Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS))
(→‎Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone)
 
(547 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Transition of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Fire Suppression Infrastructure Impacted by Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)==  
+
==Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone==  
−
*[[Contaminated Sediments – Introduction]]
+
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] are frequently introduced to the environment through soil surface applications which then transport through the vadose zone to reach underlying groundwater receptors. Due to their unique properties and resulting transport and retention behaviors, PFAS in the vadose zone can be a persistent contaminant source to underlying groundwater systems. Determining the fraction of PFAS present in the mobile porewater relative to the total concentrations in soils is critical to understanding the risk posed by PFAS in vadose zone source areas. Lysimeters are instruments that have been used by agronomists and vadose zone researchers for decades to determine water flux and solute concentrations in unsaturated porewater. Lysimeters have recently been developed as a critical tool for field investigations and characterizations of PFAS impacted source zones.  
−
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)|Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] contained in [[wikipedia:Firefighting foam |Class B aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs)]] are known to accumulate on wetted surfaces of many fire suppression systems after decades of exposure<ref name="LangEtAl2022">Lang, J.R., McDonough, J., Guillette, T.C., Storch, P., Anderson, J., Liles, D., Prigge, R., Miles, J.A.L., Divine, C., 2022. Characterization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on fire suppression system piping and optimization of removal methods. Chemosphere, 308(Part 2), 136254. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136254 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136254]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media:LangEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. When replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulations are added to existing infrastructure, PFAS can rebound from the wetted surfaces into the new formulations at high concentrations<ref name="RossStorch2020">Ross, I., and Storch, P., 2020. Foam Transition: Is It as Simple as "Foam Out / Foam In?". The Catalyst (Journal of JOIFF, The International Organization for Industrial Emergency Services Management), Q2 Supplement, 20 pages. [[Media:Catalyst_2020_Q2_Sup.pdf | Industry Newsletter]]</ref><ref>Kappetijn, K., 2023. Replacement of fluorinated extinguishing foam: When is clean clean enough? The Catalyst (Journal of JOIFF, The International Organization for Industrial Emergency Services Management), Q1 2023, pp. 31-33. [[Media:Catalyst_2023_Q1.pdf | Industry Newsletter]]</ref>. Effective methods are needed to properly transition to PFAS-free firefighting formulations in existing fire suppression infrastructure. Considerations in the transition process may include but are not limited to locating, identifying, and evaluating existing systems and AFFF, fire engineering evaluations, system prioritization, cost/downtime analyses, sampling and analysis, evaluation of risks and hazards to human health and the environment, transportation, and disposal.
 
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
−
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
 
−
*[[PFAS Sources]]
 
−
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
 
−
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
 
−
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
 
  
−
'''Contributor(s):'''
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
−
*Dr. Johnsie Ray Lang
+
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
−
*Dr. Jonathan Miles
+
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
−
*John Anderson
+
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
−
*Dr. Theresa Guillette
 
−
*[[Craig E. Divine, Ph.D., PG|Dr. Craig Divine]]
 
−
*[[Dr. Stephen Richardson]]
 
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Contributors:''' Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer
−
*Department of Defense (DoD) performance standard for PFAS-free firefighting formulation:  [https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jan/12/2003144157/-1/-1/1/MILITARY-SPECIFICATION-FOR-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING-AGENT-FLUORINE-FREE-FOAM-F3-LIQUID-CONCENTRATE-FOR-LAND-BASED-FRESH-WATER-APPLICATIONS.PDF Military Specification MIL-PRF-32725]<ref name="DoD2023">US Department of Defense, 2023. Performance Specification for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate for Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications. Mil-Spec MIL-PRF-32725, 18 pages. [[Media: MilSpec32725.pdf | Military Specification Document]]</ref>
+
 
