Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Mobile Porosity)
(→‎State of the Practice)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Advection and Groundwater Flow
+
==PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment==
−
 
+
The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant 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 (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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.
−
Groundwater migrates from areas of higher [[wikipedia: Hydraulic head | hydraulic head]] (a measure of pressure and gravitational energy) toward lower hydraulic head, transporting dissolved solutes through the combined processes of [[wikipedia: Advection | advection]] and [[wikipedia: Dispersion | dispersion]]. Advection refers to the bulk movement of solutes carried by flowing groundwater. Dispersion refers to the spreading of the contaminant plume from highly concentrated areas to less concentrated areas.  In many groundwater transport models, solute transport is described by the advection-dispersion-reaction equation.
 
−
 
 
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
−
*[[Dispersion and Diffusion]]
 
−
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
 
−
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
 
−
 
−
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''
 
−
*[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]]
 
−
*[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]
 
−
 
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
−
*[http://hydrogeologistswithoutborders.org/wordpress/1979-english/ Groundwater]<ref name="FandC1979">Freeze, A., and Cherry, J., 1979. Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 604 pages. Free download from [http://hydrogeologistswithoutborders.org/wordpress/1979-english/ Hydrogeologists Without Borders].</ref>, Freeze and Cherry, 1979.
 
−
*[https://gw-project.org/books/hydrogeologic-properties-of-earth-materials-and-principles-of-groundwater-flow/ Hydrogeologic Properties of Earth Materials and Principals of Groundwater Flow]<ref name="Woessner2020">Woessner, W.W., and Poeter, E.P., 2020. Properties of Earth Materials and Principals of Groundwater Flow, The Groundwater Project, Guelph, Ontario, 207 pages. Free download from [https://gw-project.org/books/hydrogeologic-properties-of-earth-materials-and-principles-of-groundwater-flow/ The Groundwater Project].</ref>, Woessner and Poeter, 2020.
 
−
 
−
==Groundwater Flow==
 
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Fig1r.JPG|thumbnail|left|400px|Figure 1. Hydraulic gradient (typically described in units of m/m or ft/ft) is the difference in hydraulic head from Point A to Point B (ΔH) divided by the distance between them (ΔL). In unconfined aquifers, the hydraulic gradient can also be described as the slope of the water table (Adapted from course notes developed by Dr. R.J. Mitchell, Western Washington University).]]
 
−
Groundwater flows from areas of higher [[wikipedia: Hydraulic head | hydraulic head]] toward areas of lower hydraulic head (Figure 1). The rate of change (slope) of the hydraulic head is known as the hydraulic gradient. If groundwater is flowing and contains dissolved contaminants it can transport the contaminants from areas with high hydraulic head toward lower hydraulic head zones, or “downgradient”.
 
−
 
−
==Darcy's Law==
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;text-align:center;"
 
−
|+ Table 1.  Representative values of total porosity (''n''), effective porosity (''n<sub>e</sub>''), and hydraulic conductivity (''K'') for different aquifer materials<ref name="D&S1997">Domenico, P.A. and Schwartz, F.W., 1997. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, 528 pgs. ISBN 978-0-471-59762-9.  Available from: [https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Physical+and+Chemical+Hydrogeology%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471597629 Wiley]</ref><ref>McWhorter, D.B. and Sunada, D.K., 1977. Ground-water hydrology and hydraulics. Water Resources Publications, LLC, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, 304 pgs. ISBN-13: 978-1-887201-61-2 Available from: [https://www.wrpllc.com/books/gwhh.html Water Resources Publications]</ref><ref name="FandC1979"/>
 
−
|-
 
−
! Aquifer Material
 
−
! Total Porosity<br/><small>(dimensionless)</small>
 
−
! Effective Porosity<br/><small>(dimensionless)</small>
 
−
! Hydraulic Conductivity<br/><small>(meters/second)</small>
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="4" style="text-align: left; background-color:white;"|'''Unconsolidated'''
 
