512475]   Free download available from [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf?1447365456=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc.pdf&Expires=1605023809&Signature=Z6KqgaDN6lKdAazoe6qoASoCtVystG5i~5EnrTcb~qMg3xZPz4O49Kghh62WmMzqEKE788~6EwrnlBVo9o6cM0hjf2vymFYxg4mx-eSIOEonfFjk6RonSaWp5gRbA6m~SNjwsjaKXID3OQyWIlLVpUd2LzAdI5rLGFA~gIXXtNPyCArLuGn-kbPYUIcBUg5TIkTZ6TDLXF~ujmzK9tNv~55UYabsJL4pmwIGC2sNGkEyJrYMfU577fbactdrmQXTJH7XbgpfDSfd4-xWkDZTdvVf~TypDDqUCZdtCkY8wINdpqtfe1KEzLrAj7rxxALAHUYxlVbPB45XTkLAGe5qww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011">Ahrens, L., Shoeib, M., Harner, T., Lane, D.A., Guo, R. and Reiner, E.J., 2011. Comparison of Annular Diffusion Denuder and High Volume Air Samplers for Measuring Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere." Analytical Chemistry, 83(24), pp. 9622-9628. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ac202414w DOI: 10.1021/ac202414w]   Free download available from [https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC11FU-SUBM-PFOA-Canada-2-20151211.En.pdf Informea].</ref><ref name="Rauert2018">Rauert, C., Shoieb, M., Schuster, J.K., Eng, A. and Harner, T., 2018. Atmospheric concentrations and trends of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS) over 7 years of sampling in the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network. Environmental Pollution, 238, pp. 94-102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017]   Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0269749117352521?token=4C770E6E8AEDB0B3BA6A1D5B2C20ED5385F81823612551FA3380AAA1DA7A978F9CB36834AF6B7F91F35FF57E32013252 ScienceDirect]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/e6/Rauert2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

PFAAs, which are ionic and possess a negative charge under ambient environmental conditions, are far less volatile than many other groundwater contaminants. An online database of vapor pressures and Henry’s Law constants for different PFAS, including PFAAs, is maintained by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council<ref name="ITRC2020" />. In general, vapor pressures of PFAS are low and water solubilities are high, limiting partitioning from water to air<ref name="ITRC2020" />. However, under certain conditions, particularly within industrial stack emissions, PFAS can be transported through the atmosphere in both the gas phase and associated with fugitive particulates. In particular, volatile compounds including fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) may be present in the gas phase, whereas, PFAAs can aerosolize and be transported as particulates<ref name="Ahrens2012" />. In addition, precursors can be transformed to PFAAs in the atmosphere, which can result in PFAA deposition.
Short-range atmospheric transport and deposition can result in PFAS contamination in terrestrial and aquatic systems near points of significant emissions, impacting soil, groundwater, and other media of concern<ref name="Fang2018">Fang, X., Wang, Q., Zhao, Z., Tang, J., Tian, C., Yao, Y., Yu, J. and Sun, H., 2018. Distribution and dry deposition of alternative and legacy perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the air above the Bohai and Yellow Seas, China. Atmospheric Environment, 192, pp. 128-135. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052]</ref><ref name="Brandsma2019">Brandsma, S.H., Koekkoek, J.C., van Velzen, M.J.M. and de Boer, J., 2019. The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands. Chemosphere, 220, pp. 493-500. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135]   Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0045653518324706?token=E541D5C4B200C8626A86F41049FE9DCA92652BC9A8BA7D9E47832C08070AB5AF256F4872474C50B5C4908F5CA4C24947 ScienceDirect].   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4a/Brandsma2019.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Releases of ionic PFAS from factories are likely tied to particulate matter, which settle to the ground in dry weather and are also wet-scavenged by precipitation<ref name="Barton2006">Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J. and Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56(1), pp. 48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429]   Free access article available from [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Taylor and Francis Online]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b2/Barton2006.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. The impact of other potential sources, such as combustion emissions or wind-blown fire-fighting foam from fire training and fire response sites, on the fate and transport of PFAS in air may need to be assessed.

Long-range transport processes are responsible for the wide distribution of neutral and ionic PFAS across the Earth as evidenced by their occurrence in biota, surface snow, ice cores, seawater, and other environmental media in regions as remote as the Arctic and Antarctic<ref name="Bossi2016">Bossi, R., Vorkamp, K. and Skov, H., 2016. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorinated compounds in the atmosphere of North Greenland. Environmental Pollution, 217, pp. 4-10. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2010">Ahrens, L., Gerwinski, W., Theobald, N. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Sources of polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Norwegian Sea: Evidence from their spatial distribution in surface water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(2), pp. 255-260. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013]</ref>.
Distribution of PFAS to remote regions far removed from direct industrial input is believed to occur from both: a) long-range atmospheric transport and subsequent degradation of volatile precursors; and b) transport via ocean currents and release into the air as marine aerosols (sea spray)<ref name="DeSilva2009">De Silva, A.O., Muir, D.C. and Mabury, S.A., 2009. Distribution of perfluorocarboxylate isomers in select samples from the North American environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 28(9), pp. 1801-1814. [https://doi.org/10.1897/08-500.1 DOI: 10.1897/08-500.1]</ref><ref name="Armitage2009">Armitage, J.M., 2009. Modeling the global fate and transport of perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS). Doctoral Dissertation, Institutionen för tillämpad miljövetenskap (ITM), Stockholm University. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ef/Armitage2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

==Transport and Partitioning in Aqueous Systems==
PFAS adsorb from water to a variety of solid materials including organic materials, clay minerals, metal oxides, and granular activated carbon<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>. This process is thought to occur through two primary mechanisms: 1) sorption to organic-carbon components of the solids; and 2) electrostatic (and other) interactions with inorganic constituents of the solids, including clay minerals and metal-oxides<ref name="Guelfo2013">Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(9), pp. 4164-4171. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3048043 DOI: 10.1021/es3048043]   [https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/11124/80055/Guelfo_mines_0052E_10298.pdf?sequence=1#page=64 Doctoral Dissertation]</ref><ref name="Zhao2014">Zhao, L., Bian, J., Zhang, Y., Zhu, L. and Liu, Z., 2014. Comparison of the sorption behaviors and mechanisms of perfluorosulfonates and perfluorocarboxylic acids on three kinds of clay minerals. Chemosphere, 114, pp. 51-58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lixia_Zhao8/publication/262148355_Comparison_of_the_sorption_behaviors_and_mechanisms_of_perfluorosulfonates_and_perfluorocarboxylic_acids_on_three_kinds_of_clay_minerals/links/5b1be5dca6fdcca67b681a4f/Comparison-of-the-sorption-behaviors-and-mechanisms-of-perfluorosulfonates-and-perfluorocarboxylic-acids-on-three-kinds-of-clay-minerals.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>. The relative contribution of each mechanism varies depending on surface chemistry and other geochemical factors, as well as the molecular properties of the PFAS. In general, the impact of electrostatic interactions with charged soil constituents is more important for PFAS than non-polar, hydrophobic organic contaminants (e.g. hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents). Adsorption of PFAS by solids is often nonlinear, with greater sorption at lower solute concentrations. The impacts of adsorption kinetics and their potential reversibility on PFAS transport have not yet been examined for most PFAS compounds.

Sorption of hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and other hydrophobic organics is often controlled the by organic-carbon components of the solid phase (see [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]). However, studies of PFAS sorption to solid phase organic carbon have reported conflicting results. In a study of field sites with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF, a type of fire-fighting foam) releases, solid phase organic carbon content was found to significantly influence PFAS soil-to-groundwater concentration ratios. Statistical modeling was then used to derive apparent organic carbon partition coefficients for 18 different PFAS<ref name="Anderson2019" />. A recent compilation of published organic carbon partition coefficients found a good correspondence to PFAS molecular structure<ref name="Brusseau2019a">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. Estimating the relative magnitudes of adsorption to solid-water and air/oil-water interfaces for per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. Environmental Pollution, 254B, p. 113102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102]</ref>. However, other studies have shown a general lack of correlation between solid phase partition coefficients and organic carbon<ref name="Li2018">Li, Y., Oliver, D.P. and Kookana, R.S., 2018. A critical analysis of published data to discern the role of soil and sediment properties in determining sorption of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Science of the Total Environment, 628, pp. 110-120. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167]</ref>. It is possible that greater variability may be observed for broader data sets that incorporate different ranges of PFAS concentrations, different solution conditions, different measurement methods, and field-based data which often have less well-defined conditions and may also be influenced by other retention processes<ref name="Anderson2019" /><ref name="Brusseau2019a" />.

[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig2.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 2. Example of expected orientation and accumulation of PFAS at air-water interface. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
Most solids present in the environment contain both fixed-charged (negative) and variably charged surfaces. At neutral to high pH, variably charged clay minerals have a net-negative charge. As a result, negatively charged PFAAs do not strongly interact electrostatically in most soils, although as the soil pH decreases electrostatic sorption would be expected to increase in soils with variably charged clay minerals. Cationic and zwitterionic precursors are expected to be more strongly sorbed than anionic PFAAs in most environments due to well-established cation exchange reactions. Other factors, including ionic strength, composition, and the presence of co-solutes, can affect adsorption of PFAS<ref name="Higgins2006">Higgins, C.P. and Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251-7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n DOI: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref><ref name="Chen2009">Chen, H., Chen, S., Quan, X., Zhao, Y. and Zhao, H., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on oil and oil-derived black carbon: Influence of solution pH and [Ca2+]. Chemosphere, 77(10), pp. 1406-1411. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008]</ref><ref name="Pan2009">Pan, G., Jia, C., Zhao, D., You, C., Chen, H. and Jiang, G., 2009. Effect of cationic and anionic surfactants on the sorption and desorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on natural sediments. Environmental Pollution, 157(1), pp.325-330. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gang_Pan2/publication/23189567_Effect_of_cationic_and_anionic_surfactants_on_the_sorption_and_desorption_of_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_on_natural_sediments/links/5be19d23a6fdcc3a8dc2550d/Effect-of-cationic-and-anionic-surfactants-on-the-sorption-and-desorption-of-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-PFOS-on-natural-sediments.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Guelfo2013" /><ref name="Zhao2014" />.

Most PFAS compounds act as surface-active agents (or [[Wikipedia:Surfactant | surfactants]]) due to the presence of a hydrophilic headgroup and a hydrophobic tail. The hydrophilic headgroup will preferentially partition to the aqueous phase and the hydrophobic tail will preferentially partition to the non-aqueous phase (air or organic material). As a result, PFAS tend to accumulate at interfaces (air-water, water-NAPL, water-solid) (Figure 2). This tendency to accumulate at interfaces can influence transport in the atmosphere (on water droplets and hydrated aerosols), in the vadose or unsaturated zone at air-water interfaces, in the presence of NAPLs, and in wastewater treatment systems<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="Brusseau2019b">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. The Influence of Molecular Structure on the Adsorption of PFAS to Fluid-Fluid Interfaces: Using QSPR to Predict Interfacial Adsorption Coefficients. Water Research, 152, pp. 148-158. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374777/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>.

In theoretical and experimental studies of transport in unsaturated porous media, adsorption at the air-water interface increased PFOS and PFOA retention<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="Lyu2018">Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., and 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]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312111/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019">Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., and 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]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294326/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>, contributing approximately 20% to 80% of total retention in sands and soil. The impact of oil-water interfacial adsorption on PFAS transport was also quantitatively characterized in recent studies and shown to contribute to total retention on a similar scale as air-water interfacial adsorption<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019" />. These processes may result in increased PFAS mass retained in NAPL source zones, increased PFAS sorption with the resulting retardation of transport, and greater persistence of dissolved PFAS in the environment.

==Transformation==
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig3.png | thumb | 600px | Figure 3. Conceptual model of precursor transformation resulting in the formation of PFAAs. Source L. Trozzolo, TRC and C. Higgins, Colorado School of Mines, used with permission.]]
Certain polyfluorinated substances have the potential to transform to other PFAS, with PFAAs as the typical terminal daughter products. These polyfluorinated substances are often referred to as “precursors”. The transformation potential of polyfluorinated precursors is influenced by the presence, location, and number of carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds and potentially carbon-oxygen (C-O) bonds throughout the carbon chain. Specifically, PFAS with C-H bonds are subject to a variety of biotic and abiotic reactions that ultimately result in the formation of PFAAs with perfluorinated carbon chains of the same length or shorter than the initial polyfluorinated precursor<ref name="Houtz2013">Houtz, E.F., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A. and Sedlak, D.L., 2013. Persistence of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors in AFFF-impacted groundwater and soil. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(15), pp. 8187-8195. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4018877 DOI: 10.1021/es4018877]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_Houtz/publication/252323955_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Precursors_in_AFFF-Impacted_Groundwater_and_Soil/links/59dbddeeaca2728e2018336d/Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Precursors-in-AFFF-Impacted-Groundwater-and-Soil.pdf ReseqarchGate]</ref><ref name="McGuire2014">McGuire, M.E., Schaefer, C., Richards, T., Backe, W.J., Field, J.A., Houtz, E., Sedlak, D.L., Guelfo, J.L., Wunsch, A., and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Evidence of Remediation-Induced Alteration of Subsurface Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance Distribution at a Former Firefighter Training Area. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(12) pp. 6644-6652. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es5006187 DOI: 10.1021/es5006187]   Manuscript available from [https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/td96k706f Oregon State University]</ref><ref name="Anderson2016">Anderson, R.H., Long, G.C., Porter, R.C. and Anderson, J.K., 2016. Occurrence of select perfluoroalkyl substances at US Air Force aqueous film-forming foam release sites other than fire-training areas: Field-validation of critical fate and transport properties. Chemosphere, 150, pp. 678-685. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014]</ref><ref name="Weber2017" />.

Transformation studies published to date have tested only a small subsample of possible precursors and, therefore, much uncertainty exists regarding 1) the extent to which precursor transformation occurs on a global scale, 2) which environmental compartments represent the majority of transformation, 3) relevant environmental conditions that affect transformation processes, and 4) transformation rates and pathways. Nevertheless, a portion of the precursors are expected to transform to PFAAs over time as shown in Figure 3.

Precursors can be transformed by a variety of abiotic processes including hydrolysis, photolysis, and oxidation. Hydrolysis of some precursors, followed by subsequent biotransformation, can produce perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs). An important example is the production of PFOS from perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (POSF)<ref name="Martin2010">Martin, J.W., Asher, B.J., Beesoon, S., Benskin, J.P. and Ross, M.S., 2010. PFOS or PreFOS? Are perfluorooctane sulfonate precursors (PreFOS) important determinants of human and environmental perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exposure? Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(11), pp.1979-2004. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00295J DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00295J]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Ross3/publication/47415684_PFOS_or_PreFOS_Are_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_precursors_PreFOS_important_determinants_of_human_and_environmental_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_exposure/links/00b7d520a6132da945000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. Other hydrolysis reactions produce perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs). At neutral pH, the hydrolysis of fluorotelomer-derived polymeric precursors results in the formation of monomeric precursors of PFOA and other PFAAs with half-lives of 50 to 90 years<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M. and Yoo, H., 2010. Response to Comments on “Degradability of an Acrylate-Linked, Fluorotelomer Polymer in Soil”. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2), pp. 849-850. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902672q DOI: 10.1021/es902672q]   [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es902672q Free Download from ACS].</ref>. Oxidation of precursors by hydroxyl radicals can occur in natural waters, with the fluorotelomer-derived precursors being oxidized relatively rapidly<ref name="Gauthier2005">Gauthier, S.A. and Mabury, S.A., 2005. Aqueous photolysis of 8: 2 fluorotelomer alcohol. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(8), pp.1837-1846. [https://doi.org/10.1897/04-591R.1 DOI: 10.1897/04-591R.1]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzanne_Gauthier/publication/7609648_Aqueous_photolysis_of_8_2_fluorotelomer_alcohol/links/5ec16c4792851c11a86d9438/Aqueous-photolysis-of-8-2-fluorotelomer-alcohol.pdf ResearchGate].</ref><ref name="Plumlee2009">Plumlee, M.H., McNeill, K. and Reinhard, M., 2009. Indirect Photolysis of Perfluorochemicals: Hydroxyl Radical-Initiated Oxidation of N-Ethyl Perfluorooctane Sulfonamido Acetate (N-EtFOSAA) and Other Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(10), pp.3662-3668. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803411w DOI: 10.1021/es803411w]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Megan_Plumlee/publication/26309488_Indirect_Photolysis_of_Perfluorochemicals_Hydroxyl_Radical-Initiated_Oxidation_of_N-Ethyl_Perfluorooctane_Sulfonamido_Acetate_N-EtFOSAA_and_Other_Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides/links/5aac0437a6fdcc1bc0b8d002/Indirect-Photolysis-of-Perfluorochemicals-Hydroxyl-Radical-Initiated-Oxidation-of-N-Ethyl-Perfluorooctane-Sulfonamido-Acetate-N-EtFOSAA-and-Other-Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>.
Evidence of aerobic biotransformation is provided from studies of PFAS composition throughout the continuum of wastewater treatments<ref name="Arvaniti2015">Arvaniti, O.S. and Stasinakis, A.S., 2015. Review on the occurrence, fate and removal of perfluorinated compounds during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 524, pp. 81-92. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023]</ref>, from field studies at AFFF-impacted sites<ref name="Houtz2013" /><ref name="McGuire2014" /><ref name="Anderson2016" /><ref name="Weber2017" />, and from microcosm experiments. In general, the literature on aerobic biotransformation collectively demonstrates or indirectly supports the following conclusions as summarized in ITRC 2020<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*Numerous aerobic biotransformation pathways exist with relatively rapid kinetics
*All polyfluorinated precursors studied to date have the potential to aerobically biotransform to PFAAs
*Aerobic biotransformation of various fluorotelomer-derived precursors exclusively results in the formation of PFCAs, including PFOA, without necessarily the conservation of chain-length
*Aerobic biotransformation of various electrochemical fluorination-derived precursors primarily results in the formation of PFAAs, including PFOS, with the conservation of chain-length

Precursor transformation can complicate CSMs (and risk assessments) and should be considered during comprehensive site investigations. For example, atmospheric emissions of volatile precursors can result in long-range transport where subsequent transformation and deposition can result in detectable levels of PFAAs in environmental media independent of obvious point-sources<ref name="Vedagiri2018">Vedagiri, U.K., Anderson, R.H., Loso, H.M. and Schwach, C.M., 2018. Ambient levels of PFOS and PFOA in multiple environmental media. Remediation Journal, 28(2), pp. 9-51. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21548 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21548]</ref>. With respect to site-related precursors, transformation of otherwise unmeasured PFAS into detectable PFAAs is obviously relevant to site investigations to the extent transformation occurs after initial site characterization efforts or if past remedial efforts have accelerated ''in situ'' transformation rates<ref name="McGuire2014" />. Additionally, differential transport rates between precursor PFAS and the corresponding terminal PFAA could also confound CSMs if transformation rates are slower than transport rates as has been suggested<ref name="Weber2017" />.
To account for otherwise unmeasurable precursors, several surrogate analytical methods have been developed.

==References==
<references />

==See Also:==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/pfas-understanding-fate-and-transport-in-the-environment?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fpfas-understanding-fate-and-transport-in-the-environment SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: PFAS: Understanding Fate and Transport in the Environment]

[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/how-pfas-moves-from-afff-areas-to-groundwater SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: How PFAS Moves from AFFF Areas to Groundwater]

PFAS Transport and Fate

2026-03-02T20:09:34Z

Admin:

The transport and fate of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present. Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment. PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain.
Understanding PFAS transport and fate is necessary for evaluating the potential risk from a PFAS release and for predictions about PFAS occurrence, migration, and persistence, and about the potential vectors for exposure. This knowledge is important for site characterization, identification of potential sources of PFAS to the site, development of an appropriate conceptual site model (CSM), and selection and predicted performance of remediation strategies.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s): '''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s): '''
[[Dr. Richard Anderson]] and [[Dr. Mark Brusseau]]

'''Key Resource(s): '''

*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC 2020]<ref name="ITRC2020">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. Technical/Regulatory Guidance: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC, PFAS Team, Washington DC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2e/ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface]<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]  [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Brusseau2018manuscript.pdf Article pdf]</ref>.

==Introduction==
The transport and fate of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] is a rapidly evolving field of science, with many questions that are not yet resolved. Much of the currently available information is based on a few well-studied PFAS compounds. However, there is a large number and variety of PFAS with a wide range of physical and chemical characteristics that affect their behavior in the environment. The transport and fate of some PFAS could differ significantly from the compounds studied to date. Nevertheless, information about the behavior of some PFAS in the environment can be ascertained from the results of currently available research.

PFAS transport and fate in the environment is controlled by the nature of the PFAS source, characteristics of the individual PFAS, and environmental conditions where the PFAS are present. Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) are strong acids and are anionic in the environmentally-relevant pH range. They are extremely persistent in the environment and do not degrade or transform under typical environmental conditions. Polyfluoroalkyl substances (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature) include compounds that have the potential to degrade to PFAAs. These compounds are commonly referred to as PFAA precursors or just ‘precursors’. Because some polyfluoroalkyl substances can degrade into PFAA via biotic or abiotic degradation pathways, PFAAs are sometimes referred to as “terminal PFAS” or “terminal degradation products”.
The most important molecular properties controlling PFAA transport are the carbon chain length and functional moieties of the headgroups (e.g., sulfonate, carboxylate). The molecular properties of PFAA precursors are more varied, with different carbon chain lengths, headgroups and ionic states<ref name="Buck2011">Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., de Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S.A., and van Leeuwen, S.P.J., 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4): pp. 513-541. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.258]   [https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ieam.258 Open Access Article]</ref><ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. American Chemical Society. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]   [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 Free Download from ACS]</ref> (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]]). All of these properties can influence transport and fate of PFAA precursors in the environment.

Important environmental characteristics include the nature of the source (mode of input into the environment), the length of time that the source was active, and the magnitude of the input, as well as precipitation and infiltration rates, depth to groundwater, surface water and groundwater flow rates and interactions, prevailing atmospheric conditions, the properties of the porous-media (e.g., soil and sediment) and aqueous solution, microbiological factors, and the presence of additional fluid phases such as air and non-aqueous phase liquids [[Wikipedia: Non-aqueous phase liquid | (NAPLs)]] in the vadose zone and water-saturated source. In the subsurface, soil characteristics (texture, organic carbon content, clay mineralogy, metal-oxide content, solid surface area, surface charge, and exchange capacity) and solution characteristics (pH, redox potential, major ion chemistry, and co-contaminants) can influence PFAS transport and fate.

==PFAS Transport and Fate Processes==
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 600px | Figure 1. Illustration of PFAS partitioning and transformation processes. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
Transport, partitioning, and transformation are the primary processes controlling PFAS fate in the environment (Figure 1). PFAS compounds can also be taken up by both plants and animals, and in some cases, bioaccumulate through the food chain. However, PFAS uptake and bioaccumulation is not discussed in this article (see “Environmental Concern” section of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]).

*'''Transport:''' PFAS can be transported substantial distances in the atmosphere<ref name="Ahrens2012">Ahrens, L., Harner, T., Shoeib, M., Lane, D.A. and Murphy, J.G., 2012. Improved Characterization of Gas–Particle Partitioning for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere Using Annular Diffusion Denuder Samplers. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7199-7206. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es300898s DOI: 10.1021/es300898s]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Harner/publication/225046057_Improved_Characterization_of_Gas-Particle_Partitioning_for_Per-_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_in_the_Atmosphere_Using_Annular_Diffusion_Denuder_Samplers/links/5cc730c4299bf12097893fdc/Improved-Characterization-of-Gas-Particle-Partitioning-for-Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl-Substances-in-the-Atmosphere-Using-Annular-Diffusion-Denuder-Samplers.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>, surface water<ref name="Taniyasu2013">Taniyasu, S., Yamashita, N., Moon, H.B., Kwok, K.Y., Lam, P.K., Horii, Y., Petrick, G. and Kannan, K., 2013. Does wet precipitation represent local and regional atmospheric transportation by perfluorinated alkyl substances? Environment International, 55, pp. 25-32. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.02.005]</ref>, soil<ref name="Braunig2017">Bräunig, J., Baduel, C., Heffernan, A., Rotander, A., Donaldson, E. and Mueller, J.F., 2017. Fate and redistribution of perfluoroalkyl acids through AFFF-impacted groundwater. Science of the Total Environment, 596, pp. 360-368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.095]</ref>, and groundwater<ref name="Weber2017">Weber, A.K., Barber, L.B., LeBlanc, D.R., Sunderland, E.M. and Vecitis, C.D., 2017. Geochemical and Hydrologic Factors Controlling Subsurface Transport of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(8), pp. 4269-4279. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05573 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05573]   [https://bgc.seas.harvard.edu/assets/weber2017_final.pdf Free Download]</ref>. The primary mechanisms controlling PFAS transport are [[Wikipedia:Advection | advection]] and [[Wikipedia:Dispersive_mass_transfer | dispersion]], similar to other dissolved compounds. For additional information on transport in groundwater, see [[Advection and Groundwater Flow]] and [[Dispersion and Diffusion]].

*'''Partitioning:''' Partitioning of PFAS between the mobile and immobile phases is one of the most important processes controlling the rate of migration in the environment. The primary mobile phases are typically air and water. Relatively immobile phases include stream sediments, soils, aquifer material, NAPLs, and interfaces between different phases (air-water, NAPL-water). Partitioning of a significant portion of the PFAS mass into an immobile phase increases the amount of material stored in the system and slows the apparent rate of migration in the mobile phase – a phenomenon that has been observed in field metadata<ref name="Anderson2019">Anderson, R.H., Adamson, D.T. and Stroo, H.F., 2019. Partitioning of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances from soil to groundwater within aqueous film-forming foam source zones. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 220, pp. 59-65. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011]   Manuscript available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans_Stroo3/publication/329227107_Partitioning_of_poly-_and_perfluoroalkyl_substances_from_soil_to_groundwater_WITHIN_aqueous_film-forming_foam_source_zones/links/5e56996b299bf1bdb83e2f69/Partitioning-of-poly-and-perfluoroalkyl-substances-from-soil-to-groundwater-WITHIN-aqueous-film-forming-foam-source-zones.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.

*'''Transformation:''' Transformation of PFAS is controlled by the molecular structure of the individual compounds. Perfluorinated compounds, including PFAAs, are resistant to abiotic and biotic transformation reactions under typical conditions and highly persistent in the environment. In contrast, precursors can be transformed by both abiotic and biotic processes, often resulting in the production of so-called “terminal” PFAA daughter products.

==Transport and Partitioning in the Atmosphere==
Air serves as a transport media for PFAS, particularly for uncharged polyfluorinated PFAS. Airborne PFAS transport contributes to global distribution and can lead to localized deposition to soils and surface water in the vicinity of emission sources<ref name="Simcik2005">Simcik, M.F. and Dorweiler, K.J., 2005. Ratio of Perfluorochemical Concentrations as a Tracer of Atmospheric Deposition to Surface Waters. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(22), pp. 8678-8683. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0511218 DOI: 10.1021/es0511218]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matt_Simcik/publication/7444956_Ratio_of_Perfluorochemical_Concentrations_as_a_Tracer_of_Atmospheric_Deposition_to_Surface_Waters/links/5f035861299bf1881603c3be/Ratio-of-Perfluorochemical-Concentrations-as-a-Tracer-of-Atmospheric-Deposition-to-Surface-Waters.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006">Prevedouros, K., Cousins, I.T., Buck, R.C. and Korzeniowski, S.H., 2006. Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(1), pp. 32-44. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475 DOI: 10.1021/es0512475]   Free download available from [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf?1447365456=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DSources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc.pdf&Expires=1605023809&Signature=Z6KqgaDN6lKdAazoe6qoASoCtVystG5i~5EnrTcb~qMg3xZPz4O49Kghh62WmMzqEKE788~6EwrnlBVo9o6cM0hjf2vymFYxg4mx-eSIOEonfFjk6RonSaWp5gRbA6m~SNjwsjaKXID3OQyWIlLVpUd2LzAdI5rLGFA~gIXXtNPyCArLuGn-kbPYUIcBUg5TIkTZ6TDLXF~ujmzK9tNv~55UYabsJL4pmwIGC2sNGkEyJrYMfU577fbactdrmQXTJH7XbgpfDSfd4-xWkDZTdvVf~TypDDqUCZdtCkY8wINdpqtfe1KEzLrAj7rxxALAHUYxlVbPB45XTkLAGe5qww__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011">Ahrens, L., Shoeib, M., Harner, T., Lane, D.A., Guo, R. and Reiner, E.J., 2011. Comparison of Annular Diffusion Denuder and High Volume Air Samplers for Measuring Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere." Analytical Chemistry, 83(24), pp. 9622-9628. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ac202414w DOI: 10.1021/ac202414w]   Free download available from [https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC11FU-SUBM-PFOA-Canada-2-20151211.En.pdf Informea].</ref><ref name="Rauert2018">Rauert, C., Shoieb, M., Schuster, J.K., Eng, A. and Harner, T., 2018. Atmospheric concentrations and trends of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and volatile methyl siloxanes (VMS) over 7 years of sampling in the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) network. Environmental Pollution, 238, pp. 94-102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.03.017]   Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0269749117352521?token=4C770E6E8AEDB0B3BA6A1D5B2C20ED5385F81823612551FA3380AAA1DA7A978F9CB36834AF6B7F91F35FF57E32013252 ScienceDirect]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/e6/Rauert2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

PFAAs, which are ionic and possess a negative charge under ambient environmental conditions, are far less volatile than many other groundwater contaminants. An online database of vapor pressures and Henry’s Law constants for different PFAS, including PFAAs, is maintained by the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council<ref name="ITRC2020" />. In general, vapor pressures of PFAS are low and water solubilities are high, limiting partitioning from water to air<ref name="ITRC2020" />. However, under certain conditions, particularly within industrial stack emissions, PFAS can be transported through the atmosphere in both the gas phase and associated with fugitive particulates. In particular, volatile compounds including fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) may be present in the gas phase, whereas, PFAAs can aerosolize and be transported as particulates<ref name="Ahrens2012" />. In addition, precursors can be transformed to PFAAs in the atmosphere, which can result in PFAA deposition.
Short-range atmospheric transport and deposition can result in PFAS contamination in terrestrial and aquatic systems near points of significant emissions, impacting soil, groundwater, and other media of concern<ref name="Fang2018">Fang, X., Wang, Q., Zhao, Z., Tang, J., Tian, C., Yao, Y., Yu, J. and Sun, H., 2018. Distribution and dry deposition of alternative and legacy perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the air above the Bohai and Yellow Seas, China. Atmospheric Environment, 192, pp. 128-135. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.052]</ref><ref name="Brandsma2019">Brandsma, S.H., Koekkoek, J.C., van Velzen, M.J.M. and de Boer, J., 2019. The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands. Chemosphere, 220, pp. 493-500. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135]   Open access article available from [https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0045653518324706?token=E541D5C4B200C8626A86F41049FE9DCA92652BC9A8BA7D9E47832C08070AB5AF256F4872474C50B5C4908F5CA4C24947 ScienceDirect].   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4a/Brandsma2019.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Releases of ionic PFAS from factories are likely tied to particulate matter, which settle to the ground in dry weather and are also wet-scavenged by precipitation<ref name="Barton2006">Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J. and Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56(1), pp. 48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429]   Free access article available from [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Taylor and Francis Online]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b2/Barton2006.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. The impact of other potential sources, such as combustion emissions or wind-blown fire-fighting foam from fire training and fire response sites, on the fate and transport of PFAS in air may need to be assessed.

Long-range transport processes are responsible for the wide distribution of neutral and ionic PFAS across the Earth as evidenced by their occurrence in biota, surface snow, ice cores, seawater, and other environmental media in regions as remote as the Arctic and Antarctic<ref name="Bossi2016">Bossi, R., Vorkamp, K. and Skov, H., 2016. Concentrations of organochlorine pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and perfluorinated compounds in the atmosphere of North Greenland. Environmental Pollution, 217, pp. 4-10. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.12.026]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2010">Ahrens, L., Gerwinski, W., Theobald, N. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Sources of polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the North Sea, Baltic Sea and Norwegian Sea: Evidence from their spatial distribution in surface water. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(2), pp. 255-260. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.09.013]</ref>.
Distribution of PFAS to remote regions far removed from direct industrial input is believed to occur from both: a) long-range atmospheric transport and subsequent degradation of volatile precursors; and b) transport via ocean currents and release into the air as marine aerosols (sea spray)<ref name="DeSilva2009">De Silva, A.O., Muir, D.C. and Mabury, S.A., 2009. Distribution of perfluorocarboxylate isomers in select samples from the North American environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 28(9), pp. 1801-1814. [https://doi.org/10.1897/08-500.1 DOI: 10.1897/08-500.1]</ref><ref name="Armitage2009">Armitage, J.M., 2009. Modeling the global fate and transport of perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS). Doctoral Dissertation, Institutionen för tillämpad miljövetenskap (ITM), Stockholm University. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ef/Armitage2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

==Transport and Partitioning in Aqueous Systems==
PFAS adsorb from water to a variety of solid materials including organic materials, clay minerals, metal oxides, and granular activated carbon<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>. This process is thought to occur through two primary mechanisms: 1) sorption to organic-carbon components of the solids; and 2) electrostatic (and other) interactions with inorganic constituents of the solids, including clay minerals and metal-oxides<ref name="Guelfo2013">Guelfo, J.L. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Subsurface Transport Potential of Perfluoroalkyl Acids at Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF)-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(9), pp. 4164-4171. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3048043 DOI: 10.1021/es3048043]   [https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/11124/80055/Guelfo_mines_0052E_10298.pdf?sequence=1#page=64 Doctoral Dissertation]</ref><ref name="Zhao2014">Zhao, L., Bian, J., Zhang, Y., Zhu, L. and Liu, Z., 2014. Comparison of the sorption behaviors and mechanisms of perfluorosulfonates and perfluorocarboxylic acids on three kinds of clay minerals. Chemosphere, 114, pp. 51-58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.098]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lixia_Zhao8/publication/262148355_Comparison_of_the_sorption_behaviors_and_mechanisms_of_perfluorosulfonates_and_perfluorocarboxylic_acids_on_three_kinds_of_clay_minerals/links/5b1be5dca6fdcca67b681a4f/Comparison-of-the-sorption-behaviors-and-mechanisms-of-perfluorosulfonates-and-perfluorocarboxylic-acids-on-three-kinds-of-clay-minerals.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>. The relative contribution of each mechanism varies depending on surface chemistry and other geochemical factors, as well as the molecular properties of the PFAS. In general, the impact of electrostatic interactions with charged soil constituents is more important for PFAS than non-polar, hydrophobic organic contaminants (e.g. hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents). Adsorption of PFAS by solids is often nonlinear, with greater sorption at lower solute concentrations. The impacts of adsorption kinetics and their potential reversibility on PFAS transport have not yet been examined for most PFAS compounds.

Sorption of hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and other hydrophobic organics is often controlled the by organic-carbon components of the solid phase (see [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]). However, studies of PFAS sorption to solid phase organic carbon have reported conflicting results. In a study of field sites with aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF, a type of fire-fighting foam) releases, solid phase organic carbon content was found to significantly influence PFAS soil-to-groundwater concentration ratios. Statistical modeling was then used to derive apparent organic carbon partition coefficients for 18 different PFAS<ref name="Anderson2019" />. A recent compilation of published organic carbon partition coefficients found a good correspondence to PFAS molecular structure<ref name="Brusseau2019a">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. Estimating the relative magnitudes of adsorption to solid-water and air/oil-water interfaces for per-and poly-fluoroalkyl substances. Environmental Pollution, 254B, p. 113102. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102]</ref>. However, other studies have shown a general lack of correlation between solid phase partition coefficients and organic carbon<ref name="Li2018">Li, Y., Oliver, D.P. and Kookana, R.S., 2018. A critical analysis of published data to discern the role of soil and sediment properties in determining sorption of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Science of the Total Environment, 628, pp. 110-120. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.167]</ref>. It is possible that greater variability may be observed for broader data sets that incorporate different ranges of PFAS concentrations, different solution conditions, different measurement methods, and field-based data which often have less well-defined conditions and may also be influenced by other retention processes<ref name="Anderson2019" /><ref name="Brusseau2019a" />.

[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig2.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 2. Example of expected orientation and accumulation of PFAS at air-water interface. Source: D. Adamson, GSI, used with permission.]]
Most solids present in the environment contain both fixed-charged (negative) and variably charged surfaces. At neutral to high pH, variably charged clay minerals have a net-negative charge. As a result, negatively charged PFAAs do not strongly interact electrostatically in most soils, although as the soil pH decreases electrostatic sorption would be expected to increase in soils with variably charged clay minerals. Cationic and zwitterionic precursors are expected to be more strongly sorbed than anionic PFAAs in most environments due to well-established cation exchange reactions. Other factors, including ionic strength, composition, and the presence of co-solutes, can affect adsorption of PFAS<ref name="Higgins2006">Higgins, C.P. and Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251-7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n DOI: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref><ref name="Chen2009">Chen, H., Chen, S., Quan, X., Zhao, Y. and Zhao, H., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on oil and oil-derived black carbon: Influence of solution pH and [Ca2+]. Chemosphere, 77(10), pp. 1406-1411. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.09.008]</ref><ref name="Pan2009">Pan, G., Jia, C., Zhao, D., You, C., Chen, H. and Jiang, G., 2009. Effect of cationic and anionic surfactants on the sorption and desorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on natural sediments. Environmental Pollution, 157(1), pp.325-330. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.06.035]   Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gang_Pan2/publication/23189567_Effect_of_cationic_and_anionic_surfactants_on_the_sorption_and_desorption_of_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_on_natural_sediments/links/5be19d23a6fdcc3a8dc2550d/Effect-of-cationic-and-anionic-surfactants-on-the-sorption-and-desorption-of-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-PFOS-on-natural-sediments.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Guelfo2013" /><ref name="Zhao2014" />.

Most PFAS compounds act as surface-active agents (or [[Wikipedia:Surfactant | surfactants]]) due to the presence of a hydrophilic headgroup and a hydrophobic tail. The hydrophilic headgroup will preferentially partition to the aqueous phase and the hydrophobic tail will preferentially partition to the non-aqueous phase (air or organic material). As a result, PFAS tend to accumulate at interfaces (air-water, water-NAPL, water-solid) (Figure 2). This tendency to accumulate at interfaces can influence transport in the atmosphere (on water droplets and hydrated aerosols), in the vadose or unsaturated zone at air-water interfaces, in the presence of NAPLs, and in wastewater treatment systems<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="Brusseau2019b">Brusseau, M.L., 2019. The Influence of Molecular Structure on the Adsorption of PFAS to Fluid-Fluid Interfaces: Using QSPR to Predict Interfacial Adsorption Coefficients. Water Research, 152, pp. 148-158. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374777/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>.

In theoretical and experimental studies of transport in unsaturated porous media, adsorption at the air-water interface increased PFOS and PFOA retention<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="Lyu2018">Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., and 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]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312111/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019">Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., and 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]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294326/ Author’s Manuscript]</ref>, contributing approximately 20% to 80% of total retention in sands and soil. The impact of oil-water interfacial adsorption on PFAS transport was also quantitatively characterized in recent studies and shown to contribute to total retention on a similar scale as air-water interfacial adsorption<ref name="Brusseau2018" /><ref name="BrusseauEtAl2019" />. These processes may result in increased PFAS mass retained in NAPL source zones, increased PFAS sorption with the resulting retardation of transport, and greater persistence of dissolved PFAS in the environment.

==Transformation==
[[File:AndersonBrusseau1w2Fig3.png | thumb | 600px | Figure 3. Conceptual model of precursor transformation resulting in the formation of PFAAs. Source L. Trozzolo, TRC and C. Higgins, Colorado School of Mines, used with permission.]]
Certain polyfluorinated substances have the potential to transform to other PFAS, with PFAAs as the typical terminal daughter products. These polyfluorinated substances are often referred to as “precursors”. The transformation potential of polyfluorinated precursors is influenced by the presence, location, and number of carbon-hydrogen (C-H) bonds and potentially carbon-oxygen (C-O) bonds throughout the carbon chain. Specifically, PFAS with C-H bonds are subject to a variety of biotic and abiotic reactions that ultimately result in the formation of PFAAs with perfluorinated carbon chains of the same length or shorter than the initial polyfluorinated precursor<ref name="Houtz2013">Houtz, E.F., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A. and Sedlak, D.L., 2013. Persistence of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors in AFFF-impacted groundwater and soil. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(15), pp. 8187-8195. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4018877 DOI: 10.1021/es4018877]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erika_Houtz/publication/252323955_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Precursors_in_AFFF-Impacted_Groundwater_and_Soil/links/59dbddeeaca2728e2018336d/Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Precursors-in-AFFF-Impacted-Groundwater-and-Soil.pdf ReseqarchGate]</ref><ref name="McGuire2014">McGuire, M.E., Schaefer, C., Richards, T., Backe, W.J., Field, J.A., Houtz, E., Sedlak, D.L., Guelfo, J.L., Wunsch, A., and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Evidence of Remediation-Induced Alteration of Subsurface Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substance Distribution at a Former Firefighter Training Area. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(12) pp. 6644-6652. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es5006187 DOI: 10.1021/es5006187]   Manuscript available from [https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/td96k706f Oregon State University]</ref><ref name="Anderson2016">Anderson, R.H., Long, G.C., Porter, R.C. and Anderson, J.K., 2016. Occurrence of select perfluoroalkyl substances at US Air Force aqueous film-forming foam release sites other than fire-training areas: Field-validation of critical fate and transport properties. Chemosphere, 150, pp. 678-685. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014]</ref><ref name="Weber2017" />.

Transformation studies published to date have tested only a small subsample of possible precursors and, therefore, much uncertainty exists regarding 1) the extent to which precursor transformation occurs on a global scale, 2) which environmental compartments represent the majority of transformation, 3) relevant environmental conditions that affect transformation processes, and 4) transformation rates and pathways. Nevertheless, a portion of the precursors are expected to transform to PFAAs over time as shown in Figure 3.

Precursors can be transformed by a variety of abiotic processes including hydrolysis, photolysis, and oxidation. Hydrolysis of some precursors, followed by subsequent biotransformation, can produce perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs). An important example is the production of PFOS from perfluorooctane sulfonyl fluoride (POSF)<ref name="Martin2010">Martin, J.W., Asher, B.J., Beesoon, S., Benskin, J.P. and Ross, M.S., 2010. PFOS or PreFOS? Are perfluorooctane sulfonate precursors (PreFOS) important determinants of human and environmental perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) exposure? Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(11), pp.1979-2004. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00295J DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00295J]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Ross3/publication/47415684_PFOS_or_PreFOS_Are_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_precursors_PreFOS_important_determinants_of_human_and_environmental_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_exposure/links/00b7d520a6132da945000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. Other hydrolysis reactions produce perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs). At neutral pH, the hydrolysis of fluorotelomer-derived polymeric precursors results in the formation of monomeric precursors of PFOA and other PFAAs with half-lives of 50 to 90 years<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M. and Yoo, H., 2010. Response to Comments on “Degradability of an Acrylate-Linked, Fluorotelomer Polymer in Soil”. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2), pp. 849-850. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902672q DOI: 10.1021/es902672q]   [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es902672q Free Download from ACS].</ref>. Oxidation of precursors by hydroxyl radicals can occur in natural waters, with the fluorotelomer-derived precursors being oxidized relatively rapidly<ref name="Gauthier2005">Gauthier, S.A. and Mabury, S.A., 2005. Aqueous photolysis of 8: 2 fluorotelomer alcohol. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(8), pp.1837-1846. [https://doi.org/10.1897/04-591R.1 DOI: 10.1897/04-591R.1]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suzanne_Gauthier/publication/7609648_Aqueous_photolysis_of_8_2_fluorotelomer_alcohol/links/5ec16c4792851c11a86d9438/Aqueous-photolysis-of-8-2-fluorotelomer-alcohol.pdf ResearchGate].</ref><ref name="Plumlee2009">Plumlee, M.H., McNeill, K. and Reinhard, M., 2009. Indirect Photolysis of Perfluorochemicals: Hydroxyl Radical-Initiated Oxidation of N-Ethyl Perfluorooctane Sulfonamido Acetate (N-EtFOSAA) and Other Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(10), pp.3662-3668. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803411w DOI: 10.1021/es803411w]   Free download from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Megan_Plumlee/publication/26309488_Indirect_Photolysis_of_Perfluorochemicals_Hydroxyl_Radical-Initiated_Oxidation_of_N-Ethyl_Perfluorooctane_Sulfonamido_Acetate_N-EtFOSAA_and_Other_Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides/links/5aac0437a6fdcc1bc0b8d002/Indirect-Photolysis-of-Perfluorochemicals-Hydroxyl-Radical-Initiated-Oxidation-of-N-Ethyl-Perfluorooctane-Sulfonamido-Acetate-N-EtFOSAA-and-Other-Perfluoroalkanesulfonamides.pdf ResearchGate].</ref>.
Evidence of aerobic biotransformation is provided from studies of PFAS composition throughout the continuum of wastewater treatments<ref name="Arvaniti2015">Arvaniti, O.S. and Stasinakis, A.S., 2015. Review on the occurrence, fate and removal of perfluorinated compounds during wastewater treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 524, pp. 81-92. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.023]</ref>, from field studies at AFFF-impacted sites<ref name="Houtz2013" /><ref name="McGuire2014" /><ref name="Anderson2016" /><ref name="Weber2017" />, and from microcosm experiments. In general, the literature on aerobic biotransformation collectively demonstrates or indirectly supports the following conclusions as summarized in ITRC 2020<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*Numerous aerobic biotransformation pathways exist with relatively rapid kinetics
*All polyfluorinated precursors studied to date have the potential to aerobically biotransform to PFAAs
*Aerobic biotransformation of various fluorotelomer-derived precursors exclusively results in the formation of PFCAs, including PFOA, without necessarily the conservation of chain-length
*Aerobic biotransformation of various electrochemical fluorination-derived precursors primarily results in the formation of PFAAs, including PFOS, with the conservation of chain-length

Precursor transformation can complicate CSMs (and risk assessments) and should be considered during comprehensive site investigations. For example, atmospheric emissions of volatile precursors can result in long-range transport where subsequent transformation and deposition can result in detectable levels of PFAAs in environmental media independent of obvious point-sources<ref name="Vedagiri2018">Vedagiri, U.K., Anderson, R.H., Loso, H.M. and Schwach, C.M., 2018. Ambient levels of PFOS and PFOA in multiple environmental media. Remediation Journal, 28(2), pp. 9-51. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21548 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21548]</ref>. With respect to site-related precursors, transformation of otherwise unmeasured PFAS into detectable PFAAs is obviously relevant to site investigations to the extent transformation occurs after initial site characterization efforts or if past remedial efforts have accelerated ''in situ'' transformation rates<ref name="McGuire2014" />. Additionally, differential transport rates between precursor PFAS and the corresponding terminal PFAA could also confound CSMs if transformation rates are slower than transport rates as has been suggested<ref name="Weber2017" />.
To account for otherwise unmeasurable precursors, several surrogate analytical methods have been developed.