−
*[[Media:LangEtAl2022.pdf | Characterization of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances on fire suppression system piping and optimization of removal methods]]<ref name="LangEtAl2022"/>
+
'''Key Resources:'''
 +
*Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>
 +
*PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>
 +
*Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>
 +
*Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>
 +
*PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
[[File:LangFig1.png | thumb |400px|Figure 1. (A) Schematic of a typical PFAS molecule demonstrating the hydrophobic fluorinated tail in green and the hydrophilic charged functional group in blue, (B) a PFAS bilayer formed with the hydrophobic tails facing inward and the charged functional groups on the outside, and (C) multiple bilayers of PFAS assembled on the wetted surfaces of fire suppression piping.]]PFAS are a class of synthetic fluorinated compounds which are highly mobile and persistent within the environment<ref>Giesy, J.P., Kannan, K., 2001. Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife. Environmental Science and Technology 35(7), pp. 1339-1342. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es001834k doi: 10.1021/es001834k]</ref>. Due to the surfactant properties of PFAS, these compounds self-assemble at any solid-liquid interface forming resilient bilayers during prolonged exposure<ref>Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Selected physicochemical aspects of poly- and perfluoroalkylated substances relevant to performance, environment and sustainability-Part one. Chemosphere, 129, pp. 4-19. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.08.039]</ref>. Solid phase accumulation of PFAS has been proposed to be influenced by both [[wikipedia: Hydrophobic effect|hydrophobic]] and electrostatic interactions with fluorinated carbon chain length as the dominant feature influencing sorption<ref>Higgins, C.P., Luthy, R.G., 2006. Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7251-7256. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es061000n doi: 10.1021/es061000n]</ref>. While the majority of previous research into solid phase sorption typically focused on water treatment applications or subsurface porous media<ref>Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of the Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065]&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5693257/ Open Access Manuscript]</ref>, recently PFAS accumulations have been identified on the wetted surfaces of fire suppression infrastructure exposed to aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)<ref name="LangEtAl2022"/> (see Figure 1).
+
Lysimeters are devices that are placed in the subsurface above the groundwater table to monitor the movement of water through the soil<ref name="GossEhlers2009">Goss, M.J., Ehlers, W., 2009. The Role of Lysimeters in the Development of Our Understanding of Soil Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Ecosystems. Soil Use and Management, 25(3), pp. 213–223. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x]</ref><ref>Pütz, T., Fank, J., Flury, M., 2018. Lysimeters in Vadose Zone Research. Vadose Zone Journal, 17 (1), pp. 1-4. [https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035 doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035]&nbsp; [[Media: PutzEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025">Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C.D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., Wilkin, R.T., 2025. Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 59(9), pp. 4215-4229. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c10246 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c10246]</ref>. Lysimeters have historically been used in agricultural sciences for monitoring nutrient or contaminant movement, soil moisture release curves, natural drainage patterns, and dynamics of plant-water interactions<ref name="GossEhlers2009"/><ref>Bergström, L., 1990. Use of Lysimeters to Estimate Leaching of Pesticides in Agricultural Soils. Environmental Pollution, 67 (4), 325–347. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S]</ref><ref>Dabrowska, D., Rykala, W., 2021. A Review of Lysimeter Experiments Carried Out on Municipal Landfill Waste. Toxics, 9(2), Article 26. [https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9020026 doi: 10.3390/toxics9020026]&nbsp; [[Media: Dabrowska Rykala2021.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Fernando, S.U., Galagedara, L., Krishnapillai, M., Cuss, C.W., 2023. Lysimeter Sampling System for Optimal Determination of Trace Elements in Soil Solutions. Water, 15(18), Article 3277. [https://doi.org/10.3390/w15183277 doi: 10.3390/w15183277]&nbsp; [[Media: FernandoEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020">Meissner, R., Rupp, H., Haselow, L., 2020. Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching. In: Climate Change and Soil Interactions. Elsevier, pp. 171-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2]</ref><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993">Rogers, R.D., McConnell, J.W. Jr., 1993. Lysimeter Literature Review, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Numbers: NUREG/CR--6073, EGG--2706. [https://www.osti.gov/] ID: 10183270. [https://doi.org/10.2172/10183270 doi: 10.2172/10183270]&nbsp; [[Media: RogersMcConnell1993.pdf | Open  Access Article]]</ref><ref>Sołtysiak, M., Rakoczy, M., 2019. An Overview of the Experimental Research Use of Lysimeters. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 7(2), pp. 49-56. [https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0012 doi: 10.2478/environ-2019-0012]&nbsp; [[Media: SołtysiakRakoczy2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="Stannard1992">Stannard, D.I., 1992. Tensiometers—Theory, Construction, and Use. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(1), pp. 48-58. [https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10224J doi: 10.1520/GTJ10224J]</ref><ref name="WintonWeber1996">Winton, K., Weber, J.B., 1996. A Review of Field Lysimeter Studies to Describe the Environmental Fate of Pesticides. Weed Technology, 10(1), pp. 202-209. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X00045929 doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00045929]</ref>. Recently, there has been strong interest in the use of lysimeters to measure and monitor movement of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021">Anderson, R.H., 2021. The Case for Direct Measures of Soil-to-Groundwater Contaminant Mass Discharge at AFFF-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(10), pp. 6580-6583. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01543 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01543]</ref><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022">Anderson, R.H., Feild, J.B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., Elsharnouby, O., Krebs, R.K., 2022. Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters. Chemosphere, 308(1), Article 136247. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024">Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Fang, Y., Gonda, N., Zhang, C., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., 2024. PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 264, Article 104359. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Schaum, A., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2023. Leaching of Perfluoroalkyl Acids During Unsaturated Zone Flushing at a Field Site Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(5), pp. 1940-1948. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06903 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06903]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., O’Hare, S., Lemes, M.C.S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. A Field Study to Assess the Role of Air-Water Interfacial Sorption on PFAS Leaching in an AFFF Source Area. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 248, Article 104001. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021">Quinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., Hasbrouck, K., 2021. Application of PFAS-Mobile Lab to Support Adaptive Characterization and Flux-Based Conceptual Site Models at AFFF Releases. Remediation, 31(3), pp. 7-26. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21680 doi: 10.1002/rem.21680]</ref>. PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through land surface application and have been found to be strongly retained within the upper 5 feet of soil<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020">Brusseau, M.L., Anderson, R.H., Guo, B., 2020. PFAS Concentrations in Soils: Background Levels versus Contaminated Sites. Science of The Total Environment, 740, Article 140017. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017]</ref><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024">Bigler, M.C., Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., Jones, S.L., Pritchard, J.C., Higgins, C.P., Hatton, J., 2024. High-Resolution Depth-Discrete Analysis of PFAS Distribution and Leaching for a Vadose-Zone Source at an AFFF-Impacted Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 58(22), pp. 9863-9874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c01615 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c01615]</ref>. PFAS recalcitrance in the vadose zone means that environmental program managers and consultants need a cost-effective way of monitoring concentration conditions within the vadose zone. Repeated soil sampling and extraction processes are time consuming and only give a representative concentration of total PFAS in the matrix<ref name="NickersonEtAl2020">Nickerson, A., Maizel, A.C., Kulkarni, P.R., Adamson, D.T., Kornuc, J. J., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 4952-4962. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00792 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00792]</ref>, not what is readily transportable in mobile porewater<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024">Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D., Real, I., Hao, S., Guelfo, J.L., 2024. Air-Water Interfacial Collapse and Rate-Limited Solid Desorption Control Perfluoroalkyl Acid Leaching from the Vadose Zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 265, Article 104382. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382]&nbsp; [[Media: StultsEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="StultsEtAl2023">Stults, J.F., Choi, Y.J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D.D., Knappe, D.R.U., Illangasekare, T.H., Higgins, C.P., 2023. Predicting Concentration- and Ionic-Strength-Dependent Air–Water Interfacial Partitioning Parameters of PFASs Using Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships (QSPRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 57(13), pp. 5203-5215. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07316 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07316]</ref><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022">Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2022. PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces. Chemosphere, 302, Article 134938. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauGuo2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. Fortunately, lysimeters have been found to be a viable option for monitoring the concentration of PFAS in the mobile porewater phase in the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>. Note that while some lysimeters, known as weighing lysimeters, can directly measure water flux, the most commonly utilized lysimeters in PFAS investigations only provide measurements of porewater concentrations.
−
       