−
|-
 
−
| Gravel || 0.25 — 0.44 || 0.13 — 0.44 || 3×10<sup>-4</sup> — 3×10<sup>-2</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Coarse Sand || 0.31 — 0.46 || 0.18 — 0.43 || 9×10<sup>-7</sup> — 6×10<sup>-3</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Medium Sand || — || 0.16 — 0.46 ||  9×10<sup>-7</sup> — 5×10<sup>-4</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Fine Sand || 0.25 — 0.53 || 0.01 — 0.46 ||  2×10<sup>-7</sup> — 2×10<sup>-4</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Silt, Loess || 0.35 — 0.50 || 0.01 — 0.39 ||  1×10<sup>-9</sup> — 2×10<sup>-5</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Clay || 0.40 — 0.70 || 0.01 — 0.18 ||  1×10<sup>-11</sup> — 4.7×10<sup>-9</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="4" style="text-align: left; background-color:white;"|'''Sedimentary and Crystalline Rocks'''
 
−
|-
 
−
| Karst and Reef Limestone || 0.05 — 0.50 || — ||  1×10<sup>-6</sup> — 2×10<sup>-2</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Limestone, Dolomite || 0.00 — 0.20 || 0.01 — 0.24 ||  1×10<sup>-9</sup> — 6×10<sup>-6</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Sandstone || 0.05 — 0.30 || 0.10 — 0.30 ||  3×10<sup>-10</sup> — 6×10<sup>-6</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Siltstone || — || 0.21 — 0.41 ||  1×10<sup>-11</sup> — 1.4×10<sup>-8</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Basalt || 0.05 — 0.50 || — ||  2×10<sup>-11</sup> — 2×10<sup>-2</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Fractured Crystalline Rock || 0.00 — 0.10 || — ||  8×10<sup>-9</sup> — 3×10<sup>-4</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Weathered Granite || 0.34 — 0.57 || — ||  3.3×10<sup>-6</sup> — 5.2×10<sup>-5</sup>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Unfractured Crystalline Rock || 0.00 — 0.05 || — ||  3×10<sup>-14</sup> — 2×10<sup>-10</sup>
 
−
|}
 
−
In&nbsp;unconsolidated&nbsp;geologic settings (gravel, sand, silt, and clay) and highly fractured systems, the rate of groundwater movement can be expressed using [[wikipedia: Darcy's law | Darcy’s Law]]. This law is a fundamental mathematical relationship in the groundwater field and can be expressed this way:
 
−
 
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Equation 1rr.jpg|center|500px]]
 
−
::Where:
 
−
:::''Q'' = Flow rate (Volume of groundwater flow per time, such as m<sup>3</sup>/yr)
 
−
:::''A'' = Cross sectional area perpendicular to groundwater flow (length<sup>2</sup>, such as m<sup>2</sup>)
 
−
:::''V<sub>D</sub>'' = “Darcy Velocity”; describes groundwater flow as the volume of flow through a unit of cross-sectional area (units of length per time, such as ft/yr)
 
−
:::''K'' = Hydraulic Conductivity (sometimes called “permeability”) (length per time)
 
−
:::''ΔH'' = Difference in hydraulic head between two lateral points (length)
 
−
:::''ΔL'' = Distance between two lateral points (length)
 
−
 
−
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_conductivity Hydraulic conductivity] (Table 1 and Figure 2) is a measure of how easily groundwater flows through a porous medium, or alternatively, how much energy it takes to force water through a porous medium. For example, fine sand has smaller pores with more frictional resistance to flow, and therefore lower hydraulic conductivity compared to coarse sand, which has larger pores with less resistance to flow (Figure 2).
 
−
 
−
[[File:AdvectionFig2.PNG|400px|thumbnail|left|Figure 2. Hydraulic conductivity of selected rocks<ref>Heath, R.C., 1983. Basic ground-water hydrology, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220, 86 pgs. [[Media:Heath-1983-Basic_groundwater_hydrology_water_supply_paper.pdf|Report pdf]]</ref>.]]
 
−
Darcy’s Law was first described by Henry Darcy (1856)<ref>Brown, G.O., 2002. Henry Darcy and the making of a law. Water Resources Research, 38(7), p. 1106. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2001wr000727 DOI: 10.1029/2001WR000727] [[Media:Darcy2002.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> in a report regarding a water supply system he designed for the city of Dijon, France. Based on his experiments, he concluded that the amount of water flowing through a closed tube of sand (dark grey box in Figure 3) depends on (a) the change in the hydraulic head between the inlet and outlet of the tube, and (b) the hydraulic conductivity of the sand in the tube. Groundwater flows rapidly in the case of higher pressure (ΔH) or more permeable materials such as gravel or coarse sand, but flows slowly when the pressure is lower or the material is less permeable, such as fine sand or silt.
 
