Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Mobile Porosity)
(→‎Surface Runoff on Ranges)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Advection and Groundwater Flow
+
==Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents==
 +
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>
  
−
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. 
+
'''Related Article(s):'''
  
−
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
+
*[[Munitions Constituents]]
  
−
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
−
*[[Dispersion and Diffusion]]
 
−
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
 
−
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
 
  
−
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''  
+
'''Contributor:''' Mark E. Fuller
−
*[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]]
 
−
*[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]
 
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''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.
+
*SERDP Project ER19-1106: Development of Innovative Passive and Sustainable Treatment Technologies for Energetic Compounds in Surface Runoff on Active Ranges
−
*[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.
+
 
 +
==Background==
 +
===Surface Runoff Characteristics and Treatment Approaches===
 +
[[File: FullerFig1.png | thumb | 300 px | 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>.
  
−
==Groundwater Flow==
+
===Surface Runoff on Ranges===
−
[[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).]]
+
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]&nbsp; [[Media: KarlsEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>.
−
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==
+
==Toxicological Effects of PFAS==
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;text-align:center;"
+
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<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. 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<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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp; [[Media: pfoa_EPA 822-R-16-005.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
−
|+ 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"/>
+
 
−
|-
+
USEPA’s Integrated Risk Management 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:
−
! Aquifer Material
+
*Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
−
! Total Porosity<br/><small>(dimensionless)</small>
+
*Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
−
! Effective Porosity<br/><small>(dimensionless)</small>
+
*Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
−
! Hydraulic Conductivity<br/><small>(meters/second)</small>
+
*Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
−
|-
+
*Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
−
| colspan="4" style="text-align: left; background-color:white;"|'''Unconsolidated'''
+
*Perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)
−
|-
+
*Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
−
| Gravel || 0.25 — 0.44 || 0.13 — 0.44 || 3×10<sup>-4</sup> — 3×10<sup>-2</sup>
+
*Lithium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]azanide (HQ-115)
−
|-
+
*Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO DA) and its Ammonium Salt
−
| 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]]
+
Toxicity assessments are ongoing for the following PFAS:
−
::Where:
+
*Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
−
:::''Q'' = Flow rate (Volume of groundwater flow per time, such as m<sup>3</sup>/yr)
+
*Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)  
−
:::''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).  
+
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.  
  
−
[[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>.]]
+
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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[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"/>.
−
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).]]
+
==PFAS Screening Levels for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments==
−
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):
+
===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)
  
−
[[File:Newell-Article 1-Equation 2r.jpg|400px]]
+
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. 
−
: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.
+
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.
  
−
[[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).]]
+
===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]&nbsp; [[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>.
  
−
==Darcy Velocity and Seepage Velocity==
+
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]&nbsp; [[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>.
−
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==
+
==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: Human Health==
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px; text-align:center;"
+
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]&nbsp; [[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.  
−
|+ 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).
+
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.  
  
−
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>
+
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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp; [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.
−
<br clear="right"/>
 
  
−
==Advection-Dispersion-Reaction Equation for Solute Transport==
+
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"/>.
−
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):'''
+
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]&nbsp; [[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]&nbsp; [[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.
−
*[[Advection and Groundwater Flow]]
 
−
*[[Dispersion and Diffusion]]
 
−
*[[Sorption of Organic Contaminants]]
 
−
*[[Plume Response Modeling]]
 
  
−
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):'''
+
==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: Ecological==
−
*[[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E.]]
+
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"/>.
−
*[[Dr. Robert Borden, P.E.]]
 
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
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>.
  
−
==The ADR Equation==
+
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]&nbsp; [[Media: AhrensBundschuh2014.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="LarsonEtAl2018"/>.
−
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]]
+
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"/>.
−
:Where:
 
−
::''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]]
+
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"/>.
−
:Where:
 
−
::''D<sub>m</sub>'' is the molecular diffusion coefficient (L<sup>2</sup>/T), and  
 
−
::''&alpha;<sub>L</sub>, &alpha;<sub>T</sub>'', and ''&alpha;<sub>V</sub>''  are the longitudinal, transverse and vertical dispersivities (L).  
 
−
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.
 
−
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).
 
  
−
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).
+
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.
  
−
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
+
==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. 
  
−
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.
+
*'''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.
  
−
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>.
+
*'''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==
−
 
+
<references />
−
<references/>
 
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
*[http://iwmi.dhigroup.com/solute_transport/advection.html International Water Management Institute Animations]
+
[https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-studies/index.html Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) PFAS Health Studies]
−
*[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 18:26, 15 October 2025

Remediation of Stormwater Runoff Contaminated by Munition Constituents

Past and ongoing military operations have resulted in contamination of surface soil with 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.