 
−
Fire suppression systems with potential PFAS impacts include fire fighting vehicles that carried AFFF and fixed suppression systems in buildings containing large amounts of flammable materials such as aircraft hangars (Figure 2). PFAS residue on the wetted surfaces of existing infrastructure can rebound into replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulations if not removed during the transition process<ref name="RossStorch2020"/>. Simple surface rinsing with water and low-pressure washing has been proven to be inefficient for removal of surface bound PFAS from piping and tanks that contained fluorinated AFFF<ref name="RossStorch2020"/>
 
−
[[File:LangFig2.png | thumb|left|600px|Figure 2. Fixed fire suppression system for an aircraft hangar, with storage tank on left and distribution piping on right.]]
 
  
−
In&nbsp;addition&nbsp;to&nbsp;proper methods for system cleaning to remove residual PFAS, transition to PFAS-free foam may also include consideration of compliance with state and federal regulations, selection of the replacement PFAS-free firefighting formulation, a cost benefit analysis for replacement of the system components versus cleaning, and PFAS verification testing. Foam transition should be completed in a manner which minimizes the volume of waste generated as well as preventing any PFAS release into the environment.
+
==PFAS Background==
 +
PFAS are a broad class of chemicals with highly variable chemical structures<ref>Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es981355+ doi: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref><ref name="MoodyField2000">Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 2000. Perfluorinated Surfactants and the Environmental Implications of Their Use in Fire-Fighting Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(18), pp. 3864-3870. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es991359u doi: 10.1021/es991359u]</ref><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020">Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Trier, X., Wang, Z., 2020. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(12), pp. 2345-2373. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G doi: 10.1039/D0EM00291G]&nbsp; [[Media: GlügeEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. One characteristic feature of PFAS is that they are fluorosurfactants, distinct from more traditional hydrocarbon surfactants<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="Brusseau2018">Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2018.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref>Dave, N., Joshi, T., 2017. A Concise Review on Surfactants and Its Significance. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(3), pp. 663-672. [https://doi.org/10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672 doi: 10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672]&nbsp; [[Media: DaveJoshi2017.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>García, R.A., Chiaia-Hernández, A.C., Lara-Martin, P.A., Loos, M., Hollender, J., Oetjen, K., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., 2019. Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in Afffs and Afff-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(14), pp. 8068-8077. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01895 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01895]</ref>. Fluorosurfactants typically have a fully or partially fluorinated, hydrophobic tail with ionic (cationic, zwitterionic, or anionic) head group that is hydrophilic<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020"/>. The hydrophobic tail and ionic head group mean PFAS are very stable at hydrophobic adsorption interfaces when present in the aqueous phase<ref>Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs): Environmental Challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 20(3), pp. 192-212. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004]</ref>. Examples of these interfaces include naturally occurring organic matter in soils and the air-water interface in the vadose zone<ref>Schaefer, C.E., Culina, V., Nguyen, D., Field, J., 2019. Uptake of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances at the Air–Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), pp. 12442-12448. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04008 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04008]</ref><ref>Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air–Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348]</ref><ref>Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., 2019. Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the Air-Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 6(8), pp. 487-491. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355 doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355]</ref><ref>Li, F., Fang, X., Zhou, Z., Liao, X., Zou, J., Yuan, B., Sun, W., 2019. Adsorption of Perfluorinated Acids onto Soils: Kinetics, Isotherms, and Influences of Soil Properties. Science of The Total Environment, 649, pp. 504-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209]</ref><ref>Nguyen, T.M.H., Bräunig, J., Thompson, K., Thompson, J., Kabiri, S., Navarro, D.A., Kookana, R.S., Grimison, C., Barnes, C.M., Higgins, C.P., McLaughlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., 2020. Influences of Chemical Properties, Soil Properties, and Solution pH on Soil–Water Partitioning Coefficients of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science and Technology, 54(24), pp. 15883-15892. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05705 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05705]&nbsp; [[Media: NguyenEtAl2020.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Their strong adsorption to both soil organic matter and the air-water interface is a major contributor to elevated concentrations of PFAS observed in the upper 5 feet of the soil column<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020"/><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024"/>. While several other PFAS partitioning processes exist<ref name="Brusseau2018"/>, adsorption to solid phase soils and air-water interfaces are the two primary processes present at nearly all PFAS sites<ref>Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035]</ref>. The total PFAS mass obtained from a vadose zone soil sample contains the solid phase, air-water interfacial, and aqueous phase PFAS mass, which can be converted to porewater concentrations using Equation 1<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>.</br>
 +
:: <big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq1.png | 400 px]]</br>
 +
Where ''C<sub>p</sub>'' is the porewater concentration, ''C<sub>t</sub>'' is the total PFAS concentration, ''ρ<sub>b</sub>'' is the bulk density of the soil, ''θ<sub>w</sub>'' is the volumetric water content, ''R<sub>d</sub>'' is the PFAS retardation factor, ''K<sub>d</sub>'' is the solid phase adsorption coefficient, ''K<sub>ia</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial adsorption coefficient, and ''A<sub>aw</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial area. The air-water interfacial area of the soil is primarily a function of both the soil properties and the degree of volumetric water saturation in the soil. There are several methods of estimating air-water interfacial areas including thermodynamic functions based on the soil moisture retention curve. However, the thermodynamic function has been shown to underestimate air-water interfacial area<ref name="Brusseau2023">Brusseau, M.L., 2023. Determining Air-Water Interfacial Areas for the Retention and Transport of PFAS and Other Interfacially Active Solutes in Unsaturated Porous Media. Science of The Total Environment, 884, Article 163730. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2023.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref>, and must typically be scaled using empirical scaling factors. An empirical method recently developed to estimate air-water interfacial area is presented in Equation 2<ref name="Brusseau2023"/>.</br>
 +
:: <big>'''Equation 2:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq2.png | 400 px]]</br>
 +
Where ''S<sub>w</sub>'' is the water phase saturation as a ratio of the water content over the volumetric soil porosity, and ''d<sub>50</sub>'' is the median grain diameter.
  