−
 
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Fig3..JPG|500px|thumbnail|right|Figure 3. Conceptual explanation of Darcy’s Law based on Darcy’s experiment (Adapted from course notes developed by Dr. R.J. Mitchell, Western Washington University).]]
 
−
Since Darcy’s time, Darcy’s Law has been adapted to calculate the actual velocity that the groundwater is moving in units such as meters traveled per year. This quantity is called “interstitial velocity” or “seepage velocity” and is calculated by dividing the Darcy Velocity (flow per unit area) by the actual open pore area where groundwater is flowing, the “effective porosity”&nbsp;(Table 1):
 
−
 
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Equation 2r.jpg|400px]]
 
−
:Where:
 
−
::''V<sub>S</sub>'' = “interstitial velocity” or “seepage velocity” (units of length per time, such as m/sec)<br />
 
−
::''V<sub>D</sub>'' = “Darcy Velocity”; describes groundwater flow as the volume of flow per unit area (units of length per time)<br />
 
−
::''n<sub>e</sub>'' = Effective porosity (unitless)
 
−
 
−
Effective porosity is smaller than total porosity. The difference is that total porosity includes some dead-end pores that do not support groundwater. Typically values for total and effective porosity are&nbsp;shown&nbsp;in&nbsp;Table&nbsp;1.
 
−
 
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Fig4.JPG|500px|thumbnail|left|Figure 4.  Difference between Darcy Velocity (also called Specific Discharge) and Seepage Velocity (also called Interstitial Velocity).]]
 
−
 
−
==Darcy Velocity and Seepage Velocity==
 
−
In groundwater calculations, Darcy Velocity and Seepage Velocity are used for different purposes. For any calculation where the actual flow rate in units of volume per time (such as liters per day or gallons per minute) is involved, then the original Darcy Equation should be used (calculate V<sub>D</sub>; Equation 1) without using effective porosity. When calculating solute travel time, then the seepage velocity calculation (V<sub>S</sub>; Equation 2) must be used and an estimate of effective porosity is required. Figure 4 illustrates the differences between Darcy Velocity and Seepage Velocity.
 
−
 
−
==Mobile Porosity==
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px; text-align:center;"
 
−
|+ Table 2.  Mobile porosity estimates from 15 tracer tests<ref name="Payne2008">Payne, F.C., Quinnan, J.A. and Potter, S.T., 2008. Remediation Hydraulics. CRC Press. ISBN 9780849372490  Available from: [https://www.routledge.com/Remediation-Hydraulics/Payne-Quinnan-Potter/p/book/9780849372490 CRC Press]</ref>
 
−
|-
 
−
! Aquifer Material
 
−
! Mobile Porosity<br/><small>(volume fraction)</small>
 
−
|-
 
−
| Poorly sorted sand and gravel || 0.085
 
−
|-
 
−
| Poorly sorted sand and gravel || 0.04 — 0.07
 
−
|-
 
−
| Poorly sorted sand and gravel || 0.09
 
−
|-
 
−
| Fractured sandstone || 0.001 — 0.007
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvial formation || 0.102
 
−
|-
 
−
| Glacial outwash || 0.145
 
−
|-
 
−
| Weathered mudstone regolith || 0.07 — 0.10
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvial formation || 0.07
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvial formation || 0.07
 
−
|-
 
−
| Silty sand || 0.05
 
−
|-
 
−
| Fractured sandstone || 0.0008 — 0.001
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvium, sand and gravel || 0.017
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvium, poorly sorted sand and gravel || 0.003 — 0.017
 
−
|-
 
−
| Alluvium, sand and gravel || 0.11 — 0.18
 
−
|-
 
−
| Siltstone, sandstone, mudstone || 0.01 — 0.05
 
−
|}
 
−
 
−
Payne&nbsp;et&nbsp;al.&nbsp;(2009)&nbsp;reported the results from multiple short-term tracer tests conducted to aid the design of amendment injection systems<ref name="Payne2008"/>. In these tests, the dissolved solutes were observed to migrate more rapidly through the aquifer than could be explained with typically reported values of n<sub>e</sub>. They concluded that the heterogeneity of unconsolidated formations results in a relatively small area of an aquifer cross section carrying most of the water, and therefore solutes migrate more rapidly than expected. Based on these results, they recommend that a quantity called “mobile porosity” should be used in place of ''n<sub>e</sub>'' in equation 2 for calculating solute transport velocities. Based on 15 different tracer tests, typical values of mobile porosity range from 0.02 to 0.10 (Table 2). 
 