==References==
<references />

==See Also:==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/pfas-understanding-fate-and-transport-in-the-environment?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fpfas-understanding-fate-and-transport-in-the-environment SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: PFAS: Understanding Fate and Transport in the Environment]

[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/how-pfas-moves-from-afff-areas-to-groundwater SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: How PFAS Moves from AFFF Areas to Groundwater]

PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma

2026-03-02T20:07:11Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Plasma-based water treatment is a technology that, using only electricity, converts water into a mixture of highly reactive species including OH•, O, H•, HO2•, O2•‒, H2, O2, H2O2 and aqueous electrons (e‒aq), called a plasma</onlyinclude><ref name="Sunka1999">Sunka, P., Babický, V., Clupek, M., Lukes, P., Simek, M., Schmidt, J., and Cernak, M., 1999. Generation of Chemically Active Species by Electrical Discharges in Water. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 8(2), pp. 258-265. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006 DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006]</ref><ref name="MededovicThagard2009">Mededovic Thagard, S., Takashima, K., and Mizuno, A., 2009. Chemistry of the Positive and Negative Electrical Discharges Formed in Liquid Water and Above a Gas-Liquid Surface. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 29(6), pp.455-473. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x DOI: 10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x]</ref><onlyinclude>. These highly reactive species rapidly and non-selectively degrade [[Wikipedia: Volatile organic compound |volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Du2019">Du, C., Gong, X., and Lin, Y., 2019. Decomposition of volatile organic compounds using corona discharge plasma technology. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 69(8), pp.879-899. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441 DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441?needAccess=true Article pdf]</ref><onlyinclude>, [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-Dioxane]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Xiong2019">Xiong, Y., Zhang, Q., Wandell, R., Bresch, S., Wang, H., Locke, B.R. and Tang, Y., 2019. Synergistic 1,4-Dioxane Removal by Non-Thermal Plasma Followed by Biodegradation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 361, pp.519-527. [https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094 DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094]</ref><ref name="Ni2013">Ni, G.H., Zhao, Y., Meng, Y.D., Wang, X.K., and Toyoda, H., 2013. Steam plasma jet for treatment of contaminated water with high-concentration 1,4-dioxane organic pollutants. Europhysics Letters, 101(4), p.45001. [https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001 DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001]</ref><onlyinclude>, and a broad spectrum of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and short-chain PFAS</onlyinclude><ref name="Stratton2015">Stratton, G.R., Bellona, C.L., Dai, F., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2015. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Conception and Application of a New General Principle for Reactor Design. Chemical Engineering Journal, 273, pp.543-550. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059]</ref><ref name="Singh2019a">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Anderson, R.H., Richardson, S.D., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2019. Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds from Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) in a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(19), pp.11375-11382. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02964 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02964]</ref><ref name="Singh2019b">Singh, R.K., Fernando, S., Baygi, S.F., Multari, N., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Breakdown Products from Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Degradation in a Plasma-Based Water Treatment Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(5), pp.2731-2738. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07031 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b07031]</ref><onlyinclude>. A plasma reactor can simultaneously oxidize and reduce organics by producing a mixture of hydroxyl radicals and aqueous electrons, the latter of which act as strong reducing agents and could be the key species in removing PFAS and other non-oxidizable compounds. Additionally, the plasma process produces no residual waste and requires no chemical additions, although adding surfactants or injecting inert gas into the liquid phase can increase interfacial PFAS concentrations, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma and therefore increasing removal efficiency.</onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard]], [[Dr. Thomas Holsen]], [[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Dr. Stephen Richardson, P.E.]], [[Poonam Kulkarni |Poonam Kulkarni, P.E.,]] and Dr. Blossom Nzeribe

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 12.2 Field-Implemented Liquids Treatment Technologies] and [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_5 12.5 Limited Application and Developing Liquids Treatment Technologies].

*Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review<ref name="Nzeribe2019">Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp.866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>

*Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap<ref name="Laroussi2021">Laroussi, M., Bekeschus, S., Keidar, M., Bogaerts, A., Fridman, A., Lu, X.P., Ostrikov, K.K., Hori, M., Stapelmann, K., Miller, V., Reuter, S., Laux, C., Mesbah, A., Walsh, J., Jiang, C., Mededovic Thagard, S., Tanaka, H., Liu, D.W., Yan, D., and Yusupov, M., 2021. Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118 DOI: 10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9650590 Article pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File:Plasma4PFASFig1.png | thumb |left|700px|Figure 1. Plasmas generated within liquids (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University)]]
Plasma processing plays an essential role in various industrial applications such as semiconductor fabrication, polymer functionalization, chemical synthesis, agriculture and food safety, health industry, and hazardous waste management<ref name="VanVeldhuizen2002">Van Veldhuizen, E.M., and Rutgers, W.R., 2002. Pulsed Positive Corona Streamer Propagation and Branching. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 35(17), p.2169. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313]</ref><ref name="Yang">Yang, Y., Cho, Y.I. and Fridman, A., 2012. Plasma Discharge in Liquid: Water Treatment and Applications. CRC press. ISBN: 978-1-4398-6623-8 [https://doi.org/10.1201/b11650 DOI: 10.1201/b11650]</ref><ref name="Rezaei2019">Rezaei, F., Vanraes, P., Nikiforov, A., Morent, R., and De Geyter, N., 2019. Applications of Plasma-Liquid Systems: A Review. Materials, 12(17), article 2751, 69 pp. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172751 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172751] [https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2751 Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Herianto2021">Herianto, S., Hou, C.Y., Lin, C.M., and Chen, H.L., 2021. Nonthermal plasma-activated water: A comprehensive review of this new tool for enhanced food safety and quality. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(1), pp. 583-626. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12667 DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12667]</ref>. Plasma is a gaseous state of matter consisting of charged particles, metastable-state molecules or atoms, and free radicals. Depending on the energy or temperature of the electrons, compared with the temperature of the background gas, plasmas can be classified as thermal or non-thermal. In thermal plasma, an example of which is an electrical arc, individual species’ temperatures typically exceed several thousand Kelvins (K). Non-thermal plasmas are formed using less power with temperatures ranging from ambient to approximately 1000 K<ref name="Jiang2014">Jiang, B., Zheng, J., Qiu, S., Wu, M., Zhang, Q., Yan, Z. and Xue, Q., 2014. Review on Electrical Discharge Plasma Technology for Wastewater Remediation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 236, pp. 348–368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090]</ref>. An example of a non-thermal plasma is a dielectric barrier discharge used for commercial ozone generation.

Plasma that is applied in water treatment (Figure 1) is typically non-thermal, which offers high-energy process efficiency and selectivity<ref name="Jiang2014" /><ref name="Magureanu2018">Magureanu, M., Bradu, C., and Parvulescu, V.I., 2018. Plasma Processes for the Treatment of Water Contaminated with Harmful Organic Compounds. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 51(31), p. 313002. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c]</ref>. Since the 1980s when the first plasma reactor was utilized to oxidize a dye<ref name="Clements1987">Clements, J.S., Sato, M., and Davis, R.H., 1987. Preliminary Investigation of Prebreakdown Phenomena and Chemical Reactions Using a Pulsed High-Voltage Discharge in Water. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, IA-23(2), pp. 224-235. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897 DOI: 10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897]</ref>, over a hundred different plasma reactors have been developed to treat a range of contaminants of environmental importance including biological species. Examples include treatment of pharmaceuticals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 1,4-dioxane, herbicides, pesticides, warfare agents, bacteria, yeasts and viruses using direct-in-liquid discharges with and without bubbles and discharges in a gas over and contacting the surface of a liquid. Different excitation sources including AC, nanosecond pulsed and DC voltages have been utilized to produce pulsed corona, corona-like, spark, arc, and glow discharges, among other discharge types. Many reviews of plasma processing for water treatment applications have recently been published<ref name="Zeghioud2020">Zeghioud, H., Nguyen-Tri, P., Khezami, L., Amrane, A., and Assadi, A.A., 2020. Review on Discharge Plasma for Water Treatment: Mechanism, Reactor Geometries, Active Species and Combined Processes. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 38, p.101664. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664 DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664]</ref><ref name="Murugesan2020">Murugesan, P., Evanjalin Monica, V., Moses, J.A., and Anandharamakrishnan, C., 2020. Water Decontamination Using Non-Thermal Plasma: Concepts, Applications, and Prospects. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(5), p. 104377. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377]</ref>.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig2.png | thumb |500px|Figure 2. Continuous flow enhanced contact plasma treatment system (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University).]]
Plasma-based water treatment (PWT) owes its strong oxidation and disinfection capabilities to the production of reactive oxidative species (ROS), primarily OH radicals, atomic oxygen, singlet oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. The process also produces reductive species such as solvated electrons and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) when nitrogen and oxygen are present in the discharge. This process has the advantage of synergistic effects of high electric fields, UV/VUV light emissions and in some cases shockwave formation in a liquid. It requires no chemical additions, and can be optimized for batch or continuous processing.

==Application of Plasma for the Treatment of PFAS-Contaminated Water==
Several research groups have investigated the use of plasma to treat and remove PFAS from contaminated water<ref name="Hayashi2015">Hayashi, R., Obo, H., Takeuchi, N., and Yasuoka, K., 2015. Decomposition of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by DC Plasma within Oxygen Bubbles. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 190(3), pp.9-16. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22499 DOI: 10.1002/eej.22499] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22499 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Matsuya2014">Matsuya, Y., Takeuchi, N., Yasuoka, K., 2014. Relationship Between Reaction Rate of Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Decomposition at a Plasma-Liquid Interface and Adsorbed Amount. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 188(2), pp.1-8. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22526 DOI:10.1002/eej.22526]  [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22526 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp.1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Takeuchi2013">Takeuchi, N., Kitagawa, Y., Kosugi, A., Tachibana, K., Obo, H., and Yasuoka, K., 2013. Plasma-Liquid Interfacial Reaction in Decomposition of Perfluoro Surfactants. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 47(4), p.045203. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2011">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., and Hayashi, R., 2011. An Energy-Efficient Process for Decomposing Perfluorooctanoic and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acids Using DC Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 20(3), p. 034009. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009 DOI:10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2010">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., Hayashi, R., Kosugi, A., and Takeuchi, N., 2010. Degradation of Perfluoro Compounds and F- Recovery in Water Using Discharge Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), 113–117. [https://doi.org/10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113 DOI:10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113] [http://ijpest.com/Contents/04/2/PDF/04-02-113.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Lewis2020">Lewis, A.J., Joyce, T., Hadaya, M., Ebrahimi, F., Dragiev, I., Giardetti, N., Yang, J., Fridman, G., Rabinovich, A., Fridman, A.A., McKenzie, E.R., and Sales, C.M., 2020. Rapid Degradation of PFAS in Aqueous Solutions by Reverse Vortex Flow Gliding Arc Plasma. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 6(4), pp.1044-1057. [https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew01050e DOI: 10.1039/c9ew01050e]</ref><ref name="Saleem2020">Saleem, M., Biondo, O., Sretenović, G., Tomei, G., Magarotto, M., Pavarin, D., Marotta, E. and Paradisi, C., 2020. Comparative Performance Assessment of Plasma Reactors for the Treatment of PFOA; Reactor Design, Kinetics, Mineralization and Energy Yield. Chemical Engineering Journal, 382, p.123031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031]</ref><ref name="Palma2021">Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M. and Richard, C., 2021. PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. Molecules, 26(4), p. 924. [https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26040924 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26040924] [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/4/924/htm Article pdf]</ref>. Of those studies, the Enhanced Contact (EC) plasma reactor developed by researchers at Clarkson University is one of the most promising in terms of treatment time, cost, the range of PFAS treated and scale up/throughput. Their process has been shown to degrade PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS in a variety of PFAS-impacted water sources.

[[File: Plasma4PFASFig3.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 3. Degradation profiles of combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations in investigation derived waste (IDW) obtained from nine different Air Force site investigations. In all the IDW samples, both PFOS and PFOA were removed to below EPA’s lifetime health advisory level concentrations (70 ng/L) in < 1 minute of treatment, demonstrating the lack of sensitivity of the plasma-based process to the effects of co-contaminants<ref name="Singh2019a" />.]]
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig4.png | thumb |550px|Figure 4. (a) Mobile plasma treatment trailer depicting the (b) plasma side of the trailer featuring two plasma reactors and the plasma-generating network; and (c) control and plumbing side of the plasma trailer featuring multiple rotameters, storage tanks and plumbing.]]
In the EC plasma reactor (Figure 2), argon gas is continuously pumped through the solution to form a layer of foam and thus concentrate PFAS at the gas-liquid interface where plasma is formed. The process is able to lower the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater obtained from multiple DoD sites to below Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) lifetime health advisory level (HAL) of 70 parts per trillion (70 nanogram per liter, ng/L)<ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Federal Register, Notices, 81(101), p. 33250-33251. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/2016-12361.pdf Register pdf].</ref> within 1 minute of treatment (Figure 3) with energy requirements much lower than those of alternative technologies (~2-6 kWh/m3 for plasma vs. 5000 kWh/m3 for persulfate, photochemical oxidation and sonolytic processes and 132 kWh/m3 for electrochemical oxidation)<ref name="Singh2019a" /><ref name="Nzeribe2019" />. The EC plasma reactor owes its high efficacy to the plasma reactor design, in particular to the gas bubbling through submerged diffusers to transport PFAS to the plasma-liquid interface and thus minimize bulk liquid limitations.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig5.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 5. Plasma destruction of PFAS-impacted groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. One cycle = 18 gallons.]]
In 2019, a mobile plasma treatment system (Figure 4) was successfully demonstrated for the treatment of PFAS-contaminated groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021">Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. ACS ES&T Water, 1(3), pp. 680-687. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>.

Over 300 gallons of PFAS-impacted groundwater were treated at a maximum flowrate of 1.1 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in ≥90% reduction (mean percent removal of 99.7%) of long-chain PFAAs (fluorocarbon chain ≥ 6) and PFAS precursors in a single pass through the reactor (Figure 5) at a treatment cost of $7.30/1000 gallons<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. As expected, the removal of short-chain PFAS was slower due to their lower potential for interfacial adsorption compared to long-chain PFAS. However, post-field laboratory studies revealed that the addition of a cationic surfactant such as CTAB (cetrimonium bromide) minimizes bulk liquid transport limitations for short-chain PFAS by electrostatically interacting with these compounds and transporting them to the plasma-liquid interface where they are degraded<ref name="Palma2021" />. Both bench and pilot-scale EC plasma-based process have been extended for the treatment of PFAS in membrane concentrate, ion exchange brine, and landfill leachate<ref name="Singh2020">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- And Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp.13973-13980. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref name="Singh2021">Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-Containing Landfill Leachate Using an Enhanced Contact Plasma Reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, p.124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref>.

As a part of a currently-funded ESTCP project (ESTCP ER20-5535)<ref name="Mededovic2020">Mededovic, S., 2020. An Innovative Plasma Technology for Treatment of AFFF Rinsate from Firefighting Delivery Systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5355 Project ER20-5355]. </ref>, the Clarkson University team with the support of GSI Environmental Inc. is evaluating the effectiveness of their plasma process in treating diluted aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) as well as the benefits of pre-oxidation of PFAS precursors in high concentration AFFF solutions in terms of post-oxidation plasma treatment time, destruction efficiency and cost.

==Advantages and Limitations of the Technology for PFAS Treatment==
===Advantages:===

*High removal rates of long-chain PFAS (C5-C8) due to the production of versatile reactive species
*Requires no chemical additions and produces no residual waste
*Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration and other non-surfactant co-contaminants do not influence the process efficiency
*The process is mobile and scalable
*Versatile: can be used in batch and continuous systems

===Limitations:===

*Limited removal of short-chain PFAS due to their inability to concentrate at plasma-liquid interfaces. Addition of surfactants such as CTAB improves their removal and degradation rates.
*Excessive foaming caused by bubbling argon gas through a solution containing high (>10 mg/L) concentrations of long-chain (surfactant) PFAS may interfere with the formation of plasma.

==Summary==
PFAS are susceptible to plasma treatment because the hydrophobic PFAS accumulates at the gas-liquid interface, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma. Plasma-based treatment of PFAS contaminated water successfully degrades PFOA and PFOS to below the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt and accomplishes the near complete destruction of other PFAS within a short treatment time. PFAS concentration reductions of ≥90% and post-treatment concentrations below laboratory detection levels are common for long chain PFAS and precursors.
The lack of sensitivity of plasma to co-contaminants, coupled with high PFAS removal and defluorination efficiencies, makes plasma-based water treatment a promising technology for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated water. The plasma treatment process is currently developed for ''ex situ'' application and can also be integrated into a treatment train<ref name="Richardson2021">Richardson, S., 2021. Nanofiltration Followed by Electrical Discharge Plasma for Destruction of PFAS and Co-occurring Chemicals in Groundwater: A Treatment Train Approach. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER21-5136 Project ER21-5136]</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/plasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fplasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater SERDP and ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Plasma Destruction of PFAS in Groundwater]

PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma

2026-03-02T20:06:32Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Plasma-based water treatment is a technology that, using only electricity, converts water into a mixture of highly reactive species including OH•, O, H•, HO2•, O2•‒, H2, O2, H2O2 and aqueous electrons (e‒aq), called a plasma</onlyinclude><ref name="Sunka1999">Sunka, P., Babický, V., Clupek, M., Lukes, P., Simek, M., Schmidt, J., and Cernak, M., 1999. Generation of Chemically Active Species by Electrical Discharges in Water. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 8(2), pp. 258-265. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006 DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006]</ref><ref name="MededovicThagard2009">Mededovic Thagard, S., Takashima, K., and Mizuno, A., 2009. Chemistry of the Positive and Negative Electrical Discharges Formed in Liquid Water and Above a Gas-Liquid Surface. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 29(6), pp.455-473. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x DOI: 10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x]</ref><onlyinclude>. These highly reactive species rapidly and non-selectively degrade [[Wikipedia: Volatile organic compound |volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Du2019">Du, C., Gong, X., and Lin, Y., 2019. Decomposition of volatile organic compounds using corona discharge plasma technology. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 69(8), pp.879-899. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441 DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441?needAccess=true Article pdf]</ref><onlyinclude>, [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-Dioxane]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Xiong2019">Xiong, Y., Zhang, Q., Wandell, R., Bresch, S., Wang, H., Locke, B.R. and Tang, Y., 2019. Synergistic 1,4-Dioxane Removal by Non-Thermal Plasma Followed by Biodegradation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 361, pp.519-527. [https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094 DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094]</ref><ref name="Ni2013">Ni, G.H., Zhao, Y., Meng, Y.D., Wang, X.K., and Toyoda, H., 2013. Steam plasma jet for treatment of contaminated water with high-concentration 1,4-dioxane organic pollutants. Europhysics Letters, 101(4), p.45001. [https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001 DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001]</ref><onlyinclude>, and a broad spectrum of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and short-chain PFAS</onlyinclude><ref name="Stratton2015">Stratton, G.R., Bellona, C.L., Dai, F., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2015. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Conception and Application of a New General Principle for Reactor Design. Chemical Engineering Journal, 273, pp.543-550. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059]</ref><ref name="Singh2019a">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Anderson, R.H., Richardson, S.D., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2019. Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds from Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) in a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(19), pp.11375-11382. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02964 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02964]</ref><ref name="Singh2019b">Singh, R.K., Fernando, S., Baygi, S.F., Multari, N., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Breakdown Products from Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Degradation in a Plasma-Based Water Treatment Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(5), pp.2731-2738. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07031 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b07031]</ref><onlyinclude>. A plasma reactor can simultaneously oxidize and reduce organics by producing a mixture of hydroxyl radicals and aqueous electrons, the latter of which act as strong reducing agents and could be the key species in removing PFAS and other non-oxidizable compounds. Additionally, the plasma process produces no residual waste and requires no chemical additions, although adding surfactants or injecting inert gas into the liquid phase can increase interfacial PFAS concentrations, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma and therefore increasing removal efficiency.</onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard]], [[Dr. Thomas Holsen]], [[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Dr. Stephen Richardson, P.E.]], [[Poonam Kulkarni |Poonam Kulkarni, P.E.,]] and Dr. Blossom Nzeribe

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 12.2 Field-Implemented Liquids Treatment Technologies] and [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_5 12.5 Limited Application and Developing Liquids Treatment Technologies].

*Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review<ref name="Nzeribe2019">Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp.866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>

*Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap<ref name="Laroussi2021">Laroussi, M., Bekeschus, S., Keidar, M., Bogaerts, A., Fridman, A., Lu, X.P., Ostrikov, K.K., Hori, M., Stapelmann, K., Miller, V., Reuter, S., Laux, C., Mesbah, A., Walsh, J., Jiang, C., Mededovic Thagard, S., Tanaka, H., Liu, D.W., Yan, D., and Yusupov, M., 2021. Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118 DOI: 10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9650590 Article pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File:Plasma4PFASFig1.png | thumb |left|700px|Figure 1. Plasmas generated within liquids (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University)]]
Plasma processing plays an essential role in various industrial applications such as semiconductor fabrication, polymer functionalization, chemical synthesis, agriculture and food safety, health industry, and hazardous waste management<ref name="VanVeldhuizen2002">Van Veldhuizen, E.M., and Rutgers, W.R., 2002. Pulsed Positive Corona Streamer Propagation and Branching. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 35(17), p.2169. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313]</ref><ref name="Yang">Yang, Y., Cho, Y.I. and Fridman, A., 2012. Plasma Discharge in Liquid: Water Treatment and Applications. CRC press. ISBN: 978-1-4398-6623-8 [https://doi.org/10.1201/b11650 DOI: 10.1201/b11650]</ref><ref name="Rezaei2019">Rezaei, F., Vanraes, P., Nikiforov, A., Morent, R., and De Geyter, N., 2019. Applications of Plasma-Liquid Systems: A Review. Materials, 12(17), article 2751, 69 pp. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172751 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172751] [https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2751 Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Herianto2021">Herianto, S., Hou, C.Y., Lin, C.M., and Chen, H.L., 2021. Nonthermal plasma-activated water: A comprehensive review of this new tool for enhanced food safety and quality. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(1), pp. 583-626. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12667 DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12667]</ref>. Plasma is a gaseous state of matter consisting of charged particles, metastable-state molecules or atoms, and free radicals. Depending on the energy or temperature of the electrons, compared with the temperature of the background gas, plasmas can be classified as thermal or non-thermal. In thermal plasma, an example of which is an electrical arc, individual species’ temperatures typically exceed several thousand Kelvins (K). Non-thermal plasmas are formed using less power with temperatures ranging from ambient to approximately 1000 K<ref name="Jiang2014">Jiang, B., Zheng, J., Qiu, S., Wu, M., Zhang, Q., Yan, Z. and Xue, Q., 2014. Review on Electrical Discharge Plasma Technology for Wastewater Remediation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 236, pp. 348–368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090]</ref>. An example of a non-thermal plasma is a dielectric barrier discharge used for commercial ozone generation.

Plasma that is applied in water treatment (Figure 1) is typically non-thermal, which offers high-energy process efficiency and selectivity<ref name="Jiang2014" /><ref name="Magureanu2018">Magureanu, M., Bradu, C., and Parvulescu, V.I., 2018. Plasma Processes for the Treatment of Water Contaminated with Harmful Organic Compounds. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 51(31), p. 313002. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c]</ref>. Since the 1980s when the first plasma reactor was utilized to oxidize a dye<ref name="Clements1987">Clements, J.S., Sato, M., and Davis, R.H., 1987. Preliminary Investigation of Prebreakdown Phenomena and Chemical Reactions Using a Pulsed High-Voltage Discharge in Water. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, IA-23(2), pp. 224-235. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897 DOI: 10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897]</ref>, over a hundred different plasma reactors have been developed to treat a range of contaminants of environmental importance including biological species. Examples include treatment of pharmaceuticals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 1,4-dioxane, herbicides, pesticides, warfare agents, bacteria, yeasts and viruses using direct-in-liquid discharges with and without bubbles and discharges in a gas over and contacting the surface of a liquid. Different excitation sources including AC, nanosecond pulsed and DC voltages have been utilized to produce pulsed corona, corona-like, spark, arc, and glow discharges, among other discharge types. Many reviews of plasma processing for water treatment applications have recently been published<ref name="Zeghioud2020">Zeghioud, H., Nguyen-Tri, P., Khezami, L., Amrane, A., and Assadi, A.A., 2020. Review on Discharge Plasma for Water Treatment: Mechanism, Reactor Geometries, Active Species and Combined Processes. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 38, p.101664. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664 DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664]</ref><ref name="Murugesan2020">Murugesan, P., Evanjalin Monica, V., Moses, J.A., and Anandharamakrishnan, C., 2020. Water Decontamination Using Non-Thermal Plasma: Concepts, Applications, and Prospects. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(5), p. 104377. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377]</ref>.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig2.png | thumb |500px|Figure 2. Continuous flow enhanced contact plasma treatment system (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University).]]
Plasma-based water treatment (PWT) owes its strong oxidation and disinfection capabilities to the production of reactive oxidative species (ROS), primarily OH radicals, atomic oxygen, singlet oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. The process also produces reductive species such as solvated electrons and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) when nitrogen and oxygen are present in the discharge. This process has the advantage of synergistic effects of high electric fields, UV/VUV light emissions and in some cases shockwave formation in a liquid. It requires no chemical additions, and can be optimized for batch or continuous processing.

==Application of Plasma for the Treatment of PFAS-Contaminated Water==
Several research groups have investigated the use of plasma to treat and remove PFAS from contaminated water<ref name="Hayashi2015">Hayashi, R., Obo, H., Takeuchi, N., and Yasuoka, K., 2015. Decomposition of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by DC Plasma within Oxygen Bubbles. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 190(3), pp.9-16. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22499 DOI: 10.1002/eej.22499] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22499 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Matsuya2014">Matsuya, Y., Takeuchi, N., Yasuoka, K., 2014. Relationship Between Reaction Rate of Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Decomposition at a Plasma-Liquid Interface and Adsorbed Amount. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 188(2), pp.1-8. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22526 DOI:10.1002/eej.22526]  [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22526 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp.1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Takeuchi2013">Takeuchi, N., Kitagawa, Y., Kosugi, A., Tachibana, K., Obo, H., and Yasuoka, K., 2013. Plasma-Liquid Interfacial Reaction in Decomposition of Perfluoro Surfactants. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 47(4), p.045203. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2011">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., and Hayashi, R., 2011. An Energy-Efficient Process for Decomposing Perfluorooctanoic and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acids Using DC Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 20(3), p. 034009. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009 DOI:10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2010">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., Hayashi, R., Kosugi, A., and Takeuchi, N., 2010. Degradation of Perfluoro Compounds and F- Recovery in Water Using Discharge Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), 113–117. [https://doi.org/10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113 DOI:10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113] [http://ijpest.com/Contents/04/2/PDF/04-02-113.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Lewis2020">Lewis, A.J., Joyce, T., Hadaya, M., Ebrahimi, F., Dragiev, I., Giardetti, N., Yang, J., Fridman, G., Rabinovich, A., Fridman, A.A., McKenzie, E.R., and Sales, C.M., 2020. Rapid Degradation of PFAS in Aqueous Solutions by Reverse Vortex Flow Gliding Arc Plasma. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 6(4), pp.1044-1057. [https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew01050e DOI: 10.1039/c9ew01050e]</ref><ref name="Saleem2020">Saleem, M., Biondo, O., Sretenović, G., Tomei, G., Magarotto, M., Pavarin, D., Marotta, E. and Paradisi, C., 2020. Comparative Performance Assessment of Plasma Reactors for the Treatment of PFOA; Reactor Design, Kinetics, Mineralization and Energy Yield. Chemical Engineering Journal, 382, p.123031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031]</ref><ref name="Palma2021">Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M. and Richard, C., 2021. PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. Molecules, 26(4), p. 924. [https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26040924 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26040924] [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/4/924/htm Article pdf]</ref>. Of those studies, the Enhanced Contact (EC) plasma reactor developed by researchers at Clarkson University is one of the most promising in terms of treatment time, cost, the range of PFAS treated and scale up/throughput. Their process has been shown to degrade PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS in a variety of PFAS-impacted water sources.

[[File: Plasma4PFASFig3.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 3. Degradation profiles of combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations in investigation derived waste (IDW) obtained from nine different Air Force site investigations. In all the IDW samples, both PFOS and PFOA were removed to below EPA’s lifetime health advisory level concentrations (70 ng/L) in < 1 minute of treatment, demonstrating the lack of sensitivity of the plasma-based process to the effects of co-contaminants<ref name="Singh2019a" />.]]
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig4.png | thumb |550px|Figure 4. (a) Mobile plasma treatment trailer depicting the (b) plasma side of the trailer featuring two plasma reactors and the plasma-generating network; and (c) control and plumbing side of the plasma trailer featuring multiple rotameters, storage tanks and plumbing.]]
In the EC plasma reactor (Figure 2), argon gas is continuously pumped through the solution to form a layer of foam and thus concentrate PFAS at the gas-liquid interface where plasma is formed. The process is able to lower the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater obtained from multiple DoD sites to below Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) lifetime health advisory level (HAL) of 70 parts per trillion (70 nanogram per liter, ng/L)<ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Federal Register, Notices, 81(101), p. 33250-33251. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/2016-12361.pdf Register pdf].</ref> within 1 minute of treatment (Figure 3) with energy requirements much lower than those of alternative technologies (~2-6 kWh/m3 for plasma vs. 5000 kWh/m3 for persulfate, photochemical oxidation and sonolytic processes and 132 kWh/m3 for electrochemical oxidation)<ref name="Singh2019a" /><ref name="Nzeribe2019" />. The EC plasma reactor owes its high efficacy to the plasma reactor design, in particular to the gas bubbling through submerged diffusers to transport PFAS to the plasma-liquid interface and thus minimize bulk liquid limitations.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig5.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 5. Plasma destruction of PFAS-impacted groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. One cycle = 18 gallons.]]
In 2019, a mobile plasma treatment system (Figure 4) was successfully demonstrated for the treatment of PFAS-contaminated groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021">Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. ACS ES&T Water, 1(3), pp. 680-687. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>.

Over 300 gallons of PFAS-impacted groundwater were treated at a maximum flowrate of 1.1 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in ≥90% reduction (mean percent removal of 99.7%) of long-chain PFAAs (fluorocarbon chain ≥ 6) and PFAS precursors in a single pass through the reactor (Figure 5) at a treatment cost of $7.30/1000 gallons<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. As expected, the removal of short-chain PFAS was slower due to their lower potential for interfacial adsorption compared to long-chain PFAS. However, post-field laboratory studies revealed that the addition of a cationic surfactant such as CTAB (cetrimonium bromide) minimizes bulk liquid transport limitations for short-chain PFAS by electrostatically interacting with these compounds and transporting them to the plasma-liquid interface where they are degraded<ref name="Palma2021" />. Both bench and pilot-scale EC plasma-based process have been extended for the treatment of PFAS in membrane concentrate, ion exchange brine, and landfill leachate<ref name="Singh2020">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- And Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp.13973-13980. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref name="Singh2021">Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-Containing Landfill Leachate Using an Enhanced Contact Plasma Reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, p.124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref>.

As a part of a currently-funded ESTCP project (ESTCP ER20-5535)<ref name="Mededovic2020">Mededovic, S., 2020. An Innovative Plasma Technology for Treatment of AFFF Rinsate from Firefighting Delivery Systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5355 Project ER20-5355]. </ref>, the Clarkson University team with the support of GSI Environmental Inc. is evaluating the effectiveness of their plasma process in treating diluted aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) as well as the benefits of pre-oxidation of PFAS precursors in high concentration AFFF solutions in terms of post-oxidation plasma treatment time, destruction efficiency and cost.

==Advantages and Limitations of the Technology for PFAS Treatment==
===Advantages:===

*High removal rates of long-chain PFAS (C5-C8) due to the production of versatile reactive species
*Requires no chemical additions and produces no residual waste
*Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration and other non-surfactant co-contaminants do not influence the process efficiency
*The process is mobile and scalable
*Versatile: can be used in batch and continuous systems

===Limitations:===

*Limited removal of short-chain PFAS due to their inability to concentrate at plasma-liquid interfaces. Addition of surfactants such as CTAB improves their removal and degradation rates.
*Excessive foaming caused by bubbling argon gas through a solution containing high (>10 mg/L) concentrations of long-chain (surfactant) PFAS may interfere with the formation of plasma.

==Summary==
PFAS are susceptible to plasma treatment because the hydrophobic PFAS accumulates at the gas-liquid interface, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma. Plasma-based treatment of PFAS contaminated water successfully degrades PFOA and PFOS to below the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt and accomplishes the near complete destruction of other PFAS within a short treatment time. PFAS concentration reductions of ≥90% and post-treatment concentrations below laboratory detection levels are common for long chain PFAS and precursors.
The lack of sensitivity of plasma to co-contaminants, coupled with high PFAS removal and defluorination efficiencies, makes plasma-based water treatment a promising technology for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated water. The plasma treatment process is currently developed for ''ex situ'' application and can also be integrated into a treatment train<ref name="Richardson2021">Richardson, S., 2021. Nanofiltration Followed by Electrical Discharge Plasma for Destruction of PFAS and Co-occurring Chemicals in Groundwater: A Treatment Train Approach. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER21-5136 Project ER21-5136]</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/plasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fplasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater SERDP and ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Plasma Destruction of PFAS in Groundwater]

PFAS Sources

2026-03-02T19:37:11Z

Admin:

[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] have been used in coatings for textiles, paper products, and cookware; in some firefighting foams; and have a range of applications in the aerospace, photographic imaging, semiconductor, automotive, construction, electronics, and aviation industries<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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/74/ITRC_PFAS-1_092020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="KEMI2015">Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI), 2015. Occurrence and use of highly fluorinated substances and alternatives, Report 7/15. ISSN 0284-1185. Article number 361 164. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/df/KEMI2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA2021">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2021. Basic Information on PFAS. [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas#tab-1 Website]</ref>. Although PFAS and PFAS-containing products have been manufactured since the 1950s, PFAS were not widely documented in environmental samples until the early 2000s. Understanding PFAS manufacturing history, past and current uses, and waste management over the last six to seven decades is necessary for the identification of potential environmental sources of PFAS, possible release mechanisms, and associated pathway-receptor relationships.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Dora Chiang | Dr. Dora Chiang]] and [[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc | Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC 2020.]<ref name="ITRC2020" />

==Introduction==
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] are a complex family of more than 3,000 manmade fluorinated organic chemicals<ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/e8/Wang2017.pdf Open access article.]</ref> although not all of these are currently in use or production. PFAS are produced using several different processes. Fluorosurfactants, which include perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] article for nomenclature) and side-chain fluorinated polymers, have been manufactured using two major processes: [[Wikipedia: Electrochemical fluorination | electrochemical fluorination (ECF)]] and [[Wikipedia: Telomerization | telomerization]]<ref name="KEMI2015" />. ECF was licensed by 3M in the 1940s<ref name="Banks1994">Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E. and Tatlow, J.C. eds., 1994. Organofluorine Chemistry: Principles and Commercial Applications. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, N. Y. [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2]</ref> and used by 3M until 2001. ECF produces a mixture of even and odd numbered carbon chain lengths of approximately 70% linear and 30% branched substances<ref name="Concawe2016">Concawe (Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe), 2016. Environmental fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Report No. 8/16. Brussels, Belgium. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Concawe2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Telomerization was developed in the 1970s<ref name="Benskin2012a">Benskin, J.P., Ahrens, L., Muir, D.C., Scott, B.F., Spencer, C., Rosenberg, B., Tomy, G., Kylin, H., Lohmann, R. and Martin, J.W., 2012. Manufacturing Origin of Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Atlantic and Canadian Arctic Seawater. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 677-685. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202958p DOI: 10.1021/es202958p]</ref>, and yields mainly even numbered, straight carbon chain isomers<ref name="Kissa2001">Kissa, E., 2001. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents, Second Edition. Surfactant Science Series, Vol. 97. Marcel Dekker, Inc., CRC Press, New York. 640 pages. ISBN: 9780824704728</ref><ref name="Parsons2008">Parsons, J.R., Sáez, M., Dolfing, J. and De Voogt, P., 2008. Biodegradation of Perfluorinated Compounds. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 196, pp. 53-71. Springer, New York, NY. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Dolfing/publication/23489065_Biodegradation_of_Perfluorinated_Compounds/links/0912f5087a40c9d5df000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. PFAS manufacturers have provided PFAS to secondary manufacturers for production of a vast array of industrial and consumer products.

During manufacturing, PFAS may be released into the atmosphere then redeposited on land where they can also affect surface water and groundwater, or PFAS may be discharged without treatment to wastewater treatment plants or landfills, and eventually be released into the environment by treatment systems that are not designed to mitigate PFAS (see also [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]). Industrial discharges of PFAS were unregulated for many years, but that has begun to change. In January 2016, New York became the first state in the nation to regulate PFOA as a hazardous substance followed by the regulation of PFOS in April 2016. Consumer and industrial uses of PFAS-containing products can also end up releasing PFAS into landfills and into municipal wastewater, where it may accumulate undetected in biosolids which are typically treated by land application.

==Industrial Sources==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig0.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 1. Conceptual Site Model for PFAS industrial sites<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
PFAS are used in many industrial and consumer applications, which may have released PFAS into the environment and impacted drinking water supplies in many areas of the United States<ref name="EWG2017">Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Northeastern University Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, 2017. Mapping A Contamination Crisis. [https://www.ewg.org/research/mapping-contamination-crisis Website]</ref>. Both in the United States (US) and abroad, primary manufacturing facilities produce PFAS and secondary manufacturing facilities use PFAS to produce goods. Environmental release mechanisms associated with these facilities include air emission and dispersion, spills, and disposal of manufacturing wastes and wastewater. Potential impacts to air, soil, sediment, surface water, stormwater, and groundwater are present not only at primary release points but potentially over the surrounding area<ref name="Shin2011">Shin, H.M., Vieira, V.M., Ryan, P.B., Detwiler, R., Sanders, B., Steenland, K., and Bartell, S.M., 2011. Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling for Perfluorooctanoic Acid Emitted from the Washington Works Facility in West Virginia. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(4), pp. 1435-1442. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102769t DOI: 10.1021/es102769t]</ref>, as illustrated in Figure 1. Some of the potential primary and secondary sources of PFAS releases to the environment are listed here<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*'''Textiles and leather:''' Factory or consumer applied coating to repel water, oil, and stains. Applications include protective clothing and outerwear, umbrellas, tents, sails, architectural materials, carpets, and upholstery<ref name="Rao1994">Rao, N.S., and Baker, B.E., 1994. Textile Finishes and Fluorosurfactants. In: Organofluorine Chemistry, Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E., and Tatlow, J.C., Eds. Springer, New York. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15]</ref><ref name="Hekster2003">Hekster, F.M., Laane, R.W. and De Voogt, P., 2003. Environmental and Toxicity Effects of Perfluoroalkylated Substances. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 179, pp. 99-121. Springer, New York, NY. [https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4 DOI: 10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004">Brooke, D., Footitt, A., and Nwaogu, T.A., 2004. Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS). Environment Agency (UK), Science Group. Free download from: [http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/docs/from_old_website/documents/meetings/poprc/submissions/Comments_2006/sia/pfos.uk.risk.eval.report.2004.pdf The Stockholm Convention]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/df/Brooke2004.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005">Poulsen, P.B., Jensen, A.A., and Wallström, E., 2005. More environmentally friendly alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project 1013. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c2/Poulsen2005.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006">Prevedouros, K., Cousins, I.T., Buck, R.C. and Korzeniowski, S.H., 2006. Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(1), pp. 32-44. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475 DOI: 10.1021/es0512475]   Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Walters2006">Walters, A., and Santillo, D., 2006. Technical Note 06/2006: Uses of Perfluorinated Substances. Greenpeace Research Laboratories. [http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/uses-of-perfluorinated-chemicals.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3a/Walters2006.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Trudel2008">Trudel, D., Horowitz, L., Wormuth, M., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T. and Hungerbühler, K., 2008. Estimating Consumer Exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(2), pp. 251-269. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x]</ref><ref name="Guo2009">Guo, Z., Liu, X., Krebs, K.A. and Roache, N.F., 2009. Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Content in 116 Articles of Commerce, EPA/600/R-09/033. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=206124 US EPA.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/Guo2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA2009">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Action Plan. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/pfcs_action_plan1230_09.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b8/USEPA2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011a">Ahrens, L., 2011. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic environment: a review of their occurrence and fate. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(1), pp.20-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00373E DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00373E]. Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Ahrens/publication/47622154_Polyfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_the_aquatic_environment_A_review_of_their_occurrence_and_fate/links/00b7d53762cfedaf12000000/Polyfluoroalkyl-compounds-in-the-aquatic-environment-A-review-of-their-occurrence-and-fate.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Buck2011">Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., De Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S.A. and van Leeuwen, S.P., 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4), pp. 513-541. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.258]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6f/Buck2011.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011">United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011. Report of the persistent organic pollutants review committee on the work of its sixth meeting, Addendum, Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.3/Rev.1 [http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/POPsReviewCommittee/Meetings/POPRC6/POPRC6Documents/tabid/783/ctl/Download/mid/3507/Default.aspx?id=125 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ee/UNEP2011.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Herzke2012">Herzke, D., Olsson, E. and Posner, S., 2012. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer products in Norway – A pilot study. Chemosphere, 88(8), pp. 980-987. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035]</ref><ref name="Patagonia2016">Patagonia, Inc., 2016. An Update on Our DWR Problem. [https://www.patagonia.com/stories/our-dwr-problem-updated/story-17673.html Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/41/Patagonia2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Kotthoff2015">Kotthoff, M., Müller, J., Jürling, H., Schlummer, M., and Fiedler, D., 2015. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in consumer products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(19), pp. 14546-14559. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c8/Kotthoff2015.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2018. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment. US Department of Health and Human Services. Free download from: [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf ATSDR]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/eb/ATSDR2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

*'''Paper products:''' Surface coatings to repel grease and moisture. Uses include non-food paper packaging (for example, cardboard, carbonless forms, masking papers) and food-contact materials (for example, pizza boxes, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, baking papers, pet food bags)<ref name="Rao1994" /><ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Hekster2003" /><ref name="Poulsen2005" /><ref name="Trudel2008" /><ref name="Buck2011" /><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="Schaider2017">Schaider, L.A., Balan, S.A., Blum, A., Andrews, D.Q., Strynar, M.J., Dickinson, M.E., Lunderberg, D.M., Lang, J.R., and Peaslee, G.F., 2017. Fluorinated Compounds in US Fast Food Packaging. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 4(3), pp. 105-111. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435 DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b8/Schaider2017.pdf Open access article.]</ref>

*'''Metal Plating & Etching:''' Corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic enhancement, surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel and tin electroplating, and post-plating cleaner<ref name="USEPA1996">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12.20. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle Park, NC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a3/USEPA1996.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Riordan1998">Riordan, B.J., Karamchandanl, R.T., Zitko, L.J., and Cushnie Jr., G.C., 1998. Capsule Report: Hard Chrome Fume Suppressants and Control Technologies. Center for Environmental Research Information, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. EPA/625/R-98/002 [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryID=115419 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/bd/Riordan1998.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Prevedouros2006" /><ref name="USEPA2009a">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. PFOS Chromium Electroplater Study. US EPA – Region 5, Chicago, IL. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/1/11/USEPA2009a.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="OSHA2013">Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), 2013. Fact Sheet: Controlling Hexavalent Chromium Exposures during Electroplating. United States Department of Labor. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/90/OSHA2013.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="KEMI2015" /><ref name="DEPA2015">Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f4/DEPA2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*'''Wire Manufacturing:''' Coating and insulation<ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="vanderPutte2010">van der Putte, I., Murin, M., van Velthoven, M., and Affourtit, F., 2010. Analysis of the risks arising from the industrial use of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) and from their use in consumer articles. Evaluation of the risk reduction measures for potential restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFOA and APFO. RPS Advies, Delft, The Netherlands for European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. [https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13037/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7b/VanderPutte2010.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="ASTSWMO2015">Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), 2015. Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs): Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Information Paper. Remediation and Reuse Focus Group, Federal Facilities Research Center, Washington, D.C. Free download from: [https://clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/pops/POPs-ASTSWMO-PFCs-2015.pdf US EPA]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3a/Deeb-Article_1-Table_2-L10-Provisional_Groundwater_Remediaton_Objectives_Class_I_Groundwater.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*'''Industrial Surfactants, Resins, Molds, Plastics:''' Manufacture of plastics and fluoropolymers, rubber, and compression mold release coatings; plumbing fluxing agents; fluoroplastic coatings, composite resins, and flame retardant for polycarbonate<ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Renner2001">Renner, R., 2001. Growing Concern Over Perfluorinated Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(7), pp. 154A-160A. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es012317k DOI: 10.1021/es012317k]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f5/Renner2001.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005" /><ref name="Fricke2005">Fricke, M. and Lahl, U., 2005. Risk Evaluation of Perfluorinated Surfactants as Contribution to the current Debate on the EU Commission’s REACH Document. Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung (UWSF), 17(1), pp. 36-49. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03038694 DOI: 10.1007/BF03038694]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006" /><ref name="Skutlarek2006">Skutlarek, D., Exner, M. and Färber, H., 2006. Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 13(5), pp. 299-307. [https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.07.326 DOI: 10.1065/espr2006.07.326]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Skutlarek/publication/6729263_Perfluorinated_surfactants_in_surface_and_drinking_waters/links/0deec52049b9cba2e4000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="vanderPutte2010" /><ref name="Buck2011" /><ref name="Herzke2012" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="Chemours2010">Chemours, 2010. The History of Teflon Fluoropolymers. [https://www.teflon.com/en/news-events/history Website]</ref>

*'''Photolithography, Semiconductor Industry:''' Photoresists, top anti-reflective coatings, bottom anti-reflective coatings, and etchants, with other uses including surfactants, wetting agents, and photo-acid generation<ref name="Choi2005">Choi, D.G., Jeong, J.H., Sim, Y.S., Lee, E.S., Kim, W.S. and Bae, B.S., 2005. Fluorinated Organic− Inorganic Hybrid Mold as a New Stamp for Nanoimprint and Soft Lithography. Langmuir, 21(21), pp. 9390-9392. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la0513205 DOI: 10.1021/la0513205]</ref><ref name="Rolland2004">Rolland, J.P., Van Dam, R.M., Schorzman, D.A., Quake, S.R., and DeSimone, J.M., 2004. Solvent-Resistant Photocurable “Liquid Teflon” for Microfluidic Device Fabrication. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 126(8), pp. 2322-2323. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja031657y DOI: 10.1021/ja031657y]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004" /><ref name="vanderPutte2010" /><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="Herzke2012" />

==Class B Firefighting Foams==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig0.5.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 2. Conceptual Site Model for fire training areas<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and other fluorinated Class B firefighting foams are another important source of PFAS to the environment, especially in military and aviation settings. [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | Class B firefighting foams]] have been used since the 1960s to extinguish flammable liquid hydrocarbon fires and for vapor suppression. These foams contain complex and variable mixtures of PFAS that act as surfactants. Fluorinated surfactants are both hydrophobic and oleophobic (oil-repelling), as well as thermally stable, chemically stable, and highly surface active<ref name="Moody1999">Moody, C.A. and Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es981355%2B DOI: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref>. These properties make them uniquely suited to fighting hydrocarbon fuel fires. Use of fluorinated Class B foams is prevalent and is a major source of PFAS release to the environment, as shown in Figure 2. Release to the environment typically occurs during firefighting operations, firefighter training, apparatus testing, or leakage during storage. Research into fluorine-free alternatives is underway and Congressional pressure is leading towards banning fluorinated Class B firefighting foams in the United States.