−
==PFAS Assembly on Solid Surfaces==
+
==Lysimeters Background==
−
 
+
[[File: StultsFig1.png |thumb|600 px|Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2024<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>, which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2023<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/]]
−
{|
+
Lysimeters,&nbsp;generally&nbsp;speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993"/>. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.
−
| || '''Equation&nbsp;1:'''
+
# <u>Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b):</u> These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
−
|200px|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation1.png]]
+
# <u>Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c):</u> These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves<ref name="Stannard1992"/><ref name="WintonWeber1996"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/><ref>van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. [https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x]</ref>. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
−
|-
+
# <u>Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d):</u>  Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.
−
| Where: || ||
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''C<sub>e,i</sub>''|| is the freely dissolved concentrations of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''C<sub>p,i</sub>'' || is the measured concentrations of the analyte in the peeper (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''K<sub>i</sub>'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
{|
 
−
| || '''Equation&nbsp;2:'''
 
−
|200px|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation2.png]]
 
−
|-
 
−
| Where: || ||
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''K<sub>i</sub>''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''K<sub>t</sub>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''D<sub>i</sub>'' || is the free-water diffusion of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''D<sub>t</sub>'' || is the free-water diffusion of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
−
|}
 
−
</br>
 
−
{|
 
−
| || '''Equation&nbsp;3:'''
 
−
|200px|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation3.png]]
 