  
−
A data mining analysis of 43 sites in California by Kulkarni et al. (2020) showed that on average 90% of the groundwater flow occurred in about 30% of cross sectional area perpendicular to groundwater flow.  These data provided “moderate (but not confirmatory) support for the&nbsp;mobile&nbsp;porosity&nbsp;concept.”<ref name="Kulkarni2020">Kulkarni, P.R., Godwin, W.R., Long, J.A., Newell, R.C., Newell, C.J., 2020. How much heterogeneity? Flow versus area from a big data perspective. Remediation 30(2), pp. 15-23. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21639 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21639] [[Media:Kulkarni2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
−
<br clear="right"/>
+
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
 +
*[[PFAS Sources]]
 +
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
 +
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
 +
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
  
−
==Advection-Dispersion-Reaction Equation for Solute Transport==
+
'''Contributors:''' John Xiong, Yida Fang, Raul Tenorio, Isobel Li, and Jinyong Liu
−
The transport of dissolved solutes in groundwater is often modeled using the Advection-Dispersion-Reaction (ADR) equation. [[wikipedia:Advection|Advection]] refers to the bulk movement of solutes carried by flowing groundwater. [[wikipedia:Dispersion|Dispersion]] refers to the spreading of the contaminant plume from highly concentrated areas to less concentrated areas. Dispersion coefficients are calculated as the sum of [[wikipedia:Molecular diffusion | molecular diffusion]] mechanical dispersion, and macrodispersion. Reaction refers to changes in mass of the solute within the system resulting from biotic and abiotic processes.
 
  
−
'''Related Article(s):'''
+
'''Key Resources:'''
−
*[[Advection and Groundwater Flow]]
+
*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]&nbsp; [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
−
*[[Dispersion and Diffusion]]
+
*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]&nbsp; [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
−
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
+
*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>
−
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
+
*EradiFluor<sup>TM</sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>
  
−
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''  
+
==Introduction==
−
*[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]]
+
The hydrated electron (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) 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"/>.  
−
*[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]
 
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2−</sup>) 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, SO<sub>3</sub><sup><big>'''•-'''</big></sup>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):
 +
</br>
 +
::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]
  
−
==The ADR Equation==
+
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"/>.
−
In many groundwater transport models, solute transport is described by the advection-dispersion-reaction equation. As shown below (Equation 3), the ADR equation describes the change in dissolved solute concentration (''C'') over time (''t'') where groundwater flow is oriented along the ''x'' direction.
 
  
−
[[File:AdvectionEq3r.PNG|center|650px]]
+
==Process Description==
−
:Where:
+
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. 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]]<br clear="left"/>
−
::''R''  is the linear, equilibrium retardation factor (see [[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]), 
 
−
::''D<sub>x</sub>, D<sub>y</sub>, and D<sub>z</sub>''  are hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients in the ''x, y'' and ''z'' directions (L<sup>2</sup>/T),
 
−
::''v''  is the advective transport or seepage velocity in the ''x'' direction (L/T), and  
 
−
::''λ''  is an effective first order decay rate due to combined biotic and abiotic processes (1/T).
 
−
[[File:AdvectionFig5.png | thumb | right | 300px | Figure 5. Curves of concentration versus distance (a) and concentration versus time (b) generated by solving the ADR equation for a continuous source of a non-reactive tracer with ''R'' = 1, λ = 0, ''v'' = 5 m/yr, and ''D<sub>x</sub>'' = 10 m<sup>2</sup>/yr.]]
 