[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 3. Types of Class B firefighting foams<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Source: S. Thomas, Wood, PLC. Used with permission.]]
When discussing the relationship between firefighting foams and sources of PFAS to the environment, the emphasis is typically on AFFF; however, many different types of Class B firefighting foams exist. These may or may not be fluorinated (contain PFAS). Class B foams are used to extinguish Class B fires, that is, those involving flammable liquids. Fluorinated Class B foams spread across the surface of the flammable liquid forming a thin film and extinguish fires by (1) excluding air from the flammable vapors, (2) suppressing vapor release, (3) physically separating the flames from the fuel source, and (4) cooling the fuel surface and surrounding metal surfaces<ref name="NationalFoam">National Foam, no date. A Firefighter’s Guide to Foam. [http://foamtechnology.us/Firefighters.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/NationalFoam.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. From a PFAS perspective, Class B firefighting foams can be divided into two broad categories: fluorinated foams (that contain PFAS) and fluorine-free foams (that do not contain PFAS)<ref name="ITRC2020" />. This distinction and examples of each type are shown in Figure 3.

AFFF was developed by the US Navy in the 1960s and in 1969, the US Department of Defense (DoD) issued military specification MIL-F-24385 listing firefighting performance requirements for all AFFF used within the US DoD<ref name="ITRC2020" /><ref name="Navy1969">US Navy, 1969. Military Specification MIL-F-24385(NAVY). Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate, Six Percent, for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Hyattsville, Maryland. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c5/MilspecAFFF1969.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Navy2020">US Navy, 2020. Performance Specification MIL-PRF-24385F(SH) with Amendment 4. Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/58/MilspecAFFF2020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. These performance standards are often referred to as “Mil-Spec.” Products that meet the Mil-Spec have been added to the US DoD [https://qpldocs.dla.mil/ Qualified Product Listing (QPL)]. In 2006 the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also began requiring that 14-CFR-139-certified commercial airports purchase Mil-Spec compliant AFFF only. Because the US DoD and FAA have been the primary purchasers of AFFF, development of AFFF product mixtures has historically been performance-driven (to comply with the Mil-Spec) rather than formula-driven (the specific PFAS mixtures utilized have varied over time and by manufacturer). Multiple manufacturers in the US and throughout the world produce or have produced AFFF concentrate<ref name="ITRC2020" />. AFFF concentrate is or has been available in 1%, 3%, or 6% formulations, where the percentage designates the recommended percentage of concentrate to be mixed into water during application.

The specific mixtures of PFAS found in AFFF have varied by manufacturer and over time due to differences in production processes and voluntary formula changes. AFFF formulations can generally be grouped into three categories<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*'''Legacy Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) AFFF''' This type of AFFF was manufactured exclusively by 3M under the brand name “Lightwater” from the late 1960s until 2002 using the ECF production process. They contain PFOS and perflouroalkane sulfonates (PFSAs) such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS)<ref name="ITRC2020" /><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 US Military Bases by Nonaqueous Large-Volume Injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(10), pp. 5226-5234. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3034999 DOI: 10.1021/es3034999]</ref>. Legacy PFOS AFFF produced by ECF were voluntarily phased out in 2002, however, use of stockpiled product was permitted after that date<ref name="ITRC2020" />.

*'''Legacy fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF manufactured and sold in the U.S. from the 1970s until 2016 and includes all brands that were produced using a process known as fluorotelomerization (FT). The FT manufacturing process produces polyfluorinated substances that can degrade in the environment to perfluoroalkyl substances (specifically PFAAs) including Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Polyfluoroalkyl substances that degrade to create terminal PFAAs are referred to as “precursors” <ref name="ITRC2020" />.

*'''Modern fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF developed in response to the USEPA 2010-2015 voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program<ref name="USEPA2018">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. [https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program Website]</ref>, which asked companies to commit to first reducing and then eliminating the following: PFOA, precursors that can break down to PFOA, and related chemicals from facility emissions and products. In response, manufacturers began producing only short-chain fluorosurfactants targeting fluorotelomer PFAS with 6 carbons per chain (C6), rather than the traditional long-chain fluorosurfactants (8 or more carbons per chain). These short-chain PFAS do not breakdown in the environment to PFOS or PFOA<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Their toxicity in comparison to long-chain fluorosurfactants is a topic of current research.

In the US, AFFF users including the US DoD (predominantly the Navy and Air Force), civilian airports, oil refineries, other petrochemical industries, and municipal fire departments<ref name="Darwin2011">Darwin, Robert L. 2011. Estimated Inventory of PFOS-based Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, Inc., Arlington, VA. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/49/Darwin2011.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. AFFF is used, for example, in fire fighting vehicles, in fixed fire suppression systems (including sprinklers and fixed spray systems in or at aircraft hangars, flammable liquid storage areas, engine hush houses, and fuel farms), and onboard military and commercial ships. Fluorinated Class B foams may be introduced to the environment through the following practices<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*low volume releases of foam concentrate during storage, transfer or operational requirements that mandate periodic equipment calibration
*moderate volume discharge of foam solution for apparatus testing and episodic discharge of AFFF-containing fire suppression systems within large aircraft hangars and buildings
*occasional, high-volume, broadcast discharge of foam solution for firefighting and fire suppression/prevention for emergency response
*periodic, high volume, broadcast discharge for fire training
*accidental leaks from foam distribution piping between storage and pumping locations, and from storage tanks and railcars

The DoD is currently replacing legacy, long-chain AFFF with modern, short-chain fluorotelomer AFFF and disposing of the legacy foams through incineration. While the PFAS included in modern fluorotelomer AFFF formulations are currently understood to be less toxic and less bioaccumulative than those used in legacy formulations, they are also environmentally persistent and can degrade to produce other PFAS that may pose environmental concerns<ref name="ITRC2020" />. While fluorine free alternatives exist, they do not meet the current Mil-Spec<ref name="Navy2020" /> which requires that fluorine-based compounds be used. The US DoD is working to revise the Mil-Spec to allow fluorine-free foams, and several states have passed laws prohibiting the use of fluorinated Class B foams for training and prohibiting future manufacture, sale or distribution of fluorinated foams, with limited exceptions<ref name="Denton2019">Denton, Charles, 2019. Expert Focus: US states outpace EPA on PFAS firefighting foam laws. Chemical Watch. [https://chemicalwatch.com/78075/expert-focus-us-states-outpace-epa-on-pfas-firefighting-foam-laws Website]</ref> (e.g., WA Rev Code § 70.75A.005 (2019); VA § 9.1-207.1 (2019)). Additionally, a bill passed in the US Congress in 2018 directs the FAA to allow fluorine-free foams for use at commercial airports<ref name="FAA2018">FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. US Public Law No: 115-254 (10/05/2018). [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?r=1 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/06/FAA2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Research into the development of Mil-Spec compliant fluorine-free foams that will be compatible with existing AFFF and supporting equipment is ongoing and includes the following:

*Novel Fluorine-Free Replacement for Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. Joseph Tsang, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Divisions) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2737 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2737]
*Fluorine-Free Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. John Payne, National Foam) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2738 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2738]
*Fluorine-Free Foams with Oleophobic Surfactants and Additives for Effective Pool fire Suppression (Lead investigator: Dr. Ramagopal Ananth, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2739 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2739]

==Wastewater Treatment Plants==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig4.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 4. Conceptual Site Model for landfills and WWTPs<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
Consumer and/or industrial uses of PFAS-containing materials results in the discharge of PFAS to industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Conventional WWTP treatment processes remove less than 5% of PFAAs<ref name="Ahrens2011a" /><ref name="Schultz2006">Schultz, M.M., Higgins, C.P., Huset, C.A., Luthy, R.G., Barofsky, D.F., and Field, J.A., 2006. Fluorochemical Mass Flows in a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7350-7357. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061025m DOI: 10.1021/es061025m]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556954/ Author Manuscript]</ref><ref name="MWRA2019">Michigan Waste and Recycling Association (MWRA), 2019. Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent, Second Revision. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/ff/MWRA2019.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. WWTPs, particularly those that receive industrial wastewater, are possible sources of PFAS release<ref name="Bossi2008">Bossi, R., Strand, J., Sortkjær, O. and Larsen, M.M., 2008. Perfluoroalkyl compounds in Danish wastewater treatment plants and aquatic environments. Environment International, 34(4), pp. 443-450. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002] Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/43968517/Perfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_Danish_waste20160321-31116-esz4d1.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Lin2014">Lin, A.Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Tsai, Y.T., and Yu, T.H., 2014. Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds in the aquatic environment as found in science park effluent, river water, rainwater, sediments, and biotissues. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(5), pp. 3265-3275. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2009">Ahrens, L., Felizeter, S., Sturm, R., Xie, Z. and Ebinghaus, R., 2009. Polyfluorinated compounds in waste water treatment plant effluents and surface waters along the River Elbe, Germany. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(9), pp.1326-1333. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/Ahrens2009.pdf Author’s manuscript]</ref>, as shown in Figure 4.

Evaluation of full-scale WWTPs has indicated that conventional primary (sedimentation and clarification) and secondary (aerobic biodegradation of organic matter) treatment processes can result in changes in PFAS concentrations and classes. For example, higher concentrations of PFAAs have been observed in effluent than in influent, presumably due to transformation of precursor PFAS<ref name="Schultz2006" />. Some data has indicated that the terminal PFAS compounds PFOS and PFOA were among the most frequently detected PFAS in wastewater<ref name="Hamid2016">Hamid, H. and Li, L., 2016. Role of wastewater treatment plant in environmental cycling of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances. Ecocycles, 2(2), pp. 43-53. [https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62 DOI: 10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/67/Hamid2016.pdf Open access article.]</ref>. A state-wide study in Michigan indicated that PFAS were detected in all of the samples from 42 WWTPs, including influent, effluent, and biosolids/sludge samples, and that the short-chain PFAS were more frequently detected in the liquid process flow (influent and effluent), while long-chain PFAS were more common in biosolids<ref name="EGLE2020">Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), 2020. Summary Report: Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater and Associated Residuals (Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/70/EGLE2020.pdf Report.pdf]  
[https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/wrd-pfas-initiatives_691391_7.pdf Website]</ref>.

Multiple studies have found PFAS in municipal sewage sludge<ref name="Higgins2005">Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., Criddle, C.S., and Luthy, R.G., 2005. Quantitative Determination of Perfluorochemicals in Sediments and Domestic Sludge. Environmental Science and Technology, 39 (11), pp. 3946 – 3956. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es048245p DOI: 10.1021/es048245p]</ref><ref name="EGLE2020" />. The US EPA states that more than half of the sludge produced in the United States is applied to agricultural land as biosolids, therefore there are concerns that biosolids applications may become a potential source of PFAS to the environment<ref name="USEPA2020">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2020. Research on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). [https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/research-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Website]</ref>. Application of biosolids as a soil amendment can potentially result in transfer of PFAS to soil, surface water and groundwater and can possibly allow PFAS to enter the food chain<ref name="Sepulvado2011">Sepulvado, J.G., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L.S. and Higgins, C.P., 2011. Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal Biosolids. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp. 8106-8112. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es103903d DOI: 10.1021/es103903d]</ref><ref name="Lindstrom2011">Lindstrom, A.B., Strynar, M.J., Delinsky, A.D., Nakayama, S.F., McMillan, L., Libelo, E.L., Neill, M. and Thomas, L., 2011. Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp. 8015-8021. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1039425 DOI: 10.1021/es1039425]</ref><ref name="Blaine2013">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Hundal, L.S., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Uptake of Perfluoroalkyl Acids into Edible Crops via Land Applied Biosolids: Field and Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(24), pp.14062-14069. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es403094q DOI: 10.1021/es403094q]   Free download from: [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/508_pfascropuptake.pdf US EPA]</ref><ref name="Blaine2014">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Sedlacko, E.M., Hundal, L.S., Kumar, K., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Distribution in Various Plant Compartments of Edible Crops Grown in Biosolids-Amended Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(14), pp. 7858-7865. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es500016s DOI: 10.1021/es500016s] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuldip_Kumar2/publication/263015815_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Distribution_in_Various_Plant_Compartments_of_Edible_Crops_Grown_in_Biosolids-Amended_soils/links/5984cb310f7e9b6c852f4f02/Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Distribution-in-Various-Plant-Compartments-of-Edible-Crops-Grown-in-Biosolids-Amended-soils.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Navarro2017">Navarro, I., de la Torre, A., Sanz, P., Porcel, M.Á., Pro, J., Carbonell, G. and de los Ángeles Martínez, M., 2017. Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances and halogenated flame retardants by crop plants grown in biosolids-amended soils. Environmental Research, 152, pp. 199-206. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018]</ref>. Limited studies have shown that PFAS concentrations can be elevated in surface and groundwater in the vicinity of agricultural fields that received PFAS contaminated biosolids for an extended period<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Yoo, H., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M., and Libelo, E.L., 2010. Concentrations, Distribution, and Persistence of Perfluoroalkylates in Sludge-Applied Soils near Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22), pp. 8390-8396. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1003846 DOI: 10.1021/es1003846] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Washington3/publication/47447289_Concentrations_Distribution_and_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkylates_in_Sludge-Applied_Soils_near_Decatur_Alabama_USA/links/5e3c0184a6fdccd9658add41/Concentrations-Distribution-and-Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkylates-in-Sludge-Applied-Soils-near-Decatur-Alabama-USA.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. The most abundant PFAS found in biosolids are the long-chain PFAS<ref name="Hamid2016" /><ref name="EGLE2020" />. Based on the persistence and stability of long-chain PFAS and their interaction with biosolids, research is ongoing to determine PFAS leachability from biosolids and their bioavailability for uptake by plants, soil organisms, and the consumers of potentially PFAS-impacted plants and soil organisms.

==Solid Waste Management Facilities==
Industrial, commercial, and consumer products containing PFAS that have been disposed in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or other legacy disposal areas since the 1950s are potential sources of PFAS release to the environment. Environmental and drinking water impacts from disposal of legacy PFAS-containing industrial and consumer wastes have been documented<ref name="Oliaei2010">Oliaei, F., Kriens, D. and Weber, R., 2010. Discovery and investigation of PFOS/PFCs contamination from a PFC manufacturing facility in Minnesota—environmental releases and exposure risks. Organohalogen Compd, 72, pp. 1338-1341.</ref><ref name="Shin2011" /><ref name="MDH2020">Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), 2020. Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Sites in Minnesota. [https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazardous/topics/sites.html Website]</ref>.

Several studies have identified a wide variety of PFAS in MSW landfill leachates<ref name="Busch2010">Busch, J., Ahrens, L., Sturm, R. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), pp.1467-1471. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031]</ref><ref name="Eggen2010">Eggen, T., Moeder, M. and Arukwe, A., 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: A significant source for new and emerging pollutants. Science of the Total Environment, 408(21), pp. 5147-5157. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049]</ref>. PFAS composition and concentration in leachates vary depending on waste age, climate, and waste composition<ref name="Allred2015">Allred, B. M., Lang, J. R., Barlaz, M. A., and Field, J. A., 2015. Physical and Biological Release of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Municipal Solid Waste in Anaerobic Model Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(13), pp. 7648-7656. [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01040 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01040]</ref><ref name="Lang2017">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Field, J.A., Levis, J.W. and Barlaz, M.A., 2017. National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal Landfill Leachate. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(4), pp. 2197-2205. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05005 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05005]</ref>. The relative concentrations of various PFAS in leachate and groundwater from landfill sites is different from those found at WWTPs and AFFF-contaminated sites. In particular, 5:3 fluorotelomer carboxylic acid (FTCA) is a common and often dominant PFAS found in landfills, and has been released from carpet in model anaerobic landfill reactors. This compound could prove to be an indicator that PFAS in the environment originated from a landfill<ref name="Lang2016">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Peaslee, G.F., Field, J.A., and Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Release of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) from Carpet and Clothing in Model Anaerobic Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(10), pp. 5024-5032. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06237 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06237]</ref><ref name="Lang2017" />. PFAS may also be released to the air from landfills, predominantly as fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and perfluorobutanoate (PFBA). In one study, total airborne PFAS concentrations were 5 to 30 times greater at landfills than at background reference sites<ref name="Ahrens2011b">Ahrens, L., Shoeib, M., Harner, T., Lane, D.A., Guo, R. and Reiner, E.J., 2011. Comparison of Annular Diffusion Denuder and High volume Air Samplers for Measuring Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere. Analytical Chemistry, 83(24), pp. 9622-9628. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ DOI: 10.1021/ac202414w]   Free download available from: [https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC11FU-SUBM-PFOA-Canada-2-20151211.En.pdf InforMEA]</ref>. PFAS release rates within landfills vary over time for a given waste mass, with climate (for example, rainfall) serving as the apparent driving factor for the variations<ref name="Lang2017" /><ref name="Benskin2012">Benskin, J.P., Li, B., Ikonomou, M.G., Grace, J.R. and Li, L.Y., 2012. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Landfill Leachate: Patterns, Time Trends, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp.11532-11540. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302471n DOI: 10.1021/es302471n]</ref>.

==Commercial and Consumer Products==
PFAS are widely used in consumer products and household applications, with a diverse mixture of PFAS found in varying concentrations depending on the product<ref name="Clara2008">Clara, M., Scharf, S., Weiss, S., Gans, O. and Scheffknecht, C., 2008. Emissions of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) from point sources - identification of relevant branches. Water Science and Technology, 58(1), pp. 59-66. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.641 DOI: 10.2166/wst.2008.641]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a3/Clara2008.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Trier2011">Trier, X., Granby, K. and Christensen, J.H., 2011. Polyfluorinated surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 18(7), pp. 1108–1120. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3]</ref><ref name="Fujii2013">Fujii, Y., Harada, K.H. and Koizumi, A., 2013. Occurrence of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) in personal care products and compounding agents. Chemosphere, 93(3), pp. 538-544. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049]</ref><ref name="OECD2013">Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013. Synthesis paper on per‐ and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). OECD Environment Directorate/UNEP Global PFC Group. [https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-management/PFC_FINAL-Web.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/55/OECD2013.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="KEMI2015" /><ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA Document Number: 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_508.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/63/USEPA2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Environmental releases associated with the commercial and consumer products are primarily related to their production. To a much lower extent, the environmental releases may be associated with the management of solid waste (for example, disposal of used items in a MSW landfill) and wastewater disposal (for example, discharge to WWTPs, private septic systems, or other subsurface disposal systems).

Studies have shown that physical degradation of some consumer products (such as PFAS-treated paper, textiles, and carpets) may release PFAS in house dust<ref name="Bjorklund2009">Björklund, J.A., Thuresson, K. and De Wit, C.A., 2009. Perfluoroalkyl Compounds (PFCs) in Indoor Dust: Concentrations, Human Exposure Estimates, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(7), pp. 2276-2281. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803201a DOI: 10.1021/es803201a]</ref>. Additionally, studies have also shown that professional ski wax technicians may have significant inhalation exposures to PFAS<ref name="Nilsson2013">Nilsson, H., Kärrman, A., Rotander, A., van Bavel, B., Lindström, G., and Westberg, H., 2013. Professional ski waxers' exposure to PFAS and aerosol concentrations in gas phase and different particle size fractions. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 15(4), pp. 814-822. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C3EM30739E DOI: 10.1039/C3EM30739E]</ref> and snowmelt and surface waters near ski areas could have measurable PFAS impacts<ref name="Kwok2013">Kwok, K.Y., Yamazaki, E., Yamashita, N., Taniyasu, S., Murphy, M.B., Horii, Y., Petrick, G., Kallerborn, R., Kannan, K., Murano, K. and Lam, P.K., 2013. Transport of Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from an arctic glacier to downstream locations: Implications for sources. Science of the Total Environment, 447, pp. 46-55. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091]</ref>.

As increased environmental sampling for PFAS occurs, additional information will become available to further our understanding of the major and minor PFAS contributors to the environment.
 

==References==

<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment

2026-03-02T19:36:54Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>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 or RO and nanofiltration or NF), activated carbon adsorption (granular and powdered), and anion exchange. However, these technologies are less demonstrated for removal of PFAS from more complex matrices such as wastewater and leachate. There are also a variety of separation and destructive technologies in various stages of development. Some of these processes may also be applicable to more complex matrices including wastewater and landfill leachate. </onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Scott Grieco]] and [[James Hatton]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[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>

*[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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2e/ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf Report.pdf]</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]   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>

*[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>

==Established PFAS Treatment Technologies==
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)]]
*[[Wikipedia: Activated_carbon#Classification | granular 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. <onlyinclude>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.
</onlyinclude>

===Membrane Filtration===
[[File: revOsmosisPlant.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 1. A RO municipal drinking water plant in Arizona]]
<onlyinclude>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</onlyinclude> (Figure 1)<onlyinclude>, several studies have demonstrated effective removal of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)</onlyinclude> (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature)<onlyinclude> from drinking water with removal rates well above 90%</onlyinclude><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<onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>

Full-scale studies using larger effective pore size NF membranes for PFAS removal are limited in number but are promising since NF systems are somewhat less costly than RO and may be nearly as effective in removing PFAS. Recent laboratory or pilot studies have shown good performance of NF membranes<ref name="Steinle-Darling2008">Steinle-Darling, E., and Reinhard, M., 2008. Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of Perfluorochemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(14), pp. 5292-5297. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es703207s DOI: 10.1021/es703207s]   Free download from: [https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48926882/es703207s20160918-21142-1xmqco5.pdf?1474189169=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DNanofiltration_for_Trace_Organic_Contami.pdf&Expires=1613000850&Signature=N-ZvvjOJX3TSOQzg7od3Q0LulNSZOqqjfummVEUfmiYlC3VasS4FuBHOgY52Xy~7FrKbOLhx0xx8QHdUsR~fbRTMQNXhiqbEslnU2gda2EcZHMMJj0mf-01wIA3jFIywA7IIabmTd3uMUGsIfT1D0PrGY00RmprYIQBoG3Dg~KjoizdfxYfvEgdZw2C~7D47pPiwMSnavZiGuvO0~dbRF8nawL7Prg91xt5BFTNUQQiIrIlMWc4PhVjzE5Su2CUZqnNlYdAW5Ck7B9lKmmVMPiOgz07vFnyp7m-q4UK3woa~aBFW9Wp~hjqN6vfohn8Hocv5oMpZNamhu8vBbPilKw__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA Academia].</ref><ref name="Appleman2013">Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R., Bellona, C., and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Nanofiltration and granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, 740-746. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033]</ref><ref name="Soriano2017">Soriano, Á., Gorri, D., and Urtiaga, A., 2017. Efficient treatment of perfluorohexanoic acid by nanofiltration followed by electrochemical degradation of the NF concentrate. Water Research, 112, 147-156. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/47/Soriano2017.pdf Author’s Manuscript.]</ref><ref name="Zeng2017">Zeng, C., Tanaka, S., Suzuki, Y., Yukioka, S., and Fujii, S., 2017. Rejection of Trace Level Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) in Pure Water by Loose Nanofiltration Membrane. Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 15(3), pp. 120-127. [https://doi.org/10.2965/jwet.16-072 DOI: 10.2965/jwet.16-072]   Free download from: [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jwet/15/3/15_16-072/_pdf J-STAGE]</ref><ref name="Wang2018">Wang, J., Wang, L., Xu, C., Zhi, R., Miao, R., Liang, T., Yue, X., Lv, Y. and Liu, T., 2018. Perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorobutane sulfonate removal from water by nanofiltration membrane: The roles of solute concentration, ionic strength, and macromolecular organic foulants. Chemical Engineering Journal, 332, pp. 787-797. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061]</ref>.

Although membrane RO and NF processes are generally capable of providing uniform removal rates relative to short and long chain PFAS compounds (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature), other aspects of these treatment technologies are more challenging:

*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).

*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.

*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.

*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.

*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.

===Activated Carbon Adsorption===
[[File: GAChouse.JPG | thumb| 500px | Figure 2. Typical private water supply well GAC installation for removal PFAS. Pressure gages and sample ports located before the first (or lead) vessel, at the midpoint, and after the second (or lag) vessel allow monitoring for pressure drop due to fouling and for contaminant breakthrough.]]
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>.

<onlyinclude>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</onlyinclude><ref name="McCleaf2017">McCleaf, P., Englund, S., Östlund, A., Lindegren, K., Wiberg, K., and Ahrens, L., 2017. Removal efficiency of multiple poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in drinking water using granular activated carbon (GAC) and anion exchange (AE) column tests. Water Research, 120, pp. 77-87. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.04.057]</ref><ref name="Eschauzier2012">Eschauzier, C., Beerendonk, E., Scholte-Veenendaal, P., and De Voogt, P., 2012. Impact of Treatment Processes on the Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Acids from the Drinking Water Production Chain. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(3), pp. 1708-1715. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es201662b DOI: 10.1021/es201662b]</ref>(see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] for nomenclature):

*perfluoro-sulfonate acids (PFSAs) are more efficiently removed than perfluoro-carboxylic acids (PFCAs) of the same chain length
*long chain compounds of the same functional group are removed better than the shorter chains

Activated carbon may be applied in drinking water systems as GAC or PAC<ref name="Dudley">Dudley, L.A., Arevalo, E.C., and Knappe, D.R., 2015. Removal of Perfluoroalkyl Substances by PAC Adsorption and Anion Exchange. Water Research Foundation Project #4344. Free download of Executive Summary from: [https://www.waterrf.org/system/files/resource/2019-04/4344_ProjectSummary.pdf Water Research Foundation (Public Plus account)]</ref><ref name="Qian2017">Qian, J., Shen, M., Wang, P., Wang, C., Li, K., Liu, J., Lu, B. and Tian, X., 2017. Perfluorooctane sulfonate adsorption on powder activated carbon: Effect of phosphate (P) competition, pH, and temperature. Chemosphere, 182, pp. 215-222. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.033 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.033]</ref>. GAC has larger granules and is reusable, while PAC has much smaller granules and is not typically reused. PAC has most often been used as a temporary treatment because costs associated with disposal and replacement of the used PAC tend to preclude using it for long-term treatment. A typical GAC installation for a private drinking water well is shown in Figure 2. Contrary to PAC, GAC used to treat PFAS can be reactivated by the manufacturer, driving the PFAS from the GAC and into off-gas. The extracted gas is then treated with thermal oxidation (temperatures often 1200°C to 1400°C). The reactivated GAC is then brought back to the site and reused. Thus, GAC can ultimately be a destructive treatment technology<onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>

[[File: IXcycle.png | thumb | 400px | left | Figure 3. Operational cycle of a packed bed reactor with anion exchange resin beads]]

===Anion Exchange===
<onlyinclude>Anion exchange has also been demonstrated for the adsorption of PFAS, and published results note higher sorption per pound than GAC</onlyinclude><ref name="McCleaf2017" /><ref name="Senevirathna2010">Senevirathna, S.T.M.L.D., Tanaka, S., Fujii, S., Kunacheva, C., Harada, H., Shivakoti, B.R., and Okamoto, R., 2010. A comparative study of adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) onto granular activated carbon, ion-exchange polymers and non-ion-exchange polymers. Chemosphere, 80(6), pp. 647-651. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.053 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.053]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chinagarn_Kunacheva/publication/44672056_A_comparative_study_of_adsorption_of_perfluorooctane_sulfonate_PFOS_onto_granular_activated_carbon_ion-exchange_polymers_and_non-ion-exchange_polymers/links/5a3380510f7e9b2a288a2b21/A-comparative-study-of-adsorption-of-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-PFOS-onto-granular-activated-carbon-ion-exchange-polymers-and-non-ion-exchange-polymers.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Woodard2017">Woodard, S., Berry, J., and Newman, B., 2017. Ion exchange resin for PFAS removal and pilot test comparison to GAC. Remediation Journal, 27(3), pp. 19-27. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21515 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21515]</ref>. The higher capacity is believed to be due to combined hydrophobic and ion exchange adsorption mechanisms, whereas GAC mainly relies on hydrophobic attraction. Anion exchange resins can be highly selective, or they can also remove other contaminants based on design requirements and water chemistry. Resins have greater affinity for PFAS subgroup PFSA than for PFCA, and affinity increases with carbon chain length.
[[Wikipedia: Ion-exchange resin | Anion exchange resins]] are a viable alternative to GAC for ''ex situ'' treatment of PFAS anions, and several venders sell resins capable of removing PFAS. Resins available for treating PFAS include regenerable resins that can be used multiple times (Figure 3) and single-use resins that must be disposed or destroyed after use<ref name="Senevirathna2010" />. Regenerable resins generate a solvent and brine solution, which is distilled to recover the solvent prior to the brine being adsorbed onto a small quantity of GAC or resin for ultimate disposal. This use of one treatment technology (GAC, IX) to support another (RO) is sometimes referred to as a “treatment train” approach. Single-use resins can be more fully exhausted than regenerable resins can and may be a more cost-effective solution for low concentration PFAS contamination, while regenerable resins may be more cost effective for higher concentration contamination<onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>

==Developing PFAS Treatment Technologies==
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
|+Table 1. Developmental Technologies
|-
!Stage
!Separation/Transfer
!Destructive*
|-
|Developing
|
*Biochar<ref name="Guo2017">Guo, W., Huo, S., Feng, J., and Lu, X., 2017. Adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) on corn straw-derived biochar prepared at different pyrolytic temperatures. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 78, pp. 265-271. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2017.06.013 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtice.2017.06.013]</ref><ref name="Kupryianchyk2016">Kupryianchyk, D., Hale, S.E., Breedveld, G.D., and Cornelissen, G., 2016. Treatment of sites contaminated with perfluorinated compounds using biochar amendment. Chemosphere, 142, pp. 35-40. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.085 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.085]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarah_Hale3/publication/276067521_Treatment_of_sites_contaminated_with_perfluorinated_compounds_using_biochar_amendment/links/5cdbe03b299bf14d959895d9/Treatment-of-sites-contaminated-with-perfluorinated-compounds-using-biochar-amendment.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Inyang2017">Inyang, M., and Dickenson, E.R., 2017. The use of carbon adsorbents for the removal of perfluoroalkyl acids from potable reuse systems. Chemosphere, 184, pp. 168-175. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.161 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.161]</ref>
*Modified Zeolites<ref name="Espana2015">Espana, V.A.A., Mallavarapu, M., and Naidu, R., 2015. Treatment technologies for aqueous perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA): A critical review with an emphasis on field testing. Environmental Technology and Innovation, 4, pp. 168-181. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2015.06.001 DOI: 10.1016/j.eti.2015.06.001]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ravi_Naidu2/publication/341241612_Recent_advances_in_the_analysis_of_per-and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances_PFAS-A_review/links/5eb9e3d892851cd50dab441c/Recent-advances-in-the-analysis-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-PFAS-A-review.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="CETCO2019">CETCO, 2019. FLUORO-SORB® Adsorbent (product sales brochure). [https://www.mineralstech.com/docs/default-source/performance-materials-documents/cetco/environmental-products/brochures/ps_fluorosorb_am_en_201905_v1.pdf Free download]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4f/FluoroSorb2019.pdf Fluoro-Sorb.pdf]</ref>
*Specialty adsorbents<ref name="Zhang2011">Zhang, Q., Deng, S., Yu, G., and Huang, J., 2011. Removal of perfluorooctane sulfonate from aqueous solution by crosslinked chitosan beads: sorption kinetics and uptake mechanism. Bioresource Technology, 102(3), pp. 2265-2271. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.040 DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.040]</ref><ref name="Cao2016">Cao, F., Wang, L., Ren, X., and Sun, H., 2016. Synthesis of a perfluorooctanoic acid molecularly imprinted polymer for the selective removal of perfluorooctanoic acid in an aqueous environment. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 133(15). [https://doi.org/10.1002/app.43192 DOI: 10.1002/app.43192]</ref><ref name="Hu2016">Hu, L., Li, Y., and Zhang, W., 2016. Characterization and application of surface-molecular-imprinted-polymer modified TiO2 nanotubes for removal of perfluorinated chemicals. Water Science and Technology, 74(6), pp. 1417-1425. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.321 DOI: 10.2166/wst.2016.321]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/07/Hu2016.pdf Free access article.]</ref>
|
*Electro-oxidation<ref name="Zhang2016">Zhang, C., Tang, J., Peng, C., and Jin, M., 2016. Degradation of perfluorinated compounds in wastewater treatment plant effluents by electrochemical oxidation with Nano-ZnO coated electrodes. Journal of Molecular Liquids, 221, pp. 1145-1150. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2016.06.093 DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2016.06.093]</ref><ref name="Urtiaga2015">Urtiaga, A., Fernández-González, C., Gómez-Lavín, S., and Ortiz, I., 2015. Kinetics of the electrochemical mineralization of perfluorooctanoic acid on ultrananocrystalline boron doped conductive diamond electrodes. Chemosphere, 129, pp. 20-26. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.090]</ref><ref name="Schaefer2018">Schaefer, C.E., Choyke, S., Ferguson, P.L., Andaya, C., Burant, A., Maizel, A., Strathmann, T.J. and Higgins, C.P., 2018. Electrochemical Transformations of Perfluoroalkyl Acid (PFAA) Precursors and PFAAs in Groundwater Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(18), pp. 10689-10697. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02726 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02726]</ref>
*Heat activated persulfate<ref name="Park2016">Park, S., Lee, L.S., Medina, V. F., Zull, A., and Waisner, S., 2016. Heat-activated persulfate oxidation of PFOA, 6: 2 fluorotelomer sulfonate, and PFOS under conditions suitable for in-situ groundwater remediation. Chemosphere, 145, pp. 376-383. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.097 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.097]</ref>
*Alkaline peroxone<ref name="Lin2012">Lin, A.Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Chang, C.Y., Hong, P.A., and Hsueh, H.F., 2012. Removal of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate via ozonation under alkaline condition. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 243, pp. 272-277. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.10.029 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.10.029]</ref>
*Sonolysis<ref name="Campbell2015">Campbell, T., Hoffmann, M.R., 2015. Sonochemical degradation of perfluorinated surfactants: Power and multiple frequency effects. Separation and Purification Technology, 156(3), pp. 1019-1027. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.053 DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2015.09.053]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tammy_Campbell5/publication/282583363_Sonochemical_Degradation_of_Perfluorinated_Surfactants_Power_and_Multiple_Frequency_Effects/links/5bfc40bd92851cbcdd74449b/Sonochemical-Degradation-of-Perfluorinated-Surfactants-Power-and-Multiple-Frequency-Effects.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Cheng2010">Cheng, J., Vecitis, C.D., Park, H., Mader, B.T., Hoffmann, M.R., 2010. Sonochemical Degradation of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Groundwater: Kinetic Effects of Matrix Inorganics. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(1), pp. 445-450. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902651g DOI: 10.1021/es902651g]</ref><ref name="Gole2018a">Gole, V.L., Sierra-Alvarez, R., Peng, H., Giesy, J.P., Deymier, P., Keswani, M., 2018. Sono-chemical treatment of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl compounds in aqueous film-forming foams by use of a large-scale multi-transducer dual-frequency based acoustic reactor. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, 45, pp. 213-222. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.02.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.02.014]   [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1350417718301937 Open access article.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f0/Gole2018a.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Gole2018b">Gole, V.L., Fishgold, A., Sierra-Alvarez, R., Deymier, P., Keswani, M., 2018. Treatment of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) using a large-scale sonochemical reactor. Separation and Purification Technology, 194, pp. 104-110. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.009 DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2017.11.009]</ref>
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
|-
|Maturing and Demonstrated
|
*Chemical coagulation<ref name="Cornelsen2015">Cornelsen Ltd., 2015. PerfluorAd, PFC Water Treatment Solution (product sales site). [http://www.cornelsen.co.uk/perfluorad-pfc-treatment/ Website]</ref>
*Electrocoagulation<ref name="Wang2016">Wang, Y., Lin, H., Jin, F., Niu, J., Zhao, J., Bi, Y., and Li, Y., 2016. Electrocoagulation mechanism of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) on a zinc anode: Influence of cathodes and anions. Science of the Total Environment, 557, pp. 542-550. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.114 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.114]</ref>
*Foam fractionation<ref name="Horst2018">Horst, J., McDonough, J., Ross, I., Dickson, M., Miles, J., Hurst, J., and Storch, P., 2018. Water Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 38(2), pp. 13-23. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12281 DOI: 10.1111/gwmr.12281]</ref><ref name="EPC2017">EPC Media Group Pty Ltd., 2017. OPEC systems delivers PFAS contamination breakthrough. Waste + Water Management Australia, 44(3), 26-27. [https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.253699294687114 DOI: 10.3316/informit.253699294687114] ISSN: 1838-7098</ref>
|
*Low temperature plasma<ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp. 1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Singh2019">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Anderson, R.H., Richardson, S.D., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2019. Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds from Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) in a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(19), pp. 11375-11382. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02964 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02964]</ref>
|-
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" |* There are several other destructive technologies such as alternative oxidants, and activation methods of oxidants, but for the purpose of this article, the main categories are presented here.
|}
Numerous separation and destructive technologies are in the developmental stages of bench-scale testing or limited field-scale demonstrations. Some of these are listed in Table 1 and defined below.

*[[Wikipedia: Biochar |'''Biochar''']] is charcoal produced from cellulosic biomass by pyrolysis in an oxygen-free environment. Without additional chemical or physical treatment, biochar is not quite as effective at adsorbing some contaminants as granular activated carbon (GAC)<ref name="Guo2017" /><ref name="Kupryianchyk2016" /><ref name="Inyang2017" />. However, GAC is typically produced from high quality hardwood charcoal or coal while biochar can be made from locally available feedstocks or waste streams such as paper mill waste or agricultural waste. Biochar has a long history of agricultural use as a soil amendment.

*[[Wikipedia: Zeolite |'''Zeolites''']] are microporous, aluminosilicate minerals such as thomsonite and stilbite which can remove contaminants through adsorbent, molecular sieve, and/or ion exchange interactions. Some types of zeolites occur naturally but many more are synthetically produced for a wide variety of industrial uses.

*'''Specialty adsorbents''' such as cross-linked [[Wikipedia: Chitosan |chitosan]] beads may offer improved adsorption capacity or kinetics<ref name="Zhang2011" />, while bench-scale studies suggest TiO2 nanotubes can adsorb PFAS and subsequently serve as a photocatalyst for their destruction<ref name="Hu2016" />.

*'''Chemical coagulation''' refers to the addition of a chemical such as [[Wikipedia: Alum |alum]] or [[Wikipedia: Iron(III) chloride |ferric chloride]] to neutralize the unbalanced charges that would otherwise help keep heavy metal ions and colloidal solids in suspension through electrostatic repulsion. Once the electrostatic force is neutralized, particles begin to aggregate into flocs and settle out of suspension. Bench-scale studies suggest that 25% to 30% of the polar molecules perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) could be removed by using approximately twice the usual dose of traditional coagulants<ref name="Xiao2013">Xiao, F., Simcik, M.F., Gulliver, J.S., 2013. Mechanisms for removal of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) from drinking water by conventional and enhanced coagulation. Water Research, 47(1), pp. 49-56. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.09.024 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.09.024] Free download available from [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Washim_Akram/post/Any-work-done-of-removal-of-low-levels-of-PFOS-from-drinking-water-using-RO-membranes/attachment/5cb372273843b01b9b99f950/AS%3A747645723242497%401555264039487/download/xiao2013.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. Initial treatment of higher concentrations of polar PFAS by coagulation may prove useful to reduce loading on subsequent removal processes such as activated carbon adsorption or anion exchange which can achieve much lower effluent PFAS concentrations.

*'''Electrocoagulation''' neutralizes electrostatic repulsion using DC power rather than chemical coagulants. As current passes between submerged electrodes, metal ions are released from the sacrificial anode that counter the unbalanced charges of very small particles in suspension which can then coagulate into flocs. Some contaminants are captured in the flocs, while others may be removed by ionization, hydrolysis, or attack by free radicals as they move through the applied electric field<ref name="Wang2016" />.

*'''Foam fractionation''' is used to separate surface active agents (i.e. [[Wikipedia: Surfactant |surfactants]]) and hydrophobic particles from water. Many PFAS have been valued commercially and industrially because of their surfactant or hydrophobic properties. In this technique, small air bubbles are introduced at the bottom of a narrow column of contaminated water. As the bubbles rise through the column, surfactants and hydrophobic materials partition to the air/water interface of the bubbles. As these materials accumulate at the interfaces, a PFAS-rich foam develops which accumulates at the top of the column where it can be easily removed and further processed or disposed<ref name="Horst2018" /><ref name="EPC2017" />.

*'''Electro-oxidation''' relies on submerged electrodes but uses greater current densities than electrocoagulation with the goal of producing highly reactive [[Wikipedia: Hydroxyl radical |hydroxyl radicals]] (*OH) at the anode surface to destroy PFAS and many other contaminants. A wide variety of anode materials have been studied at the bench scale, each with different PFAS removal efficiencies and durabilities<ref name="Zhang2016" /><ref name="Urtiaga2015" /><ref name="Schaefer2018" />. Very low salinity waters may require addition of salts to have sufficient ion concentrations to support the electrolytic reaction.

*'''Heat activated [[Wikipedia: Persulfate |persulfate]]''' has a long history of use to oxidize a variety of organic contaminants in soil. A bench scale feasibility study simulating ''in situ'' treatment of PFAS impacted groundwater found that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was oxidized within 72 hours at 50°C and that the rate of oxidation increased with temperature. However, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) was reportedly unaffected by this treatment<ref name="Park2016" />.

*'''Alkaline peroxone''' treatment has been used to remove PFOA and PFOS from electronics fabrication industry wastewater in Taiwan. Degradation rates of 85% to 100% were reported using peroxone, a combination of ozone (O3) and peroxide (H2O2), with pH elevated to 11. Best results were obtained by ozonating for 15 minutes followed by pH adjustment and 4 more hours of ozonation<ref name="Lin2012" />.

*'''Sonolysis''' of PFAS is believed to occur primarily at the vapor/water interface of cavitation bubbles caused by application of sonic energy to the contaminated water. Higher degradation rates have been reported for the more hydrophobic PFAS which are more likely to partition to the bubble interface. Degradation rates also increase with applied sonic power density. The presence of other organic or inorganic constituents in the water being treated may drastically reduce the rate of PFOS and PFOA destruction. Sonolysis of PFAS may be most effective at pH of 3 to 4 and when using two frequencies of sonic input simultaneously in a single reactor<ref name="Campbell2015" /><ref name="Cheng2010" /><ref name="Gole2018a" />.

*'''[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]''' takes advantage of the unique properties of water in the supercritical phase (temperature ≥ 374°C and pressure ≥ 218 atm) which acts like a dense non-polar solvent with the transport qualities of a gas. Because oxygen is fully miscible in supercritical water, organic contaminants can be fully oxidized quickly. The oxidation of organics is an exothermic reaction, and the released heat energy can be harnessed to make a SCWO system self-sustaining after startup, if the influent waste stream is sufficiently concentrated.

*When a normally neutral and non-conductive fluid is heated sufficiently or subjected to a strong enough electromagnetic field, some electrons are stripped from their nucleus creating a highly charged and electrically conductive gas of ions and free electrons known as a [[Wikipedia: Plasma (physics) |plasma]]. '''Low temperature plasma''' treatment relies on a continuous electric discharge (i.e. spark) to create a localized plasma that contaminated water can be circulated through to destroy many organic compounds. One bench scale study reported removing 90% of PFOA after 30 minutes of plasma treatment<ref name="Stratton2017" />. In another study, a pilot scale plasma reactor treating moderately to highly PFAS-impacted water samples reportedly reduced PFOS and PFOA concentrations to below the US EPA’s health advisory limits (HALs) in two thirds of the samples with less than one minute of treatment. The most contaminated samples and the most conductive samples required up to 50 minutes of treatment<ref name="Singh2019" />.

==Conclusions==
The well established processes for removing PFAS from water all produce residuals that require management, and it is likely that newer processes under development will also produce some residuals. Often, it is the residuals that limit the usefulness of the process. For instance, RO and NF may currently provide the most complete treatment of water, but the production of a relatively high volume of PFAS-containing liquid reject (the portion of the liquid that retains the contaminants and is “rejected” from the process) limits their application. Often, a second treatment technology such as an adsorbent is required to support the main technology by concentrating or treating the residuals.

As more testing and operational data on adsorbents are generated, it is becoming evident that no adsorbent technology outperforms the others in all cases. Whether GAC, ion exchange or another technology is the most technically efficient and cost effective long term option for a given site depends on influent water geochemistry and contaminant concentrations, treatment standards, co-contaminants, duration of treatment, and required flow rates. New generation adsorbents are rapidly being introduced into the market at “evaluation scale” which may provide advantages over commercially available adsorbents.

<onlyinclude>Several newer technologies are being evaluated in the lab and in the field which include electro-oxidation, heat-activated persulfate, sonolysis, electrocoagulation, low temperature plasma, supercritical water oxidation, and foam fractionation. These and other potential treatments for PFAS are still largely in the developmental stage. Several technologies show promise for improved management of PFAS sites. However, it is unlikely that a single technology will be adequate for full remediation at many sites. A multi-technology treatment train approach may be necessary for effective treatment of this complicated group of compounds.</onlyinclude>
 

==References==

<references />

==See Also==

Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

2026-03-02T19:36:17Z

Admin:

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of man-made chemicals suspected to cause adverse human and ecological health effects. The acronym “PFAS” encompasses thousands of individual compounds. The two most studied and regulated are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, have entered the environment from a variety of sources and release scenarios, including releases from manufacturing facilities and areas where aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a type of fire-fighting foam, was applied. Many PFAS have unique physical and chemical properties that render them highly stable and resistant to degradation in the environment. They are typically removed from water supplies using granular activated carbon or ion exchange resins, although research is ongoing to develop ''in situ'' treatment technologies as well as more cost-effective ''ex situ'' treatment methods.

<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal]]
*[[Soil & Groundwater Contaminants]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]
*[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Rula Deeb]], [[Dr. Jennifer Field]], Dr. Lydia Dorrance, [[Elisabeth Hawley]] and [[Dr. Christopher Higgins]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2a/USEPA-2014-Emerging_Contaminants_-_PFOS_and_PFOA_Fact_Sheet.pdf U.S. EPA Emerging Contaminants - PFOS and PFOA Fact Sheet]<ref name="USEPA2014">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Emerging Contaminants Fact Sheet – Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). EPA 505-F-14-001. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2a/USEPA-2014-Emerging_Contaminants_-_PFOS_and_PFOA_Fact_Sheet.pdf March Fact Sheet]</ref>
*[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-12/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants_pfos_pfoa_11-20-17_508_0.pdf Technical Fact Sheet: Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)<ref name="USEPA2017">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Technical Fact Sheet: Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). EPA 505-F-17-001.</ref>].