−
|-
 
−
| Where: || ||
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''Tr<sub>p,0</sub>''|| is the measured concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''Tr<sub>p,t</sub>'' || is the measured concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''Tr<sub>e,t</sub>'' || is the concentration of the tracer in the external media (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''K<sub>t</sub>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
The self-assembly of [[Wikipedia: Amphiphile | amphiphilic]] molecules into supramolecular bilayers is a result of their structure and how it interacts with the bulk water of a solution. Single chain hydrocarbon based amphiphiles can form [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]] under relatively dilute aqueous concentrations, however for hydrocarbon based surfactants the formation of more complex organized system such as [[Wikipedia: Vesicle (biology and chemistry) | vesicles]] is rarely seen, requiring double chain amphiphiles such as [[wikipedia: Phospholipid|phospholipids]]. Associations of single chain [[wikipedia: Ion#Anions_and_cations|cationic and anionic]] hydrocarbon based amphiphiles into stable supramolecular structures such as vesicles has however been demonstrated<ref>Fukuda, H., Kawata, K., Okuda, H., 1990. Bilayer-Forming Ion-Pair Amphiphiles from Single-Chain Surfactants. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112(4), pp. 1635-1637. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00160a057 doi: 10.1021/ja00160a057]</ref>, with the ion pairing of the polar head groups mimicking the a double tail situation. The behavior of single chain [[wikipedia: Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Fluorosurfactants|fluorosurfactant]] amphiphiles has been demonstrated to be significantly different from similar hydrocarbon based analogues. Not only are [[Wikipedia: Critical micelle concentration | critical micelle concentrations (CMC)]] of fluorosurfactants typically two orders of magnitude lower than corresponding hydrocarbon surfactants but self-assembly can occur even when fluorosurfactants are dispersed at low concentrations significantly below the CMC in water and other solvents<ref name="Krafft2006">Krafft, M.P., 2006. Highly fluorinated compounds induce phase separation in, and nanostructuration of liquid media. Possible impact on, and use in chemical reactivity control. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 44(14), pp. 4251-4258. [https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.21508 doi: 10.1002/pola.21508]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media:Krafft2006.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. The assembly of fluorinated amphiphiles structurally similar to those found in AFFF have been shown to readily form stable, complex structures including vesicles, fibers, and globules at concentrations as low as 0.5% w/v in contrast to their hydrocarbon analogues which remained fluid at 30% w/v<ref>Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1993. Can Single-Chain Perfluoroalkylated Amphiphiles Alone form Vesicles and Other Organized Supramolecular Systems? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 32(5), pp. 741-743. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199307411 doi: 10.1002/anie.199307411]</ref><ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994">Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1994. Supramolecular assemblies from single chain perfluoroalkylated phosphorylated amphiphiles. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 84(1), pp. 113-119. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4 doi: 10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Krafft found that fluorinated amphiphiles formed bilayer membranes with phospholipids, and that the resulting vesicles were more stable than those made of phospholipids alone<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998">Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 1998. Highly Fluorinated Amphiphiles and Collodial Systems, and their Applications in the Biomedical Field. A Contribution. Biochimie, 80(5-6), pp. 489-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4 doi: 10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4]</ref>. The similarities in amphiphilic properties between phospholipids and the hydrocarbon-based surfactants in AFFF suggests that bilayer vesicles may form between these and the fluorosurfactants also present in the concentrate. Krafft demonstrated that both the permeability of resulting mixed vesicles and their propensity to fuse with each other at increasing ionic strength was reduced as a result of the creation of an inert hydrophobic and [[wikipedia: Lipophobicity|lipophobic]] film within the membrane, and also suggested that the fluorinated amphiphiles increased [[Wikipedia: van der Waals force | van der Waals interactions]] in the hydrocarbon region<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998"/>. Thus this low permeability may allow vesicles formed by the surfactants present in AFFF to act as long term repositories of PFAS not only as part of the bilayer itself but also solvated within the vesicle. This prediction is supported by the observation that supramolecular structures formed from single chain fluorinated amphiphiles have been demonstrated to be stable at elevated temperature (15 min at 121&deg;C) and have been shown to be stable over periods of months, even increasing in size over time when stored at environmentally relevant temperatures<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Formation of complex structures at relatively low solute concentrations requires the monomer molecules to be well ordered to maintain tight packing in the supramolecular structure<ref>Ringsdorf, H., Schlarb, B., Venzmer, J., 1988. Molecular Architecture and Function of Polymeric Oriented Systems: Models for the Study of Organization, Surface Recognition, and Dynamics of Biomembranes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 27(1), pp. 113-158. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.198801131 doi: 10.1002/anie.198801131]</ref>. This order results from electrostatic forces, [[wikipedia: Hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonding]], and in the case of fluorinated amphiphiles, hydrophobic interactions. The geometry of the amphiphile also potentially contributes to the type of supramolecular aggregation<ref>Israelachvili, J.N., Mitchell, D.J., Ninham, B.W., 1976. Theory of Self-Assembly of Hydrocarbon Amphiphiles into Micelles and Bilayers. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2: Molecular and Chemical Physics, 72, pp. 1525-1568. [https://doi.org/10.1039/F29767201525 doi: 10.1039/F29767201525]</ref>. Surfactants which adopt a conical shape (such as a typical hydrocarbon based surfactant with a large polar head group and a single alkyl chain as a tail) tend to form micelles more easily. Increasing the bulk of the tail makes the surfactant more cylindrically shaped which makes assembly into bilayers more likely.  
 