Related Article(s):


Contributor: Mark E. Fuller

Key Resource(s):

  • SERDP Project ER19-1106: Development of Innovative Passive and Sustainable Treatment Technologies for Energetic Compounds in Surface Runoff on Active Ranges

Background

Surface Runoff Characteristics and Treatment Approaches

File:FullerFig1.png
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[1][2][3][4].

Surface Runoff on Ranges

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., NTO and NQ) or generate soluble daughter products (e.g., DNAN and TNT). While traditional MC such as RDX and HMX have limited aqueous solubility, they also exhibit recalcitrance to degrade under most natural conditions. RDX and 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[5][6].

Toxicological Effects of PFAS

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 perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The most sensitive noncancer adverse effects involve the liver and kidney, immune system, and various developmental and reproductive endpoints[7]. A select number of PFAS have been evaluated for carcinogenicity, primarily using epidemiological data. 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[7][8][9].

USEPA’s Integrated Risk Management 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[10][11][12][13] 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[13].

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[7]:

  • 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[14]: 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[14][13][10]. USEPA has developed water quality criteria for aquatic life[15][16][17] for PFOA and PFOS. Following extensive reviews of the peer-reviewed literature, Zodrow et al.[13] used the USEPA Great Lakes Initiative methodology[18] 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[19]. 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[10][13], and the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment developed several draft thresholds protective of direct toxicity of PFOS in soil[20].

Wildlife screening levels for abiotic media are back-calculated from food web models developed for representative receptors. Both Zodrow et al.[13] and Grippo et al.[19] include the development of risk-based screening levels for wildlife. The Michigan Department of Community Health[21] 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.[13]. 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[22].

Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: 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[23][24]. 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[14], 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[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. In addition to fish, terrestrial wildlife can accumulate contaminants from impacted sites, resulting in potential exposures to consumers of wild game[35]. 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[36]. Multiple studies have found PFAS can be taken up by plants from soil porewater[37][38][39], and livestock can accumulate PFAS from drinking water and/or feed[40]. 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[8][9] 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[41]. 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[14].

General and site-specific human health exposure pathways and risk assessment methods as outlined by USEPA[42][43] 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 Site Environmental Risk Assessment: 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[44][10][13]. 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[13].

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[13][45].

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[46][44].

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[43].

Recently, Conder et al.[10], Gobas et al.[11], and Zodrow et al.[13] 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[10][11][13][47][12]. 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[44][10][11][12][13].

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[43] 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

  1. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00023-2
  2. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.021
  3. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.019
  4. ^ 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. doi: 10.2166/wst.2006.617
  5. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.141023
  6. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136866  Open Access Article
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 7.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. Website
  8. ^ 8.0 8.1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-004. Free Download  Report.pdf
  9. ^ 9.0 9.1 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-005. Free Download  Report.pdf
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 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. Project Website  Guidance Document
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 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. Project Website  Final Report
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 12.2 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. Project Website  Report.pdf
  13. ^ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.11 13.12 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. doi: 10.1002/etc.4975   Open Access Article
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) 2023. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document. ITRC PFAS Website
  15. ^ 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. Fact Sheet
  16. ^ 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. Report.pdf
  17. ^ 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. Report.pdf
  18. ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. Part 132. Government Website  Part132.pdf
  19. ^ 19.0 19.1 Grippo, M., Hayse, J., Hlohowskyj, I., Picel, K., 2024. Derivation of PFAS Ecological Screening Values - Update. Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Science Division. Report.pdf
  20. ^ 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). Open Access Government Document
  21. ^ 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. Free Download  Report.pdf
  22. ^ Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018. Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Repoprt.pdf
  23. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.007
  24. ^ 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. doi: 10.1289/EHP2727  Open Access Article
  25. ^ 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. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220125
  26. ^ 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. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220126
  27. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.215
  28. ^ 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. doi: 10.1002/etc.3483
  29. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.018
  30. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.006
  31. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.026
  32. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.062
  33. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es504152d
  34. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es201353v
  35. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ConderEtAl2021
  36. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03411  Open Access Article
  37. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es403094q  Free Download from epa.gov
  38. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es504150h
  39. ^ Ghisi, R., Vamerali, T., Manzetti, S., 2019. Accumulation of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: A review. Environmental Research, 169, pp. 326-341. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023
  40. ^ 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. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.035
  41. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es049860w
  42. ^ 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. Free Download  Report.pdf
  43. ^ 43.0 43.1 43.2 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. Free Download  Report.pdf
  44. ^ 44.0 44.1 44.2 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.004
  45. ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table. USEPA Website
  46. ^ 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. doi: 10.1002/etc.2663  Open Access Article
  47. ^ 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. doi: 10.1021/es050989v

See Also

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) PFAS Health Studies

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=17532"