==Introduction==
PFAS were first developed in the 1940s and have been used by numerous industrial and commercial sectors for products that benefited from PFAS’ unique properties, including thermal and chemical stability, water resistance, stain resistance, and their [[wikipedia: Surfactant |surfactant]] nature. Awareness of PFAS in the environment first emerged in the late 1990s following developments in analytical instrumentation which enhanced detection of ionized substances such as PFAS<ref>Hansen, K.J., L.A. Clemen, M.E. Ellefson and H.O. Johnson, 2001. Compound-Specific, Quantitative Characterization of Organic Fluorochemicals in Biological Matrices. Environmental Science and Technology 35(4):766-770.</ref>. This environmental awareness was generally concurrent to increased scrutiny into the health effects of PFAS<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Risk Management for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) under TSCA. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/risk-management-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfass</ref>. In 2000, the sole U.S. manufacturer of PFOS voluntarily discontinued production<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. EPA and 3M announce phase out of PFOS. News release dated Tuesday May 16. [https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/33aa946e6cb11f35852568e1005246b4 U.S. EPA PFOS Phase Out Announcement]</ref>. Shortly thereafter, legal actions were taken against PFAS product manufacturing facilities in the Ohio River Valley in West Virginia<ref>Rich, N., 2016. The lawyer who became DuPont’s worst nightmare. The New York Times Magazine.</ref>. Between 2006 and 2015, in cooperation with the EPA, eight global companies with PFAS-related operations voluntarily phased out the manufacture of PFOA and similarly structured PFAS with longer carbon chains<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program</ref>. In 2011, recognizing the potential impact of PFAS for the Department of Defense due to the military’s ubiquitous use of PFAS-containing AFFF, SERDP/ESTCP research programs began funding PFAS-related research, and the U.S. Air Force began conducting initial site investigations at former fire-fighting training areas<ref>SERDP/ESTCP website on Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs). https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Featured-Initiatives/Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl-Substances-PFASs</ref>. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued provisional drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in 2009 and replaced these with more stringent health advisories in 2016<ref name="USEPA2016">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016. Drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS. [https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos U.S. EPA Water Health Advisories - PFOA and PFOS]</ref>. Over the past five years, regulating agencies in several states have issued screening levels, notification levels, and health-based guidelines for PFOS, PFOA and other PFAS. Several states have undertaken statewide sampling programs of drinking water systems and groundwater resources in the vicinity of potential source areas including manufacturing facilities, military fire-training facilities, airports, refineries, and landfills<ref>California State Water Resources Control Board, 2019. PFAS Phased Investigation Approach. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/pfas/docs/7_investigation_plan.pdf</ref><ref>Michigan, 2019. PFAS response. Taking Action, Protecting Michigan. Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART).</ref>.

==Nomenclature==
[[File:PFASupdate2019Fig1.png | thumbnail | left | 700 px |Figure 1. PFAS families of compounds<ref name="OECD2015">Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2015. Working Towards a Global Emission Inventory of PFASs: Focus on PFCAs – Status Quo and the Way Forward. Paris: Environment, Health and Safety, Environmental Directorate, OECD/UNEP Global PFC Group.</ref>]]
[[File:Deeb-Article 1-Figure 1.JPG|thumbnail|right|400 px|Figure 2. a) Structure of a perfluoroalkyl substance, PFOS, compared with b) the structure of a polyfluoroalkyl substance, 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTSA).]]
[[File:PFAS_naming_red.mp4 | thumb | right | 400px | Figure 3. PFAS naming conventions explained.]]
There are over 3,000 PFAS currently on the global market. A summary of families of compounds that are included in the umbrella terminology “PFAS” is provided in Figure 1<ref name="OECD2015" />. Perfluoroalkyl compounds have a non-polar hydrophobic carbon (alkyl) chain structure that is fully saturated with fluorine atoms (i.e., they are perfluoroalkyl substances) attached to a hydrophilic polar functional group. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds have a similar structure but have at least one carbon that is bound to hydrogen rather than fluorine (Figure 2). Carbon chains may be linear or branched, leading to a variety of isomers. The term PFAS also includes fluoropolymers that may consist of thousands of shorter-chain units bonded together<ref name="ITRC2018">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2018. Naming Conventions and Physical and Chemical Properties of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/pfas_fact_sheet_naming_conventions__3_16_18.pdf</ref>.

One of the most studied and regulated families of perfluoroalkyl compounds are the perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), which include perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs). PFOA, a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid, and PFOS, a perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid, are both PFAAs with eight carbons. Other PFCAs with the number of carbons ranging from nine to four include perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). PFAAs are sometimes differentiated as “long-chain” or “short-chain.” The term “long-chain” refers to PFCAs with eight or more carbons and PFSAs with six or more carbons. The term “short-chain” refers to PFCAs with seven or fewer carbons and PFSAs with five or fewer carbons<ref name="ITRC2018" />.The PFAS naming conventions are explained in more detail in the video shown in Figure 3.

==Physical and Chemical Properties==
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"
|+Table 1. Physical and Chemical Properties of PFOS and PFOA.<ref name="USEPA2014" /><ref name="USEPA2017" /><ref name="ITRC2018b">Interstate Technology Regulatory Council, 2018. PFAS Fact Sheets: Environmental Fate and Transport, Table 3-1. https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ITRCPFASFactSheetFTPartitionTable3-1April18.xlsx</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2018. ToxGuideTM for Perfluoroalkyls. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-200.pdf </ref>
|-
!Property
!PFOS (Free Acid)
!PFOA (Free Acid)
|-
|Chemical Abstracts Service Number||1763-23-1||335-67-1
|-
|Physical State (at 25° C and 1 atmosphere pressure)||White powder||White powder/waxy white solid
|-
|Molecular weight (g/mol)||500||414
|-
|Water solubility at 25° C (mg/L)||570''a''||9,500''a''
|-
|Melting point (°C)||No data||45 to 54
|-
|Boiling point (°C)||258 to 260||188 to 192
|-
|Vapor pressure at 20° C (mm Hg)||0.002||0.525 to 10
|-
|Organic-carbon partition coefficient (log ''Koc'')||2.4 to 3.7||1.89 to 2.63
|-
|Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/mol)||Not measurable||3.57x10-6
|-
|Half-life||Atmospheric: 114 days Water: >41 years (at 25° C) Human: 3.1 to 7.4 years||Atmospheric: 90 days''b'' Water: >92 years (at 25° C) Human: 2.1 to 8.5 years
|-
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" |Abbreviations: g/mol = grams per mole; mg/L = milligrams per liter; °C = degrees Celsius; mm Hg = millimeters of mercury; atm-m3/mol = atmosphere-cubic meters per mole
|-
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" |Notes: ''a'' Solubility in purified water. ''b'' The atmospheric half-life value for PFOA was extrapolated from available data measured over short study periods.
|}

The combination of the polar and non-polar structure makes PFAAs “amphiphilic,” associating with both water and oils, while the strength of their [[wikipedia: Carbon-fluorine bond |carbon-fluorine bonds]] lends them extremely high chemical and thermal stabilities. In most groundwater and surface water environments, PFAAs are found as the water-soluble anionic (i.e. deprotonated, negatively charged) form. Other groups of PFAS can be cationic (positively charged) or zwitterionic (possessing both a positive and negative charge) under typical environmental conditions. In general, documented physical properties of PFAS are scarce, and much that is available for PFAAs is related to the acid forms of the compounds, which are not typically found in the environment<ref name="ITRC2018" />. The surfactant properties of PFAAs complicate the prediction of their physiochemical properties, such as vapor pressure and partitioning coefficients. Some relevant properties of PFOS and PFOA are summarized in Table 1. A summary of the general characteristics of PFAS has been compiled in Table 6-2 of the [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/pfas_fact_sheet_naming_conventions__3_16_18.pdf ITRC fact sheet on PFAS naming conventions and physical and chemical properties]<ref name="ITRC2018" />.

==Environmental Concern==
Environmental concern surrounding PFAS stems from their widespread detection, high degree of environmental stability and mobility, and suspected toxicological effects on humans and the environment. Perfluorinated compounds, including PFAAs, are very stable and do not biodegrade. As a result, these compounds are found throughout the global environment. Trace amounts of perfluorinated compounds have been detected at remote locations like the Arctic, far from potential point sources<ref>Young, C.J., Furdui, V.I., Franklin, J., Koerner, R.M., Muir, D.C. and Mabury, S.A., 2007. Perfluorinated acids in arctic snow: new evidence for atmospheric formation. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(10), 3455-3461. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0626234 doi: 10.1021/es0626234]</ref>. Other studies have shown that some long-chain perfluorinated substances bioaccumulate and biomagnify in wildlife<ref>Conder, J.M., Hoke, R.A., Wolf, W.D., Russell, M.H. and Buck, R.C., 2008. Are PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and comparison with regulatory criteria and persistent lipophilic compounds. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 995-1003. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es070895g doi: 10.1021/es070895g]</ref>. Because of this, higher trophic wildlife including fish and birds, and humans who consume them, can be particularly susceptible to any deleterious health effects posed by PFAS<ref>Sinclair, E., Mayack, D.T., Roblee, K., Yamashita, N. and Kannan, K., 2006. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in water, fish, and birds from New York State. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 50(3), pp.398-410. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00244-005-1188-z doi: 10.1007/s00244-005-1188-z]</ref>. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment calculated a maximum permissible concentration for PFOS of 0.65 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for fresh water, based on human consumption of fish<ref name="USEPA2014" />. Recent fish and wildlife consumption advisories have been issued at certain locations in the United States associated with PFAS contamination<ref>Minnesota Department of Health, 2018. Media FAQ: Fish Consumption Advisory, PFOS and Lake Elmo Fish 2018. https://www.co.washington.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/20895/FAQ-2018-Fish-Consumption-Advisory-NR </ref><ref>State of Michigan, PFAS Response, Taking Action, Protecting Michigan, 2019. https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse/0,9038,7-365-86512_88981_88982---,00.html </ref>.

Like other aspects of PFAS research, information on the toxicological effects of PFAS on humans is still emerging. PFOA and PFOS have half-lives of 2.1-8.5 years and 3.1-7.4 years, respectively, in humans<ref name="ATSDR2018" />. PFAS typically accumulate in the liver, proteins, and the blood stream<ref name="USEPA2017" />. Toxicological and epidemiological studies of PFOA, PFOS and other PFAAs indicate potential association with a constellation of ailments including decreased fertility, increased cholesterol, suppression of response to vaccines, and certain cancers<ref name="ATSDR2018" /><ref>C8 Science Panel, 2012. C8 Probable Link Reports. http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/prob_link.html </ref>. Both PFOA and PFOS are suspected carcinogens, but their carcinogenicity remains to be classified by the U.S. EPA<ref name="USEPA2017" />. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as a Group 2B carcinogen, i.e., possibly carcinogenic to humans<ref>Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Lauby-Secretan, B. Loomis, D., Guyton, K.Z., Grosse, Y., Bouvard, F. El Ghissassi, V., Guha, N., Mattock, H., Straif, K., 2014. Carcinogenicity of perfluorooctanoic acid, tetrafluoroethylene, dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, and 1,3-propane sultone. The Lancet Oncology, 15 (9), 924-925. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70316-x doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70316-X]</ref><ref>International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2016. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Lists of Classifications, Volumes 1 to 116. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/fd/IARC-2016-Monographs_on_the_eval_of_carcinogenic_risks_to_humans_List_of_Classifications.pdf List of Classifications.pdf]</ref>. The U.S. EPA published draft oral reference doses of 20 ng/kg-day for both PFOA and PFOS (based on non-cancer hazard)<ref name="USEPA2017" />. Drinking water ingestion, fish consumption, dermal contact with water, and (accidental) ingestion of or contact with contaminated soil are the exposure pathways of concern with respect to human health.

==Uses and Potential Sources to the Environment==
Due to their unique properties, including surfactant qualities, heat and stain resistance, and [[wikipedia: Amphiphile |amphiphilic]] nature, PFAS are used widely by a number of industries, including carpet, textile and leather production, chromium plating, photography, [[wikipedia: Photolithography |photolithography]], paper products, semi-conductor manufacturing, coating additives, and cleaning products<ref name="ITRC2017">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2017. History and Use of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/pfas_fact_sheet_history_and_use__11_13_17.pdf </ref><ref>Krafft, M.P. and Riess, J.G., 2015. Selected physicochemical aspects of poly-and perfluoroalkylated substances relevant to performance, environment and sustainability - Part one. Chemosphere, 129, 4-19. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039]</ref>. Sources to the environment include primary manufacturing facilities, where PFAS is produced, and secondary manufacturing facilities, where PFAS is incorporated into products. PFAS are found in a variety of consumer products including food paper and packaging, furnishings, waterproof clothing, and cosmetics<ref name="BirnbaumGrandjean2015">Birnbaum, L.S. and Grandjean, P., 2015. Alternatives to PFAS: Perspectives on the Science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(5), A104-A105. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509944 doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509944]</ref>. The presence of PFAS in consumer products has created an urban background concentration in stormwater, wastewater treatment plant influent<ref>Houtz, E.F., 2013. Oxidative measurement of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors: Implications for urban runoff management and remediation of AFFF-contaminated groundwater and soil. Ph.D. Dissertation. Available online at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4jq0v5qp</ref>, and landfill leachate<ref>Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Peaslee, G.F., Field, J.A. and Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Release of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Carpet and Clothing in Model Anaerobic Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(10), 5024-5032. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06237 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06237]</ref>.

An additional widely documented source of PFAS is AFFF. AFFF is as a Class B firefighting foam used to combat flammable liquid fires. AFFF was released in large quantities at firefighting training areas as part of routine handling, fire-suppression training and equipment testing, and during fire emergency responses. While all AFFF contains PFAS<ref>Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2018. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF). https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/pfas-fact-sheet-afff-10-3-18.pdf </ref>, the types and concentrations of PFAS in AFFF vary among manufacturers and manufacturing time periods. 3M AFFF products were made using an [[wikipedia: Electrochemical fluorination |electrochemical fluorination]] process that produced a high percentage of PFAS as PFOS, while other formulations were made using a [[wikipedia: Teolmerization |telomerization]] process and contain a different suite of PFAS.

==Regulation==
The U.S. EPA recently developed Drinking Water Health Advisory levels for PFOA and PFOS, replacing previously published provisional values<ref name="USEPA2016" />. However, no Federal enforceable drinking water standards have been set. Recent years have seen increased regulatory activity at the state level, with around 20 states having guidance or advisory levels for one or more PFAS compounds in various environmental media (drinking water, groundwater, etc.). New Jersey is the first state to have promulgated an enforceable maximum concentration level (MCL) for a PFAS by setting an MCL for PFNA in 2018. Several other states, particularly in the eastern United States, are moving towards setting MCLs for various PFAS. Regulatory levels set or proposed by states vary but the majority are equivalent to or lower than the Federal Health Advisory level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) combined concentration of PFOA and PFOS. The regulatory landscape for PFAS is developing rapidly. A regularly updated repository of [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/ regulatory levels] is maintained by the ITRC (Figure 4). [[File:ITRCfactSheetPFAS.png |thumb|left|400px| link=https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/ | [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/fact-sheets/ Figure 4. ITRC PFAS Fact Sheets: 1. Naming Conventions and Physical and Chemical Properties, 2. Regulations, Guidance, and Advisories, 3. History and Use, 4. Environmental Fate and Transport, 5. Site Characterization Tools, Sampling Techniques, and Laboratory Analytical Methods, and 6. Remediation Technologies and Methods.]]]

Other regulatory actions have restricted the use and production of PFAS. PFOS was added to list of chemicals under the [[wikipedia: Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants |Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants]] in 2009. Nearly all use of PFOS is therefore banned in Europe, with some exemptions. Substances or mixtures may not contain PFOS above 0.001% by weight (EU 757/2010). In the U.S., because PFOS manufacturing was voluntarily phased out in 2002, AFFF containing PFOS is no longer manufactured. The U.S. military and others still have large quantities of stockpiled AFFF containing PFOS, although its use is discouraged<ref>Darwin, R.L., 2011. Estimated Inventory of PFOS-based Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). July. https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC13FU-SUBM-PFOA-FFFC-3-20180112.En.pdf </ref><ref>Department of Defense, 2018. Alternatives to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Report to Congress, June. https://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/home/documents/alternatives-to-aqueous-film-forming-foam-report-to-congress/ </ref>.

==Litigation==
There have been many lawsuits filed with PFAS-related claims; some resulting in settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In 2017 DuPont and Chemours paid nearly $700 million to settle 3,550 individual lawsuits claiming personal injury as a result of PFOA releases from DuPont’s former Washington Works manufacturing facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia. This settlement was reached after three of the lawsuits went to trial resulting in nearly $20 million in jury awards to the plaintiffs<ref>Reisch, M.S. “DuPont, Chemours settle PFOA suits” Chem. & Eng. News, Feb. 20, 2017. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i8/DuPont-Chemours-settle-PFOA-suits.html </ref>. In 2018, 3M agreed to pay $850 million to settle a $5 billion natural resource damages claim related to PFAS impacts brought by Minnesota’s Attorney General<ref>Bellon, T. 3M, Minnesota settle water pollution claims for $850 million, Reuters, Feb. 20, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-3m-pollution-minnesota/3m-minnesota-settle-water-pollution-claims-for-850-million-idUSKCN1G42UW </ref>. In early 2019, numerous product liability lawsuits against former manufacturers of PFOS and PFOA and manufacturers of AFFF were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL) pending before the U.S District Court of South Carolina<ref>United States District Court of South Carolina. Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2873. https://www.scd.uscourts.gov/mdl-2873/ </ref>. Numerous additional PFAS-related lawsuits have been brought under common law tort, personal injury, product liability and natural resource protection laws across the United States. The proposed designation of PFAS as a hazardous substance under [[wikipedia: Superfund |CERCLA]]<ref>Congressional Research Service, 2019. Regulating Drinking Water Contaminants: EPA PFAS Actions. August. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11219.pdf </ref> may have additional legal implications.

==Sampling and Analytical Methods==
Because of the presence of PFAS in many common consumer items and sampling materials, and the low reporting levels needed to compare to current regulatory guidelines, sampling for PFAS requires extra care to avoid cross contamination from other potential sources of PFAS. Most standard operating procedures and work plans advise avoiding the use of fluoropolymer-based (e.g., Teflon) components and recommend additional precautions related to sample containers, sampler clothing and handling of certain every-day items.

Commercial laboratories analyze PFAS in drinking water samples using the EPA-approved method 537.1, which consists of [[wikipedia: Solid phase extraction |solid phase extraction]] and [[wikipedia: Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry |liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry]]<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. Method 537.1 Determination of Selected Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). August. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryId=343042&Lab=NERL </ref>. Samples collected from any environmental media other than drinking water require a modified version of 537.1 to quantify approximately 24 individual PFAS compounds. An EPA method for some of these other media, Method 8327, was released for public comment in summer 2019<ref>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. SW-486 Update VII Announcements, Phase II – PFAS 8372 and 3512, July. https://www.epa.gov/hw-sw846/sw-846-update-vii-announcements </ref>. Some commercial laboratories can extend the target analyte list to include up to 40 compounds. Some commercial laboratories also offer an analytical method known as the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay]], which provides a bulk measurement of PFAS mass in a sample, including that of oxidizable precursors<ref>Houtz, E.F., and Sedlak, D.L., 2012. Oxidative conversion as a means of detecting precursors to perfluoroalkyl acids in urban runoff. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(17), 9342-9349. doi/10.1021/es302274g </ref><ref>Houtz, E.F., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A. and Sedlak, D.L., 2013. Persistence of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors in AFFF-impacted groundwater and soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(15), 8187-8195. doi: 10.1021/es4018877 </ref>. Other approaches to quantify the total amount of organic fluorine in water samples include [[wikipedia: Particle-induced gamma emission |particle induced gamma-ray emission]] (PIGE) and absorbable organic fluorine (AOF)<ref name="BirnbaumGrandjean2015" />.

==Fate and Transport==
The processes of [[wikipedia: Sorption |sorption]] and biotransformation as well as the presence of co-contaminants can affect the fate and transport of PFAS. It has been observed that PFAAs exhibit affinity for solid-phase organic carbon to varying degrees depending in part on chain length and structure, with long-chain compounds exhibiting a stronger affinity than short-chain and PFSAs exhibiting a stronger affinity than PFCAs for a given chain length<ref>Higgins, C.P., and Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of perfluorinated surfactants on sediments. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(23), 7251-7256. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es061000n doi: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref>. Interactions with mineral phases, particularly ferric oxide materials, may also be important under certain conditions<ref name="Ferrey2012">Ferrey, M.L., Wilson, J.T., Adair, C., Su, C., Fine, D.D., Liu, X. and Washington, J.W., 2012. Behavior and fate of PFOA and PFOS in sandy aquifer sediment. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 32(4), 63-71. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01395.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01395.x]</ref><ref>Johnson, R.L., Anschutz, A.J., Smolen, J.M., Simcik, M.F. and Penn, R.L., 2007. The adsorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate onto sand, clay, and iron oxide surfaces. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 52(4), 1165-1170. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je060285g doi: 10.1021/je060285g]</ref>. At present, empirical site-specific sorption estimates are recommended to accurately predict PFAS mobility<ref name="Ferrey2012" />. PFAAs do not readily degrade in the environment. However, polyfluorinated forms may biotically or abiotically degrade to other intermediate forms and/or so-called “terminal,” recalcitrant PFAA forms, including PFOA and PFOS<ref name="Tseng2014">Tseng, N., Wang, N., Szostek, B. and Mahendra, S., 2014. Biotransformation of 6: 2 fluorotelomer alcohol (6: 2 FTOH) by a wood-rotting fungus. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(7), 4012-4020. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4057483 doi:10.1021/es4057483]</ref><ref>Harding-Marjanovic, K.C., Houtz, E.F., Yi, S., Field, J.A., Sedlak, D.L. and Alvarez-Cohen, L., 2015. Aerobic biotransformation of fluorotelomer thioether amido sulfonate (Lodyne) in AFFF-amended microcosms. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(13), pp.7666-7674. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01219 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01219]</ref><ref>Ellis, D.A., Martin, J.W., De Silva, A.O., Marbury, S.A., Hurley, M.D., Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., and T.J. Wallington, 2004. Degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols: a likely atmospheric source of perfluoronated carboxylic acids. Environmental Science & Technology 38(12), 3316-3321. doi/10.1021/es049860w </ref>. As a result, these degradable PFAS are sometimes referred as PFAA “precursors.” Remediation of co-contaminants, particularly using techniques involving oxidation, can enhance the degradation of precursors. Interactions between PFAS and non-aqueous phase liquids can retard PFAS migration<ref>Guelfo, J. 2013. Subsurface fate and transport of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Colorado School of Mines. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d8/Guelfo-2013-Subsuface_fate_and_transport_of_Poly-and_perfluoroalkyl_substances.pdf Thesis]</ref>

==Remediation Technologies==
Due to the chemical and thermal stability of PFAS and the complexity of PFAS mixtures, soil and groundwater remediation is challenging and costly. Research is still ongoing to develop effective remedial strategies. Treatment options for soil include 1) treatment and/or direct on-site reuse, 2) temporary on-site storage, and 3) off-site disposal to a soil processing or treatment facility, licensed landfill, or incinerator. For groundwater, management options include the following: 1) ''in situ'' treatment, 2) ''ex situ'' treatment and/or reuse, aquifer reinjection, or discharge to surface water, stormwater, or sewer, 3) temporary on-site storage, and 4) off-site disposal to a hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. The most common remediation approach is to use pump-and-treat with [[wikipedia: Activated carbon |granular activated carbon]] followed by off-site incineration of the spent activated carbon. This technology has been used for years at full scale<ref name="Appleman2014">Appleman, T.D., Higgins, C.P., Quinones, 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, 246-255. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.067 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.067]</ref>. However, granular activated carbon has a relatively low capacity for PFAS particularly when shorter-chain compounds are present. Sorption capacity improvement tests have been conducted on various forms of granular and powdered activated carbon, [[wikipedia: Ion-exchange resin |ion exchange resins]], and other sorbent materials as well as mixtures of clay, powdered activated carbon, and other sorbents<ref>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, 443-454. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038]</ref>. Other methods for ''ex situ'' PFAS removal include high-pressure membrane treatment using [[wikipedia: Nanofiltration |nanofiltration]] or [[wikipedia: Reverse osmosis |reverse osmosis]]<ref name="Appleman2014" /><ref>Department of the Navy (DON). 2015. Interim perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) guidance/frequently asked questions. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b1/Dept_of_Navy-_2015-Interim_Perfluorinated_Compounds_Frequently_asked_questions.pdf FAQs]</ref><ref>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 & Technology, 42 (14), 5292–5297. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es703207s doi: 10.1021/es703207s]</ref>. Research into other PFAS treatment technologies, including ''in situ'' barriers (sequestration), biological treatment<ref>Huang, Shan and Jaffe, Peter R., 2019. Defluorination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) by ''Acidimicrobium'' sp. Strain A6. Environmental Science and Technology, 53, pp 11410-11419. DOI:10.1021/acs.est.9b04047 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.9b04047 </ref>, [[wikipedia: Advanced oxidation process |advanced oxidation processes]] and [[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR) |''in situ'' chemical reduction]] is ongoing.

==Summary==
PFAS are ubiquitous in a variety of industrial and commercial products, have been detected in many environmental media, pose potential risks to human and environmental health, and present challenges with respect to remediation. They are highly stable and mobile in the environment, may bioaccumulate and biomagnify in wildlife, and are the subject of litigation and regulatory actions at the local, state and Federal level. Health-based drinking water advisory levels are low, i.e., ng/L concentrations. As awareness of PFAS grows and regulatory criteria progress, site managers are conducting site investigations, improving analytical techniques, and designing and operating remediation systems. Current research, including that funded by SERDP/ESTCP, aims to demonstrate effective treatment technologies for PFAS and improve technology cost-effectiveness.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2423. In situ treatment train for remediation of perfluoroalkyl contaminated groundwater: In situ chemical oxidation of sorbed contaminants (ISCO-SC). SERDP/ESTCP Project ER-2423]
*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2426/ER-2426/(language)/eng-US. Quantification of In Situ Chemical Reductive Defluorination (ISCRD) of perfluoroalkyl acids in groundwater impacted by AFFFs. SERDP/ESTCP Project ER-2426]
*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2422/ER-2422/(language)/eng-US. Bioaugmentation with vaults: Novel In Situ Remediation Strategy for Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Compounds. SERDP/ESTCP Project ER-2422]
*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2424/ER-2424/(language)/eng-US. Investigating Electrocatalytic and Catalytic Approaches for In Situ Treatment of Perfluoroalkyl Contaminants in Groundwater. SERDP/ESTCP project ER-2424]
*[https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER-2425/ER-2425/(language)/eng-US. Development of a Novel Approach for In Situ Remediation of Pfc Contaminated Groundwater Systems. SERDP/ESTCP project ER-2425]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/d8fdde05-10b6-43d4-a4d3-2a1a60329392/pfas-podcast-series-serdp-and-estcp-research-and-demonstrations PFAS Podcast Series: SERDP and ESTCP Research and Demonstrations. SERDP/ESTCP project ER23-7692]

Main Page

2026-03-02T19:35:48Z

Admin:

<center>
{| class="MainPageBG" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; border-spacing:0px;"
|-
| style="width:55%;" |<center><big>Welcome to '''ENVIRO''' '''Wiki'''</big> Peer Reviewed. Accessible. Written By Experts</center>
| style="width:40%;" |<center> ''Developed and brought to you by '' [[File:MainLogo-serdp-estcp.png|link=https://www.serdp-estcp.org |frameless|center|350px]]''Your Environmental Information Gateway''
</center>
|-
| The goal of ENVIRO Wiki is to make scientific and engineering research results more accessible to environmental professionals, facilitating the permitting, design and implementation of environmental projects. Articles are written and edited by invited experts (see [[Contributors]]) to summarize current knowledge for the target audience on an array of topics, with cross-linked references to reports and technical literature. 
|<center> [[#Table of Contents|See Table of Contents]]
</center>
<inputbox> type=fulltext
placeholder=Search Enviro Wiki
break=no </inputbox>
|}
</center>

{| role="presentation" id="mp-upper" style="margin: auto; width: 95%; margin-top:3px; border-spacing: 0px; "

| id="mp-left" class="MainPageBG" style="width:55%; padding:0; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;"> Featured article: Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil</h2>
<div id="mp-tfa" style="padding:0.0em 1.0em;">[[File:HeronFig3.png|400px|left|link=Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]<dailyfeaturedpage></dailyfeaturedpage>  

[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment|(Full article...)]] </div>

| style="border:1px solid transparent;" |


| id="mp-right" class="MainPageBG" style="width:40%; padding:0; horizontal-align:center; vertical-align:top;" |
<h2 id="mp-itn-h2" style="margin:0.5em; background:#cedff2; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Enviro Wiki Highlights</h2>
<div id="mp-itn" style="padding:0.0em 0.5em;">

<slideshow sequence="random" transition="fade" refresh="7500">

[[File:WH Picture1.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Matrix Diffusion|Molecular diffusion slowly transports solutes into clay-rich, lower permeability zones]]
[[File:WH Picture2.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)|Typical subgrade biogeochemical reactor (SBGR) layout. The SBGR is an in situ remediation technology for treatment of contaminated source areas and groundwater plume hot spots ]]
[[File:WH Picture3.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|An Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) log with electrical conductivity (EC) on left, injection pressure in middle, and flow rate on the right]]
[[File:WH Picture4.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=PH Buffering in Aquifers|Diagram of mineral surface exchanging hydrogen ions with varying pH. The surface of most aquifer minerals carries an electrical charge that varies with pH]]
[[File:WH Picture5.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons|Comparison of the longitudinal redox zonation concept (A) and the plume fringe concept (B). Both concepts describe the spatial distribution of electron acceptors and respiration processes in a hydrocarbon contaminant plume]]
[[File:WH Picture6.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Direct Push Logging|Schematic of an Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT) probe. HPT were developed to better understand formation permeability and the distribution of permeable and low permeability zones in unconsolidated formations]]
[[File:WH Picture7.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO)|In situ chemical oxidation using (a) direct-push injection probes or (b) well-to-well flushing to delivery oxidants (shown in blue) into a target treatment zone of groundwater contaminated by dense nonaqueous phase liquid compounds (shown in red)]]
[[File:WH Picture8.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Geophysical Methods - Case_Studies|High-resolution 3D cross-borehole electrical imaging of contaminated fractured rock at the former Naval Air Warfare Center in New Jersey. Cross-borehole resistivity tomography imaging is a geophysical technique that can be used for site characterization and monitoring by observing variations in the electrical properties of subsurface materials]]
[[File:WH Picture9.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Stable_Isotope_Probing_(SIP)|Stable isotope probing (SIP) in use: Loading, deployment and recovery of Bio-Trap® passive sampler with 13C-labeled benzene. Stable isotope probing (SIP) is used to conclusively determine whether in situ biodegradation of a contaminant is occurring]]
[[File:WH Picture10.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=1,2,3-Trichloropropane|Summary of anticipated, primary reaction pathways for degradation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). TCP is a man-made chemical that was used in the past primarily as a solvent and extractive agent, a paint and varnish remover, and as a cleaning and degreasing agent]]
[[File:WH Picture11.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels|Distribution of BTEX plume lengths from 604 hydrocarbon sites. Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) is one of the most commonly used remediation approaches for groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and certain fuel additives such as fuel oxygenates or lead scavengers]]
[[File:WH Picture12.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive|No-purge and passive sampling methods eliminate the pre-purging step for groundwater sample collection and represent alternatives to conventional sampling methods that rely on low-flow purging of a well prior to collection. The Snap SamplerTM is an example of a passive grab sampler]]
[[File:WH Picture13.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)|Conceptualization of Vapor Transport-related Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD) processes at a Petroleum Release Site]]
[[File:WH Picture14.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)|Conceptual diagram of basic Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system for vadose zone remediation. (SVE) is a common and typically effective physical treatment process for remediation of volatile contaminants in vadose zone (unsaturated) soils]]
[[File:WH Picture15.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation|Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) mixed in field during early pilot test. EVO is commonly added as a slowly fermentable substrate to stimulate the in situ anaerobic bioremediation of chlorinated solvents, explosives, perchlorate, chromate, and other contaminants]]
[[File:WH Picture16.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Vapor_Intrusion_(VI)|Key elements of vapor intrusion pathways]]
[[File:WH Picture17.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Sorption_of_Organic_Contaminants|Batch reactor experiments to generate points on a sorption isotherm]]
[[File:WH Picture18.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Metagenomics|Results for metagenomic analysis of a groundwater sample obtained from a site impacted with petroleum hydrocarbons]]
[[File:WH Picture19.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perchlorate|Perchlorate releases and drinking water detections]]
[[File:WH Picture20.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Mass_Flux_and_Mass_Discharge|Data input screen for ESTCP Mass Flux Toolkit]]
[[File:WH Picture21.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Bioremediation_-_Anaerobic_Design_Considerations|Amendment addition for biobarrier]]
[[File:WH Picture22.JPG|thumb|center|x350px|link=Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)|Thermal Remediation - Desorption schematic]]
[[File:WH_Picture23.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Contaminated_Sediments_-_Introduction |Key exposure pathways for human health risk from contaminated sediments]]
[[File:WH_Picture24.jpg|thumb|center|x350px|link=Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFAS)| The PFAS family of compounds]]

</slideshow>
</div>
|}

{| id="mp-upper" style="width: 95%; margin:3px 0 0 0; "
| class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" |
{| id="mp-left" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f9f9f9;"
| style="padding:2px;" |<h2 id="mp-tfa-h2_2" style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Table of Contents </h2>
{| style="width:100%; vertical-align:top;"
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
'''[[Transport & Attenuation Processes | Attenuation & Transport Processes]]'''

*[[Biodegradation - 1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Biodegradation - Cometabolic]]
*[[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]
*[[Biodegradation - Reductive Processes]]
*[[Groundwater Flow and Solute Transport]]
*[[Matrix Diffusion]]
*[[Metals and Metalloids - Mobility in Groundwater | Mobility of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[pH Buffering in Aquifers]]
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
*[[Vapor Intrusion (VI)]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]
**[[Vapor Intrusion – Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways|Vapor Intrusion - Sewers and Utility Tunnels as Preferential Pathways]]
**[[Assessing Vapor Intrusion (VI) Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated by Chlorinated Volatile Organic Chemicals (CVOCs)|Vapor Intrusion - Assessing VI Impacts in Neighborhoods with Groundwater Contaminated CVOCs]]

'''[[Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring]]'''

*[[Characterization Methods – Hydraulic Conductivity]]
*[[Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)|Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA)]]
*[[Direct Push (DP) Technology]]
**[[Direct Push Logging |Direct Push Logging]]
**[[Direct Push Sampling |Direct Push Sampling]]
*[[Geophysical Methods | Geophysical Methods]]
**[[Geophysical Methods - Case Studies |Case Studies]]
**[[Hydrogeophysical Methods for Characterization and Monitoring of Groundwater-Surface Water Exchanges]]
*[[Groundwater Sampling - No-Purge/Passive]]
*[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)|Long-Term Monitoring (LTM)]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Analysis |LTM Data Analysis]]
**[[Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) - Data Variability |LTM Data Variability]]
*[[Molecular Biological Tools - MBTs |Molecular Biological Tools (MBTs)]]
**[[Metagenomics]]
**[[Proteomics and Proteogenomics]]
**[[Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR)]]
**[[Stable Isotope Probing (SIP)]]
*[[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill |Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
*[[OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)]]

'''[[Climate Change Primer | Climate Change]]'''

*[[Climate Change Effects on Wildlife]]
*[[Downscaled High Resolution Datasets for Climate Change Projections]]
*[[Infrastructure Resilience]]
*[[Predicting Species Responses to Climate Change with Population Models]]
*[[Restoration of Ecological Function in Terrestrial Systems Impacted by Invasive Species]]

'''[[Coastal and Estuarine Ecology]]'''

*[[Phytoplankton (Algae) Blooms]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | Contaminated Sediments]]'''

*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
*[[Sediment Capping]]
*[[Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)]]

'''[[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)]]'''

*[[LNAPL Conceptual Site Models]]
*[[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]
*[[NAPL Mobility]]

'''[[Munitions Constituents]]'''

*[[Munitions Constituents - Abiotic Reduction|Abiotic Reduction]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation|Alkaline Degradation]]
**[[Pyrogenic Carbonaceous Matter Enhanced Alkaline Hydrolysis]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Composting|Composting]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Deposition |Deposition]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Dissolution |Dissolution]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Electrochemical Treatment|Electrochemical Treatment]]
*[[Metal(loid)s - Small Arms Ranges]]
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents|Passive Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Photolysis |Photolysis]]
*[[Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents |Remediation of Stormwater Runoff ]]
*[[Munitions Constituents – Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques|Sample Extraction and Analytical Techniques]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Soil Sampling |Soil Sampling]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - Sorption |Sorption]]
*[[Munitions Constituents - IM Toxicology |Toxicology]]
*[[Munitions Constituents- TREECS™ Fate and Risk Modeling|TREECS™]]

'''[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]'''

*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Chlorinated Solvents| MNA of Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels| MNA of Fuels]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Metal and Metalloids| MNA of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
*[[Monitored Natural Attenuation - Transitioning from Active Remedies| Transitioning from Active Remedies]]

'''[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]'''

*[[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
**[[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange]]
*[[PFAS Monitored Retention (PMR) and PFAS Enhanced Retention (PER)]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction | Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination]]
*[[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil]]
*[[Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]]

| style="width:33%; vertical-align:top; " |
'''[[Regulatory Issues and Site Management]]'''

*[[Alternative Endpoints]]
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
*[[REMChlor - MD | REMChlor-MD]]
*[[Source Zone Modeling]]
*[[Sustainable Remediation]]

'''[[Remediation Technologies]]'''
*[[Amendment Distribution in Low Conductivity Materials]]
*[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic|Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Design Considerations | Design Considerations]]
**[[Design Tool - Base Addition for ERD]]
**[[Emulsified Vegetable Oil (EVO) for Anaerobic Bioremediation]]
**[[Low pH Inhibition of Reductive Dechlorination]]
**[[Bioremediation - Anaerobic Secondary Water Quality Impacts | Secondary Water Quality Impacts]]
*[[Chemical Oxidation (In Situ - ISCO) | In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Design Considerations(In Situ - ISCO) | Design Considerations]]
**[[Chemical Oxidation Oxidant Selection (In Situ - ISCO) | Oxidant Selection]]
*[[Chemical Reduction (In Situ - ISCR) | In Situ Chemical Reduction (ISCR)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron (ZVI) (Chemical Reduction - ISCR) | Zero-Valent Iron (ZVI)]]
**[[Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barriers]]
*[[In Situ Groundwater Treatment with Activated Carbon]]
*[[Injection Techniques for Liquid Amendments]]
*[[Injection Techniques - Viscosity Modification]]
*[[Landfarming]]
*[[Metal and Metalloids - Remediation | Remediation of Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[Remediation Performance Assessment at Chlorinated Solvent Sites]]
*[[Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)]]
*[[Stream Restoration]]
*[[Subgrade Biogeochemical Reactor (SBGR)]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Thermal Remediation]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Combined Remedies | Combined Remedies]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Electrical Resistance Heating | Electrical Resistance Heating (ERH)]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Smoldering | Smoldering]]
**[[Thermal Remediation - Steam | Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE)]]
**[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]

'''[[Soil & Groundwater Contaminants]]'''

*[[1,2,3-Trichloropropane]]
*[[1,4-Dioxane]]
*[[Chlorinated Solvents]]
*[[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants|Metals and Metalloids]]
*[[N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)]]
*[[Perchlorate|Perchlorate]]
*[[Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)]]
*[[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)]]
|}
|}
|}

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:53:41Z

Admin: /* Advantages */

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*[https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ EradiFluorTM]<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., and Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., and Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., and Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., and Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., and Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:53:07Z

Admin: /* Advantages */

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*[https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ EradiFluorTM]<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., and Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., and Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., and Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., and Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., and Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:51:22Z

Admin:

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*[https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ EradiFluorTM]<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., and Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Article pdf]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., and Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., and Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., and Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., and Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., and Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:45:43Z

Admin:

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*[https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ EradiFluorTM]<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:44:06Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:43:02Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref> Bentel. M., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Kwon, H., Li, Z., Wong, B.M, Men, Y., and Liu, J., 2020. Degradation of Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids with Hydrated Electrons: Structure–Reactivity Relationships and Environmental Implications. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(4), pp. 2489-2499. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05869 doi: 110.1021/acs.est.9b05869]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:33:59Z

Admin: /* Introduction */

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gao, J., Rao, D., Liu, Z., Yin, E., Zhang, Z., Fu, Q., Nogales, M., and Liu, J., 2025. Temperature Effect on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Degradation by Ultraviolet/Sulfite: Insights on Lamp Heat, Molecular Transformation, and Photochemical Principles. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(49), pp. 26865-26874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c11519 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5c11519]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:23:58Z

Admin:

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b66d1399-3904-4d68-9d03-b77d16f3f90a/er18-1289-project-overview Treatment of Legacy and Emerging Fluoroalkyl Chemicals in Groundwater with Integrated Approaches: Rapid and Regenerable Adsorption and UV-induced Defluorination - SERDP Project ER18-1289]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/50228f09-a6db-4c72-a9c5-15f82e34bac3/er21-1117-project-overview Thermal-Enhanced Photochemical and Alkaline Destruction of PFAS in Sorbent Regenerants and Membrane Concentrates - SERDP Project ER21-1117]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

2026-02-11T21:16:15Z

Admin:

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including high percentages of defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]

'''Contributors:''' [[Dr. John Xiong]], [[Dr. Yida Fang]], [[Dr. Raul Tenorio]], Isobel Li, and [[Dr. Jinyong Liu]]

'''Key Resources:'''
*EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]  [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]  [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Demonstration of a UV/Sulfite System (EradiFluor™) for PFAS Destruction in Concentrated Waste Streams - ESTCP Project ER31-5152]

==Introduction==
The hydrated electron (''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.

Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO32−) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO3<big>'''•-'''</big>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>   [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.

==Process Description==
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to destroy PFAS by UV/sulfite. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]] 

==Advantages==
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''eaq<big>'''-'''</big>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for other technologies that degrade PFAS at the heterogeneous solid-water or gas-water interface, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.

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

==State of the Practice==
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM<ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents

2026-02-11T21:10:02Z

Admin:

Past and ongoing military operations have resulted in contamination of surface soil with [[Munitions Constituents | munition constituents (MC)]], which have human and environmental health impacts. These compounds can be transported off site via stormwater runoff during precipitation events. Technologies to “trap and treat” surface runoff before it enters downstream receiving bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds) (see Figure 1), and which are compatible with ongoing range activities are needed. This article describes a passive and sustainable approach for effective management of munition constituents in stormwater runoff.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Munitions Constituents]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Mark Fuller]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*[[Media: ER19-1106 Final Report.pdf | Development of Innovative Passive and Sustainable Treatment Technologies for Energetic Compounds in Surface Runoff on Active Ranges - Final Report. SERDP Project ER19-1106]]<ref name="FullerChiu2024">Fuller, M., Chiu, P., 2024. Development of Innovative Passive and Sustainable Treatment Technologies for Energetic Compounds in Surface Runoff on Active Ranges - [[Media: ER19-1106 Final Report.pdf | Final Report]]. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], Project ER19-1106.</ref>

==Background==
===Surface Runoff Characteristics and Treatment Approaches===
[[File: FullerFig1.png | thumb | 400 px | left | Figure 1. Conceptual model of passive trap and treat approach for MC removal from stormwater runoff]]
During large precipitation events the rate of water deposition exceeds the rate of water infiltration, resulting in surface runoff (also called stormwater runoff). Surface characteristics including soil texture, presence of impermeable surfaces (natural and artificial), slope, and density and type of vegetation all influence the amount of surface runoff from a given land area. The use of passive systems such as retention ponds and biofiltration cells for treatment of surface runoff is well established for urban and roadway runoff. Treatment in those cases is typically achieved by directing runoff into and through a small constructed wetland, often at the outlet of a retention basin, or via filtration by directing runoff through a more highly engineered channel or vault containing the treatment materials. Filtration based technologies have proven to be effective for the removal of metals, organics, and suspended solids<ref>Sansalone, J.J., 1999. In-situ performance of a passive treatment system for metal source control. Water Science and Technology, 39(2), pp. 193-200. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00023-2 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00023-2]</ref><ref>Deletic, A., Fletcher, T.D., 2006. Performance of grass filters used for stormwater treatment—A field and modelling study. Journal of Hydrology, 317(3-4), pp. 261-275. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.021 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.021]</ref><ref>Grebel, J.E., Charbonnet, J.A., Sedlak, D.L., 2016. Oxidation of organic contaminants by manganese oxide geomedia for passive urban stormwater treatment systems. Water Research, 88, pp. 481-491. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.019 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.019]</ref><ref>Seelsaen, N., McLaughlan, R., Moore, S., Ball, J.E., Stuetz, R.M., 2006. Pollutant removal efficiency of alternative filtration media in stormwater treatment. Water Science and Technology, 54(6-7), pp. 299-305. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.617 doi: 10.2166/wst.2006.617]</ref>.

===Surface Runoff on Ranges===
[[File: FullerFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of munition constituent production and transport on military ranges. Mesoscale residues are qualitatively defined as being easily visible to the naked eye (e.g., from around 50 µm to multiple cm in size) and less likely to be transported by moving water. Microscale residues are defined as <50 µm down to below 1 µm, and more likely to be entrained in, and transported by, moving water as particulates. Blue arrows represent possible water flow paths and include both dissolved and solid phase energetics. The red vertical arrow represents the predominant energetics dissolution process in close proximity to the residues due to precipitation.]]
Surface runoff represents a major potential mechanism through which energetics residues and related materials are transported off site from range soils to groundwater and surface water receptors (Figure 2). This process is particularly important for energetics that are water soluble (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Nitrotriazolone | NTO]] and [[Wikipedia: Nitroguanidine | NQ]]) or generate soluble daughter products (e.g., [[Wikipedia: 2,4-Dinitroanisole | DNAN]] and [[Wikipedia: TNT | TNT]]). While traditional MC such as [[Wikipedia: RDX | RDX]] and [[Wikipedia: HMX | HMX]] have limited aqueous solubility, they also exhibit recalcitrance to degrade under most natural conditions. RDX and [[Wikipedia: Perchlorate | perchlorate]] are frequent groundwater contaminants on military training ranges. While actual field measurements of energetics in surface runoff are limited, laboratory experiments have been performed to predict mobile energetics contamination levels based on soil mass loadings<ref>Cubello, F., Polyakov, V., Meding, S.M., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Dontsova, K., 2024. Movement of TNT and RDX from composition B detonation residues in solution and sediment during runoff. Chemosphere, 350, Article 141023. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.141023 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.141023]</ref><ref>Karls, B., Meding, S.M., Li, L., Polyakov, V., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Dontsova, K., 2023. A laboratory rill study of IMX-104 transport in overland flow. Chemosphere, 310, Article 136866. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136866 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136866]  [[Media: KarlsEtAl2023.pdf | Article]]</ref><ref>Polyakov, V., Beal, S., Meding, S.M., Dontsova, K., 2025. Effect of gypsum on transport of IMX-104 constituents in overland flow under simulated rainfall. Journal of Environmental Quality, 54(1), pp. 191-203. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20652 doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20652]  [[Media: PolyakovEtAl2025.pdf|Article]]</ref><ref>Polyakov, V., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Morehead, H., Hunt, E., Cubello, F., Meding, S.M., Dontsova, K., 2023. Transport of insensitive munitions constituents, NTO, DNAN, RDX, and HMX in runoff and sediment under simulated rainfall. Science of the Total Environment, 866, Article 161434. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161434 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161434]  [[Media: PolyakovEtAl2023.pdf|Article]]</ref><ref>Price, R.A., Bourne, M., Price, C.L., Lindsay, J., Cole, J., 2011. Transport of RDX and TNT from Composition-B Explosive During Simulated Rainfall. In: Environmental Chemistry of Explosives and Propellant Compounds in Soils and Marine Systems: Distributed Source Characterization and Remedial Technologies. American Chemical Society, pp. 229-240. [https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1069.ch013 doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1069.ch013]</ref>. For example, in a previous small study, MC were detected in surface runoff from an active live-fire range<ref>Fuller, M.E., 2015. Fate and Transport of Colloidal Energetic Residues. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER-1689. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/10760fd6-fb55-4515-a629-f93c555a92f0 Project Website]   [[Media: ER-1689-FR.pdf|Final Report]]</ref>, and more recent sampling has detected MC in marsh surface water adjacent to the same installation (personal communication). Another recent report from Canada also detected RDX in both surface runoff and surface water at low part per billion levels in a survey of several military demolition sites<ref>Lapointe, M.-C., Martel, R., Diaz, E., 2017. A Conceptual Model of Fate and Transport Processes for RDX Deposited to Surface Soils of North American Active Demolition Sites. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46(6), pp. 1444-1454. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.02.0069 doi: 10.2134/jeq2017.02.0069]</ref>. However, overall, data regarding the MC contaminant profile of surface runoff from ranges is very limited, and the possible presence of non-energetic constituents (e.g., metals, binders, plasticizers) in runoff has not been examined. Additionally, while energetics-contaminated surface runoff is an important concern, mitigation technologies specifically for surface runoff have not yet been developed and widely deployed in the field. To effectively capture and degrade MC and associated compounds that are present in surface runoff, novel treatment media are needed to sorb a broad range of energetic materials and to transform the retained compounds through abiotic and/or microbial processes.