−
 
 
−
Perfluoroalkyl chains are significantly more bulky than their hydrocarbon based analogues both in cross sectional area (28-30 Å<sup>2</sup> versus 20 Å<sup>2</sup>, respectively) and mean volume (CF<sub>2</sub> and CF<sub>3</sub> estimated as 38 Å<sup>3</sup> and 92 Å<sup>3</sup> compared to 27 Å<sup>3</sup> and 54 Å<sup>3</sup> for CH<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>3</sub>)<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998"/><ref name="Krafft2006"/>. Structural studies on linear PFOS have shown that the molecule adopts an unusual helical structure<ref>Erkoç, Ş., Erkoç, F., 2001. Structural and electronic properties of PFOS and LiPFOS. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM, 549(3), pp. 289-293. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X doi:10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X]</ref><ref name="TorresEtAl2009">Torres, F.J., Ochoa-Herrera, V., Blowers, P., Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2009. Ab initio study of the structural, electronic, and thermodynamic properties of linear perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its branched isomers. Chemosphere 76(8), pp. 1143-1149. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009]</ref> in aqueous and solvent phases to alleviate [[wikipedia: Steric_effects#Steric_hindrance|steric hindrance]]. This arrangement results from the carbon chain starting in the planar all anti [[wikipedia:Conformational isomerism|conformation]] and then successively twisting all the CC-CC dihedrals by 15&deg;-20&deg; in the same direction<ref>Abbandonato, G., Catalano, D., Marini, A., 2010. Aggregation of Perfluoroctanoate Salts Studied by <sup>19</sup>F NMR and DFT Calculations: Counterion Complexation, Poly(ethylene glycol) Addition, and Conformational Effects. Langmuir 26(22), pp. 16762-16770. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la102578k  doi: 10.1021/la102578k].</ref>. The conformation also minimizes the electrostatic repulsion between fluorine atoms bonded to the same side of the carbon backbone by maximizing the interatomic distances between them<ref name="TorresEtAl2009"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
A consequence of the helical structure is that there is limited carbon-carbon bond rotation within the perfluoroalkyl chain giving them increased rigidity compared to alkyl chains<ref>Barton, S.W., Goudot, A., Bouloussa, O., Rondelez, F., Lin, B., Novak, F., Acero, A., Rice, S., 1992. Structural transitions in a monolayer of fluorinated amphiphile molecules. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 96(2), pp. 1343-1351. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.462170 doi: 10.1063/1.462170]</ref>. The bulkiness of the perfluoroalkyl chain confers a cylindrical shape on the fluorosurfactant amphiphile and therefore favors the formation of bilayers and vesicles the aggregation of which is further assisted by the rigidity of the molecules which allow close packing in the supramolecular structure. Fluorosurfactants therefore cannot be regarded as more hydrophobic analogues of hydrogenated surfactants. Their self-assembly behavior is characterized by a strong tendency to form vesicles and lamellar phases rather than micelles, due to the bulkiness and rigidity of the perfluoroalkyl chain that tends to decrease the curvature of the aggregates they form in solution<ref>Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J., Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56, pp. 48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 doi: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429]&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Open Access Article]</ref>. The larger tail cross section of fluorinated compared to hydrogenated amphiphiles tends to favor the formation of aggregates with lesser surface curvature, therefore rather than micelles they form bilayer membranes, vesicles, tubules and fibers<ref>Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1993. Can Single-Chain Perfluoroalkylated Amphiphiles Alone form Vesicles and Other Organized Supramolecular Systems? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 32(5), pp. 741-743. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199307411 doi: 10.1002/anie.199307411]</ref><ref>Furuya, H., Moroi, Y., Kaibara, K., 1996. Solid and Solution Properties of Alkylammonium Perfluorocarboxylates. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 100(43), pp. 17249-17254. [https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9612801 doi: 10.1021/jp9612801]</ref><ref>Giulieri, F., Krafft, M.P., 1996. Self-organization of single-chain fluorinated amphiphiles with fluorinated alcohols. Thin Solid Films, 284-285, pp. 195-199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9 doi: 10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9]</ref><ref>Gladysz, J.A., Curran, D.P., Horvath, I.T., 2004. Handbook of Fluorous Chemistry. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA,, Weinheim, Germany. ISBN: 3-527-30617-X</ref>. Rojas ''et al.'' (2002) demonstrated that perfluorooctyl sulphonamide formed a contiguous bilayer at 50 mg/L with self-assembled aggregates present at concentrations as low as 10 mg/L<ref name="RojasEtAl2002">Rojas, O.J., Macakova, L., Blomberg, E., Emmer, A., and Claesson, P.M., 2002. Fluorosurfactant Self-Assembly at Solid/Liquid Interfaces. Langmuir, 18(21), pp. 8085-8095. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la025989c doi: 10.1021/la025989c]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Thermodynamics of PFAS Accumulations on Solid Surfaces==
 