−
The term on the left side of the equation is the rate of mass change per unit volume.  On the right side are terms representing the solute flux due to dispersion in the ''x, y'', and ''z'' directions, the advective flux in the ''x'' direction, and the first order decay due to biotic and abiotic processes. Dispersion coefficients (''D<sub>x,y,z</sub>'') are commonly estimated using the following relationships:
 
  
−
[[File:AdvectionEq4.PNG|center|350px]]
+
==Advantages==
−
:Where:
+
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 ''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
−
::''D<sub>m</sub>'' is the molecular diffusion coefficient (L<sup>2</sup>/T), and  
+
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies<ref>Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref><ref>Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, 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. 13973-80. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref>Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>, 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)]].
−
::''&alpha;<sub>L</sub>, &alpha;<sub>T</sub>'', and ''&alpha;<sub>V</sub>''  are the longitudinal, transverse and vertical dispersivities (L).  
+
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
−
Figures 5a and 5b were generated using a numerical solution of the ADR equation for a non-reactive tracer (''R'' = 1; λ = 0) with ''v'' = 5 m/yr and ''D<sub>x</sub>'' = 10 m<sup>2</sup>/yr. 
+
*'''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.
−
Figure 5a shows the predicted change in concentration of the tracer, chloride, versus distance downgradient from the continuous contaminant source at different times (0, 1, 2, and 4 years). Figure 5b shows the change in concentration versus time (commonly referred to as the breakthrough curve or BTC) at different downgradient distances (10, 20, 30 and 40 m). At 2 years, the mid-point of the concentration versus distance curve (Figure 5a) is located 10 m downgradient (x = 5 m/yr * 2 yr). At 20 m downgradient, the mid-point of the concentration versus time curves (Figure 5b) occurs at 4 years (t = 20 m / 5 m/yr).
+
*'''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>.
  
−
The dispersion coefficient in the ADR equation accounts for the combined effects of molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion which cause the spreading of the contaminant plume from highly concentrated areas to less concentrated areas. [[wikipedia:Molecular diffusion | Molecular diffusion]] is the result of the thermal motion of individual molecules which causes a flux of dissolved solutes from areas of higher concentration to areas of lower concentration. Mechanical dispersion (hydrodynamic dispersion) results from groundwater moving at rates that vary from the average linear velocity. Because the invading solute-containing water does not travel at the same velocity everywhere, mixing occurs along flow paths. Typical values of the mechanical dispersivity measured in laboratory column tests are on the order of 0.01 to 1 cm (Anderson and Cherry, 1979).
+
==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.
  
−
Matrix Diffusion is the process where dissolved contaminants are transported into low K zones by molecular diffusion, and then can diffuse back out of these low K zones once the contaminant source is removed. In some cases, matrix diffusion can maintain contaminant concentrations in more permeable zones above target cleanup goals for decades or even centuries after the primary sources have been addressed (Chapman and Parker 2005). Methods for evaluating the impact of matrix diffusion are addressed in a separate article
+
==State of the Practice==
−
 