Surface runoff of organic and inorganic contaminants from live-fire ranges is a challenging issue for the Department of Defense (DoD). Potentially even more problematic is the fact that inputs to surface waters from large testing and training ranges typically originate from multiple sources, often encompassing hundreds of acres. No available technologies are currently considered effective for controlling non-point source energetics-laden surface runoff. While numerous technologies exist to treat collected explosives residues, contaminated soil and even groundwater, the decentralized nature and sheer volume of military range runoff have precluded the use of treatment technologies at full scale in the field.

==Range Runoff Treatment Technology Components==
Based on the conceptual foundation of previous research into surface water runoff treatment for other contaminants, and with a goal to “trap and treat” the target compounds, the following components were selected for inclusion in the technology developed to address range runoff contaminated with energetic compounds.

===Peat===
Previous research demonstrated that a peat-based system provided a natural and sustainable sorptive medium for organic explosives such as HMX, RDX, and TNT, allowing much longer residence times than predicted from hydraulic loading alone<ref>Fuller, M.E., Hatzinger, P.B., Rungkamol, D., Schuster, R.L., Steffan, R.J., 2004. Enhancing the attenuation of explosives in surface soils at military facilities: Combined sorption and biodegradation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(2), pp. 313-324. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-187 doi: 10.1897/03-187]</ref><ref>Fuller, M.E., Lowey, J.M., Schaefer, C.E., Steffan, R.J., 2005. A Peat Moss-Based Technology for Mitigating Residues of the Explosives TNT, RDX, and HMX in Soil. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 14(4), pp. 373-385. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15320380590954097 doi: 10.1080/15320380590954097]</ref><ref name="FullerEtAl2009">Fuller, M.E., Schaefer, C.E., Steffan, R.J., 2009. Evaluation of a peat moss plus soybean oil (PMSO) technology for reducing explosive residue transport to groundwater at military training ranges under field conditions. Chemosphere, 77(8), pp. 1076-1083. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.08.044 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.08.044]</ref><ref>Hatzinger, P.B., Fuller, M.E., Rungkamol, D., Schuster, R.L., Steffan, R.J., 2004. Enhancing the attenuation of explosives in surface soils at military facilities: Sorption-desorption isotherms. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(2), pp. 306-312. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-186 doi: 10.1897/03-186]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005">Schaefer, C.E., Fuller, M.E., Lowey, J.M., Steffan, R.J., 2005. Use of Peat Moss Amended with Soybean Oil for Mitigation of Dissolved Explosive Compounds Leaching into the Subsurface: Insight into Mass Transfer Mechanisms. Environmental Engineering Science, 22(3), pp. 337-349. [https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2005.22.337 doi: 10.1089/ees.2005.22.337]</ref>. Peat moss represents a bioactive environment for treatment of the target contaminants. While the majority of the microbial reactions are aerobic due to the presence of measurable dissolved oxygen in the bulk solution, anaerobic reactions (including methanogenesis) can occur in microsites within the peat. The peat-based substrate acts not only as a long term electron donor as it degrades but also acts as a strong sorbent. This is important in intermittently loaded systems in which a large initial pulse of MC can be temporarily retarded on the peat matrix and then slowly degraded as they desorb<ref name="FullerEtAl2009"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005"/>. This increased residence time enhances the biotransformation of energetics and promotes the immobilization and further degradation of breakdown products. Abiotic degradation reactions are also likely enhanced by association with the organic-rich peat (e.g., via electron shuttling reactions of [[Wikipedia: Humic substance | humics]])<ref>Roden, E.E., Kappler, A., Bauer, I., Jiang, J., Paul, A., Stoesser, R., Konishi, H., Xu, H., 2010. Extracellular electron transfer through microbial reduction of solid-phase humic substances. Nature Geoscience, 3, pp. 417-421. [https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo870 doi: 10.1038/ngeo870]</ref>.

===Soybean Oil===
Modeling has indicated that peat moss amended with crude soybean oil would significantly reduce the flux of dissolved TNT, RDX, and HMX through the vadose zone to groundwater compared to a non-treated soil (see [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/20e2f05c-fd50-4fd3-8451-ba73300c7531 ESTCP ER-200434]). The technology was validated in field soil plots, showing a greater than 500-fold reduction in the flux of dissolved RDX from macroscale Composition B detonation residues compared to a non-treated control plot<ref name="FullerEtAl2009"/>. Laboratory testing and modeling indicated that the addition of soybean oil increased the biotransformation rates of RDX and HMX at least 10-fold compared to rates observed with peat moss alone<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005"/>. Subsequent experiments also demonstrated the effectiveness of the amended peat moss material for stimulating perchlorate transformation when added to a highly contaminated soil (Fuller et al., unpublished data). These previous findings clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of peat-based materials for mitigating transport of both organic and inorganic energetic compounds through soil to groundwater.

===Biochar===
Recent reports have highlighted additional materials that, either alone, or in combination with electron donors such as peat moss and soybean oil, may further enhance the sorption and degradation of surface runoff contaminants, including both legacy energetics and [[Wikipedia: Insensitive_munition#Insensitive_high_explosives | insensitive high explosives (IHE)]]. For instance, [[Wikipedia: Biochar | biochar]], a type of black carbon, has been shown to not only sorb a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants including MCs<ref>Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A.U., Lim, J.E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S.S., Ok, Y.S., 2014. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere, 99, pp. 19-33. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071]</ref><ref>Mohan, D., Sarswat, A., Ok, Y.S., Pittman, C.U., 2014. Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent – A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 160, pp. 191-202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.120 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.120]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Seo, Y.-D., Jeong, T.-Y., Kim, S.-D., 2018. Sorption of Nitro Explosives to Polymer/Biomass-Derived Biochar. Journal of Environmental Quality, 47(2), pp. 353-360. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.09.0357 doi: 10.2134/jeq2017.09.0357]</ref><ref>Xie, T., Reddy, K.R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., Spokas, K., 2015. Characteristics and Applications of Biochar for Environmental Remediation: A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45(9), pp. 939-969. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2014.924180 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2014.924180]</ref>, but also to facilitate their degradation<ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.-J., Chiu, P.C., 2002. Effect of adsorption to elemental iron on the transformation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine in solution. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(7), pp. 1384-1389. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210708 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620210708]</ref><ref>Ye, J., Chiu, P.C., 2006. Transport of Atomic Hydrogen through Graphite and its Reaction with Azoaromatic Compounds. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(12), pp. 3959-3964. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es060038x doi: 10.1021/es060038x]</ref><ref name="OhChiu2009">Oh, S.-Y., Chiu, P.C., 2009. Graphite- and Soot-Mediated Reduction of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene and Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(18), pp. 6983-6988. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es901433m doi: 10.1021/es901433m]</ref><ref name="OhEtAl2013">Oh, S.-Y., Son, J.-G., Chiu, P.C., 2013. Biochar-mediated reductive transformation of nitro herbicides and explosives. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(3), pp. 501-508. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2087 doi: 10.1002/etc.2087]   [[Media: OhEtAl2013.pdf|Article]]</ref><ref name="XuEtAl2010">Xu, W., Dana, K.E., Mitch, W.A., 2010. Black Carbon-Mediated Destruction of Nitroglycerin and RDX by Hydrogen Sulfide. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(16), pp. 6409-6415. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es101307n doi: 10.1021/es101307n]</ref><ref>Xu, W., Pignatello, J.J., Mitch, W.A., 2013. Role of Black Carbon Electrical Conductivity in Mediating Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Transformation on Carbon Surfaces by Sulfides. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(13), pp. 7129-7136. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4012367 doi: 10.1021/es4012367]</ref>. Depending on the source biomass and [[Wikipedia: Pyrolysis| pyrolysis]] conditions, biochar can possess a high [[Wikipedia: Specific surface area | specific surface area]] (on the order of several hundred m2/g)<ref>Zhang, J., You, C., 2013. Water Holding Capacity and Absorption Properties of Wood Chars. Energy and Fuels, 27(5), pp. 2643-2648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4000769 doi: 10.1021/ef4000769]</ref><ref>Gray, M., Johnson, M.G., Dragila, M.I., Kleber, M., 2014. Water uptake in biochars: The roles of porosity and hydrophobicity. Biomass and Bioenergy, 61, pp. 196-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.010]</ref> and hence a high sorption capacity. Biochar and other black carbon also exhibit especially high affinity for [[Wikipedia: Nitro compound | nitroaromatic compounds (NACs)]] including TNT and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (DNT)<ref>Sander, M., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Characterization of Charcoal Adsorption Sites for Aromatic Compounds: Insights Drawn from Single-Solute and Bi-Solute Competitive Experiments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(6), pp. 1606-1615. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049135l doi: 10.1021/es049135l]</ref><ref name="ZhuEtAl2005">Zhu, D., Kwon, S., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Adsorption of Single-Ring Organic Compounds to Wood Charcoals Prepared Under Different Thermochemical Conditions. Environmental Science and Technology 39(11), pp. 3990-3998. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050129e doi: 10.1021/es050129e]</ref><ref name="ZhuPignatello2005">Zhu, D., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Characterization of Aromatic Compound Sorptive Interactions with Black Carbon (Charcoal) Assisted by Graphite as a Model. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(7), pp. 2033-2041. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0491376 doi: 10.1021/es0491376]</ref>. This is due to the strong [[Wikipedia: Pi-interaction | ''π-π'' electron donor-acceptor interactions]] between electron-rich graphitic domains in black carbon and the electron-deficient aromatic ring of the NAC<ref name="ZhuEtAl2005"/><ref name="ZhuPignatello2005"/>. These characteristics make biochar a potentially effective, low cost, and sustainable sorbent for removing MC and other contaminants from surface runoff and retaining them for subsequent degradation ''in situ''.

Furthermore, black carbon such as biochar can promote abiotic and microbial transformation reactions by facilitating electron transfer. That is, biochar is not merely a passive sorbent for contaminants, but also a redox mediator for their degradation. Biochar can promote contaminant degradation through two different mechanisms: electron conduction and electron storage<ref>Sun, T., Levin, B.D.A., Guzman, J.J.L., Enders, A., Muller, D.A., Angenent, L.T., Lehmann, J., 2017. Rapid electron transfer by the carbon matrix in natural pyrogenic carbon. Nature Communications, 8, Article 14873. [https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14873 doi: 10.1038/ncomms14873]   [[Media: SunEtAl2017.pdf|Article]]</ref>.

First, the microscopic graphitic regions in biochar can adsorb contaminants like NACs strongly, as noted above, and also conduct reducing equivalents such as electrons and atomic hydrogen to the sorbed contaminants, thus promoting their reductive degradation. This catalytic process has been demonstrated for TNT, DNT, RDX, HMX, and [[Wikipedia: Nitroglycerin | nitroglycerin]]<ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Chiu, P.C., 2002. Graphite-Mediated Reduction of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene with Elemental Iron. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(10), pp. 2178-2184. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es011474g doi: 10.1021/es011474g]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.J., Chiu, P.C., 2004. Reduction of Nitroglycerin with Elemental Iron: Pathway, Kinetics, and Mechanisms. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(13), pp. 3723-3730. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0354667 doi: 10.1021/es0354667]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.J., Chiu, P.C., 2005. Reductive transformation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine, and methylenedinitramine with elemental iron. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(11), pp. 2812-2819. [https://doi.org/10.1897/04-662R.1 doi: 10.1897/04-662R.1]</ref><ref name="OhChiu2009"/><ref name="XuEtAl2010"/> and is expected to occur also for IHE including DNAN and NTO.

Second, biochar contains in its structure abundant redox-facile functional groups such as [[Wikipedia: Quinone | quinones]] and [[Wikipedia: Hydroquinone | hydroquinones]], which are known to accept and donate electrons reversibly. Depending on the biomass and pyrolysis temperature, certain biochar can possess a rechargeable electron storage capacity (i.e., reversible electron accepting and donating capacity) on the order of several millimoles e–/g<ref>Klüpfel, L., Keiluweit, M., Kleber, M., Sander, M., 2014. Redox Properties of Plant Biomass-Derived Black Carbon (Biochar). Environmental Science and Technology, 48(10), pp. 5601-5611. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es500906d doi: 10.1021/es500906d]</ref><ref>Prévoteau, A., Ronsse, F., Cid, I., Boeckx, P., Rabaey, K., 2016. The electron donating capacity of biochar is dramatically underestimated. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 32870. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32870 doi: 10.1038/srep32870]   [[Media: PrevoteauEtAl2016.pdf|Article]]</ref><ref>Xin, D., Xian, M., Chiu, P.C., 2018. Chemical methods for determining the electron storage capacity of black carbon. MethodsX, 5, pp. 1515-1520. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.007]   [[Media: XinEtAl2018.pdf|Article]]</ref>. This means that when "charged", biochar can provide electrons for either abiotic or biotic degradation of reducible compounds such as MC. The abiotic reduction of DNT and RDX mediated by biochar has been demonstrated<ref name="OhEtAl2013"/> and similar reactions are expected to occur for DNAN and NTO as well. Recent studies have shown that the electron storage capacity of biochar is also accessible to microbes. For example, soil bacteria such as [[Wikipedia: Geobacter | ''Geobacter'']] and [[Wikipedia: Shewanella | ''Shewanella'']] species can utilize oxidized (or "discharged") biochar as an electron acceptor for the oxidation of organic substrates such as lactate and acetate<ref>Kappler, A., Wuestner, M.L., Ruecker, A., Harter, J., Halama, M., Behrens, S., 2014. Biochar as an Electron Shuttle between Bacteria and Fe(III) Minerals. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 1(8), pp. 339-344. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ez5002209 doi: 10.1021/ez5002209]</ref><ref name="SaquingEtAl2016">Saquing, J.M., Yu, Y.-H., Chiu, P.C., 2016. Wood-Derived Black Carbon (Biochar) as a Microbial Electron Donor and Acceptor. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 3(2), pp. 62-66. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00354 doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00354]</ref> and reduced (or "charged") biochar as an electron donor for the reduction of nitrate<ref name="SaquingEtAl2016"/>. This is significant because, through microbial access of stored electrons in biochar, contaminants that do not sorb strongly to biochar can still be degraded.

Similar to nitrate, perchlorate and other relatively water-soluble energetic compounds (e.g., NTO and NQ) may also be similarly transformed using reduced biochar as an electron donor. Unlike other electron donors, biochar can be recharged through biodegradation of organic substrates<ref name="SaquingEtAl2016"/> and thus can serve as a long-lasting sorbent and electron repository in soil. Similar to peat moss, the high porosity and surface area of biochar not only facilitate contaminant sorption but also create anaerobic reducing microenvironments in its inner pores, where reductive degradation of energetic compounds can take place.

===Other Sorbents===
Chitin and unmodified cellulose were predicted by [[Wikipedia: Density functional theory | Density Functional Theory]] methods to be favorable for absorption of NTO and NQ, as well as the legacy explosives<ref>Todde, G., Jha, S.K., Subramanian, G., Shukla, M.K., 2018. Adsorption of TNT, DNAN, NTO, FOX7, and NQ onto Cellulose, Chitin, and Cellulose Triacetate. Insights from Density Functional Theory Calculations. Surface Science, 668, pp. 54-60. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2017.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.susc.2017.10.004]   [[Media: ToddeEtAl2018.pdf | Manuscript]]</ref>. Cationized cellulosic materials (e.g., cotton, wood shavings) have been shown to effectively remove negatively charged energetics like perchlorate and NTO from solution<ref name="FullerEtAl2022">Fuller, M.E., Farquharson, E.M., Hedman, P.C., Chiu, P., 2022. Removal of munition constituents in stormwater runoff: Screening of native and cationized cellulosic sorbents for removal of insensitive munition constituents NTO, DNAN, and NQ, and legacy munition constituents HMX, RDX, TNT, and perchlorate. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 424(C), Article 127335. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127335 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127335]   [[Media: FullerEtAl2022.pdf | Manuscript]]</ref>. A substantial body of work has shown that modified cellulosic biopolymers can also be effective sorbents for removing metals from solution<ref>Burba, P., Willmer, P.G., 1983. Cellulose: a biopolymeric sorbent for heavy-metal traces in waters. Talanta, 30(5), pp. 381-383. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-9140(83)80087-3 doi: 10.1016/0039-9140(83)80087-3]</ref><ref>Brown, P.A., Gill, S.A., Allen, S.J., 2000. Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Research, 34(16), pp. 3907-3916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00152-4 doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00152-4]</ref><ref>O’Connell, D.W., Birkinshaw, C., O’Dwyer, T.F., 2008. Heavy metal adsorbents prepared from the modification of cellulose: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99(15), pp. 6709-6724. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.036]</ref><ref>Wan Ngah, W.S., Hanafiah, M.A.K.M., 2008. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater by chemically modified plant wastes as adsorbents: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99(10), pp. 3935-3948. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.011]</ref> and therefore will also likely be applicable for some of the metals that may be found in surface runoff at firing ranges.

==Technology Evaluation==
Based on the properties of the target munition constituents, a combination of materials was expected to yield the best results to facilitate the sorption and subsequent biotic and abiotic degradation of the contaminants.

===Sorbents===
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right: 30px; margin-left: auto; float:left; text-align:center;"
|+Table 1. [[Wikipedia: Freundlich equation | Freundlich]] and [[Wikipedia: Langmuir adsorption model | Langmuir]] adsorption parameters for insensitive and legacy explosives
|-
! rowspan="2" | Compound
! colspan="5" | Freundlich
! colspan="5" | Langmuir
|-
! Parameter !! Peat !! CAT Pine !! CAT Burlap !! CAT Cotton !! Parameter !! Peat !! CAT Pine !! CAT Burlap !! CAT Cotton
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | HMX
! ''Kf''
| 0.08 +/- 0.00 || -- || -- || --
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| 0.29 +/- 0.04 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''n''
| 1.70 +/- 0.18 || -- || -- || --
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| 0.39 +/- 0.09 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''r2''
| 0.91 || -- || -- || --
! ''r2''
| 0.93 || -- || -- || --
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | RDX
! ''Kf''
| 0.11 +/- 0.02 || -- || -- || --
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| 0.38 +/- 0.05 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''n''
| 2.75 +/- 0.63 || -- || -- || --
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| 0.23 +/- 0.08 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''r2''
| 0.69 || -- || -- || --
! ''r2''
| 0.69 || -- || -- || --
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | TNT
! ''Kf''
| 1.21 +/- 0.15 || 1.02 +/- 0.04 || 0.36 +/- 0.02 || --
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| 3.63 +/- 0.18 || 1.26 +/- 0.06 || -- || --
|-
! ''n''
| 2.78 +/- 0.67 || 4.01 +/- 0.44 || 1.59 +/- 0.09 || --
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| 0.89 +/- 0.13 || 0.76 +/- 0.10 || -- || --
|-
! ''r2''
| 0.81 || 0.93 || 0.98 || --
! ''r2''
| 0.97 || 0.97 || -- || --
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | NTO
! ''Kf''
| -- || 0.94 +/- 0.05 || 0.41 +/- 0.05 || 0.26 +/- 0.06
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| -- || 4.07 +/- 0.26 || 1.29 +/- 0.12 || 0.83 +/- 0.15
|-
! ''n''
| -- || 1.61 +/- 0.11 || 2.43 +/- 0.41 || 2.53 +/- 0.76
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| -- || 0.30 +/- 0.04 || 0.36 +/- 0.08 || 0.30 +/- 0.15
|-
! ''r2''
| -- || 0.97 || 0.82 || 0.57
! ''r2''
| -- || 0.99 || 0.89 || 0.58
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | DNAN
! ''Kf''
| 0.38 +/- 0.05 || 0.01 +/- 0.01 || -- || --
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| 2.57 +/- 0.33 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''n''
| 1.71 +/- 0.20 || 0.70 +/- 0.13 || -- || --
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| 0.13 +/- 0.03 || -- || -- || --
|-
! ''r2''
| 0.89 || 0.76 || -- || --
! ''r2''
| 0.92 || -- || -- || --
|-
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
|-
! rowspan="3" | ClO4
! ''Kf''
| -- || 1.54 +/- 0.06 || 0.53 +/- 0.03 || --
! ''qm'' (mg/g)
| -- || 3.63 +/- 0.18 || 1.26 +/- 0.06 || --
|-
! ''n''
| -- || 2.42 +/- 0.16 || 2.42 +/- 0.26 || --
! ''b'' (L/mg)
| -- || 0.89 +/- 0.13 || 0.76 +/- 0.10 || --
|-
! ''r2''
| -- || 0.97 || 0.92 || --
! ''r2''
| -- || 0.97 || 0.97 || --
|-
| colspan="12" style="text-align:left; background-color:white;" |Notes: <big>'''--'''</big> Indicates the algorithm failed to converge on the model fitting parameters, therefore there was no successful model fit. '''CAT''' Indicates cationized material.
|}

The materials screened included [[Wikipedia: Sphagnum | ''Sphagnum'' peat moss]], primarily for sorption of HMX, RDX, TNT, and DNAN, as well as [[Wikipedia: Cationization of cotton | cationized cellulosics]] for removal of perchlorate and NTO. The cationized cellulosics that were examined included: pine sawdust, pine shavings, aspen shavings, cotton linters (fine, silky fibers which adhere to cotton seeds after ginning), [[Wikipedia: Chitin | chitin]], [[Wikipedia: Chitosan | chitosan]], burlap (landscaping grade), [[Wikipedia: Coir | coconut coir]], raw cotton, raw organic cotton, cleaned raw cotton, cotton fabric, and commercially cationized fabrics.

As shown in Table 1<ref name="FullerEtAl2022"/>, batch sorption testing indicated that a combination of Sphagnum peat moss and cationized pine shavings provided good removal of both the neutral organic energetics (HMX, RDX, TNT, DNAN) as well as the negatively charged energetics (perchlorate, NTO).

===Slow Release Carbon Sources===
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right: 30px; margin-left: auto; float:left; text-align:center;"
|+Table 2. Slow-release Carbon Sources
|-
! Material !! Abbreviation !! Commercial Source !! Notes
|-
| polylactic acid || PLA6 || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || high molecular weight thermoplastic polyester
|-
| polylactic acid || PLA80 || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || low molecular weight thermoplastic polyester
|-
| polyhydroxybutyrate || PHB || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || bacterial polyester
|-
| polycaprolactone || PCL || [https://www.sarchemlabs.com/?hsa_acc=4540346154&hsa_cam=20281343997&hsa_grp&hsa_ad&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt&hsa_kw&hsa_mt&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21209931835 Sarchem Labs] || biodegradable polyester
|-
| polybutylene succinate || BioPBS || [https://us.mitsubishi-chemical.com/company/performance-polymers/ Mitsubishi Chemical Performance Polymers] || compostable bio-based product
|-
| sucrose ester of fatty acids || SEFA SP10 || [https://www.sisterna.com/ Sisterna] || food and cosmetics additive
|-
| sucrose ester of fatty acids || SEFA SP70 || [https://www.sisterna.com/ Sisterna] || food and cosmetics additive
|}

A range of biopolymers widely used in the production of biodegradable plastics were screened for their ability to support aerobic and anoxic biodegradation of the target munition constituents. These compounds and their sources are listed in Table 2.

[[File: FullerFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Schematic of interactions between biochar and munitions constituents]]
Multiple pure bacterial strains and mixed cultures were screened for their ability to utilize the solid biopolymers as a carbon source to support energetic compound transformation and degradation. Pure strains included the aerobic RDX degrader [[Wikipedia: Rhodococcus | ''Rhodococcus'']] species DN22 (DN22 henceforth)<ref name="ColemanEtAl1998">Coleman, N.V., Nelson, D.R., Duxbury, T., 1998. Aerobic biodegradation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) as a nitrogen source by a Rhodococcus sp., strain DN22. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30(8-9), pp. 1159-1167. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00172-7 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00172-7]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: Gordonia (bacterium)|''Gordonia'']] species KTR9 (KTR9 henceforth)<ref name="ColemanEtAl1998"/>, the anoxic RDX degrader [[Wikipedia: Pseudomonas fluorencens | ''Pseudomonas fluorencens'']] species I-C (I-C henceforth)<ref>Pak, J.W., Knoke, K.L., Noguera, D.R., Fox, B.G., Chambliss, G.H., 2000. Transformation of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene by Purified Xenobiotic Reductase B from Pseudomonas fluorescens I-C. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(11), pp. 4742-4750. [https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.11.4742-4750.2000 doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.11.4742-4750.2000]   [[Media: PakEtAl2000.pdf|Article]]</ref><ref>Fuller, M.E., McClay, K., Hawari, J., Paquet, L., Malone, T.E., Fox, B.G., Steffan, R.J., 2009. Transformation of RDX and other energetic compounds by xenobiotic reductases XenA and XenB. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 84, pp. 535-544. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2024-6 doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2024-6]   [[Media: FullerEtAl2009.pdf | Manuscript]]</ref>, and the aerobic NQ degrader [[Wikipedia: Pseudomonas | ''Pseudomonas extremaustralis'']] species NQ5 (NQ5 henceforth)<ref>Kim, J., Fuller, M.E., Hatzinger, P.B., Chu, K.-H., 2024. Isolation and characterization of nitroguanidine-degrading microorganisms. Science of the Total Environment, 912, Article 169184. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169184 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169184]</ref>. Anaerobic mixed cultures were obtained from a membrane bioreactor (MBR) degrading a mixture of six explosives (HMX, RDX, TNT, NTO, NQ, DNAN), as well as perchlorate and nitrate<ref name="FullerEtAl2023">Fuller, M.E., Hedman, P.C., Chu, K.-H., Webster, T.S., Hatzinger, P.B., 2023. Evaluation of a sequential anaerobic-aerobic membrane bioreactor system for treatment of traditional and insensitive munitions constituents. Chemosphere, 340, Article 139887. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139887 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139887]</ref>. The results indicated that the slow-release carbon sources [[Wikipedia: Polyhydroxybutyrate | polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB)]], [[Wikipedia: Polycaprolactone | polycaprolactone (PCL)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polybutylene succinate | polybutylene succinate (BioPBS)]] were effective for supporting the biodegradation of the mixture of energetics.

===Biochar===
[[File: FullerFig4.png | thumb | left | 500 px | Figure 4. Composition of the columns during the sorption-biodegradation experiments]]
[[File: FullerFig5.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 5. Representative breakthrough curves of energetics during the second replication of the column sorption-biodegradation experiment]]
The ability of biochar to sorb and abiotically reduce legacy and insensitive munition constituents, as well as biochar’s use as an electron donor for microbial biodegradation of energetic compounds was examined. Batch experiments indicated that biochar was a reasonable sorbent for some of the energetics (RDX, DNAN), but could also serve as both an electron acceptor and an electron donor to facilitate abiotic (RDX, DNAN, NTO) and biotic (perchlorate) degradation (Figure 3)<ref>Xin, D., Giron, J., Fuller, M.E., Chiu, P.C., 2022. Abiotic reduction of 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one (NTO), DNAN, and RDX by wood-derived biochars through their rechargeable electron storage capacity. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 24(2), pp. 316-329. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00447F doi: 10.1039/D1EM00447F]   [[Media: XinEtAl2022.pdf | Manuscript]]</ref>.

===Sorption-Biodegradation Column Experiments===
The selected materials and cultures discussed above, along with a small amount of range soil and crushed oyster shell as a slow-release pH buffering agent, were packed into columns, and a steady flow of dissolved energetics was passed through the columns. The composition of the four columns is presented in Figure 4. The influent and effluent concentrations of the energetics was monitored over time. The column experiment was performed twice. As seen in Figure 5, there was sustained almost complete removal of RDX and ClO4-, and more removal of the other energetics in the bioactive columns compared to the sorption only columns, over the course of the experiments. For reference, 100 PV is approximately equivalent to three months of operation. The higher effectiveness of sorption with biodegradation compared to sorption only is further illustrated in Figure 6, where the energetics mass removal in the bioactive columns was shown to be 2-fold (TNT) to 20-fold (RDX) higher relative to that observed in the sorption only column. The mass removal of HMX and NQ were both over 40% higher with biochar added to the sorption with biodegradation treatment, although biochar showed little added benefit for removal of other energetics tested.

===Trap and Treat Technology===
[[File: FullerFig6.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 6. Energetic mass removal relative to the sorption only removal during the column sorption-biodegradation experiments. Dashed line given for reference to C1 removal = 1.]]
These results provide a proof-of-concept for the further development of a passive and sustainable “trap-and-treat” technology for remediation of energetic compounds in stormwater runoff at military testing and training ranges. At a given site, the stormwater runoff would need to be fully characterized with respect to key parameters (e.g., pH, major anions), and site specific treatability testing would be recommended to assure there was nothing present in the runoff that would reduce performance. Effluent monitoring on a regular basis would also be needed (and would be likely be expected by state and local regulators) to assess performance over time.

The components of the technology would be predominantly peat moss and cationized pine shavings, supplemented with biochar, ground oyster shell, the biopolymer carbon sources, and the bioaugmentation cultures. The entire mix would likely be emplaced in a concrete vault at the outflow end of the stormwater runoff retention basin at the contaminated site. The deployed treatment system would have further design elements, such as a system to trap and retain suspended solids in the runoff in order to minimize clogging the matrix. The inside of the vault would be baffled to maximize the hydraulic retention time of the contaminated runoff. The biopolymer carbon sources and oyster shell may need to be refreshed periodically (perhaps yearly) to maintain performance. However, a complete removal and replacement of the base media (peat moss, CAT pine) would not be advised, as that would lead to a loss of the acclimated biomass.

==Summary==
Novel sorbents and slow-release carbon sources can be an effective way to promote the sorption and biodegradation of a range of legacy and insensitive munition constituents from surface runoff, and the added benefits of biochar for both sorption and biotic and abiotic degradation of these compounds was demonstrated. These results establish a foundation for a passive, sustainable surface runoff treatment technology for both active and inactive military ranges.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/10760fd6-fb55-4515-a629-f93c555a92f0/er-1689-project-overview Fate and Transport of Colloidal Energetic Residues, SERDP Project ER-1689]
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/20e2f05c-fd50-4fd3-8451-ba73300c7531/er-200434-project-overview In Place Soil Treatments for Prevention of Explosives Contamination, ESTCP Project ER-200434]

Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

2026-02-11T21:07:04Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)|Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] contained in [[wikipedia:Firefighting foam |Class B aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs)]] are known to accumulate on wetted surfaces of many fire suppression systems after decades of exposure</onlyinclude><ref name="LangEtAl2022">Lang, J.R., McDonough, J., Guillette, T.C., Storch, P., Anderson, J., Liles, D., Prigge, R., Miles, J.A.L., Divine, C., 2022. Characterization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on fire suppression system piping and optimization of removal methods. Chemosphere, 308(Part 2), 136254. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136254 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136254] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/33/LangEtAl2022.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. When replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulations are added to existing infrastructure, PFAS can rebound from the wetted surfaces into the new formulations at high concentrations<ref name="RossStorch2020">Ross, I., and Storch, P., 2020. Foam Transition: Is It as Simple as "Foam Out / Foam In?". The Catalyst (Journal of JOIFF, The International Organization for Industrial Emergency Services Management), Q2 Supplement, 20 pages. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9d/Catalyst_2020_Q2_Sup.pdf Industry Newsletter]</ref><ref>Kappetijn, K., 2023. Replacement of fluorinated extinguishing foam: When is clean clean enough? The Catalyst (Journal of JOIFF, The International Organization for Industrial Emergency Services Management), Q1 2023, pp. 31-33. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ed/Catalyst_2023_Q1.pdf Industry Newsletter]</ref>. Effective methods are needed to properly transition to PFAS-free firefighting formulations in existing fire suppression infrastructure. Activities to consider when determining the scope of the transition process include (but are not limited to) locating, identifying, and evaluating existing systems and AFFF, fire engineering evaluations, system prioritization, cost/downtime analyses, sampling and analysis, evaluation of risks and hazards to human health and the environment, transportation, and disposal<onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang]], [[Dr. Jonathan Miles]], John Anderson, Dr. Theresa Guillette, [[Craig E. Divine, Ph.D., PG|Dr. Craig Divine]] and [[Dr. Stephen Richardson]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Department of Defense (DoD) performance standard for PFAS-free firefighting formulation: [https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jan/12/2003144157/-1/-1/1/MILITARY-SPECIFICATION-FOR-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING-AGENT-FLUORINE-FREE-FOAM-F3-LIQUID-CONCENTRATE-FOR-LAND-BASED-FRESH-WATER-APPLICATIONS.PDF Military Specification MIL-PRF-32725]<ref name="DoD2023">US Department of Defense, 2023. Performance Specification for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate for Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications. Mil-Spec MIL-PRF-32725, 18 pages. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f7/MilSpec32725.pdf Military Specification Document]</ref>
*[//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/33/LangEtAl2022.pdf Characterization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on fire suppression system piping and optimization of removal methods]<ref name="LangEtAl2022" />

==Introduction==
[[File:LangFig1.png | thumb |400px|Figure 1. (A) Schematic of a typical PFAS molecule demonstrating the hydrophobic fluorinated tail in green and the hydrophilic charged functional group in blue, (B) a PFAS bilayer formed with the hydrophobic tails facing inward and the charged functional groups on the outside, and (C) multiple bilayers of PFAS assembled on the wetted surfaces of fire suppression piping.]]PFAS are a class of synthetic fluorinated compounds which are highly mobile and persistent within the environment<ref>Giesy, J.P., Kannan, K., 2001. Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife. Environmental Science and Technology 35(7), pp. 1339-1342. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es001834k doi: 10.1021/es001834k]</ref>. Due to the surfactant properties of PFAS, these compounds self-assemble at any solid-liquid interface forming resilient bilayers during prolonged exposure<ref>Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Selected physicochemical aspects of poly- and perfluoroalkylated substances relevant to performance, environment and sustainability-Part one. Chemosphere, 129, pp. 4-19. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039]</ref>. Solid phase accumulation of PFAS has been proposed to be influenced by both [[wikipedia: Hydrophobic effect|hydrophobic]] and electrostatic interactions with fluorinated carbon chain length as the dominant feature influencing sorption<ref>Higgins, C.P., Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251-7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n doi: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref>. While the majority of previous research into solid phase sorption typically focused on water treatment applications or subsurface porous media<ref>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] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693257/ Article pdf]</ref>, recently PFAS accumulations have been identified on the wetted surfaces of fire suppression infrastructure exposed to aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)<ref name="LangEtAl2022" /> (see Figure 1).

<onlyinclude>

Fire suppression systems with potential PFAS impacts include fire fighting vehicles that carried AFFF and fixed suppression systems in buildings containing large amounts of flammable materials such as aircraft hangars</onlyinclude> (Figure 2)<onlyinclude>. PFAS residue on the wetted surfaces of existing infrastructure can rebound into replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulations if not removed during the transition process</onlyinclude><ref name="RossStorch2020" /><onlyinclude>. Simple surface rinsing with water and low-pressure washing has been proven to be inefficient for removal of surface bound PFAS from piping and tanks that contained fluorinated AFFF</onlyinclude><ref name="RossStorch2020" /><onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>
[[File:LangFig2.png | thumb|left|600px|Figure 2. Fixed fire suppression system for an aircraft hangar, with storage tank on left and distribution piping on right]]

<onlyinclude>In addition to proper methods for system cleaning to remove residual PFAS, transition to PFAS-free foam may also include consideration of compliance with state and federal regulations, selection of the replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulation, a cost benefit analysis for replacement of the system components versus cleaning, and clean out verification testing. Foam transition should be completed in a manner which minimizes the volume of waste generated as well as preventing any PFAS release into the environment. </onlyinclude>

==PFAS Assembly on Solid Surfaces==
The self-assembly of [[Wikipedia: Amphiphile | amphiphilic]] molecules into supramolecular bilayers is a result of their structure and how it interacts with the bulk water of a solution. Single chain hydrocarbon based amphiphiles can form [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]] under relatively dilute aqueous concentrations, however for hydrocarbon based surfactants the formation of more complex organized system such as [[Wikipedia: Vesicle (biology and chemistry) | vesicles]] is rarely seen, requiring double chain amphiphiles such as [[wikipedia: Phospholipid|phospholipids]]. Associations of single chain [[wikipedia: Ion#Anions_and_cations|cationic and anionic]] hydrocarbon based amphiphiles into stable supramolecular structures such as vesicles has however been demonstrated<ref>Fukuda, H., Kawata, K., Okuda, H., 1990. Bilayer-Forming Ion-Pair Amphiphiles from Single-Chain Surfactants. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112(4), pp. 1635-1637. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00160a057 doi: 10.1021/ja00160a057]</ref>, with the ion pairing of the polar head groups mimicking the a double tail situation. The behavior of single chain [[Wikipedia: Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Fluorosurfactants|fluorosurfactant]] amphiphiles has been demonstrated to be significantly different from similar hydrocarbon based analogues. Not only are [[Wikipedia: Critical micelle concentration | critical micelle concentrations (CMC)]] of fluorosurfactants typically two orders of magnitude lower than corresponding hydrocarbon surfactants, but self-assembly can occur even when fluorosurfactants are dispersed at low concentrations significantly below the CMC in water and other solvents<ref name="Krafft2006">Krafft, M.P., 2006. Highly fluorinated compounds induce phase separation in, and nanostructuration of liquid media. Possible impact on, and use in chemical reactivity control. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 44(14), pp. 4251-4258. [https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.21508 doi: 10.1002/pola.21508] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a2/Krafft2006.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. The assembly of fluorinated amphiphiles structurally similar to those found in AFFF have been shown to readily form stable, complex structures including vesicles, fibers, and globules at concentrations as low as 0.5% w/v in contrast to their hydrocarbon analogues which remained fluid at 30% w/v<ref name="KrafftEtAl1993">Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1993. Can Single-Chain Perfluoroalkylated Amphiphiles Alone form Vesicles and Other Organized Supramolecular Systems? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 32(5), pp. 741-743. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199307411 doi: 10.1002/anie.199307411]</ref><ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994">Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1994. Supramolecular assemblies from single chain perfluoroalkylated phosphorylated amphiphiles. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 84(1), pp. 113-119. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4 doi: 10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4]</ref>.

Krafft found that fluorinated amphiphiles formed bilayer membranes with phospholipids, and that the resulting vesicles were more stable than those made of phospholipids alone<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998">Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 1998. Highly Fluorinated Amphiphiles and Collodial Systems, and their Applications in the Biomedical Field. A Contribution. Biochimie, 80(5-6), pp. 489-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4 doi: 10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4]</ref>. The similarities in amphiphilic properties between phospholipids and the hydrocarbon-based surfactants in AFFF suggests that bilayer vesicles may form between these and the fluorosurfactants also present in the concentrate. Krafft demonstrated that both the permeability of resulting mixed vesicles and their propensity to fuse with each other at increasing ionic strength was reduced as a result of the creation of an inert hydrophobic and [[wikipedia: Lipophobicity|lipophobic]] film within the membrane, and also suggested that the fluorinated amphiphiles increased [[Wikipedia: van der Waals force | van der Waals interactions]] in the hydrocarbon region<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998" />. Thus this low permeability may allow vesicles formed by the surfactants present in AFFF to act as long term repositories of PFAS not only as part of the bilayer itself but also solvated within the vesicle. This prediction is supported by the observation that supramolecular structures formed from single chain fluorinated amphiphiles have been demonstrated to be stable at elevated temperature (15 min at 121°C) and have been shown to be stable over periods of months, even increasing in size over time when stored at environmentally relevant temperatures<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994" />.

Formation of complex structures at relatively low solute concentrations requires the monomer molecules to be well ordered to maintain tight packing in the supramolecular structure<ref>Ringsdorf, H., Schlarb, B., Venzmer, J., 1988. Molecular Architecture and Function of Polymeric Oriented Systems: Models for the Study of Organization, Surface Recognition, and Dynamics of Biomembranes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 27(1), pp. 113-158. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.198801131 doi: 10.1002/anie.198801131]</ref>. This order results from electrostatic forces, [[Wikipedia: Hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonding]], and in the case of fluorinated amphiphiles, hydrophobic interactions. The geometry of the amphiphile also potentially contributes to the type of supramolecular aggregation<ref>Israelachvili, J.N., Mitchell, D.J., Ninham, B.W., 1976. Theory of Self-Assembly of Hydrocarbon Amphiphiles into Micelles and Bilayers. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2: Molecular and Chemical Physics, 72, pp. 1525-1568. [https://doi.org/10.1039/F29767201525 doi: 10.1039/F29767201525]</ref>. Surfactants which adopt a conical shape (such as a typical hydrocarbon based surfactant with a large polar head group and a single alkyl chain as a tail) tend to form micelles more easily. Increasing the bulk of the tail makes the surfactant more cylindrically shaped which makes assembly into bilayers more likely.

Perfluoroalkyl chains are significantly more bulky than their hydrocarbon based analogues both in cross sectional area (28-30 Å2 versus 20 Å2, respectively) and mean volume (CF2 and CF3 estimated as 38 Å3 and 92 Å3 compared to 27 Å3 and 54 Å3 for CH2 and CH3)<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998" /><ref name="Krafft2006" />. Structural studies on linear PFOS have shown that the molecule adopts an unusual helical structure<ref>Erkoç, Ş., Erkoç, F., 2001. Structural and electronic properties of PFOS and LiPFOS. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM, 549(3), pp. 289-293. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X doi:10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X]</ref><ref name="TorresEtAl2009">Torres, F.J., Ochoa-Herrera, V., Blowers, P., Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2009. Ab initio study of the structural, electronic, and thermodynamic properties of linear perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its branched isomers. Chemosphere 76(8), pp. 1143-1149. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009]</ref> in aqueous and solvent phases to alleviate [[wikipedia: Steric_effects#Steric_hindrance|steric hindrance]]. This arrangement results from the carbon chain starting in the planar all anti [[wikipedia:Conformational isomerism|conformation]] and then successively twisting all the CC-CC dihedrals by 15°-20° in the same direction<ref>Abbandonato, G., Catalano, D., Marini, A., 2010. Aggregation of Perfluoroctanoate Salts Studied by 19F NMR and DFT Calculations: Counterion Complexation, Poly(ethylene glycol) Addition, and Conformational Effects. Langmuir, 26(22), pp. 16762-16770. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la102578k doi: 10.1021/la102578k]</ref>. The conformation also minimizes the electrostatic repulsion between fluorine atoms bonded to the same side of the carbon backbone by maximizing the interatomic distances between them<ref name="TorresEtAl2009" />.

A consequence of the helical structure is that there is limited carbon-carbon bond rotation within the perfluoroalkyl chain giving them increased rigidity compared to alkyl chains<ref>Barton, S.W., Goudot, A., Bouloussa, O., Rondelez, F., Lin, B., Novak, F., Acero, A., Rice, S., 1992. Structural transitions in a monolayer of fluorinated amphiphile molecules. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 96(2), pp. 1343-1351. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.462170 doi: 10.1063/1.462170]</ref>. The bulkiness of the perfluoroalkyl chain confers a cylindrical shape on the fluorosurfactant amphiphile and therefore favors the formation of bilayers and vesicles the aggregation of which is further assisted by the rigidity of the molecules which allow close packing in the supramolecular structure. Fluorosurfactants therefore cannot be regarded as more hydrophobic analogues of hydrogenated surfactants. Their self-assembly behavior is characterized by a strong tendency to form vesicles and lamellar phases rather than micelles, due to the bulkiness and rigidity of the perfluoroalkyl chain that tends to decrease the curvature of the aggregates they form in solution<ref>Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J., Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56, pp. 48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 doi: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Article pdf]</ref>. The larger tail cross section of fluorinated compared to hydrogenated amphiphiles tends to favor the formation of aggregates with lesser surface curvature, therefore rather than micelles they form bilayer membranes, vesicles, tubules and fibers<ref name="KrafftEtAl1993" /><ref>Furuya, H., Moroi, Y., Kaibara, K., 1996. Solid and Solution Properties of Alkylammonium Perfluorocarboxylates. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 100(43), pp. 17249-17254. [https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9612801 doi: 10.1021/jp9612801]</ref><ref>Giulieri, F., Krafft, M.P., 1996. Self-organization of single-chain fluorinated amphiphiles with fluorinated alcohols. Thin Solid Films, 284-285, pp. 195-199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9 doi: 10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9]</ref><ref>Gladysz, J.A., Curran, D.P., Horvath, I.T., 2004. Handbook of Fluorous Chemistry. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA,, Weinheim, Germany. ISBN: 3-527-30617-X</ref>. Rojas ''et al.'' (2002) demonstrated that perfluorooctyl sulphonamide formed a contiguous bilayer at 50 mg/L with self-assembled aggregates present at concentrations as low as 10 mg/L<ref name="RojasEtAl2002">Rojas, O.J., Macakova, L., Blomberg, E., Emmer, A., and Claesson, P.M., 2002. Fluorosurfactant Self-Assembly at Solid/Liquid Interfaces. Langmuir, 18(21), pp. 8085-8095. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la025989c doi: 10.1021/la025989c]</ref>.

==Thermodynamics of PFAS Accumulations on Solid Surfaces==
The thermodynamics of formation of amphiphiles into supramolecular species requires consideration of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions resulting from the amphoteric nature of the molecule. The hydrophilic portions of the molecule are driven to maximize their solvation interaction with as many water molecules as possible, whereas the hydrophobic portions of the molecule are driven to aggregate together thus minimizing interaction with the bulk water. Both of these processes change the [[wikipedia:Enthalpy|enthalpy]] and [[wikipedia: Entropy|entropy]] of the system.

In aqueous solution, the hydrophilic portions of an amphiphile form hydrogen bonds (4 - 120 kJ/mol) and van der Waals interactions (<5 kJ/mol) with water molecules and surfaces, and electrostatic interactions (5 – 300 kJ/mol) can also occur where the amphiphile is ionic<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015">Lombardo, D., Kiselev, M.A., Magazù, S., Calandra, P., 2015. Amphiphiles Self-Assembly: Basic Concepts and Future Perspectives of Supramolecular Approaches. Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, vol. 2015, article ID 151683, 22 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/151683 doi: 10.1155/2015/151683] [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/74/LombardoEtAl2015.pdf Article pdf]</ref>. These interactions, although weak compared to intramolecular covalent bonds within a molecule are energetically favorable and increase the enthalpy of the combined solute-solvent system. Thus, the hydrophilic portion of an amphiphile will look to maximize enthalpic gain through hydrogen bond interactions with the bulk water.

The hydrophobic portion of an amphiphile cannot form hydrogen bonds with the bulk solution, and its presence disrupts the hydrogen bond interactions between individual water molecules within the bulk water matrix. This disruption lowers the entropy of the system by reducing the degrees of translational rotational freedom available to the bulk water. The [[wikipedia:Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] dictates that a system will arrange itself to maximize its entropy. With hydrophobic species this can be achieved by their spontaneous aggregation, as the reduction in solution entropy of the aggregated system is less than that which would occur if the component parts were solvated individually. These hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions are weak, and the individual entropy gain per amphiphile upon aggregation is very small. However, taken together the overall effect on the entropy of the aggregate is sufficient to maintain it in solution, and moreover these interactions make the aggregates resistant to minor perturbations while retaining the reversibility of the self-assembled structure<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015" />.

==Regulatory Drivers for Transition to PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==
Regulations restricting the use and release of PFAS are being proposed and promulgated worldwide, with several enacted regulations addressing the use of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) containing PFAS<ref name="Queensland2016">Queensland (Australia) Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2016. Operational Policy - Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam. 16 pages. [https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/firefighting-foam-policy.pdf Policy pdf]</ref><ref>U.S. Congress, 2019. S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. United States Library of Congress.  [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790 Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Arizona State Legislature, 2019. Title 36, Section 1696. Firefighting foam; prohibited uses; exception; definitions. [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/01696.htm Text of Law]</ref><ref>California Legislature, 2020. Senate Bill No. 1044, Chapter 308, Firefighting equipment and foam: PFAS chemicals. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1044 Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Arkansas General Assembly, 2021. An Act Concerning the Use of Certain Chemicals in Firefighting Foam; and for Other Purposes. Act 315, State of Arkansas. [https://trackbill.com/bill/arkansas-house-bill-1351-concerning-the-use-of-certain-chemicals-in-firefighting-foam/2008913/ Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Espinosa, Summers, Kelly, J., Statler, Hansen, Young, 2021. Amendment to Fire Prevention and Control Act. House Bill 2722. West Virginia Legislature. [https://trackbill.com/bill/west-virginia-house-bill-2722-prohibiting-the-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-for-testing-purposes-if-the-foam-contains-a-certain-class-of-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2047674/ Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Louisiana Legislature, 2021. Act No. 232. [https://trackbill.com/bill/louisiana-house-bill-389-fire-protect-fire-marshal-provides-relative-to-the-discharge-or-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-containing-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2092535/ Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Vermont Legislature, 2021b. Act No. 36, PFAS in Class B Firefighting Foam. [https://trackbill.com/bill/vermont-senate-bill-20-an-act-relating-to-restrictions-on-perfluoroalkyl-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-and-other-chemicals-of-concern-in-consumer-products/1978963/ Text and History of Law]</ref>. In addition to regulated usage, firefighting formulation users are transitioning to PFAS-free firefighting formulations to reduce environmental liability in the event of a release, to reduce the cost of expensive containment systems and management of generated waste streams, and to avoid reputational damage. In 2016, Queensland, Australia was one of the first governments to ban PFAS use in firefighting foam<ref name="Queensland2016" />. The US 2020 National Defense Authorization Act specified immediate prohibition of controlled releases of AFFF containing PFAS and required the Secretary of the Navy to publish a specification for PFAS-free firefighting formulation use and ensure it is available for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) by October 1, 2023<ref>U.S. Congress, 2021. S.2792 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. United States Library of Congress.  [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2792/ Text and History of Law].</ref>. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently removed the requirement for AFFF containing PFAS from their Standard on Aircraft Hangars and added two new chapters to allow users to determine if AFFF containing PFAS is needed at their facility<ref name="NFPA2022">National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2022. Codes and Standards, 409: Standard on Aircraft Hangars. [https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/4/0/9/409?l=42 NFPA Website]</ref>.

==Selection of Replacement PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==
Since they first entered the market in the 2000s, the operational capabilities of PFAS-free firefighting formulations have grown<ref>Allcorn, M., Bluteau, T., Corfield, J., Day, G., Cornelsen, M., Holmes, N.J.C., Klein, R.A., McDowall, J.G., Olsen, K.T., Ramsden, N., Ross, I., Schaefer, T.H., Weber, R., Whitehead, K., 2018. Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (3F) – Viable Alternatives to Fluorinated Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF). White Paper prepared for the IPEN by members of the IPEN F3 Panel and associates, POPRC-14, Rome. [https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/IPEN_F3_Position_Paper_POPRC-14_12September2018d.pdf Article pdf].</ref> and numerous companies are now manufacturing and delivering PFAS-free firefighting formulations for fixed systems and AFFF vehicles<ref>Ansul (Company), Ansul NFF-331 3%x3% Non-Fluorinated Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://docs.johnsoncontrols.com/specialhazards/api/khub/documents/1nbeVfynU1IW~eJcCOA0Bg/content Product Data Sheet].</ref><ref>BioEx (Company), Ecopol A+ (Commercial Product). [https://www.bio-ex.com/en/our-products/product/ecopol-aplus/ Website]</ref><ref>National Foam (Company), 2020. Avio F3 Green KHC 3%, Fluorine Free Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://nationalfoam.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/NMS515-Avio-Green-KHC-3-FF.pdf Safety Data Sheet]</ref>. Key factors in the selection of a PFAS-free firefighting formulation product are compatibility of the new formulation with the existing system (as confirmed by a fire protection engineer) and environmental certifications (i.e., verifying the absence of organic fluorine or PFAS or the absence of other non-fluorine environmental contaminants).

In January 2023, the US Department of Defense (USDoD) published the [https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jan/12/2003144157/-1/-1/1/MILITARY-SPECIFICATION-FOR-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING-AGENT-FLUORINE-FREE-FOAM-F3-LIQUID-CONCENTRATE-FOR-LAND-BASED-FRESH-WATER-APPLICATIONS.PDF Performance Specification for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate for Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications]<ref name="DoD2023" />. This Military Performance Specification (Mil-Spec) allows PFAS-free firefighting formulations to be certified as meeting certain standardized operational goals for use in military settings. There are now several certified PFAS-free firefighting formulations listed on the USDoD’s [https://qpldocs.dla.mil/search/parts.aspx?qpl=4513&param=&type=32768 Qualified Products List (QPL)]. In addition to Mil-Spec requirements, PFAS-free firefighting formulations can also be certified through Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, UL 162, which requires the new firefighting formulations be investigated for suitability and compatibility with the specific equipment with which they are intended to be used<ref>Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 2018. UL162, UL Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid <onlyinclude>C</onlyinclude>oncentrates, 8th Edition, Revised 2022. 40 pages. [https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=UL%20162&item_s_key=00096960 Website]</ref>. Several PFAS-free foams have been certified under various parts of EN1568, the European Standard which specifies the necessary foam properties and performance requirements<ref>European Standards, 2018. CSN EN 1568-1 ed. 2: Fire extinguishing media - Foam concentrates - Part 1: Specification for medium expansion foam concentrates for surface application to water-immiscible liquids. 48 pages. [https://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-1568-1-ed-2-fire-extinguishing-media-foam-concentrates-part-1-specification-for-medium-expansion-foam-concentrates-for-surface-application-to-water-immiscible-liquids/ European Standards Website.]</ref>. Both [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ ESTCP and SERDP] have supported (and continue to support) the development and field validation of PFAS-free firefighting formulations (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/baa72637-e3c8-40ee-a007-f295311c72ad WP22-7456], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-4bdd-98d2-1f9cfeb5f3d9/wp21-3465-project-overview WP21-3465], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/bc932800-cfc8-4e86-a212-5f8c9d27f17c WP20-1535]). Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have performed a variety of foam certification tests on numerous PFAS-free firefighting formulations<ref>Back, G.G., Farley, J.P., 2020. Evaluation of the Fire Protection Effectiveness of Fluorine Free Firefighting Foams. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Research Foundation. [https://www.iafc.org/docs/default-source/1safehealthshs/effectivenessofflourinefreefoam.pdf Report pdf].</ref><ref>Casey, J., Trazzi, D., 2022. Fluorine-Free Foam Testing. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Final Report. [https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/DocumentDownload.ashx?portalid=0&moduleid=3682&articleid=2882&documentid=3054 Article pdf]</ref>.

==Selection of Flushing Agent and Approach==
General industry guidance has typically recommended several flushes with water to remove PFAS from impacted equipment. Owing to the unique physical and chemical properties of PFAS, the use of room temperature water as the primary flushing agent to remove PFAS from impacted equipment has been demonstrated to not be effective enough. To address these recalcitrant accumulations, c<onlyinclude>ompanies are developing new methods to remove self-assembled PFAS bilayers from existing fire-fighting infrastructure so that it can be successfully transitioned to PFAS-free formulations. </onlyinclude>Arcadis developed a non-toxic cleaning agent, Fluoro FighterTM, which has been demonstrated to be effective for removal of PFAS from equipment by disrupting the accumulated layers of PFAS coating the AFFF-wetted surfaces.

Laboratory studies have supported the optimization of this PFAS removal method in fire suppression system piping obtained from a commercial airport hangar in Sydney, Australia<ref name="LangEtAl2022" />. Prior to removal from the hangar, the stainless-steel pipe held PFAS-containing AFFF for more than three decades. Results indicated that Fluoro FighterTM, as well as flushing at elevated temperatures, removed more surface associated PFAS in comparison to equivalent extractions using methanol or water at room temperature. ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of best practices for methodologies to clean foam delivery systems (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1 ER20-5364], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/6d0750be-f20b-4765-bdfa-872adccaf37a ER20-5361], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4fd2e4ab-ddb7-40f8-835e-e1d637c0d650 ER21-7229]).

==Evaluating PFAS Residuals in the System After Cleaning==
[[File:LangFig3.png | thumb |500px|Figure 3. Rebound total PFAS concentration measured by TOP Assay in PFAS-free firefighting formulations from a legacy AFFF concentrate tank cleaned with Arcadis Fluoro FighterTM compared to rebound concentration in an uncleaned tank]]
In general, <onlyinclude>PFAS sampling techniques used to support firefighting formulation transition activities are consistent with conventional sampling techniques used in the environmental industry, but special consideration is made regarding high concentration PFAS materials, elevated detection levels, cross-contamination potential, precursor content, and matrix interferences. The analytical method selected should be appropriate for the regulatory requirements in the site area.</onlyinclude>

Arcadis implemented its proprietary cleaning process on foam concentrate piping and foam concentrate storage tanks at Naval Air Station Willow Grove utilizing Fluoro FighterTM. The system had two identical foam concentrate tanks, but one tank was isolated from the cleaning agent flow path, preserving this tank in an uncleaned state as a negative control for the experiment. The total PFAS concentrations measured by [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | Total Oxidizable Precursor (TOP) Assay]] in the PFAS-free firefighting formulation rebound samples were 12 µg/L in the cleaned tank compared to ~1,500 µg/L in the uncleaned tank (Figure 3) indicating this cleaning process results in orders of magnitude reductions in PFAS rebound concentrations.

==Flushing Media Treatment==
Numerous technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including flushing agents, have been and are currently being developed. These include separation technologies such as [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment|foam fractionation, nanofiltration, sorbents/flocculants, ion exchange resins, reverse osmosis, and destructive technologies such as sonolysis, electrochemical oxidation, hydrothermal alkaline treatment]], [[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma |enhanced contact plasma]], and [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) |supercritical water oxidation (SCWO)]]. Many of these technologies have rapidly developed from bench-scale (e.g., microcosms, columns, single reactors) to commercially available field-scale units capable of managing PFAS-impacted waters of varying waste volumes and PFAS compositions and concentrations. Ongoing field research continues to improve the treatment efficiency, reliability, and versatility of these technologies, both individually and as coupled treatment solutions (e.g., treatment train). ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of separation and destructive technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including flushing agents (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0c7af048-3a00-471f-9480-292aa78ecd4f ER20-5370], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d ER20-5350], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/790e2dda-1f7b-4ff5-b77e-08ed10a456b1 ER20-5355]).

Remedy selection for treatment of flushing agents involves several key factors. It is critical that environmental practitioners have up-to-date technical and practical knowledge on the suitability of these remedial options for different site conditions, treatment volumes, PFAS composition (e.g., presence of precursors, co-contaminants), PFAS concentrations, safety considerations, potential for undesired byproducts (e.g., perchlorate, disinfection byproducts), and treatment costs (e.g., energy demand, capital costs, operational labor).

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CFPC/KO/2022/Latest-News/DESPP-DEEP-AFFF-MuniFDupdate-2022-05-26.pdf Connecticut Take-Back Program for municipal fire departments using AFFF containing PFAS]

[https://www.arcadis.com/en-us/knowledge-hub/blog/united-states/johnsie-lang/2021/transitioning-to-pfas-free-firefighting Arcadis blog on Fluoro FighterTM]

[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1 Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5634: Demonstration and Validation of Environmentally Sustainable Methods to Effectively Remove PFAS from Fire Suppression Systems]

[https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5350: Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction]

[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/gwmr-solutions-for-managing-afff-impacted-infrastructure SERDP and ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast : GWMR Solutions for Managing AFFF-Impacted Infrastructurer]

Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil

2026-02-11T21:06:35Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] from impacted soils is challenging due to the modest volatility and varying properties of PFAS compounds. Thermal treatment technologies have been developed for treatment of semi-volatile compounds such as dioxins, furans, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and poly-chlorinated biphenyls in soils at temperatures near 325°C. In controlled bench-scale testing, removal of targeted PFAS compounds to concentrations below reporting limits </onlyinclude>of 0.5 µg/kg <onlyinclude>was demonstrated at temperatures of 400°C</onlyinclude><ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"> Crownover, E., Oberle, D., Heron, G., Kluger, M., 2019. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation. Remediation Journal, 29(4), pp. 77-81. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21623 doi: 10.1002/rem.21623]</ref><onlyinclude>. T</onlyinclude>hree field-scale thermal PFAS treatment projects that have been completed in the US include an in-pile treatment demonstration, an ''in situ'' vadose zone treatment demonstration and a larger scale treatment demonstration with excavated PFAS-impacted soil in a constructed pile. Based on the results, t<onlyinclude>hermal treatment temperatures of at least 400°C and a holding time of 7-10 days are recommended</onlyinclude> for reaching local and federal PFAS soil standards<onlyinclude>. The energy requirement to treat typical wet soil ranges from 300 to 400 kWh per cubic yard</onlyinclude>, exclusive of heat losses which are scale dependent<onlyinclude>. Extracted vapors have typically been treated using condensation and granular activated charcoal filtration, with thermal and catalytic oxidation as another option which is currently being evaluated for field scale applications.</onlyinclude> Compared to other options such as soil washing, the ability to treat on site and to treat all soil fractions is an advantage.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Gorm Heron]], [[Dr. Emily Crownover]], Patrick Joyce, [[Dr. Ramona Iery]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/>

==Introduction==
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] have become prominent emerging contaminants in soil and groundwater. Soil source zones have been identified at locations where the chemicals were produced, handled or used. Few effective options exist for treatments that can meet local and federal soil standards. Over the past 30 plus years, thermal remediation technologies have grown from experimental and innovative prospects to mature and accepted solutions deployed effectively at many sites. More than 600 thermal case studies have been summarized by Horst and colleagues<ref name="HorstEtAl2021">Horst, J., Munholland, J., Hegele, P., Klemmer, M., Gattenby, J., 2021. In Situ Thermal Remediation for Source Areas: Technology Advances and a Review of the Market From 1988–2020. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 41(1), p. 17. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12424 doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12424]  [[Media: gwmr.12424.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. [[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]] has been used for higher temperature applications such as removal of [[Wikipedia: Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds | dioxins]]. This article reports recent experience with TCH treatment of PFAS-impacted soil.

==Target Temperature and Duration==
PFAS behave differently from most other organics subjected to TCH treatment. While the boiling points of individual PFAS fall in the range of 150-400°C, their chemical and physical behavior creates additional challenges. Some PFAS form ionic species in certain pH ranges and salts under other chemical conditions. This intricate behavior and our limited understanding of what this means for our ability to remove the PFAS from soils means that direct testing of thermal treatment options is warranted. Crownover and colleagues<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> subjected PFAS-laden soil to bench-scale heating to temperatures between 200 and 400°C which showed strong reductions of PFAS concentrations at 350°C and complete removal of many PFAS compounds at 400°C. The soil concentrations of targeted PFAS were reduced to nearly undetectable levels in this study.

==Heating Method==
For semi-volatile compounds such as dioxins, furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), thermal conduction heating has evolved as the dominant thermal technology because it is capable of achieving soil temperatures higher than the boiling point of water, which are necessary for complete removal of these organic compounds. Temperatures between 200 and 500°C have been required to achieve the desired reduction in contaminant concentrations<ref name="StegemeierVinegar2001">Stegemeier, G.L., Vinegar, H.J., 2001. Thermal Conduction Heating for In-Situ Thermal Desorption of Soils. Ch. 4.6, pp. 1-37. In: Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9780849395864 [[Media: StegemeierVinegar2001.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. TCH has become a popular technology for PFAS treatment because temperatures in the 400°C range are needed.

The energy source for TCH can be electricity (most commonly used), or fossil fuels (typically gas, diesel or fuel oil). Electrically powered TCH offers the largest flexibility for power input which also can be supplied by renewable and sustainable energy sources.

==Energy Usage==
Treating PFAS-impacted soil with heat requires energy to first bring the soil and porewater to the boiling point of water, then to evaporate the porewater until the soil is dry, and finally to heat the dry soil up to the target treatment temperature. The energy demand for wet soils falls in the 300-400 kWh/cy range, dependent on porosity and water saturation. Additional energy is consumed as heat is lost to the surroundings and by vapor treatment equipment, yielding a typical usage of 400-600 kWh/cy total for larger soil treatment volumes. Wetter soils and small treatment volumes drive the energy usage towards the higher number, whereas larger soil volumes and dry soil can be treated with less energy.

==Vapor Treatment==
During the TCH process a significant fraction of the PFAS compounds are volatilized by the heat and then removed from the soil by vacuum extraction. The vapors must be treated and eventually discharged while meeting local and/or federal standards. Two types of vapor treatment have been used in past TCH applications for organics: (1) thermal and catalytic oxidation and (2) condensation followed by granular activated charcoal (GAC) filtration. Due to uncertainties related to thermal destruction of fluorinated compounds and future requirements for treatment temperature and residence time, condensation and GAC filtration have been used in the first three PFAS treatment field demonstrations. It should be noted that PFAS compounds will stick to surfaces and that decontamination of the equipment is important. This could generate additional waste as GAC vessels, pipes and other wetted equipment need careful cleaning with solvents or rinsing agents such as PerfluorAdTM.

==PFAS Reactivity and Fate==
While evaluating initial soil treatment results, Crownover ''et al''<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> noted the lack of complete data sets when the soils were analyzed for non-targeted compounds or extractable precursors. Attempts to establish the fluorine balance suggest that the final fate of the fluorine in the PFAS is not yet fully understood. Transformations are likely occurring in the heated soil as demonstrated in laboratory experiments with and without calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) amendment<ref>Koster van Groos, P.G., 2021. Small-Scale Thermal Treatment of Investigation-Derived Wastes Containing PFAS. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/2f1577ac-c8ea-4ae8-804e-c9f97a12edb3/small-scale-thermal-treatment-of-investigation-derived-wastes-idw-containing-pfas Project ER18-1556 Website], [[Media: ER18-1556_Final_Report.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>. Amendments such as Ca(OH)2 may be useful in reducing the required treatment temperature by catalyzing PFAS degradation. With thousands of PFAS potentially present, the interactions are complex and may never be fully understood. Therefore, successful thermal treatment may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points – simply to provide a buffer against the uncertainty.

==Case Studies==
===Stockpile Treatment, Eielson AFB, Alaska ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/62098505-de86-43b2-bead-ae8018854141 ESTCP project ER20-5198]<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2023">Crownover, E., Heron, G., Pennell, K., Ramsey, B., Rickabaugh, T., Stallings, P., Stauch, L., Woodcock, M., 2023. Ex Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soils, [[Media: ER20-5198 Final Report.pdf | Final Report.]] Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/62098505-de86-43b2-bead-ae8018854141 Project ER20-5198 Website]</ref>)===
[[File: HeronFig1.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 1. TCH treatment of a PFAS-laden stockpile at Eielson AFB, Alaska<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2023"/>]]
Since there has been no approved or widely accepted method for treating soils impacted by PFAS, a common practice has been to excavate PFAS-impacted soil and place it in lined stockpiles. Eielson AFB in Alaska is an example where approximately 50 stockpiles were constructed to temporarily store 150,000 cubic yards of soil. One of the stockpiles containing 134 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was heated to 350-450°C over 90 days (Figure 1). Volatilized PFAS was extracted from the soil using vacuum extraction and treated via condensation and filtration by granular activated charcoal. Under field conditions, PFAS concentration reductions from 230 µg/kg to below 0.5 µg/kg were demonstrated for soils that reached 400°C or higher for 7 days. These soils achieved the Alaska soil standards of 3 µg/kg for PFOS and 1.7 µg/kg for PFOA. Cooler soils near the top of the stockpile had remaining PFOS in the range of 0.5-20 µg/kg with an overall average of 4.1 µg/kg. Sampling of all soils heated to 400°C or higher demonstrated that the soils achieved undetectable levels of targeted PFAS (typical reporting limit was 0.5 µg/kg).

===''In situ'' Vadose Zone Treatment, Beale AFB, California ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/94949542-f9f7-419d-8028-8ba318495641/er20-5250-project-overview ESTCP project ER20-5250]<ref name="Iery2024">Iery, R. 2024. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/94949542-f9f7-419d-8028-8ba318495641 Project ER20-5250 Website]. [[Media: ER20-5250 Fact Sheet.pdf | Fact Sheet.pdf]]</ref>)===
[[File: HeronFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. ''In situ'' TCH treatment of a PFAS-rich vadose zone hotspot at Beale AFB, California]]
A former fire-training area at Beale AFB had PFAS concentrations as high as 1,970 µg/kg in shallow soils. In situ treatment of a PFAS-rich soil was demonstrated using 16 TCH borings installed in the source area to a depth of 18 ft (Figure 2). Soils which reached the target temperatures were reduced to PFAS concentrations below 1 µg/kg. Perched water which entered in one side of the area delayed heating in that area, and soils which were affected had more modest PFAS concentration reductions. As a lesson learned, future in situ TCH treatments will include provisions for minimizing water entering the treated volume<ref name="Iery2024"/>. It was demonstrated that with proper water management, even highly impacted soils can be treated to near non-detect concentrations (greater than 99% reduction).

===Constructed Pile Treatment, JBER, Alaska ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/eb7311db-6233-4c7f-b23a-e003ac1926c5/pfas-treatment-in-soil-using-thermal-conduction-heating ESTCP Project ER23-8369]<ref name="CrownoverHeron2024">Crownover, E., Heron, G., 2024. PFAS Treatment in Soil Using Thermal Conduction Heating. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) - Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/eb7311db-6233-4c7f-b23a-e003ac1926c5/pfas-treatment-in-soil-using-thermal-conduction-heating Project ER23-8369 Website]</ref>)===
[[File: HeronFig3.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 3. Treatment of a 2,000 cubic yard soil pile at JBER, Alaska]]
In 2024, a stockpile of 2,000 cubic yards of PFAS-impacted soil was thermally treated at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska<ref name="CrownoverHeron2024"/>. This ESTCP project was implemented in partnership with DOD’s Defense Innovation Unit (DIU). Three technology demonstrations were conducted at the site where approximately 6,000 cy of PFAS-impacted soil was treated (TCH, smoldering and kiln-style thermal desorption). Figure 3 shows the fully constructed pile used for the TCH demonstration. In August 2024 the soil temperature for the TCH treatment exceeded 400°C in all monitoring locations. At an energy density of 355 kWh/cy, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) standards and EPA Residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) for PFAS in soil were achieved. At JBER, all 30 post-treatment soil samples were near or below detection limits for all targeted PFAS compounds using EPA Method 1633. The composite of all 30 soil samples was below all detection limits for EPA Method 1633. Detection limits ranged from 0.0052 µg/kg to 0.19 µg/kg for individaul PFAS.

==Advantages and Disadvantages==
<onlyinclude>Thermal treatment of PFAS in soils is energy intensive, and the cost of that energy may be prohibitive for some clients. Also, while it often is the least costly option for complete PFAS removal when compared to excavation followed by offsite disposal or destruction, heating soil to treatment temperatures on site or ''in situ'' typically takes longer than excavation.</onlyinclude> Major advantages include:
*On site or ''in situ'' treatment eliminates the need to transport and dispose of the contaminated soil.
*Site liabilities are removed once and for all.
*Treatment costs are competitive with excavation, transportation and off-site treatment or disposal.

==Recommendations==
Recent research suggests:
*Successful thermal treatment of PFAS may require a higher target temperature than for other organics with similar boiling points.
*Prevention of influx of water into treatment zone may be necessary.
Future studies should examine the potential for enhanced degradation during the thermal process by using soil amendments and/or manipulation of the local geochemistry to reduce the required treatment temperatures and therefore also reduce energy demand.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal

2026-02-11T21:05:55Z

Admin:

[[Wikipedia: Nanofiltration | Nanofiltration (NF)]] and [[Wikipedia: Reverse osmosis | reverse osmosis (RO)]] are engineered polymeric filters designed to remove solutes down to the atomic and molecular size scale<ref name="Wilf2019">Wilf, M., 2019. Basic Terms and Definitions, Chapter 3 in Desalination: Water from Water, 2nd Edition, J. Kucera, Editor. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-1-119-40774-4 [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119407874.ch3 doi: 10.1002/9781119407874.ch3]</ref><ref name="BellonaEtAl2004">Bellona, C., Drewes, J., Xu, P., Amy, G., 2004. Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatment—a literature review. Water Research, 38(12), p. 2795-2809. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.03.034 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.03.034]</ref><ref name="BazarganSalgado2018">Bazargan, A., Salgado, B., 2018. Fundamentals of Desalination Technology, in A Multidisciplinary Introduction to Desalination, A. Bazargan, Editor. River Publishers. p. 41-66. ISBN 9788793379541. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003336914 doi: 10.1201/9781003336914]</ref>. RO, and to a lesser extent NF, has been implemented in a variety of water treatment applications including seawater and brackish water desalination, surface water treatment, industrial process water separation, and purification applications<ref name="Wilf2019"/><ref name="BellonaEtAl2004"/><ref name="BazarganSalgado2018"/><ref name="TurekEtAl2017">Turek, M., Mitko, K., Piotrowski, K., Dydo, P., Laskowska, E., Jakóbik-Kolon, A., 2017. Prospects for high water recovery membrane desalination. Desalination, 401, p. 180-189. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.047 doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2016.07.047]</ref><ref name="PanagopoulosEtAl2019">Panagopoulos, A., Haralambous, K.-J., Loizidou, M., 2019. Desalination brine disposal methods and treatment technologies - A review. Science of The Total Environment, 693, Article 133545. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.351]</ref><ref name="WarsingerEtAl2018">Warsinger, D.M., Chakraborty, S., Tow, E.W., Plumlee, M.H., Bellona, C., Loutatidou, S., Karimi, L., Mikelonis, A.M., Achilli, A., Ghassemi, A., Padhye, L.P., Snyder, S.A., Curcio, S., Vecitis, C.D., Arafat, H.A., Lienhard, J.H., 2018. A review of polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse. Progress in Polymer Science, 81, p. 209-237. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.01.004]</ref><ref name="Yan2017">Yan, D., 2017. Membrane Desalination Technologies, Chapter 6 in A Multidisciplinary Introduction to Desalination, A. Bazargan, Editor. River Publishers, p. 155-199. ISBN: 9788793379541</ref><ref name="Bellona2019">Bellona, C., 2019. Nanofiltration - Theory and Application, Chapter 4 in Desalination: Water from Water, 2nd Edition, J. Kucera, Editor. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-1-119-40774-4. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118904855.ch4 doi: 10.1002/9781118904855.ch4]</ref>. RO and NF use semi-permeable membranes that limit diffusion of solutes into the product water (''i.e.'', permeate) through [[Wikipedia: Steric effects | steric]] and electrostatic exclusion from the membrane polymer<ref name="BellonaEtAl2004"/>. Due to the molecular size and ionic character of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]], past research has demonstrated that both RO and NF membranes can achieve a high degree of separation (''i.e.'', rejection) of PFAS<ref name="ApplemanEtAl2013">Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R.V., Bellona, C., Higgins, C.P., 2013. Nanofiltration and granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, p. 740-746. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033]</ref><ref name="Steinle-DarlingReinhard2008">Steinle-Darling, E., 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), p. 5292-5297. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es703207s doi: 10.1021/es703207s]</ref><ref name="SafulkoEtAl2023">Safulko, A., Cath, T.Y., Li, F., Tajdini, B., Boyd, M., Huehmer, R.P., Bellona, C., 2023. Rejection of perfluoroalkyl acids by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis in a high-recovery closed-circuit membrane filtration system. Separation and Purification Technology, 326, Article 124867. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.124867 doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2023.124867] [[Media: SafulkoEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Christopher Bellona]], [[Nicole Masters]], [[Dr. Stephen Richardson]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[https://itrcweb.org/ Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)], [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]: [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 12.2 Field-Implemented Liquids Treatment Technologies] and [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_5 12.5 Limited Application and Developing Liquids Treatment Technologies]

==Introduction==
[[File:RichardsonFig1.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1. Basic schematic of cross-flow operation of high-pressure membranes. The feed water flows parallel to the membrane becoming more concentrated and then leaves the system as retentate. The permeate is water forced through the membrane by applying pressure. Q is flowrate and C is concentration of the solute of interest. F is the feed, P is the permeate, and R is the retentate.]]
<onlyinclude>High-pressure membrane filtration such as nanofiltration (NF) or reverse osmosis (RO) is a filtration process that separates dissolved inorganic and organic solutes from liquid solvents, typically water</onlyinclude><ref name="Wilf2019"/><onlyinclude>. As opposed to porous and more permeable low-pressure membranes (''i.e.'', microfiltration and ultrafiltration), NF and RO membranes are widely considered semi-permeable and therefore require higher operating pressures to force water against an [[Wikipedia: Osmosis | osmotic gradient]] to produce a purified permeate stream</onlyinclude><ref name="BellonaEtAl2004"/><ref name="BazarganSalgado2018"/><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>The semi-permeable nature and properties of RO and NF membranes results in significantly lower solute diffusive flux across the membranes compared to water<ref name="BellonaEtAl2004"/>.

To optimize solute separation and minimize accumulation of solutes on the membrane, these systems are almost exclusively operated in a cross-flow configuration where feed water flows parallel to the membrane surface and is forced across the membrane through the application of pressure (Figure 1). In a cross-flow configuration, <onlyinclude>NF and RO systems are separation processes that yield two streams: the treated permeate and the concentrated retentate. </onlyinclude>

<onlyinclude>Typical parameters used to describe operational performance of high-pressure membrane systems include solvent ''recovery'' and solute ''rejection''. Recovery is defined as the percentage of feed water that becomes permeate</onlyinclude>, which can be calculated as:

:::[[File: RichardsonEq1.png]]

where ''QP'' is the permeate flow rate, and ''QF'' is the feed flow rate<onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>The recovery of a high-pressure membrane system is dependent upon the RO system configuration and feed water quality. For feed waters containing relatively low [[Wikipedia: Total dissolved solids | total dissolved solids (TDS)]] concentrations, in conventional RO and NF membrane applications, recovery is typically between 75% and 85%. However, several novel membrane configurations have been developed to increase membrane recoveries to 90% and greater depending on feed water quality.

<onlyinclude>Solute rejection is defined as the percent of concentrated feed water retained by the membrane</onlyinclude> and can be calculated as:

:::[[File: RichardsonEq2.png]]

where ''Cp'' and ''Cf'' are the concentration of a solute in the permeate and feed water, respectively<onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>Because the retentate stream contains high concentrations of all solutes rejected by the membrane, minimization of retentate volume is a focus of ongoing research and development<ref name="TurekEtAl2017"/><ref name="PanagopoulosEtAl2019"/>.

[[File:RichardsonFig2.png|thumb|650px|Figure 2. (Left) Spiral-wound membrane element with the feed side of the element and permeate collection tube in the middle visible. (Right) 1-million gallon per day membrane system with multiple pressure vessels.]]
<onlyinclude>Significant advancements in membrane material development have led to development of NF and RO membranes with varying pressure requirements and solute rejection characteristics</onlyinclude><ref name="BellonaEtAl2004"/><ref name="WarsingerEtAl2018"/><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>RO utilizes very tight and selective membrane material (typically [[Wikipedia: Polyamide | polyamide]]) that can achieve high rejection of most dissolved solutes but requires relatively high pressures, typically >150 psi depending on TDS concentration and RO membrane type (''e.g.'', requiring up to 1000 psi when treating seawater with RO membrane elements optimized for seawater)<ref name="Yan2017"/>. RO is used in a variety of applications where a high degree of solute separation is desired including seawater and brackish water desalination, potable water reuse applications, industrial water treatment, and separation applications<ref name="Wilf2019"/>. NF is fundamentally similar to RO; however, NF has been engineered to provide selective separation of solutes and often operate at lower pressures than RO (<150 psi). NF membranes have a range of rejection characteristics with some NF membranes being ‘tighter’ with lower permeability similar to RO (''i.e.'', high salt and organic solute rejection) and others being ‘looser’ with high permeability (''i.e.'', lower salt and organic solute rejection)<ref name="Bellona2019"/>.

High-pressure NF and RO membranes are commonly found in a spiral-wound configuration<ref name="Wilf2019"/>. Spiral-wound elements come in standardized sizes that are then loaded into a series of pressure vessels. An example of a spiral-wound element and a membrane system comprised of multiple pressure vessels is shown in Figure 2. Large-scale membrane systems are typically comprised of several membrane “stages” to increase recovery. Each stage contains multiple pressure vessels containing several individual spiral-wound elements each.

==Application of High-Pressure Membranes for Treatment of PFAS Contaminated Water==
[[File:RichardsonFig3.png|thumb|470px|Figure 3. Rejection of nine PFAAs by four available membrane products at the pilot-scale. Rejection data shown above was generated from permeate samples collected at 97% recovery.]]
[[File:RichardsonFig4.png|thumb|600px|Figure 4. Mobile high-pressure membrane treatment trailer (left) and pilot-scale closed-circuit membrane filtration system (right).]]
The effectiveness of RO and NF membranes for dissolved solute rejection has led to high-pressure membranes being regarded as one of the best available technologies for PFAS removal for over a decade<ref name="ApplemanEtAl2013"/><ref name="Steinle-DarlingReinhard2008"/>. Several studies have evaluated aspects of PFAS removal by NF and RO membranes including evaluating different membrane products, the impact of operating conditions and water quality, and the influence of physicochemical characteristics of PFAS<ref name="ApplemanEtAl2013"/><ref name="SafulkoEtAl2023"/><ref name="LiuStrathmannBellona2021">Liu, C.J., Strathmann, T.J., Bellona, C., 2021. Rejection of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in aqueous film-forming foam by high-pressure membranes. Water Research, 188, Article 116546. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116546 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116546]</ref><ref name="WangEtAl2018">Wang, J., Wang, L., Xu, C., Zhi, R., Miao, R., Liang, T., Yue, X., Lv, Y., 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, p. 787-797. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061]</ref><ref name="ZhaoEtAl2016">Zhao, C., Tang, C.Y., Li, P., Adrian, P., Hu, G., 2016. Perfluorooctane sulfonate removal by nanofiltration membrane—the effect and interaction of magnesium ion / humic acid. Journal of Membrane Science, 503, p. 31-41. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.049 doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.12.049]</ref><ref name="ZhaoEtAl2013">Zhao, C., Zhang, J., He, G., Wang, T., Hou, D., Luan, Z., 2013. Perfluorooctane sulfonate removal by nanofiltration membrane the role of calcium ions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 233, p. 224-232. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.027 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.08.027]</ref><ref name="Steinle-DarlingEtAl2010">Steinle-Darling, E., Litwiller, E., Reinhard, M., 2010. Effects of Sorption on the Rejection of Trace Organic Contaminants During Nanofiltration. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(7), p. 2592-2598. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902846m doi: 10.1021/es902846m]</ref>. Most studies have focused on anionic (at neutral pH) [[Perfluoroalkyl_and_Polyfluoroalkyl_Substances_(PFAS)#Nomenclature | perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA)]] rejection and reported greater than 90% separation of PFAAs by available NF and RO membranes due to electrostatic and steric exclusion from the membrane polymer<ref name="ApplemanEtAl2013"/><ref name="Steinle-DarlingReinhard2008"/><ref name="LiuStrathmannBellona2021"/>. Water quality constituents such as organic matter and cations including calcium and magnesium have been shown to reduce rejection of PFAS<ref name="LiuStrathmannBellona2021"/>. However, little is known about how fouling and membrane aging impact rejection of PFAS by NF and RO membranes and additional data are needed. A recent Department of Defense [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ ESTCP] pilot scale project ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369]) conducted at Colorado School of Mines (Mines) systematically evaluated the rejection of nine PFAAs by four available NF and RO products using full scale spiral-wound membrane elements in a high recovery membrane system which achieved up to 97% recovery<ref name="SafulkoEtAl2023"/>. Tight NF and the two RO membranes evaluated exhibited greater than 98% rejection of all PFAAs evaluated even at high recovery conditions (Figure 3). The loose NF membrane product evaluated provided lower than expected (based on literature) rejection of investigated PFAAs particularly at higher recovery values. These findings indicate that tight NF and RO membranes can be effective at separating PFAAs from contaminated source waters regardless of PFAA chain length. Energy requirements modeled from these experiments varied from 0.14 kWh/m3 for loose NF to 0.57 kWh/m3 for seawater RO<ref name="SafulkoEtAl2023"/>.

Mines researchers have developed a mobile high-recovery closed-circuit membrane filtration system (Figure 4) that has been successfully deployed for treating groundwater at a fire training area of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/be0417c9-aaa4-4fd6-9007-7de0cdbffb85 ESTCP ER21-5136]), groundwater at Peterson Space Force Base (AFCEC BAA-031), and firetruck rinsate at Tyndall Air Force Base ([https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ESTCP ER20-5369]) during recent ESTCP and AFCEC funded research projects. In these projects, NF or RO was implemented to produce a permeate stream containing low concentrations of PFAS and to concentrate PFAS into smaller volumes of retentate for subsequent destructive PFAS treatment. While NF and RO membranes have demonstrated effective rejection of PFAS, PFAS are subsequently concentrated in the membrane concentrate, or retentate stream. This concentrate stream is increasingly paired with PFAS destruction technologies, as PFAS destruction is often considered viable only for concentrated solutions of PFAS. Ongoing ESTCP funded projects include using high-recovery NF and RO to treat and concentrate groundwater leading to PFAS destruction using [[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma | plasma based treatment]]<ref name="Richardson2021"> Richardson, S., 2021. Nanofiltration Followed by Electrical Discharge Plasma for Destruction of PFAS and Co-occurring Chemicals in Groundwater: A Treatment Train Approach. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/be0417c9-aaa4-4fd6-9007-7de0cdbffb85/er21-5136-project-overview Project ER21-5136]</ref> or [[Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment (HALT) | hydrothermal alkaline treatment (HALT)]]<ref name="Bellona2023">Bellona, C., 2023. Cradle to Grave PFAS Treatment Using Membrane and Foam Fractionation Concentration Followed by Hydrothermal Alkaline Treatment. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/5cf08cdb-b86a-45d2-98d3-f747ba97d293 Project ER23-8367]</ref>.

==Advantages and Limitations of the Technology for PFAS Removal==
Advantages:
*Robust, high throughput treatment
*Mature technology with well documented solute separation performance
*High rejection of PFAS and other contaminants
*Removes solutes at the molecular scale

Limitations:
*Complex and often expensive pretreatment requirements for certain waters
*Energy intensive
*High capital costs
*Membrane fouling requiring high chemical usage for cleaning
*Concentrated waste stream requiring disposal or destruction
*Permeate quality depends on feed water concentration
*Greater operation complexity than most water treatment processes
*Water loss due to membrane separation

==Summary==
High-pressure membranes including NF and RO are well established technologies used in a variety of water treatment fields for the purification of water resources and industrial process waste streams. Research conducted over the past decade has demonstrated that various available membrane products can achieve high rejection of PFAS, enabling compliance with state and federal PFAS regulations. As opposed to adsorbent based PFAS removal technologies (e.g., [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment#Activated Carbon Adsorption | activated carbon]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | ion exchange]]), high-pressure membranes do not have a finite capacity for PFAS removal and do not exhibit breakthrough. High-recovery membrane systems are being implemented into ex situ treatment trains to simultaneously treat PFAS impacted water resources and concentrate PFAS into the retentate stream to enable more effective and efficient PFAS destruction.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[[Media: LiuEtAl2021.pdf | Pilot-Scale Demonstration of a Hybrid Nanofiltration and UV-Sulfite Treatment Train for Groundwater Contaminated by Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)]]

Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction

2026-02-11T21:05:33Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) is a [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] destruction technology predicated on [[Wikipedia: Ultraviolet | ultraviolet (UV)]] light-activated photochemical reactions. The destruction efficiency of this process is enhanced by the use of a [[Wikipedia: Surfactant | surfactant]] to confine PFAS molecules in self-assembled [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]]. The photochemical reaction produces [[Wikipedia: Solvated electron | hydrated electrons]] from an electron donor that associates with the micelle. </onlyinclude>The hydrated electrons have sufficient energy to rapidly cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds of PFAS molecules due to the association of the electron donor with the micelle. Micelle-accelerated PRD is a highly efficient method to destroy PFAS in a wide variety of water matrices.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Suzanne Witt]], [[Dr. Meng Wang]], and [[Dr. Denise Kay]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement<ref name="ChenEtAl2020">Chen, Z., Li, C., Gao, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Wu, B., Gu, C., 2020. Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 5178–5185. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06599 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06599]</ref>
*[https://www.enviro.wiki/images/0/04/TianEtAl2016.pdf Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite]<ref name="TianEtAl2016">Tian, H., Gao, J., Li, H., Boyd, S.A., Gu, C., 2016. Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 32949. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32949 doi: 10.1038/srep32949]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/04/TianEtAl2016.pdf Article]</ref>
*Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons<ref name="ChenEtAl2019">Chen, Z., Tian, H., Li, H., Li, J. S., Hong, R., Sheng, F., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons. Chemosphere, 235, pp. 1180–1188. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032]</ref>
*[https://www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d8/ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf ER21-7569: Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction]<ref name="WittEtAl2023">Kay, D., Witt, S., Wang, M., 2023. Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction: Final Report. ESTCP Project ER21-7569. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a Project Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d8/ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf Final Report.pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File:WittFig1.png | thumb |600px|Figure 1. Schematic of PRD mechanism<ref name="WittEtAl2023" />]]
The Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) process is based on a patented chemical reaction that breaks fluorine-carbon bonds and disassembles PFAS molecules in a linear fashion beginning with the [[Wikipedia: Hydrophile | hydrophilic]] functional groups and proceeding through shorter molecules to complete mineralization. Figure 1 shows how PRD is facilitated by adding [[Wikipedia: Cetrimonium bromide | cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)]] to form a surfactant micelle cage that traps PFAS. A non-toxic proprietary chemical is added to solution to associate with the micelle surface and produce hydrated electrons via stimulation with UV light. <onlyinclude>These highly reactive hydrated electrons have the energy required to cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds resulting in the final products of fluoride, water, and simple carbon molecules</onlyinclude> (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Formic acid | formic acid]] and [[Wikipedia: Acetic acid | acetic acid]]). The methods, mechanisms, theory, and reactions described herein have been published in peer reviewed literature<ref name="ChenEtAl2020" /><ref name="TianEtAl2016" /><ref name="ChenEtAl2019" /><ref name="WittEtAl2023" /><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>

==Advantages and Disadvantages==

===Advantages===
In comparison to other reported PFAS destruction techniques, PRD offers several advantages:

*Relative to UV/sodium sulfite and UV/sodium iodide systems, the fitted degradation rates in the micelle-accelerated PRD reaction system were ~18 and ~36 times higher, indicating the key role of the self-assembled micelle in creating a confined space for rapid PFAS destruction<ref name="ChenEtAl2020" />. The negatively charged hydrated electron associated with the positively charged cetyltrimethylammonium ion (CTA+) forms the surfactant micelle to trap molecules with similar structures, selectively mineralizing compounds with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups (e.g., PFAS).
*The PRD reaction does not require solid catalysts or electrodes, which can be expensive to acquire and difficult to regenerate or dispose.
*The aqueous solution is not heated or pressurized, and the UV wavelength used does not cause direct water [[Wikipedia: Photodissociation | photolysis]], therefore the energy input to the system is more directly employed to destroy PFAS, resulting in greater energy efficiency.
*<onlyinclude>Since the reaction is performed at ambient temperature and pressure, there are limited concerns regarding environmental health and safety or volatilization of PFAS compared to heated and pressurized systems. </onlyinclude>
*<onlyinclude>Due to the reductive nature of the reaction, there is no formation of unwanted byproducts resulting from oxidative processes</onlyinclude>, such as [[Wikipedia: Perchlorate | perchlorate]] generation during electrochemical oxidation<ref>Veciana, M., Bräunig, J., Farhat, A., Pype, M. L., Freguia, S., Carvalho, G., Keller, J., Ledezma, P., 2022. Electrochemical Oxidation Processes for PFAS Removal from Contaminated Water and Wastewater: Fundamentals, Gaps and Opportunities towards Practical Implementation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 434, Article 128886. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886]</ref><ref>Trojanowicz, M., Bojanowska-Czajka, A., Bartosiewicz, I., Kulisa, K., 2018. Advanced Oxidation/Reduction Processes Treatment for Aqueous Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) – A Review of Recent Advances. Chemical Engineering Journal, 336, pp. 170–199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153]</ref><ref>Wanninayake, D.M., 2021. Comparison of Currently Available PFAS Remediation Technologies in Water: A Review. Journal of Environmental Management, 283, Article 111977. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977]</ref><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>
*Aqueous fluoride ions are the primary end products of PRD, enabling real-time reaction monitoring with a fluoride [[Wikipedia: Ion-selective electrode | ion selective electrode (ISE)]], which is far less expensive and faster than relying on PFAS analytical data alone to monitor system performance.