+
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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.]]
−
Spatial variations in hydraulic conductivity can increase the apparent spreading of solute plumes observed in groundwater monitoring wells. This spreading of the solute caused by large-scale heterogeneities in the aquifer and associated spatial variations in advective transport velocity is referred to as macrodispersion. In some groundwater modeling projects, large values of dispersivity are used as an adjustment factor to help match the apparent large-scale spreading of the plume (ITRC, 2015). Theoretical studies (Gelhar et al. 1979; Gelhar and Axness,1983; Dagan 1988) suggest that macrodispersivity will increase with distance near the source, and then increase more slowly further downgradient, eventually reaching an asymptotic value.  Figure 10 shows values of macrodispersivity calculated using the theory of Dagan (1986) with an autocorrelation length of 3 m and several different values of the variance of Y (σ2Y) where Y= Log K. The calculated macrodispersivity increases more rapidly and reaches higher asymptotic values for more heterogeneous aquifers with greater variations in K (larger σ2Y).  The maximum predicted dispersivity values are in the range of 0.5 to 5 m.
+
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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.  
−
The ADR equation can be solved to find the spatial and temporal distribution of solutes using a variety of analytical and numerical approaches.  The design tools [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/bioscreen-natural-attenuation-decision-support-system BIOSCREEN]<ref name="Newell1996">Newell, C.J., McLeod, R.K. and Gonzales, J.R., 1996. BIOSCREEN: Natural Attenuation Decision Support System - User's Manual, Version 1.3. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-96/087. [https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=File:Newell-1996-Bioscreen_Natural_Attenuation_Decision_Support_System.pdf Report.pdf]  [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/bioscreen-natural-attenuation-decision-support-system BIOSCREEN website]</ref>, [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/biochlor-natural-attenuation-decision-support-system BIOCHLOR]<ref name="Aziz2000">Aziz, C.E., Newell, C.J., Gonzales, J.R., Haas, P.E., Clement, T.P. and Sun, Y., 2000. BIOCHLOR Natural Attenuation Decision Support System. User’s Manual - Version 1.0. US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-00/008.  [https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=File:Aziz-2000-BIOCHLOR-Natural_Attenuation_Dec_Support.pdf Report.pdf] [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/biochlor-natural-attenuation-decision-support-system BIOCHLOR website]</ref>, and [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/remediation-evaluation-model-chlorinated-solvents-remchlor REMChlor]<ref name="Falta2007">Falta, R.W., Stacy, M.B., Ahsanuzzaman, A.N.M., Wang, M. and Earle, R.C., 2007. REMChlor Remediation Evaluation Model for Chlorinated Solvents - User’s Manual, Version 1.0. US Environmental Protection Agency. Center for Subsurface Modeling Support, Ada, OK.  [[Media:REMChlorUserManual.pdf | Report.pdf]]  [https://www.epa.gov/water-research/remediation-evaluation-model-chlorinated-solvents-remchlor REMChlor website]</ref> employ an analytical solution of the ADR equation.  [https://www.usgs.gov/software/mt3d-usgs-groundwater-solute-transport-simulator-modflow MT3DMS]<ref name="Zheng1999">Zheng, C. and Wang, P.P., 1999. MT3DMS: A Modular Three-Dimensional Multispecies Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion, and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems; Documentation and User’s Guide. Contract Report SERDP-99-1 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. [[Media:Mt3dmanual.pdf | Report.pdf]]  [https://www.usgs.gov/software/mt3d-usgs-groundwater-solute-transport-simulator-modflow MT3DMS website]</ref> uses a numerical method to solve the ADR equation using the head distribution generated by the groundwater flow model MODFLOW<ref name="McDonald1988">McDonald, M.G. and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988. A Modular Three-dimensional Finite-difference Ground-water Flow Model, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 6, Modeling Techniques. U.S. Geological Survey, 586 pages. [https://doi.org/10.3133/twri06A1  DOI: 10.3133/twri06A1]  [[Media: McDonald1988.pdf | Report.pdf]]  Free MODFLOW download from: [https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/modflow-and-related-programs?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects USGS]</ref>.
+
*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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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 EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><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==
−
 
+
<references />
−
<references/>
 
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
*[http://iwmi.dhigroup.com/solute_transport/advection.html International Water Management Institute Animations]
 
−
*[http://www2.nau.edu/~doetqp-p/courses/env303a/lec32/lec32.htm NAU Lecture Notes on Advective Transport]
 
−
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00btLB6u6DY MIT Open CourseWare Solute Transport: Advection with Dispersion Video]
 
−
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtJyKiA1vcY Physical Groundwater Model Video]
 
−
*[https://www.coursera.org/learn/natural-attenuation-of-groundwater-contaminants/lecture/UzS8q/groundwater-flow-review Online Lecture Course - Groundwater Flow]
 

Latest revision as of 11:33, 29 January 2026

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (eaq- ) which can destroy PFAS in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant 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[1]) 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.

Related Article(s):

Contributors: John Xiong, Yida Fang, Raul Tenorio, Isobel Li, and Jinyong Liu

Key Resources:

  • Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management[2]
  • Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies[3]
  • Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment[4]
  • EradiFluorTM[1]

Introduction

The hydrated electron (eaq- ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules[5]. 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[5].

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•- is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):

Equation 1:   XiongEq1.png

The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)[6] and GenX[7]. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., decarboxylation, hydroxylation, elimination, and hydrolysis)[2].

Process Description

A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM[1]) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a foam fractionation, regenerable ion exchange, or a 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.

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-, 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 some treatment technologies[8][9][10], the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA).
  • High defluorination ratio: As shown in Figure 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 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)[11].
  • 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[12][13][14][15].

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 perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS) exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.

State of the Practice

Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[1] 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.
Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM[1]) 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[1]; 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[1] system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the 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 Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER21-5152, a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[1] 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 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF) and EradiFluorTM[1] 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[1] 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[1]. 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

  1. ^ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. Comercial Website
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 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. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648  Open Access Article
  3. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608  Open Access Article
  4. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 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. doi: 10.1063/1.555805
  6. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197
  7. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172
  8. ^ Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452
  9. ^ Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, 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. 13973-80. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158
  10. ^ Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170
  11. ^ 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. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916
  12. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026
  13. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086
  14. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es3008535
  15. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=17890"