===Disadvantages===

*The CTAB additive is only partially consumed during the reaction, and although CTAB is not problematic when discharged to downstream treatment processes that incorporate aerobic digestors, CTAB can be toxic to surface waters and anaerobic digestors. Therefore, disposal options for treated solutions will need to be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Possible options include removal of CTAB from solution for reuse in subsequent PRD treatments, or implementation of an oxidation reaction to degrade CTAB.
*<onlyinclude>The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). </onlyinclude>It is hypothesized that in high TDS solutions (e.g., ion exchange still bottoms with TDS of 200,000 parts per million (ppm)), the presence of ionic species inhibits the association of the electron donor with the micelle, thus decreasing the reaction rate.
*<onlyinclude>The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with very low UV transmissivity. Low UV transmissivity (i.e., < 1 %) prevents the penetration of UV light into the solution, such that the utilization efficiency of UV light decreases. </onlyinclude>

==State of the Art==

===Technical Performance===
[[File:WittFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Enspired SolutionsTM commercial PRD PFAS destruction equipment, the PFASigatorTM. Dimensions are 8 feet long by 4 feet wide by 9 feet tall.]]
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
|+Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
|-
!Analytes
!
!GW
!FF
!AFFF Rinsate
!AFFF (diluted 10X)
!IDW NF
|-
|Σ Total PFASa (ND=0)
| rowspan="9" style="background-color:white;" |% Decrease (Initial Concentration, μg/L)
|93% (370)||96% (32,000)||89% (57,000)||86 % (770,000)||84% (82)
|-
|Σ Total PFAS (ND=MDL)||93% (400)||86% (32,000)||90% (59,000)||71% (770,000)||88% (110)
|-
|Σ Total PFAS (ND=RL)||94% (460)||96% (32,000)||91% (66,000)||34% (770,000)||92% (170)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFASb (ND=0)||>99% (180)||>99% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||92% (390,000)||95% (50)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL)||>99% (180)||98% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||88% (390,000)||95% (52)
|-
|Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL)||>99% (190)||93% (20,000)||95% (20,000)||79% (390,000)||95% (55)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFASc (ND=0)||91% (180)||98% (20,000)||85% (20,000)||82% (400,000)||94% (53)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=MDL)||91% (190)||94% (20,000)||85% (20,000)||79% (400,000)||86% (58)
|-
|Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=RL)||92% (200)||87% (20,000)||86% (21,000)||70% (400,000)||87% (65)
|-
|Fluorine mass balanced|| ||106%||109%||110%||65%||98%
|-
|Sorbed organic fluorinee|| ||4%||4%||33%||N/A||31%
|-
| colspan="7" style="background-color:white; text-align:left" |Notes: GW = groundwater GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate ND = non-detect MDL = Method Detection Limit RL = Reporting Limit aTotal PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors bHighly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA cHigh priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA dRatio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations ePercent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment 
|}
 
The PRD reaction has been validated at the bench scale for the destruction of PFAS in a variety of environmental samples from Department of Defense (DoD) sites (Table 1). Enspired SolutionsTM has designed and manufactured a fully automatic commercial-scale piece of equipment called PFASigatorTM, specializing in PRD PFAS destruction (Figure 2). This equipment is modular and scalable, has a small footprint, and can be used alone or in series with existing water treatment trains. The PFASigatorTM employs commercially available UV reactors and monitoring meters that have been used in the water industry for decades. The system has been tested on PRD efficiency operational parameters, and key metrics were proven to be consistent with benchtop studies.

Bench scale PRD tests were performed for the following samples collected from DoD sites: groundwater (GW), groundwater foam fractionate (FF), firefighting truck rinsate ([[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | AFFF]] rinsate), 3M Lightwater AFFF, investigation derived waste nanofiltrate (IDW NF), [[Wikipedia: Ion exchange | ion exchange]] still bottom (IX SB), and Ansulite AFFF. The PRD treatment was more effective in low conductivity/low TDS solutions. Generally, PRD reaction rates decrease for solutions with a TDS > 10,000 ppm, with an upper limit of 30,000 ppm. Ansulite AFFF and IX SB samples showed low destruction efficiencies during initial screening tests, which was primarily attributed to their high TDS concentrations. Benchtop testing data are shown in Table 1 for the remaining five sample matrices.

During treatment, PFOS and PFOA concentrations decreased 96% to >99% and 77% to 97%, respectively. For the PFAS where drinking water [https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) recently established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency] (PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA), concentrations decreased >99% for GW, 93% for FF, 95% for AFFF Rinsate and IDW NF, and 79% for AFFF (diluted 10x) during the treatment time allotted. Meanwhile, the total PFAS concentrations, including all 40 known PFAS analytes and unidentified perfluorocarboxylic acid (PFCA) precursors, decreased from 34% to 96% following treatment. All of these concentration reduction values were calculated by using reporting limits (RL) as the concentrations for non-detects.

Excellent fluorine/fluoride mass balance was achieved. There was nearly a 1:1 conversion of organic fluorine to free inorganic fluoride ion during treatment of GW, FF and AFFF Rinsate. The 3M Lightwater AFFF (diluted 10x) achieved only 65% fluorine mass balance, but this was likely due to high adsorption of PFAS to the reactor.

===Application===
<onlyinclude>Due to the first-order kinetics of PRD, destruction of PFAS is generally most energy efficient when paired with pre-concentration technologies, such as [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation (FF)]], [[Wikipedia: Nanofiltration | nanofiltration]], [[Wikipedia: Reverse osmosis | reverse osmosis]], or [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment | resin/carbon adsorption]], that remove PFAS from water. </onlyinclude>Application of the PFASigatorTM for destruction of PFAS in the concentrate thus produced is therefore proposed as a part of a PFAS treatment train that includes a pre-concentration step, unless the target media is already concentrated (e.g. AFFF).

The first pilot study with the PFASigatorTM was conducted in late 2023 at an industrial facility in Michigan with PFAS-impacted groundwater. The goal of the pilot study was to treat the groundwater to below the limits for regulatory discharge permits. For the pilot demonstration, the PFASigatorTM was paired with an FF unit, which pre-concentrated the PFAS into a foamate that was pumped into the PFASigatorTM for batch PFAS destruction. Residual PFAS remaining after the destruction batch was treated by looping back the PFASigatorTM effluent to the FF system influent. During the one-month field pilot duration, site-specific discharge limits were met, and steady state operation between the FF unit and PFASigatorTM was achieved such that the PFASigatorTM destroyed the required concentrated PFAS mass and no off-site disposal of PFAS contaminated waste was required.

 

==References==
<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma

2026-02-11T21:04:59Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>Plasma-based water treatment is a technology that, using only electricity, converts water into a mixture of highly reactive species including OH•, O, H•, HO2•, O2•‒, H2, O2, H2O2 and aqueous electrons (e‒aq), called a plasma</onlyinclude><ref name="Sunka1999">Sunka, P., Babický, V., Clupek, M., Lukes, P., Simek, M., Schmidt, J., and Cernak, M., 1999. Generation of Chemically Active Species by Electrical Discharges in Water. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 8(2), pp. 258-265. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006 DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/8/2/006]</ref><ref name="MededovicThagard2009">Mededovic Thagard, S., Takashima, K., and Mizuno, A., 2009. Chemistry of the Positive and Negative Electrical Discharges Formed in Liquid Water and Above a Gas-Liquid Surface. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 29(6), pp.455-473. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x DOI: 10.1007/s11090-009-9195-x]</ref><onlyinclude>. These highly reactive species rapidly and non-selectively degrade [[Wikipedia: Volatile organic compound |volatile organic compounds (VOCs)]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Du2019">Du, C., Gong, X., and Lin, Y., 2019. Decomposition of volatile organic compounds using corona discharge plasma technology. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 69(8), pp.879-899. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441 DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/10962247.2019.1582441?needAccess=true Article pdf]</ref><onlyinclude>, [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-Dioxane]]</onlyinclude><ref name="Xiong2019">Xiong, Y., Zhang, Q., Wandell, R., Bresch, S., Wang, H., Locke, B.R. and Tang, Y., 2019. Synergistic 1,4-Dioxane Removal by Non-Thermal Plasma Followed by Biodegradation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 361, pp.519-527. [https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094 DOI: 10.1016/J.CEJ.2018.12.094]</ref><ref name="Ni2013">Ni, G.H., Zhao, Y., Meng, Y.D., Wang, X.K., and Toyoda, H., 2013. Steam plasma jet for treatment of contaminated water with high-concentration 1,4-dioxane organic pollutants. Europhysics Letters, 101(4), p.45001. [https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001 DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/101/45001]</ref><onlyinclude>, and a broad spectrum of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and short-chain PFAS</onlyinclude><ref name="Stratton2015">Stratton, G.R., Bellona, C.L., Dai, F., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2015. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Conception and Application of a New General Principle for Reactor Design. Chemical Engineering Journal, 273, pp.543-550. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2015.03.059]</ref><ref name="Singh2019a">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Anderson, R.H., Richardson, S.D., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2019. Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds from Investigation-Derived Waste (IDW) in a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(19), pp.11375-11382. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02964 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b02964]</ref><ref name="Singh2019b">Singh, R.K., Fernando, S., Baygi, S.F., Multari, N., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Breakdown Products from Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) Degradation in a Plasma-Based Water Treatment Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(5), pp.2731-2738. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b07031 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b07031]</ref><onlyinclude>. A plasma reactor can simultaneously oxidize and reduce organics by producing a mixture of hydroxyl radicals and aqueous electrons, the latter of which act as strong reducing agents and could be the key species in removing PFAS and other non-oxidizable compounds. Additionally, the plasma process produces no residual waste and requires no chemical additions, although adding surfactants or injecting inert gas into the liquid phase can increase interfacial PFAS concentrations, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma and therefore increasing removal efficiency.</onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Selma Mededovic Thagard]], [[Dr. Thomas Holsen]], [[Dr. Stephen Richardson |Dr. Stephen Richardson, P.E.]], [[Poonam Kulkarni |Poonam Kulkarni, P.E.,]] and Dr. Blossom Nzeribe

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_2 12.2 Field-Implemented Liquids Treatment Technologies] and [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/#12_5 12.5 Limited Application and Developing Liquids Treatment Technologies].

*Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review<ref name="Nzeribe2019">Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp.866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>

*Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap<ref name="Laroussi2021">Laroussi, M., Bekeschus, S., Keidar, M., Bogaerts, A., Fridman, A., Lu, X.P., Ostrikov, K.K., Hori, M., Stapelmann, K., Miller, V., Reuter, S., Laux, C., Mesbah, A., Walsh, J., Jiang, C., Mededovic Thagard, S., Tanaka, H., Liu, D.W., Yan, D., and Yusupov, M., 2021. Low Temperature Plasma for Biology, Hygiene, and Medicine: Perspective and Roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118 DOI: 10.1109/TRPMS.2021.3135118] [https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9650590 Article pdf]</ref>

==Introduction==
[[File:Plasma4PFASFig1.png | thumb |left|700px|Figure 1. Plasmas generated within liquids (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University)]]
Plasma processing plays an essential role in various industrial applications such as semiconductor fabrication, polymer functionalization, chemical synthesis, agriculture and food safety, health industry, and hazardous waste management<ref name="VanVeldhuizen2002">Van Veldhuizen, E.M., and Rutgers, W.R., 2002. Pulsed Positive Corona Streamer Propagation and Branching. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 35(17), p.2169. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313]</ref><ref name="Yang">Yang, Y., Cho, Y.I. and Fridman, A., 2012. Plasma Discharge in Liquid: Water Treatment and Applications. CRC press. ISBN: 978-1-4398-6623-8 [https://doi.org/10.1201/b11650 DOI: 10.1201/b11650]</ref><ref name="Rezaei2019">Rezaei, F., Vanraes, P., Nikiforov, A., Morent, R., and De Geyter, N., 2019. Applications of Plasma-Liquid Systems: A Review. Materials, 12(17), article 2751, 69 pp. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172751 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172751] [https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2751 Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Herianto2021">Herianto, S., Hou, C.Y., Lin, C.M., and Chen, H.L., 2021. Nonthermal plasma-activated water: A comprehensive review of this new tool for enhanced food safety and quality. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(1), pp. 583-626. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12667 DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12667]</ref>. Plasma is a gaseous state of matter consisting of charged particles, metastable-state molecules or atoms, and free radicals. Depending on the energy or temperature of the electrons, compared with the temperature of the background gas, plasmas can be classified as thermal or non-thermal. In thermal plasma, an example of which is an electrical arc, individual species’ temperatures typically exceed several thousand Kelvins (K). Non-thermal plasmas are formed using less power with temperatures ranging from ambient to approximately 1000 K<ref name="Jiang2014">Jiang, B., Zheng, J., Qiu, S., Wu, M., Zhang, Q., Yan, Z. and Xue, Q., 2014. Review on Electrical Discharge Plasma Technology for Wastewater Remediation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 236, pp. 348–368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090]</ref>. An example of a non-thermal plasma is a dielectric barrier discharge used for commercial ozone generation.

Plasma that is applied in water treatment (Figure 1) is typically non-thermal, which offers high-energy process efficiency and selectivity<ref name="Jiang2014" /><ref name="Magureanu2018">Magureanu, M., Bradu, C., and Parvulescu, V.I., 2018. Plasma Processes for the Treatment of Water Contaminated with Harmful Organic Compounds. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 51(31), p. 313002. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c]</ref>. Since the 1980s when the first plasma reactor was utilized to oxidize a dye<ref name="Clements1987">Clements, J.S., Sato, M., and Davis, R.H., 1987. Preliminary Investigation of Prebreakdown Phenomena and Chemical Reactions Using a Pulsed High-Voltage Discharge in Water. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, IA-23(2), pp. 224-235. [https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897 DOI: 10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897]</ref>, over a hundred different plasma reactors have been developed to treat a range of contaminants of environmental importance including biological species. Examples include treatment of pharmaceuticals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 1,4-dioxane, herbicides, pesticides, warfare agents, bacteria, yeasts and viruses using direct-in-liquid discharges with and without bubbles and discharges in a gas over and contacting the surface of a liquid. Different excitation sources including AC, nanosecond pulsed and DC voltages have been utilized to produce pulsed corona, corona-like, spark, arc, and glow discharges, among other discharge types. Many reviews of plasma processing for water treatment applications have recently been published<ref name="Zeghioud2020">Zeghioud, H., Nguyen-Tri, P., Khezami, L., Amrane, A., and Assadi, A.A., 2020. Review on Discharge Plasma for Water Treatment: Mechanism, Reactor Geometries, Active Species and Combined Processes. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 38, p.101664. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664 DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664]</ref><ref name="Murugesan2020">Murugesan, P., Evanjalin Monica, V., Moses, J.A., and Anandharamakrishnan, C., 2020. Water Decontamination Using Non-Thermal Plasma: Concepts, Applications, and Prospects. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(5), p. 104377. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377]</ref>.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig2.png | thumb |500px|Figure 2. Continuous flow enhanced contact plasma treatment system (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University).]]
Plasma-based water treatment (PWT) owes its strong oxidation and disinfection capabilities to the production of reactive oxidative species (ROS), primarily OH radicals, atomic oxygen, singlet oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. The process also produces reductive species such as solvated electrons and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) when nitrogen and oxygen are present in the discharge. This process has the advantage of synergistic effects of high electric fields, UV/VUV light emissions and in some cases shockwave formation in a liquid. It requires no chemical additions, and can be optimized for batch or continuous processing.

==Application of Plasma for the Treatment of PFAS-Contaminated Water==
Several research groups have investigated the use of plasma to treat and remove PFAS from contaminated water<ref name="Hayashi2015">Hayashi, R., Obo, H., Takeuchi, N., and Yasuoka, K., 2015. Decomposition of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by DC Plasma within Oxygen Bubbles. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 190(3), pp.9-16. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22499 DOI: 10.1002/eej.22499] [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22499 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Matsuya2014">Matsuya, Y., Takeuchi, N., Yasuoka, K., 2014. Relationship Between Reaction Rate of Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Decomposition at a Plasma-Liquid Interface and Adsorbed Amount. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 188(2), pp.1-8. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22526 DOI:10.1002/eej.22526]  [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eej.22526 Article pdf].</ref><ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp.1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Takeuchi2013">Takeuchi, N., Kitagawa, Y., Kosugi, A., Tachibana, K., Obo, H., and Yasuoka, K., 2013. Plasma-Liquid Interfacial Reaction in Decomposition of Perfluoro Surfactants. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 47(4), p.045203. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2011">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., and Hayashi, R., 2011. An Energy-Efficient Process for Decomposing Perfluorooctanoic and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acids Using DC Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 20(3), p. 034009. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009 DOI:10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2010">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., Hayashi, R., Kosugi, A., and Takeuchi, N., 2010. Degradation of Perfluoro Compounds and F- Recovery in Water Using Discharge Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), 113–117. [https://doi.org/10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113 DOI:10.34343/ijpest.2010.04.02.113] [http://ijpest.com/Contents/04/2/PDF/04-02-113.pdf Article pdf]</ref><ref name="Lewis2020">Lewis, A.J., Joyce, T., Hadaya, M., Ebrahimi, F., Dragiev, I., Giardetti, N., Yang, J., Fridman, G., Rabinovich, A., Fridman, A.A., McKenzie, E.R., and Sales, C.M., 2020. Rapid Degradation of PFAS in Aqueous Solutions by Reverse Vortex Flow Gliding Arc Plasma. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 6(4), pp.1044-1057. [https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew01050e DOI: 10.1039/c9ew01050e]</ref><ref name="Saleem2020">Saleem, M., Biondo, O., Sretenović, G., Tomei, G., Magarotto, M., Pavarin, D., Marotta, E. and Paradisi, C., 2020. Comparative Performance Assessment of Plasma Reactors for the Treatment of PFOA; Reactor Design, Kinetics, Mineralization and Energy Yield. Chemical Engineering Journal, 382, p.123031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031]</ref><ref name="Palma2021">Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M. and Richard, C., 2021. PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. Molecules, 26(4), p. 924. [https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26040924 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26040924] [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/4/924/htm Article pdf]</ref>. Of those studies, the Enhanced Contact (EC) plasma reactor developed by researchers at Clarkson University is one of the most promising in terms of treatment time, cost, the range of PFAS treated and scale up/throughput. Their process has been shown to degrade PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS in a variety of PFAS-impacted water sources.

[[File: Plasma4PFASFig3.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 3. Degradation profiles of combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations in investigation derived waste (IDW) obtained from nine different Air Force site investigations. In all the IDW samples, both PFOS and PFOA were removed to below EPA’s lifetime health advisory level concentrations (70 ng/L) in < 1 minute of treatment, demonstrating the lack of sensitivity of the plasma-based process to the effects of co-contaminants<ref name="Singh2019a" />.]]
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig4.png | thumb |550px|Figure 4. (a) Mobile plasma treatment trailer depicting the (b) plasma side of the trailer featuring two plasma reactors and the plasma-generating network; and (c) control and plumbing side of the plasma trailer featuring multiple rotameters, storage tanks and plumbing.]]
In the EC plasma reactor (Figure 2), argon gas is continuously pumped through the solution to form a layer of foam and thus concentrate PFAS at the gas-liquid interface where plasma is formed. The process is able to lower the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater obtained from multiple DoD sites to below Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) lifetime health advisory level (HAL) of 70 parts per trillion (70 nanogram per liter, ng/L)<ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Federal Register, Notices, 81(101), p. 33250-33251. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/2016-12361.pdf Register pdf].</ref> within 1 minute of treatment (Figure 3) with energy requirements much lower than those of alternative technologies (~2-6 kWh/m3 for plasma vs. 5000 kWh/m3 for persulfate, photochemical oxidation and sonolytic processes and 132 kWh/m3 for electrochemical oxidation)<ref name="Singh2019a" /><ref name="Nzeribe2019" />. The EC plasma reactor owes its high efficacy to the plasma reactor design, in particular to the gas bubbling through submerged diffusers to transport PFAS to the plasma-liquid interface and thus minimize bulk liquid limitations.
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig5.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 5. Plasma destruction of PFAS-impacted groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. One cycle = 18 gallons.]]
In 2019, a mobile plasma treatment system (Figure 4) was successfully demonstrated for the treatment of PFAS-contaminated groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021">Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. ACS ES&T Water, 1(3), pp. 680-687. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>.

Over 300 gallons of PFAS-impacted groundwater were treated at a maximum flowrate of 1.1 gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in ≥90% reduction (mean percent removal of 99.7%) of long-chain PFAAs (fluorocarbon chain ≥ 6) and PFAS precursors in a single pass through the reactor (Figure 5) at a treatment cost of $7.30/1000 gallons<ref name="Nau-Hix2021" />. As expected, the removal of short-chain PFAS was slower due to their lower potential for interfacial adsorption compared to long-chain PFAS. However, post-field laboratory studies revealed that the addition of a cationic surfactant such as CTAB (cetrimonium bromide) minimizes bulk liquid transport limitations for short-chain PFAS by electrostatically interacting with these compounds and transporting them to the plasma-liquid interface where they are degraded<ref name="Palma2021" />. Both bench and pilot-scale EC plasma-based process have been extended for the treatment of PFAS in membrane concentrate, ion exchange brine, and landfill leachate<ref name="Singh2020">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- And Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp.13973-13980. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref name="Singh2021">Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-Containing Landfill Leachate Using an Enhanced Contact Plasma Reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, p.124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref>.

As a part of a currently-funded ESTCP project (ESTCP ER20-5535)<ref name="Mededovic2020">Mededovic, S., 2020. An Innovative Plasma Technology for Treatment of AFFF Rinsate from Firefighting Delivery Systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5355 Project ER20-5355]. </ref>, the Clarkson University team with the support of GSI Environmental Inc. is evaluating the effectiveness of their plasma process in treating diluted aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) as well as the benefits of pre-oxidation of PFAS precursors in high concentration AFFF solutions in terms of post-oxidation plasma treatment time, destruction efficiency and cost.

==Advantages and Limitations of the Technology for PFAS Treatment==
===Advantages:===

*High removal rates of long-chain PFAS (C5-C8) due to the production of versatile reactive species
*Requires no chemical additions and produces no residual waste
*Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration and other non-surfactant co-contaminants do not influence the process efficiency
*The process is mobile and scalable
*Versatile: can be used in batch and continuous systems

===Limitations:===

*Limited removal of short-chain PFAS due to their inability to concentrate at plasma-liquid interfaces. Addition of surfactants such as CTAB improves their removal and degradation rates.
*Excessive foaming caused by bubbling argon gas through a solution containing high (>10 mg/L) concentrations of long-chain (surfactant) PFAS may interfere with the formation of plasma.

==Summary==
PFAS are susceptible to plasma treatment because the hydrophobic PFAS accumulates at the gas-liquid interface, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma. Plasma-based treatment of PFAS contaminated water successfully degrades PFOA and PFOS to below the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt and accomplishes the near complete destruction of other PFAS within a short treatment time. PFAS concentration reductions of ≥90% and post-treatment concentrations below laboratory detection levels are common for long chain PFAS and precursors.
The lack of sensitivity of plasma to co-contaminants, coupled with high PFAS removal and defluorination efficiencies, makes plasma-based water treatment a promising technology for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated water. The plasma treatment process is currently developed for ''ex situ'' application and can also be integrated into a treatment train<ref name="Richardson2021">Richardson, S., 2021. Nanofiltration Followed by Electrical Discharge Plasma for Destruction of PFAS and Co-occurring Chemicals in Groundwater: A Treatment Train Approach. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER21-5136 Project ER21-5136]</ref>.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/plasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Farcadis-north-america%252Fplasma-destruction-of-pfas-in-groundwater SERDP and ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Plasma Destruction of PFAS in Groundwater]

PFAS Transport and Fate

2026-02-11T21:04:38Z

Admin:

PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment

2026-02-11T21:04:17Z

Admin:

This article presents an overview of current practices for human health and ecological risk assessment related to [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] exposures at [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)]] impacted sites.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Jennifer Arblaster]], [[Dr. Jason Conder]], [[Dr. Jean Zodrow]] and [[Elizabeth Nichols]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''
*State of the Science for Risk Assessment of PFAS at Contaminated Sites<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021">Zodrow, J., Arblaster, J., Conder, J., 2021. State of the Science for Risk Assessment of PFAS at Contaminated Sites. In: ''Forever Chemicals: Environmental, Economic, and Social Equity Concerns with PFAS in the Environment'', Kempisty, D., Racz, L., (Ed.s). pp. 161-186. CRC Press. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003024521 doi: 10.1201/9781003024521]</ref>
*[https://itrcweb.org/ Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)], [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]

==PFAS Exposure and Conceptual Site Models==
[[File:ConderFig1.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1. Simplified Conceptual Site Model for Sites Impacted by AFFF or other PFAS Sources. Used with permission<ref name="ConderEtAl2021">Conder, J., Zodrow, J., Arblaster, J., Kelly, B., Gobas, F., Suski, J., Osborn, E., Frenchmeyer, M., Divine, C., Leeson, A., 2021. Strategic resources for assessing PFAS ecological risks at AFFF sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(4), pp. 746-752. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4405 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4405]</ref>]]
This article provides a brief overview of the environmental toxicology and risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The article’s main focus is on the environmental toxicology and risk assessment of PFAS derived from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

<onlyinclude>The use of [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)]] can release [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] into the environment during fire training, an emergency response, or as a result of leaks or spills from AFFF systems. Following AFFF releases, perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), particularly PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS, tend to be the most commonly detected PFAS in environmental media. </onlyinclude>Due to their solubility, sorption, and bioaccumulation properties, perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) can be prevalent in a variety of environmental media, including groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, biosolids, landfill leachate, plants, fish, invertebrates, and wildlife<ref>Lau, C., 2012. Perfluorinated Compounds. In: ''Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology, Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology'', A. Luch (Ed.), pp. 47-86. Springer Science and Business Media. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_3 doi: 10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_3]</ref>.

PFAS exhibit a range of physical and chemical properties, with the fate of the PFAAs, particularly the PFCAs and PFSAs, being the most studied PFAS. <onlyinclude>PFAAs are relatively water-soluble and mobile in the environment, are not volatile (i.e., they do not evaporate to the atmosphere readily</onlyinclude><ref>Field, J., Higgins, C., Deeb, R., Conder, J., 2017. FAQs Regarding PFASs Associated with AFFF Use at U.S. Military Sites. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER-201574. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/resources/details/ccf87a8d-f8b2-4fce-bc4a-78c32091f896 Project Website]  [[Media: FAQ_ER-201574.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><onlyinclude>) and can sorb to the organic carbon present in soil or sediment. </onlyinclude>PFAAs are more soluble and mobile compared to other persistent organic chemicals of concern documented at contaminated sites. <onlyinclude>PFAS can bioaccumulate in animals and plants, and persistent PFAS, such as PFCAs and PFSAs, do not undergo significant biodegradation or biotransformation once present in a biological system</onlyinclude><ref>Conder, J.M., Hoke, R.A., de Wolf, W., Russell, M.H., Buck, R.C., 2008. Are PFCAs Bioaccumulative? A Critical Review and Comparison with Regulatory Criteria and Persistent Lipophilic Compounds. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(4), pp. 995-1003. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es070895g doi: 10.1021/es070895g]</ref><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>

<onlyinclude>T</onlyinclude>he current state of the science and understanding of PFAS fate and transport indicates that t<onlyinclude>he human health issues associated with PFAS AFFF sites are primarily the exposure pathways associated with drinking water ingestion and dietary intake of PFAS</onlyinclude><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021"/><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>Incidental soil ingestion and/or dust inhalation are typically of moderate concern and are recommended for inclusion into human health risk assessments, but compared to drinking water and dietary ingestion, generally result in lower exposures for most receptors. Exposures via dermal contact with soils and water, and inhalation of vapors (due to volatilization of PFAS), are generally of even lower concern for most sites with AFFF PFAS sources. Human health conceptual site models (CSMs) for AFFF sites typically reflect common receptors including current or future residents and industrial or commercial workers, depending on the current and reasonable anticipated future land uses at the site, along with potential exposures in offsite areas. Receptors associated with recreation and fishing activities may be incorporated if water resources used for recreational purposes are located near the site. Additional considerations may need to be incorporated into the CSM, such as the source of PFAS release into the environment. Release mechanism can differ based on site uses of PFAS. For example, while AFFF use often resulted in historic releases to ground surfaces, industrial emissions can result in aerial deposition, and biosolids application can result in widespread releases to soils which result in different exposure pathways that should be considered.

Ecological CSMs generally focus on exposures in areas adjacent to or downgradient of initial AFFF releases which have habitats present which support ecological resources (Figure 1). Most areas at the point of AFFF releases (and many industrial areas where PFAS products are or were used) do not generally feature favorable ecological habitats that make these areas relevant for ecological risk assessment. However, the relatively high solubility of PFAS in water results in a high potential for offsite transport via groundwater, surface water and stormwater, or by erosion of impacted soils and sediment<ref name="ConderEtAl2021"/>.

==Toxicological Effects of PFAS==
<onlyinclude>The characterization of toxicological effects in human health risk assessments is based on toxicological studies of mammalian exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), primarily studies involving [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]] and [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]. The most sensitive noncancer adverse effects involve the liver and kidney, immune system, and various developmental and reproductive endpoints</onlyinclude><ref name="USEPA2024b">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. [https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Website]</ref>. A select number of PFAS have been evaluated for carcinogenicity, primarily using epidemiological data<onlyinclude>. Only PFOS and PFOA (and their derivatives) have sufficient data for USEPA to characterize as ''Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'' via the oral route of exposure. Epidemiological studies provided evidence of bladder, prostate, liver, kidney, and breast cancers in humans related to PFOS exposure, as well as kidney and testicular cancer in humans and limited evidence of breast cancer related to PFOA exposure</onlyinclude><ref name="USEPA2024b"/><ref name="USEPA2016a">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-004. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: USEPA-2016-pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2016b">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-005. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final_508.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: pfoa_EPA 822-R-16-005.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude>

USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program is developing Toxicological Reviews to improve understanding of the toxicity of several additional PFAS (i.e., not solely PFOA and PFOS). Toxicological Reviews provide an overview of cancer and noncancer health effects based on current literature and, where data are sufficient, derive human health toxicity criteria (i.e., human health oral reference doses and cancer slope factors) that form the basis for risk-based decision making. For risk assessors, these documents provide USEPA reference doses and cancer slope factors that can be used with exposure information and other considerations to assess human health risk. Final Toxicological Reviews have been completed for the following PFAS:
*Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
*Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
*Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
*Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
*Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
*Perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)
*Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
*Lithium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]azanide (HQ-115)
*Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO DA) and its Ammonium Salt

Toxicity assessments are ongoing for the following PFAS:
*Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
*Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)

It is important to note human health toxicity criteria for inhalation of PFAS are not included in the Final Toxicological Reviews and are not currently available.
In addition to IRIS, state agencies have developed peer-reviewed provisional toxicity values that have been incorporated into USEPA’s RSLs, which are updated biannually. These values have not been reviewed by or incorporated into IRIS.

With respect to ecological toxicity, effects on reproduction, growth, and development of avian and mammalian wildlife have been documented in controlled laboratory studies of exposures of standard toxicological test species (e.g., mice, quail) to PFAS. Many of these studies have been reviewed<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"> Conder, J., Arblaster, J., Larson, E., Brown, J., Higgins, C., 2020. Guidance for Assessing the Ecological Risks of PFAS to Threatened and Endangered Species at Aqueous Film Forming Foam-Impacted Sites. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project ER 18-1614. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/3f890c9b-7f72-4303-8d2e-52a89613b5f6 Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1614_Guidance.pdf | Guidance Document]]</ref><ref name="GobasEtAl2020">Gobas, F.A.P.C., Kelly, B.C., Kim, J.J., 2020. Final Report: A Framework for Assessing Bioaccumulation and Exposure Risks of PFAS in Threatened and Endangered Species on AFFF-Impacted Sites. SERDP Project ER18-1502. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/09c93894-bc73-404a-8282-51196c4be163 Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1502_Final.pdf | Final Report]]</ref><ref name="Suski2020">Suski, J.G., 2020. Investigating Potential Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on Department of Defense (DoD) Sites. SERDP Project ER18-1626. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c328f8e3-95a4-4820-a0d4-ef5835134636 Project Website]  [[Media: ER18-1626_Final.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a">Zodrow, J.M., Frenchmeyer, M., Dally, K., Osborn, E., Anderson, P. and Divine, C., 2021. Development of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Ecological Risk-Based Screening Levels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 40(3), pp. 921-936. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4975 doi: 10.1002/etc.4975]   [[Media: ZodrowEtAl2021a.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref> to derive ecological Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs). TRVs can be used alongside exposure information and other considerations to assess ecological risk. Avian and mammalian wildlife receptors are generally expected to have the highest risks due to PFAS exposure. Direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as fish and invertebrates, from exposure to sediment and surface water also occurs, though concentrations in water associated with adverse effects to aquatic life are generally higher than those that could result in adverse effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife. Soil invertebrates and plants are less sensitive to PFAS when compared to terrestrial wildlife, with risk-based PFAS concentrations in soil being much higher than those associated with potential effects to terrestrial wildlife<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>.

==PFAS Screening Levels for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments==
===Human Health Screening Levels===
Human health screening levels for PFAS have been modified multiple times over the last decade and, in the United States, are currently available for drinking water and soil exposures as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). USEPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS<ref name="USEPA2024b"/>:
*Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
*Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
*Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
*Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
*Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX chemicals)
*Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)

MCLs are enforceable drinking water standards based on the most recently available toxicity information that consider available treatment technologies and costs. The MCLs for PFAS include a Hazard Index of 1 for combined exposures to four PFAS. RSLs are developed for use in risk assessments and include soil and tap water screening levels for multiple PFAS. Soil RSLs are based on residential/unrestricted and commercial/industrial land uses, and calculations of site-specific RSLs are available.

Internationally, Canada and the European Union have also promulgated drinking water standards for select PFAS. However, large discrepancies exist among the various regulatory organizations, largely due to the different effect endpoints and exposure doses being used to calculate risk-based levels. The PFAS guidance from the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) in the US includes a regularly updated compilation of screening values for PFAS and is available on their PFAS website<ref name="ITRC2023">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) 2023. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ ITRC PFAS Website]</ref>: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org.

===Ecological Screening Levels===
Most peer-reviewed literature and regulatory-based environmental quality benchmarks have been developed using data for PFOS and PFOA; however, other select PFAAs have been evaluated for potential effects to aquatic receptors<ref name="ITRC2023"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/>. USEPA has developed water quality criteria for aquatic life<ref name="USEPA2022"> United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2022. Fact Sheet: Draft 2022 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)). Office of Water, EPA 842-D-22-005. [[Media: USEPA2022.pdf | Fact Sheet]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2024c">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Final Freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Acute Saltwater Aquatic Life Benchmark for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water, EPA-842-R-24-002. [[Media: USEPA2024c.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2024d">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Final Freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Acute Saltwater Aquatic Life Benchmark for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water, EPA-842-R-24-003. [[Media: USEPA2024d.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> for PFOA and PFOS. Following extensive reviews of the peer-reviewed literature, Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> used the USEPA Great Lakes Initiative methodology<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. Part 132. [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2013-title40-vol23/CFR-2013-title40-vol23-part132 Government Website]  [[Media: CFR-2013-title40-vol23-part132.pdf | Part132.pdf]]</ref> to calculate acute and chronic screening levels for aquatic life for 23 PFAS. The Argonne National Laboratory has also developed Ecological Screening Levels for multiple PFAS<ref name="GrippoEtAl2024">Grippo, M., Hayse, J., Hlohowskyj, I., Picel, K., 2024. Derivation of PFAS Ecological Screening Values - Update. Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Science Division. [[Media: GrippoEtAl2024.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. In contrast to surface water aquatic life benchmarks, sediment benchmark values are limited. For terrestrial systems, screening levels for direct exposure of soil plants and invertebrates to PFAS in soils have been developed for multiple AFFF-related PFAS<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>, and the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment developed several draft thresholds protective of direct toxicity of PFOS in soil<ref>Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2021. Canadian Soil and Groundwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). [[Media: CCME2018.pdf | Open Access Government Document]]</ref>.

Wildlife screening levels for abiotic media are back-calculated from food web models developed for representative receptors. Both Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> and Grippo ''et al.''<ref name="GrippoEtAl2024"/> include the development of risk-based screening levels for wildlife. The Michigan Department of Community Health<ref>Dykema, L.D., 2015. Michigan Department of Community Health Final Report, USEPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Project, Measuring Perfluorinated Compounds in Michigan Surface Waters and Fish. Grant GL-00E01122. [https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/MDCH_GL-00E01122-0_Final_Report_493494_7.pdf Free Download]  [[Media: MDCH_Geart_Lakes_PFAS.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> derived a provisional PFOS surface water value for avian and mammalian wildlife. In California, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board developed terrestrial habitat soil ecological screening levels based on values developed in Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>. For PFOS only, a dietary screening level (i.e. applicable to the concentration of PFAS measured in dietary items) has been developed for mammals at 4.6 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) wet weight (ww), and for avians at 8.2 μg/kg ww<ref>Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018. Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). [[Media: ECCC2018.pdf | Repoprt.pdf]]</ref>.

==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects at AFFF Sites: Human Health==
Exposure pathways and effects for select PFAS are well understood, such that standard human health risk assessment approaches can be used to quantify risks for populations relevant to a site. Human health exposures via drinking water have been the focus in risk assessments and investigations at PFAS sites<ref>Post, G.B., Cohn, P.D., Cooper, K.R., 2012. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an emerging drinking water contaminant: A critical review of recent literature. Environmental Research, 116, pp. 93-117. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.007]</ref><ref>Guelfo, J.L., Marlow, T., Klein, D.M., Savitz, D.A., Frickel, S., Crimi, M., Suuberg, E.M., 2018. Evaluation and Management Strategies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Drinking Water Aquifers: Perspectives from Impacted U.S. Northeast Communities. Environmental Health Perspectives,126(6), 13 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2727 doi: 10.1289/EHP2727]  [[Media: GuelfoEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Risk assessment approaches for PFAS in drinking water follow typical, well-established drinking water risk assessment approaches for chemicals as detailed in regulatory guidance documents for various jurisdictions.

Incidental exposures to soil and dusts for PFAS can occur during a variety of soil disturbance activities, such as gardening and digging, hand-to-mouth activities, and intrusive groundwork by industrial or construction workers. As detailed by the ITRC<ref name="ITRC2023"/>, many US states and USEPA have calculated risk-based screening levels for these soil and drinking water pathways (and many also include dermal exposures to soils) using well-established risk assessment guidance.

Field and laboratory studies have shown that some PFCAs and PFSAs bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic life at rates that could result in relevant dietary PFAS exposures for consumers of fish and other seafood<ref>Martin, J.W., Mabury, S.A., Solomon, K.R., Muir, D.C., 2003. Dietary accumulation of perfluorinated acids in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22(1), pp.189-195. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620220125 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220125]</ref><ref>Martin, J.W., Mabury, S.A., Solomon, K.R., Muir, D.C., 2003. Bioconcentration and tissue distribution of perfluorinated acids in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22(1), pp.196-204. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620220126 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220126]</ref><ref>Chen, F., Gong, Z., Kelly, B.C., 2016. Bioavailability and bioconcentration potential of perfluoroalkyl-phosphinic and -phosphonic acids in zebrafish (Danio rerio): Comparison to perfluorocarboxylates and perfluorosulfonates. Science of The Total Environment, 568, pp. 33-41. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.215 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.215]</ref><ref>Fang, S., Zhang, Y., Zhao, S., Qiang, L., Chen, M., Zhu, L., 2016. Bioaccumulation of per fluoroalkyl acids including the isomers of perfluorooctane sulfonate in carp (Cyprinus carpio) in a sediment/water microcosm. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(12), pp. 3005-3013. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3483 doi: 10.1002/etc.3483]</ref><ref>Bertin, D., Ferrari, B.J.D. Labadie, P., Sapin, A., Garric, J., Budzinski, H., Houde, M., Babut, M., 2014. Bioaccumulation of perfluoroalkyl compounds in midge (Chironomus riparius) larvae exposed to sediment. Environmental Pollution, 189, pp. 27-34. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.018 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.018]</ref><ref>Bertin, D., Labadie, P., Ferrari, B.J.D., Sapin, A., Garric, J., Geffard, O., Budzinski, H., Babut. M., 2016. Potential exposure routes and accumulation kinetics for poly- and perfluorinated alkyl compounds for a freshwater amphipod: Gammarus spp. (Crustacea). Chemosphere, 155, pp. 380-387. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.006]</ref><ref>Dai, Z., Xia, X., Guo, J., Jiang, X., 2013. Bioaccumulation and uptake routes of perfluoroalkyl acids in Daphnia magna. Chemosphere, 90(5), pp.1589-1596. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.026 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.026]</ref><ref>Prosser, R.S., Mahon, K., Sibley, P.K., Poirier, D., Watson-Leung, T. 2016. Bioaccumulation of perfluorinated carboxylates and sulfonates and polychlorinated biphenyls in laboratory-cultured Hexagenia spp., Lumbriculus variegatus and Pimephales promelas from field-collected sediments. Science of The Total Environment, 543(A), pp. 715-726. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.062 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.062]</ref><ref>Rich, C.D., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L., Higgins, C., 2015. Bioaccumulation of Perfluoroalkyl Acids by Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Exposed to Contaminated Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(2) pp. 881-888. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504152d doi: 10.1021/es504152d]</ref><ref>Muller, C.E., De Silva, A.O., Small, J., Williamson, M., Wang, X., Morris, A., Katz, S., Gamberg, M., Muir, D.C.G., 2011. Biomagnification of Perfluorinated Compounds in a Remote Terrestrial Food Chain: Lichen–Caribou–Wolf. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(20), pp. 8665-8673. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es201353v doi: 10.1021/es201353v]</ref>. In addition to fish, terrestrial wildlife can accumulate contaminants from impacted sites, resulting in potential exposures to consumers of wild game<ref name="ConderEtAl2021"/>. Additionally, exposures can occur though consumption of homegrown produce or agricultural products that originate from areas irrigated with PFAS-impacted groundwater, or that are amended with biosolids that contain PFAS, or that contain soils that were directly affected by PFAS releases<ref>Brown, J.B, Conder, J.M., Arblaster, J.A., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Assessing Human Health Risks from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS)-Impacted Vegetable Consumption: A Tiered Modeling Approach. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(23), pp. 15202-15214. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03411 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03411]  [[Media: BrownEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Multiple studies have found PFAS can be taken up by plants from soil porewater<ref>Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Hundal, L.S., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M., Higgins, C.P., 2013. Uptake of Perfluoroalkyl Acids into Edible Crops via Land Applied Biosolids: Field and Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(24), pp. 14062-14069. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es403094q doi: 10.1021/es403094q]  [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/508_pfascropuptake.pdf Free Download from epa.gov]</ref><ref>Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Sedlacko, E.M., Hyland, K.C., Stushnoff, C., Dickenson, E.R.V., Higgins, C.P., 2014. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Uptake in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) Irrigated with Reclaimed Water. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(24), pp. 14361-14368. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504150h doi: 10.1021/es504150h]</ref><ref>Ghisi, R., Vamerali, T., Manzetti, S., 2019. Accumulation of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: A review. Environmental Research, 169, pp. 326-341. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023]</ref>, and livestock can accumulate PFAS from drinking water and/or feed<ref>van Asselt, E.D., Kowalczyk, J., van Eijkeren, J.C.H., Zeilmaker, M.J., Ehlers, S., Furst, P., Lahrssen-Wiederhold, M., van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., 2013. Transfer of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) from contaminated feed to dairy milk. Food Chemistry, 141(2), pp.1489-1495. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.035 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.035]</ref>. Thus, when PFAS are present in surface water bodies where fishing or shellfish harvesting occurs or terrestrial areas where produce is grown or game is hunted, the bioaccumulation of PFAS into dietary items can be an important pathway for human exposure.

PFAAs such as PFOA and PFOS are not expected to volatilize from PFAS-impacted environmental media<ref name="USEPA2016a"/><ref name="USEPA2016b"/> such as soil and groundwater, which are the primary focus of most site-specific risk assessments. In contrast to non-volatile PFAAs, fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) are among the more widely studied of the volatile PFAS. FTOHs are transient in the atmosphere with a lifetime of 20 days<ref>Ellis, D.A., Martin, J.W., De Silva, A.O., Mabury, S.A., Hurley, M.D., Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Wallington, T.J., 2004. Degradation of Fluorotelomer Alcohols: A Likely Atmospheric Source of Perfluorinated Carboxylic Acids. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(12), pp. 3316-3321. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049860w doi: 10.1021/es049860w]</ref>. At most AFFF sites under evaluation, AFFF releases have occurred many years before such that FTOH may no longer be present. As such, the current assumption is that volatile PFAS, such as FTOHs historically released at the site, will have transformed to stable, low-volatility PFAS, such as PFAAs in soil or groundwater, or will they have diffused to the outdoor atmosphere. There is no evidence that FTOHs or other volatile PFAS are persistent in groundwater or soils such that they present an indoor vapor intrusion pathway risk concern as observed for chlorinated solvents. Ongoing research continues for the vapor pathway<ref name="ITRC2023"/>.

General and site-specific human health exposure pathways and risk assessment methods as outlined by USEPA<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/1-89/002. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=10001FQY.txt Free Download]  [[Media: USEPA1989.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA1997">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 540-R-97-006. [http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/157941 Free Download]  [[Media: EPA540-R-97-006.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> can be applied to PFAS risk assessments for which human health toxicity values have been developed. Additionally, for risk assessments with dietary exposures of PFAS, standard risk assessment food web modeling can be used to develop initial estimates of dietary concentrations which can be confirmed with site-specific tissue sampling programs.

==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Sites: Ecological==
Information available currently on exposures and effects of PFAS in ecological receptors indicate that the PFAS ecological risk issues at most sites are primarily associated with risks to vertebrate wildlife. Avian and mammalian wildlife are relatively sensitive to PFAS, and dietary intake via bioaccumulation in terrestrial and aquatic food webs can result in exposures that are dominated by the more accumulative PFAS<ref name="LarsonEtAl2018">Larson, E.S., Conder, J.M., Arblaster, J.A., 2018. Modeling avian exposures to perfluoroalkyl substances in aquatic habitats impacted by historical aqueous film forming foam releases. Chemosphere, 201, pp. 335-341. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.004]</ref><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>. Direct toxicity to aquatic life (e.g., fish, pelagic life, benthic invertebrates, and aquatic plants) can occur from exposure to sediment and surface water at effected sites. For larger areas, surface water concentrations associated with adverse effects to aquatic life are generally higher than those that could result in adverse effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife. Soil invertebrates and plants are generally less sensitive, with risk-based concentrations in soil being much higher than those associated with potential effects to terrestrial wildlife<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>.

Aquatic life are exposed to PFAS through direct exposure in surface water and sediment. Ecological risk assessment approaches for PFAS for aquatic life follow standard risk assessment approaches. The evaluation of potential risks for aquatic life with direct exposure to PFAS in environmental media relies on comparing concentrations in external exposure media to protective, media-specific benchmarks, including the aquatic life risk-based screening levels discussed above<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref name="USEPA2024a">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table. [https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table USEPA Website]</ref>.

When an area at the point of PFAS release is an industrial setting which does not feature favorable habitats for terrestrial and aquatic-dependent wildlife, the transport mechanisms may allow PFAS to travel offsite. If offsite or downgradient areas contain ecological habitat, then PFAS transported to these areas are expected to pose the highest risk potential to wildlife, particularly those areas that feature aquatic habitat<ref>Ahrens, L., Bundschuh, M., 2014. Fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(9), pp. 1921-1929. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2663 doi: 10.1002/etc.2663]  [[Media: AhrensBundschuh2014.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="LarsonEtAl2018"/>.

Wildlife receptors, specifically birds and mammals, are typically exposed to PFAS through uptake from dietary sources such as plants and invertebrates, along with direct soil ingestion during foraging activities. Dietary intake modeling typical for ecological risk assessments is the recommended approach for an evaluation of potential risks to wildlife species where PFAS exposure occurs primarily via dietary uptake from bioaccumulation pathways. Dietary intake modeling uses relevant exposure factors for each receptor group (terrestrial birds, terrestrial mammals, aquatic-dependent birds, and aquatic mammals) to determine a total daily intake (TDI) of PFAS via all potential exposure pathways. This approach requires determination of concentrations of PFAS in dietary items, which can be obtained by measuring PFAS in biota at sites or by using food web models to predict concentrations in biota using measured concentrations of PFAS in soil, sediment, or surface water. Food web models use bioaccumulation metrics such as bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and biomagnification factors (BMFs) with measurements of PFAS in abiotic media to estimate concentrations in dietary items, including plants and benthic or pelagic invertebrates, to model wildlife exposure and calculate TDI. Once site-specific TDI values are calculated, they are compared to known TRVs identified from toxicity data with exposure doses associated with a lack of adverse effects (termed no observed adverse effect level [NOAEL]) or low adverse effects (termed lowest observed adverse effect level [LOAEL]), per standard risk assessment practice<ref name="USEPA1997"/>.

Recently, Conder ''et al.''<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/>, Gobas ''et al.''<ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/>, and Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> compiled bioaccumulation modeling parameters and approaches for terrestrial and aquatic food web modeling of a variety of commonly detected PFAS at AFFF sites. There are also several sources of TRVs which can be relied upon for estimating TDI values<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref>Newsted, J.L., Jones, P.D., Coady, K., Giesy, J.P., 2005. Avian Toxicity Reference Values for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(23), pp. 9357-9362. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050989v doi: 10.1021/es050989v]</ref><ref name="Suski2020"/>. In general, the highest risk for PFAS is expected for smaller insectivore and omnivore receptors (e.g., shrews and other small rodents, small nonmigratory birds), which tend to be lower in trophic level and spend more time foraging in small areas similar to or smaller in size than the impacted area. Compared to smaller, lower-trophic level organisms, larger mammalian and avian carnivores are expected to have lower exposures from site-specific PFAS sources because they forage over larger areas that may include areas that are not impacted, as compared to small organisms with small home ranges<ref name="LarsonEtAl2018"/><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/><ref name="Suski2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>.

Available information regarding PFAS exposure pathways and effects in aquatic life, terrestrial invertebrates and plants, as well as aquatic and terrestrial wildlife allow ecological risk assessment methods to be applied as outlined by USEPA<ref name="USEPA1997"/> to site-specific PFAS risk assessments. Additionally, food web modeling can be used in site-specific PFAS risk assessment to develop initial estimates of dietary concentrations for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, which can be confirmed with tissue sampling programs at a site.

==PFAS Risk Assessment Data Gaps==
There are a number of data gaps currently associated with PFAS risk assessment including the following:
*'''Unmeasured PFAS:''' There are a number of additional PFAS that we know little about and many PFAS that we are unable to quantify in the environment. The approach to dealing with the lack of information on the overwhelming number of PFAS is being debated; in the meantime, however, PFAS beyond PFOS and PFOA are being studied more, and this information will result in improved characterization of risks for other PFAS.

*'''Mixtures:''' Another major challenge in effects assessment for PFAS, for both human health risk assessments and environmental risk assessments, is understanding the potential importance of mixtures of PFAS. Considering the limited human health and ecological toxicity data available for just a few PFAS, the understanding of the relative toxicity, additivity, or synergistic effects of PFAS in mixtures is just beginning.

*'''Toxicity Data Gaps:''' For environmental risk assessments, some organisms such as reptiles and benthic invertebrates do not have toxicity data available. Benchmark or threshold concentrations of PFAS in environmental media intended to be protective of wildlife and aquatic organisms suffer from significant uncertainty in their derivation due to the limited number of species for which data are available. As species-specific data becomes available for more types of organisms, the accuracy of environmental risk assessments is likely to improve.

==References==
<references />

==See Also==
[https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-studies/index.html Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) PFAS Health Studies]

[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/critical-data-for-assessing-the-marine-toxicity-and-bioaccumulation-of-pfas SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Critical Data for Assessing the Marine Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of PFAS]

[https://soundcloud.com/arcadis-north-america/multi-generational-pfas-exposure SERDP & ESTCP PFAS Research and Remediation Podcast: Multi-Generational PFAS Exposure]

PFAS Sources

2026-02-11T21:03:42Z

Admin:

[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] have been used in coatings for textiles, paper products, and cookware; in some firefighting foams; and have a range of applications in the aerospace, photographic imaging, semiconductor, automotive, construction, electronics, and aviation industries<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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/74/ITRC_PFAS-1_092020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="KEMI2015">Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI), 2015. Occurrence and use of highly fluorinated substances and alternatives, Report 7/15. ISSN 0284-1185. Article number 361 164. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/df/KEMI2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA2021">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2021. Basic Information on PFAS. [https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas#tab-1 Website]</ref>. Although PFAS and PFAS-containing products have been manufactured since the 1950s, PFAS were not widely documented in environmental samples until the early 2000s. Understanding PFAS manufacturing history, past and current uses, and waste management over the last six to seven decades is necessary for the identification of potential environmental sources of PFAS, possible release mechanisms, and associated pathway-receptor relationships.
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
*[[PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Dora Chiang | Dr. Dora Chiang]] and [[Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc | Dr. Alexandra Salter-Blanc]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), PFAS-1. ITRC 2020.]<ref name="ITRC2020" />

==Introduction==
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] are a complex family of more than 3,000 manmade fluorinated organic chemicals<ref name="Wang2017">Wang, Z., DeWitt, J.C., Higgins, C.P., and Cousins, I.T., 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)? Environmental Science and Technology, 51(5), pp. 2508-2518. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04806]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/e8/Wang2017.pdf Open access article.]</ref> although not all of these are currently in use or production. PFAS are produced using several different processes. Fluorosurfactants, which include perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) (see [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] article for nomenclature) and side-chain fluorinated polymers, have been manufactured using two major processes: [[Wikipedia: Electrochemical fluorination | electrochemical fluorination (ECF)]] and [[Wikipedia: Telomerization | telomerization]]<ref name="KEMI2015" />. ECF was licensed by 3M in the 1940s<ref name="Banks1994">Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E. and Tatlow, J.C. eds., 1994. Organofluorine Chemistry: Principles and Commercial Applications. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, N. Y. [https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2]</ref> and used by 3M until 2001. ECF produces a mixture of even and odd numbered carbon chain lengths of approximately 70% linear and 30% branched substances<ref name="Concawe2016">Concawe (Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe), 2016. Environmental fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Report No. 8/16. Brussels, Belgium. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/de/Concawe2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Telomerization was developed in the 1970s<ref name="Benskin2012a">Benskin, J.P., Ahrens, L., Muir, D.C., Scott, B.F., Spencer, C., Rosenberg, B., Tomy, G., Kylin, H., Lohmann, R. and Martin, J.W., 2012. Manufacturing Origin of Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in Atlantic and Canadian Arctic Seawater. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(2), pp. 677-685. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es202958p DOI: 10.1021/es202958p]</ref>, and yields mainly even numbered, straight carbon chain isomers<ref name="Kissa2001">Kissa, E., 2001. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents, Second Edition. Surfactant Science Series, Vol. 97. Marcel Dekker, Inc., CRC Press, New York. 640 pages. ISBN: 9780824704728</ref><ref name="Parsons2008">Parsons, J.R., Sáez, M., Dolfing, J. and De Voogt, P., 2008. Biodegradation of Perfluorinated Compounds. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 196, pp. 53-71. Springer, New York, NY. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2 DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-78444-1_2]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Dolfing/publication/23489065_Biodegradation_of_Perfluorinated_Compounds/links/0912f5087a40c9d5df000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. PFAS manufacturers have provided PFAS to secondary manufacturers for production of a vast array of industrial and consumer products.

During manufacturing, PFAS may be released into the atmosphere then redeposited on land where they can also affect surface water and groundwater, or PFAS may be discharged without treatment to wastewater treatment plants or landfills, and eventually be released into the environment by treatment systems that are not designed to mitigate PFAS (see also [[PFAS Transport and Fate]]). Industrial discharges of PFAS were unregulated for many years, but that has begun to change. In January 2016, New York became the first state in the nation to regulate PFOA as a hazardous substance followed by the regulation of PFOS in April 2016. Consumer and industrial uses of PFAS-containing products can also end up releasing PFAS into landfills and into municipal wastewater, where it may accumulate undetected in biosolids which are typically treated by land application.

==Industrial Sources==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig0.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 1. Conceptual Site Model for PFAS industrial sites<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
PFAS are used in many industrial and consumer applications, which may have released PFAS into the environment and impacted drinking water supplies in many areas of the United States<ref name="EWG2017">Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Northeastern University Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, 2017. Mapping A Contamination Crisis. [https://www.ewg.org/research/mapping-contamination-crisis Website]</ref>. Both in the United States (US) and abroad, primary manufacturing facilities produce PFAS and secondary manufacturing facilities use PFAS to produce goods. Environmental release mechanisms associated with these facilities include air emission and dispersion, spills, and disposal of manufacturing wastes and wastewater. Potential impacts to air, soil, sediment, surface water, stormwater, and groundwater are present not only at primary release points but potentially over the surrounding area<ref name="Shin2011">Shin, H.M., Vieira, V.M., Ryan, P.B., Detwiler, R., Sanders, B., Steenland, K., and Bartell, S.M., 2011. Environmental Fate and Transport Modeling for Perfluorooctanoic Acid Emitted from the Washington Works Facility in West Virginia. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(4), pp. 1435-1442. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102769t DOI: 10.1021/es102769t]</ref>, as illustrated in Figure 1. Some of the potential primary and secondary sources of PFAS releases to the environment are listed here<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*'''Textiles and leather:''' Factory or consumer applied coating to repel water, oil, and stains. Applications include protective clothing and outerwear, umbrellas, tents, sails, architectural materials, carpets, and upholstery<ref name="Rao1994">Rao, N.S., and Baker, B.E., 1994. Textile Finishes and Fluorosurfactants. In: Organofluorine Chemistry, Banks, R.E., Smart, B.E., and Tatlow, J.C., Eds. Springer, New York. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15 DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4899-1202-2_15]</ref><ref name="Hekster2003">Hekster, F.M., Laane, R.W. and De Voogt, P., 2003. Environmental and Toxicity Effects of Perfluoroalkylated Substances. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 179, pp. 99-121. Springer, New York, NY. [https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4 DOI: 10.1007/0-387-21731-2_4]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004">Brooke, D., Footitt, A., and Nwaogu, T.A., 2004. Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS). Environment Agency (UK), Science Group. Free download from: [http://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/docs/from_old_website/documents/meetings/poprc/submissions/Comments_2006/sia/pfos.uk.risk.eval.report.2004.pdf The Stockholm Convention]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/df/Brooke2004.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005">Poulsen, P.B., Jensen, A.A., and Wallström, E., 2005. More environmentally friendly alternatives to PFOS-compounds and PFOA. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Project 1013. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c2/Poulsen2005.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006">Prevedouros, K., Cousins, I.T., Buck, R.C. and Korzeniowski, S.H., 2006. Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(1), pp. 32-44. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475 DOI: 10.1021/es0512475]   Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/39945519/Sources_Fate_and_Transport_of_Perfluoroc20151112-1647-19vcvbf.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Walters2006">Walters, A., and Santillo, D., 2006. Technical Note 06/2006: Uses of Perfluorinated Substances. Greenpeace Research Laboratories. [http://www.greenpeace.to/publications/uses-of-perfluorinated-chemicals.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3a/Walters2006.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Trudel2008">Trudel, D., Horowitz, L., Wormuth, M., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T. and Hungerbühler, K., 2008. Estimating Consumer Exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(2), pp. 251-269. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x]</ref><ref name="Guo2009">Guo, Z., Liu, X., Krebs, K.A. and Roache, N.F., 2009. Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Content in 116 Articles of Commerce, EPA/600/R-09/033. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=206124 US EPA.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/Guo2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="USEPA2009">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs), Action Plan. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/pfcs_action_plan1230_09.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b8/USEPA2009.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2011a">Ahrens, L., 2011. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic environment: a review of their occurrence and fate. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 13(1), pp.20-31.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C0EM00373E DOI: 10.1039/C0EM00373E]. Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lutz_Ahrens/publication/47622154_Polyfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_the_aquatic_environment_A_review_of_their_occurrence_and_fate/links/00b7d53762cfedaf12000000/Polyfluoroalkyl-compounds-in-the-aquatic-environment-A-review-of-their-occurrence-and-fate.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Buck2011">Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., De Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A., Kannan, K., Mabury, S.A. and van Leeuwen, S.P., 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7(4), pp. 513-541. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.258]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/6f/Buck2011.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011">United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011. Report of the persistent organic pollutants review committee on the work of its sixth meeting, Addendum, Guidance on alternatives to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and its derivatives, UNEP/POPS/POPRC.6/13/Add.3/Rev.1 [http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/POPsReviewCommittee/Meetings/POPRC6/POPRC6Documents/tabid/783/ctl/Download/mid/3507/Default.aspx?id=125 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ee/UNEP2011.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Herzke2012">Herzke, D., Olsson, E. and Posner, S., 2012. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer products in Norway – A pilot study. Chemosphere, 88(8), pp. 980-987. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.035]</ref><ref name="Patagonia2016">Patagonia, Inc., 2016. An Update on Our DWR Problem. [https://www.patagonia.com/stories/our-dwr-problem-updated/story-17673.html Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/41/Patagonia2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Kotthoff2015">Kotthoff, M., Müller, J., Jürling, H., Schlummer, M., and Fiedler, D., 2015. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in consumer products. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(19), pp. 14546-14559. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4202-7]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c8/Kotthoff2015.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2018. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, Draft for Public Comment. US Department of Health and Human Services. Free download from: [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf ATSDR]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/eb/ATSDR2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

*'''Paper products:''' Surface coatings to repel grease and moisture. Uses include non-food paper packaging (for example, cardboard, carbonless forms, masking papers) and food-contact materials (for example, pizza boxes, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, baking papers, pet food bags)<ref name="Rao1994" /><ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Hekster2003" /><ref name="Poulsen2005" /><ref name="Trudel2008" /><ref name="Buck2011" /><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="Schaider2017">Schaider, L.A., Balan, S.A., Blum, A., Andrews, D.Q., Strynar, M.J., Dickinson, M.E., Lunderberg, D.M., Lang, J.R., and Peaslee, G.F., 2017. Fluorinated Compounds in US Fast Food Packaging. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 4(3), pp. 105-111. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435 DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b8/Schaider2017.pdf Open access article.]</ref>

*'''Metal Plating & Etching:''' Corrosion prevention, mechanical wear reduction, aesthetic enhancement, surfactant, wetting agent/fume suppressant for chrome, copper, nickel and tin electroplating, and post-plating cleaner<ref name="USEPA1996">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42, Section 12.20. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Research Triangle Park, NC. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a3/USEPA1996.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Riordan1998">Riordan, B.J., Karamchandanl, R.T., Zitko, L.J., and Cushnie Jr., G.C., 1998. Capsule Report: Hard Chrome Fume Suppressants and Control Technologies. Center for Environmental Research Information, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development. EPA/625/R-98/002 [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryID=115419 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/bd/Riordan1998.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Prevedouros2006" /><ref name="USEPA2009a">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2009. PFOS Chromium Electroplater Study. US EPA – Region 5, Chicago, IL. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/1/11/USEPA2009a.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="OSHA2013">Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), 2013. Fact Sheet: Controlling Hexavalent Chromium Exposures during Electroplating. United States Department of Labor. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/90/OSHA2013.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="KEMI2015" /><ref name="DEPA2015">Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2015. Alternatives to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in textiles. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f4/DEPA2015.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*'''Wire Manufacturing:''' Coating and insulation<ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="vanderPutte2010">van der Putte, I., Murin, M., van Velthoven, M., and Affourtit, F., 2010. Analysis of the risks arising from the industrial use of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) and from their use in consumer articles. Evaluation of the risk reduction measures for potential restrictions on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of PFOA and APFO. RPS Advies, Delft, The Netherlands for European Commission Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General. [https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/13037/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/7b/VanderPutte2010.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="ASTSWMO2015">Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), 2015. Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs): Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Information Paper. Remediation and Reuse Focus Group, Federal Facilities Research Center, Washington, D.C. Free download from: [https://clu-in.org/download/contaminantfocus/pops/POPs-ASTSWMO-PFCs-2015.pdf US EPA]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/3a/Deeb-Article_1-Table_2-L10-Provisional_Groundwater_Remediaton_Objectives_Class_I_Groundwater.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>

*'''Industrial Surfactants, Resins, Molds, Plastics:''' Manufacture of plastics and fluoropolymers, rubber, and compression mold release coatings; plumbing fluxing agents; fluoroplastic coatings, composite resins, and flame retardant for polycarbonate<ref name="Kissa2001" /><ref name="Renner2001">Renner, R., 2001. Growing Concern Over Perfluorinated Chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 35(7), pp. 154A-160A. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es012317k DOI: 10.1021/es012317k]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/f5/Renner2001.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Poulsen2005" /><ref name="Fricke2005">Fricke, M. and Lahl, U., 2005. Risk Evaluation of Perfluorinated Surfactants as Contribution to the current Debate on the EU Commission’s REACH Document. Umweltwissenschaften und Schadstoff-Forschung (UWSF), 17(1), pp. 36-49. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03038694 DOI: 10.1007/BF03038694]</ref><ref name="Prevedouros2006" /><ref name="Skutlarek2006">Skutlarek, D., Exner, M. and Färber, H., 2006. Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 13(5), pp. 299-307. [https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2006.07.326 DOI: 10.1065/espr2006.07.326]   Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Skutlarek/publication/6729263_Perfluorinated_surfactants_in_surface_and_drinking_waters/links/0deec52049b9cba2e4000000.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="vanderPutte2010" /><ref name="Buck2011" /><ref name="Herzke2012" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="Chemours2010">Chemours, 2010. The History of Teflon Fluoropolymers. [https://www.teflon.com/en/news-events/history Website]</ref>

*'''Photolithography, Semiconductor Industry:''' Photoresists, top anti-reflective coatings, bottom anti-reflective coatings, and etchants, with other uses including surfactants, wetting agents, and photo-acid generation<ref name="Choi2005">Choi, D.G., Jeong, J.H., Sim, Y.S., Lee, E.S., Kim, W.S. and Bae, B.S., 2005. Fluorinated Organic− Inorganic Hybrid Mold as a New Stamp for Nanoimprint and Soft Lithography. Langmuir, 21(21), pp. 9390-9392. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la0513205 DOI: 10.1021/la0513205]</ref><ref name="Rolland2004">Rolland, J.P., Van Dam, R.M., Schorzman, D.A., Quake, S.R., and DeSimone, J.M., 2004. Solvent-Resistant Photocurable “Liquid Teflon” for Microfluidic Device Fabrication. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 126(8), pp. 2322-2323. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja031657y DOI: 10.1021/ja031657y]</ref><ref name="Brooke2004" /><ref name="vanderPutte2010" /><ref name="UNEP2011" /><ref name="Herzke2012" />

==Class B Firefighting Foams==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig0.5.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 2. Conceptual Site Model for fire training areas<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
Aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and other fluorinated Class B firefighting foams are another important source of PFAS to the environment, especially in military and aviation settings. [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | Class B firefighting foams]] have been used since the 1960s to extinguish flammable liquid hydrocarbon fires and for vapor suppression. These foams contain complex and variable mixtures of PFAS that act as surfactants. Fluorinated surfactants are both hydrophobic and oleophobic (oil-repelling), as well as thermally stable, chemically stable, and highly surface active<ref name="Moody1999">Moody, C.A. and Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es981355%2B DOI: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref>. These properties make them uniquely suited to fighting hydrocarbon fuel fires. Use of fluorinated Class B foams is prevalent and is a major source of PFAS release to the environment, as shown in Figure 2. Release to the environment typically occurs during firefighting operations, firefighter training, apparatus testing, or leakage during storage. Research into fluorine-free alternatives is underway and Congressional pressure is leading towards banning fluorinated Class B firefighting foams in the United States.

[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig1.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 3. Types of Class B firefighting foams<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Source: S. Thomas, Wood, PLC. Used with permission.]]
When discussing the relationship between firefighting foams and sources of PFAS to the environment, the emphasis is typically on AFFF; however, many different types of Class B firefighting foams exist. These may or may not be fluorinated (contain PFAS). Class B foams are used to extinguish Class B fires, that is, those involving flammable liquids. Fluorinated Class B foams spread across the surface of the flammable liquid forming a thin film and extinguish fires by (1) excluding air from the flammable vapors, (2) suppressing vapor release, (3) physically separating the flames from the fuel source, and (4) cooling the fuel surface and surrounding metal surfaces<ref name="NationalFoam">National Foam, no date. A Firefighter’s Guide to Foam. [http://foamtechnology.us/Firefighters.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/NationalFoam.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. From a PFAS perspective, Class B firefighting foams can be divided into two broad categories: fluorinated foams (that contain PFAS) and fluorine-free foams (that do not contain PFAS)<ref name="ITRC2020" />. This distinction and examples of each type are shown in Figure 3.

AFFF was developed by the US Navy in the 1960s and in 1969, the US Department of Defense (DoD) issued military specification MIL-F-24385 listing firefighting performance requirements for all AFFF used within the US DoD<ref name="ITRC2020" /><ref name="Navy1969">US Navy, 1969. Military Specification MIL-F-24385(NAVY). Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate, Six Percent, for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Hyattsville, Maryland. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c5/MilspecAFFF1969.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="Navy2020">US Navy, 2020. Performance Specification MIL-PRF-24385F(SH) with Amendment 4. Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Liquid Concentrate for Fresh and Sea Water. Department of Defense, Washington, DC. [https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=17270 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/58/MilspecAFFF2020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. These performance standards are often referred to as “Mil-Spec.” Products that meet the Mil-Spec have been added to the US DoD [https://qpldocs.dla.mil/ Qualified Product Listing (QPL)]. In 2006 the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also began requiring that 14-CFR-139-certified commercial airports purchase Mil-Spec compliant AFFF only. Because the US DoD and FAA have been the primary purchasers of AFFF, development of AFFF product mixtures has historically been performance-driven (to comply with the Mil-Spec) rather than formula-driven (the specific PFAS mixtures utilized have varied over time and by manufacturer). Multiple manufacturers in the US and throughout the world produce or have produced AFFF concentrate<ref name="ITRC2020" />. AFFF concentrate is or has been available in 1%, 3%, or 6% formulations, where the percentage designates the recommended percentage of concentrate to be mixed into water during application.

The specific mixtures of PFAS found in AFFF have varied by manufacturer and over time due to differences in production processes and voluntary formula changes. AFFF formulations can generally be grouped into three categories<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*'''Legacy Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) AFFF''' This type of AFFF was manufactured exclusively by 3M under the brand name “Lightwater” from the late 1960s until 2002 using the ECF production process. They contain PFOS and perflouroalkane sulfonates (PFSAs) such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS)<ref name="ITRC2020" /><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 US Military Bases by Nonaqueous Large-Volume Injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(10), pp. 5226-5234. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3034999 DOI: 10.1021/es3034999]</ref>. Legacy PFOS AFFF produced by ECF were voluntarily phased out in 2002, however, use of stockpiled product was permitted after that date<ref name="ITRC2020" />.

*'''Legacy fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF manufactured and sold in the U.S. from the 1970s until 2016 and includes all brands that were produced using a process known as fluorotelomerization (FT). The FT manufacturing process produces polyfluorinated substances that can degrade in the environment to perfluoroalkyl substances (specifically PFAAs) including Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Polyfluoroalkyl substances that degrade to create terminal PFAAs are referred to as “precursors” <ref name="ITRC2020" />.

*'''Modern fluorotelomer AFFF''' This group consists of AFFF developed in response to the USEPA 2010-2015 voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program<ref name="USEPA2018">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2018. Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. [https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program Website]</ref>, which asked companies to commit to first reducing and then eliminating the following: PFOA, precursors that can break down to PFOA, and related chemicals from facility emissions and products. In response, manufacturers began producing only short-chain fluorosurfactants targeting fluorotelomer PFAS with 6 carbons per chain (C6), rather than the traditional long-chain fluorosurfactants (8 or more carbons per chain). These short-chain PFAS do not breakdown in the environment to PFOS or PFOA<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Their toxicity in comparison to long-chain fluorosurfactants is a topic of current research.

In the US, AFFF users including the US DoD (predominantly the Navy and Air Force), civilian airports, oil refineries, other petrochemical industries, and municipal fire departments<ref name="Darwin2011">Darwin, Robert L. 2011. Estimated Inventory of PFOS-based Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, Inc., Arlington, VA. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/49/Darwin2011.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. AFFF is used, for example, in fire fighting vehicles, in fixed fire suppression systems (including sprinklers and fixed spray systems in or at aircraft hangars, flammable liquid storage areas, engine hush houses, and fuel farms), and onboard military and commercial ships. Fluorinated Class B foams may be introduced to the environment through the following practices<ref name="ITRC2020" />:

*low volume releases of foam concentrate during storage, transfer or operational requirements that mandate periodic equipment calibration
*moderate volume discharge of foam solution for apparatus testing and episodic discharge of AFFF-containing fire suppression systems within large aircraft hangars and buildings
*occasional, high-volume, broadcast discharge of foam solution for firefighting and fire suppression/prevention for emergency response
*periodic, high volume, broadcast discharge for fire training
*accidental leaks from foam distribution piping between storage and pumping locations, and from storage tanks and railcars

The DoD is currently replacing legacy, long-chain AFFF with modern, short-chain fluorotelomer AFFF and disposing of the legacy foams through incineration. While the PFAS included in modern fluorotelomer AFFF formulations are currently understood to be less toxic and less bioaccumulative than those used in legacy formulations, they are also environmentally persistent and can degrade to produce other PFAS that may pose environmental concerns<ref name="ITRC2020" />. While fluorine free alternatives exist, they do not meet the current Mil-Spec<ref name="Navy2020" /> which requires that fluorine-based compounds be used. The US DoD is working to revise the Mil-Spec to allow fluorine-free foams, and several states have passed laws prohibiting the use of fluorinated Class B foams for training and prohibiting future manufacture, sale or distribution of fluorinated foams, with limited exceptions<ref name="Denton2019">Denton, Charles, 2019. Expert Focus: US states outpace EPA on PFAS firefighting foam laws. Chemical Watch. [https://chemicalwatch.com/78075/expert-focus-us-states-outpace-epa-on-pfas-firefighting-foam-laws Website]</ref> (e.g., WA Rev Code § 70.75A.005 (2019); VA § 9.1-207.1 (2019)). Additionally, a bill passed in the US Congress in 2018 directs the FAA to allow fluorine-free foams for use at commercial airports<ref name="FAA2018">FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. US Public Law No: 115-254 (10/05/2018). [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?r=1 Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/06/FAA2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Research into the development of Mil-Spec compliant fluorine-free foams that will be compatible with existing AFFF and supporting equipment is ongoing and includes the following:

*Novel Fluorine-Free Replacement for Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. Joseph Tsang, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Divisions) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2737 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2737]
*Fluorine-Free Aqueous Film Forming Foam (Lead investigator: Dr. John Payne, National Foam) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2738 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2738]
*Fluorine-Free Foams with Oleophobic Surfactants and Additives for Effective Pool fire Suppression (Lead investigator: Dr. Ramagopal Ananth, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory) [https://serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Weapons-Systems-and-Platforms/Waste-Reduction-and-Treatment-in-DoD-Operations/WP-2739 SERDP/ESTCP Project WP-2739]

==Wastewater Treatment Plants==
[[File: ChiangSalterBlanc1w2Fig4.png | thumb | 700px | Figure 4. Conceptual Site Model for landfills and WWTPs<ref name="ITRC2020" />. Adapted from figure by L. Trozzolo, TRC, used with permission.]]
Consumer and/or industrial uses of PFAS-containing materials results in the discharge of PFAS to industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Conventional WWTP treatment processes remove less than 5% of PFAAs<ref name="Ahrens2011a" /><ref name="Schultz2006">Schultz, M.M., Higgins, C.P., Huset, C.A., Luthy, R.G., Barofsky, D.F., and Field, J.A., 2006. Fluorochemical Mass Flows in a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7350-7357. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061025m DOI: 10.1021/es061025m]   [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556954/ Author Manuscript]</ref><ref name="MWRA2019">Michigan Waste and Recycling Association (MWRA), 2019. Statewide Study on Landfill Leachate PFOA and PFOS Impact on Water Resource Recovery Facility Influent, Second Revision. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/ff/MWRA2019.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. WWTPs, particularly those that receive industrial wastewater, are possible sources of PFAS release<ref name="Bossi2008">Bossi, R., Strand, J., Sortkjær, O. and Larsen, M.M., 2008. Perfluoroalkyl compounds in Danish wastewater treatment plants and aquatic environments. Environment International, 34(4), pp. 443-450. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.10.002] Free download from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/43968517/Perfluoroalkyl_compounds_in_Danish_waste20160321-31116-esz4d1.pdf Academia.edu]</ref><ref name="Lin2014">Lin, A.Y.C., Panchangam, S.C., Tsai, Y.T., and Yu, T.H., 2014. Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds in the aquatic environment as found in science park effluent, river water, rainwater, sediments, and biotissues. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(5), pp. 3265-3275. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9 DOI: 10.1007/s10661-014-3617-9]</ref><ref name="Ahrens2009">Ahrens, L., Felizeter, S., Sturm, R., Xie, Z. and Ebinghaus, R., 2009. Polyfluorinated compounds in waste water treatment plant effluents and surface waters along the River Elbe, Germany. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(9), pp.1326-1333. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.028]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/9e/Ahrens2009.pdf Author’s manuscript]</ref>, as shown in Figure 4.

Evaluation of full-scale WWTPs has indicated that conventional primary (sedimentation and clarification) and secondary (aerobic biodegradation of organic matter) treatment processes can result in changes in PFAS concentrations and classes. For example, higher concentrations of PFAAs have been observed in effluent than in influent, presumably due to transformation of precursor PFAS<ref name="Schultz2006" />. Some data has indicated that the terminal PFAS compounds PFOS and PFOA were among the most frequently detected PFAS in wastewater<ref name="Hamid2016">Hamid, H. and Li, L., 2016. Role of wastewater treatment plant in environmental cycling of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances. Ecocycles, 2(2), pp. 43-53. [https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62 DOI: 10.19040/ecocycles.v2i2.62]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/67/Hamid2016.pdf Open access article.]</ref>. A state-wide study in Michigan indicated that PFAS were detected in all of the samples from 42 WWTPs, including influent, effluent, and biosolids/sludge samples, and that the short-chain PFAS were more frequently detected in the liquid process flow (influent and effluent), while long-chain PFAS were more common in biosolids<ref name="EGLE2020">Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), 2020. Summary Report: Initiatives to Evaluate the Presence of PFAS in Municipal Wastewater and Associated Residuals (Sludge/Biosolids) in Michigan. [//www.enviro.wiki/images/7/70/EGLE2020.pdf Report.pdf]  
[https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/wrd-pfas-initiatives_691391_7.pdf Website]</ref>.

Multiple studies have found PFAS in municipal sewage sludge<ref name="Higgins2005">Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., Criddle, C.S., and Luthy, R.G., 2005. Quantitative Determination of Perfluorochemicals in Sediments and Domestic Sludge. Environmental Science and Technology, 39 (11), pp. 3946 – 3956. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es048245p DOI: 10.1021/es048245p]</ref><ref name="EGLE2020" />. The US EPA states that more than half of the sludge produced in the United States is applied to agricultural land as biosolids, therefore there are concerns that biosolids applications may become a potential source of PFAS to the environment<ref name="USEPA2020">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2020. Research on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). [https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/research-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Website]</ref>. Application of biosolids as a soil amendment can potentially result in transfer of PFAS to soil, surface water and groundwater and can possibly allow PFAS to enter the food chain<ref name="Sepulvado2011">Sepulvado, J.G., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L.S. and Higgins, C.P., 2011. Occurrence and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal Biosolids. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp. 8106-8112. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es103903d DOI: 10.1021/es103903d]</ref><ref name="Lindstrom2011">Lindstrom, A.B., Strynar, M.J., Delinsky, A.D., Nakayama, S.F., McMillan, L., Libelo, E.L., Neill, M. and Thomas, L., 2011. Application of WWTP Biosolids and Resulting Perfluorinated Compound Contamination of Surface and Well Water in Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(19), pp. 8015-8021. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1039425 DOI: 10.1021/es1039425]</ref><ref name="Blaine2013">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Hundal, L.S., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Uptake of Perfluoroalkyl Acids into Edible Crops via Land Applied Biosolids: Field and Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(24), pp.14062-14069. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es403094q DOI: 10.1021/es403094q]   Free download from: [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/508_pfascropuptake.pdf US EPA]</ref><ref name="Blaine2014">Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Sedlacko, E.M., Hundal, L.S., Kumar, K., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M. and Higgins, C.P., 2014. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Distribution in Various Plant Compartments of Edible Crops Grown in Biosolids-Amended Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(14), pp. 7858-7865. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es500016s DOI: 10.1021/es500016s] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kuldip_Kumar2/publication/263015815_Perfluoroalkyl_Acid_Distribution_in_Various_Plant_Compartments_of_Edible_Crops_Grown_in_Biosolids-Amended_soils/links/5984cb310f7e9b6c852f4f02/Perfluoroalkyl-Acid-Distribution-in-Various-Plant-Compartments-of-Edible-Crops-Grown-in-Biosolids-Amended-soils.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Navarro2017">Navarro, I., de la Torre, A., Sanz, P., Porcel, M.Á., Pro, J., Carbonell, G. and de los Ángeles Martínez, M., 2017. Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances and halogenated flame retardants by crop plants grown in biosolids-amended soils. Environmental Research, 152, pp. 199-206. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.018]</ref>. Limited studies have shown that PFAS concentrations can be elevated in surface and groundwater in the vicinity of agricultural fields that received PFAS contaminated biosolids for an extended period<ref name="Washington2010">Washington, J.W., Yoo, H., Ellington, J.J., Jenkins, T.M., and Libelo, E.L., 2010. Concentrations, Distribution, and Persistence of Perfluoroalkylates in Sludge-Applied Soils near Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(22), pp. 8390-8396. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es1003846 DOI: 10.1021/es1003846] Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Washington3/publication/47447289_Concentrations_Distribution_and_Persistence_of_Perfluoroalkylates_in_Sludge-Applied_Soils_near_Decatur_Alabama_USA/links/5e3c0184a6fdccd9658add41/Concentrations-Distribution-and-Persistence-of-Perfluoroalkylates-in-Sludge-Applied-Soils-near-Decatur-Alabama-USA.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. The most abundant PFAS found in biosolids are the long-chain PFAS<ref name="Hamid2016" /><ref name="EGLE2020" />. Based on the persistence and stability of long-chain PFAS and their interaction with biosolids, research is ongoing to determine PFAS leachability from biosolids and their bioavailability for uptake by plants, soil organisms, and the consumers of potentially PFAS-impacted plants and soil organisms.

==Solid Waste Management Facilities==
Industrial, commercial, and consumer products containing PFAS that have been disposed in municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or other legacy disposal areas since the 1950s are potential sources of PFAS release to the environment. Environmental and drinking water impacts from disposal of legacy PFAS-containing industrial and consumer wastes have been documented<ref name="Oliaei2010">Oliaei, F., Kriens, D. and Weber, R., 2010. Discovery and investigation of PFOS/PFCs contamination from a PFC manufacturing facility in Minnesota—environmental releases and exposure risks. Organohalogen Compd, 72, pp. 1338-1341.</ref><ref name="Shin2011" /><ref name="MDH2020">Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), 2020. Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Sites in Minnesota. [https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazardous/topics/sites.html Website]</ref>.

Several studies have identified a wide variety of PFAS in MSW landfill leachates<ref name="Busch2010">Busch, J., Ahrens, L., Sturm, R. and Ebinghaus, R., 2010. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), pp.1467-1471. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031]</ref><ref name="Eggen2010">Eggen, T., Moeder, M. and Arukwe, A., 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: A significant source for new and emerging pollutants. Science of the Total Environment, 408(21), pp. 5147-5157. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.049]</ref>. PFAS composition and concentration in leachates vary depending on waste age, climate, and waste composition<ref name="Allred2015">Allred, B. M., Lang, J. R., Barlaz, M. A., and Field, J. A., 2015. Physical and Biological Release of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from Municipal Solid Waste in Anaerobic Model Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(13), pp. 7648-7656. [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01040 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01040]</ref><ref name="Lang2017">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Field, J.A., Levis, J.W. and Barlaz, M.A., 2017. National Estimate of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Release to U.S. Municipal Landfill Leachate. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(4), pp. 2197-2205. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05005 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05005]</ref>. The relative concentrations of various PFAS in leachate and groundwater from landfill sites is different from those found at WWTPs and AFFF-contaminated sites. In particular, 5:3 fluorotelomer carboxylic acid (FTCA) is a common and often dominant PFAS found in landfills, and has been released from carpet in model anaerobic landfill reactors. This compound could prove to be an indicator that PFAS in the environment originated from a landfill<ref name="Lang2016">Lang, J.R., Allred, B.M., Peaslee, G.F., Field, J.A., and Barlaz, M.A., 2016. Release of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) from Carpet and Clothing in Model Anaerobic Landfill Reactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(10), pp. 5024-5032. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06237 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06237]</ref><ref name="Lang2017" />. PFAS may also be released to the air from landfills, predominantly as fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and perfluorobutanoate (PFBA). In one study, total airborne PFAS concentrations were 5 to 30 times greater at landfills than at background reference sites<ref name="Ahrens2011b">Ahrens, L., Shoeib, M., Harner, T., Lane, D.A., Guo, R. and Reiner, E.J., 2011. Comparison of Annular Diffusion Denuder and High volume Air Samplers for Measuring Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere. Analytical Chemistry, 83(24), pp. 9622-9628. [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ DOI: 10.1021/ac202414w]   Free download available from: [https://www.informea.org/sites/default/files/imported-documents/UNEP-POPS-POPRC11FU-SUBM-PFOA-Canada-2-20151211.En.pdf InforMEA]</ref>. PFAS release rates within landfills vary over time for a given waste mass, with climate (for example, rainfall) serving as the apparent driving factor for the variations<ref name="Lang2017" /><ref name="Benskin2012">Benskin, J.P., Li, B., Ikonomou, M.G., Grace, J.R. and Li, L.Y., 2012. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Landfill Leachate: Patterns, Time Trends, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(21), pp.11532-11540. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es302471n DOI: 10.1021/es302471n]</ref>.

==Commercial and Consumer Products==
PFAS are widely used in consumer products and household applications, with a diverse mixture of PFAS found in varying concentrations depending on the product<ref name="Clara2008">Clara, M., Scharf, S., Weiss, S., Gans, O. and Scheffknecht, C., 2008. Emissions of perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFAS) from point sources - identification of relevant branches. Water Science and Technology, 58(1), pp. 59-66. [https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.641 DOI: 10.2166/wst.2008.641]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a3/Clara2008.pdf Open access article.]</ref><ref name="Trier2011">Trier, X., Granby, K. and Christensen, J.H., 2011. Polyfluorinated surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 18(7), pp. 1108–1120. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-010-0439-3]</ref><ref name="Fujii2013">Fujii, Y., Harada, K.H. and Koizumi, A., 2013. Occurrence of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) in personal care products and compounding agents. Chemosphere, 93(3), pp. 538-544. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.049]</ref><ref name="OECD2013">Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013. Synthesis paper on per‐ and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). OECD Environment Directorate/UNEP Global PFC Group. [https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-management/PFC_FINAL-Web.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/55/OECD2013.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><ref name="ATSDR2018" /><ref name="Kotthoff2015" /><ref name="KEMI2015" /><ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA Document Number: 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_508.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/63/USEPA2016.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>. Environmental releases associated with the commercial and consumer products are primarily related to their production. To a much lower extent, the environmental releases may be associated with the management of solid waste (for example, disposal of used items in a MSW landfill) and wastewater disposal (for example, discharge to WWTPs, private septic systems, or other subsurface disposal systems).

Studies have shown that physical degradation of some consumer products (such as PFAS-treated paper, textiles, and carpets) may release PFAS in house dust<ref name="Bjorklund2009">Björklund, J.A., Thuresson, K. and De Wit, C.A., 2009. Perfluoroalkyl Compounds (PFCs) in Indoor Dust: Concentrations, Human Exposure Estimates, and Sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(7), pp. 2276-2281. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es803201a DOI: 10.1021/es803201a]</ref>. Additionally, studies have also shown that professional ski wax technicians may have significant inhalation exposures to PFAS<ref name="Nilsson2013">Nilsson, H., Kärrman, A., Rotander, A., van Bavel, B., Lindström, G., and Westberg, H., 2013. Professional ski waxers' exposure to PFAS and aerosol concentrations in gas phase and different particle size fractions. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 15(4), pp. 814-822. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C3EM30739E DOI: 10.1039/C3EM30739E]</ref> and snowmelt and surface waters near ski areas could have measurable PFAS impacts<ref name="Kwok2013">Kwok, K.Y., Yamazaki, E., Yamashita, N., Taniyasu, S., Murphy, M.B., Horii, Y., Petrick, G., Kallerborn, R., Kannan, K., Murano, K. and Lam, P.K., 2013. Transport of Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from an arctic glacier to downstream locations: Implications for sources. Science of the Total Environment, 447, pp. 46-55. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.091]</ref>.

As increased environmental sampling for PFAS occurs, additional information will become available to further our understanding of the major and minor PFAS contributors to the environment.
 

==References==

<references />

==See Also==

PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies

2026-02-11T21:03:21Z

Admin:

<onlyinclude>[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] are mobile in the subsurface and highly resistant to natural degradation processes, therefore soil source areas can be ongoing sources of groundwater contamination. </onlyinclude>The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has not promulgated soil standards for any PFAS, although a handful of states have for select compounds. <onlyinclude>Soil standards issued for protection of groundwater are in the single digit part per billion range</onlyinclude>, which is a very low threshold for soil impacts<onlyinclude>. Well developed soil treatment technologies are limited to capping and excavation with incineration or disposal. Soil stabilization with sorptive amendments and soil washing have been applied at limited locations. At present, no ''in situ'' destructive soil treatment technologies have been demonstrated at full scale.</onlyinclude>
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>

'''Related Article(s):'''

*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
*[[PFAS Sources]]

'''Contributor(s):''' [[James Hatton]] and [[William DiGuiseppi]]

'''Key Resource(s):'''

*[https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/12-treatment-technologies/ ITRC Fact Sheet: Treatment Technologies, PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]<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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2e/ITRC_PFAS-1.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.
*Persistence of Perfluoroalkyl Acid Precursors in AFFF-Impacted Groundwater and Soil<ref name="Houtz2013">Houtz, E.F., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., and Sedlak, D.L., 2013. Persistence of Perfluoroalkyl Acid Precursors in AFFF-Impacted Groundwater and Soil. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(15), pp. 8187−8195. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4018877 DOI: 10.1021/es4018877]</ref>.

==Introduction==
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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d7/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]    [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/a2/USEPA-2016-pfoa_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.(See [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] for nomenclature.)

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]].)

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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/0/02/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/95/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/5f/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/3/38/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4e/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d6/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==
Addressing recalcitrant contaminants in soil has traditionally been done through containment/capping or excavation and off-site disposal or treatment, typically by incineration. 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 but less established treatment approaches for PFAS in soil include stabilization with amendments, soil washing, and low temperature thermal desorption.

===Excavation and Disposal===
[[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™.]]
<onlyinclude>
Excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of PFAS-impacted soils </onlyinclude>is the only well-developed treatment technology option and <onlyinclude>may be acceptable for small quantities of soil</onlyinclude>, such as those generated during characterization activities (i.e., investigation derived waste, IDW)<onlyinclude>. 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. </onlyinclude> 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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/e/ed/EPA823R18004.pdf Report.pdf]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/c/c7/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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/8/82/Hogue2020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref> has caused some states to ban PFAS incineration in some circumstances<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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/d/d4/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" />.]]
<onlyinclude>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</onlyinclude> (Figure 1)<onlyinclude>. </onlyinclude> 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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/9/95/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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b6/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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/51/EPA600R17175.PDF Report.pdf]</ref>. Several commercial products have been developed to target PFAS, including CETCO’s [https://www.mineralstech.com/business-segments/performance-materials/cetco/environmental-products/products/fluoro-sorb Fluoro-Sorb®] and Ziltek’s [https://rembind.com/ RemBind™], the latter of which 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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4c/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:'' <onlyinclude>Incineration is a well-developed technology for organics destruction, including PFAS-impacted soils. Incineration is generally defined as high temperature (>1,100°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°C, and vaporized combustion products can be captured using condensation and wet scrubbing</onlyinclude><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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/b/b6/EPAFayetteville2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><onlyinclude>.</onlyinclude>

''Thermal Desorption:'' Thermal Desorption of PFAS from soil has been demonstrated at the field scale in the US (Alaska)<ref>NRC Alaska LLC, 2019. Moose Creek Facility, Thermal Remediation of PFAS-Contaminated Soil. [https://dec.alaska.gov/media/18761/nrc-moose-creek-facility-pfas-sep-2019-case-study-v3f-191101.pdf Website]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/f/fc/NrcMooseCreek2019.pdf Report.pdf]</ref><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> and Australia<ref name="Nolan2015" /> using rotary kilns operating at temperatures of up to 815°C with off-gas treatment at up to 1200°C, or in other cases using batch-fed systems (Figure 2) operating at lower temperatures. 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 established a minimal effective temperature for desorption of between 350°C and 400°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]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/4/4f/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/5/50/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 ''ex situ'' thermal desorption was conducted at 400°C over several days, and the PFAS were captured on vapor-phase activated carbon and subsequently incinerated off site<ref name="Hatton2019" />. Two field-scale thermal desorption pilot projects (one ''in situ'' and the other ''ex situ'') have been funded under the US DoD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to demonstrate that source zone soil can be heated to the requisite 350°C and held there for the appropriate length of time to fully desorb and capture PFAS<ref name="Iery2020">Iery, R., 2020. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone, Project ER20-5250. US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER20-5250 Website]</ref><ref>Jennifer Wehrmann, 2020. Ex Situ Thermal Treatment of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, ER20-5198. US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP). [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/Contaminated-Groundwater/Emerging-Issues/ER20-5198/ER20-5198/(language)/eng-US 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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/a/aa/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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/6/67/Grimison2018.pdf Report.pdf]</ref> and one full-scale implementation in Australia (Figure 3). 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 project is in Australia, where a vendor has constructed and is operating a AUD$ 10 million treatment plant primarily for 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.]   [//www.enviro.wiki/images/2/2d/Grimison2020.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>.

==Conclusions==
Several well-developed remedial technologies have been applied to address soil contaminated with PFAS (Figure 4). 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.
[[File:DiGuiseppi1w2video.mp4|thumb|500px|left|Figure 4. PFAS Soil Remediation Technologies.]]

==References==

<references />

==See Also==