−
The thermodynamics of formation of amphiphiles into supramolecular species requires consideration of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions resulting from the amphoteric nature of the molecule. The hydrophilic portions of the molecule are driven to maximize their solvation interaction with as many water molecules as possible, whereas the hydrophobic portions of the molecule are driven to aggregate together thus minimizing interaction with the bulk water. Both of these processes change the [[wikipedia:Enthalpy|enthalpy]] and [[wikipedia: Entropy|entropy]] of the system.
 
−
 
 
−
<center><big>Anion Exchange Reaction:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''PFAS<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(aq)</sub><big>&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cl<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(resin bound)</sub><big>&nbsp;&nbsp;&rArr;&nbsp;&nbsp;PFAS<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(resin bound)</sub><big>&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cl<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(aq)</sub>'''</center>
 
  
 +
==Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater==
 
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
 
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
−
|+Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
+
|+Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
−
|-
 
−
! Analytes
 
−
!
 
−
! GW
 
−
! FF
 
−
! AFFF<br>Rinsate
 
−
! AFF<br>(diluted 10X)
 
−
! IDW NF
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS<small><sup>a</sup></small> (ND=0)
 
−
| rowspan="9" style="background-color:white;" | <p style="writing-mode: vertical-rl">% Decrease<br>(Initial Concentration, &mu;g/L)</p>
 
−
| 93%<br>(370) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 89%<br>(57,000) || 86 %<br>(770,000) || 84%<br>(82)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=MDL) || 93%<br>(400) || 86%<br>(32,000) || 90%<br>(59,000) || 71%<br>(770,000) || 88%<br>(110)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=RL) || 94%<br>(460) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 91%<br>(66,000) || 34%<br>(770,000) || 92%<br>(170)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS<small><sup>b</sup></small> (ND=0) || >99%<br>(180) || >99%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 92%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(50)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL) || >99%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 88%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br> (52)
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL) || >99%<br>(190) || 93%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(55)
+
!Site
 +
!PFAS
 +
!Field</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 +
!Lab Core</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 +
!Predicted</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS<small><sup>c</sup></small> (ND=0) || 91%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 82%<br>(400,000) || 94%<br>(53)
+
|Site A||PFOS||6.2 ± 3.4||3.0 ± 0.37||6.6 ± 3.3
 
|-
 
|-
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS (ND=MDL) || 91%<br>(190) || 94%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(400,000) || 86%<br>(58)
+
|Site B||PFOS||2.2 ± 2.0||0.78 ± 0.38||2.8
 
|-
 
|-
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS (ND=RL) || 92%<br>(200) || 87%<br>(20,000) || 86%<br>(21,000) || 70%<br>(400,000) || 87%<br>(65)
+
|rowspan="3"|Site C||PFOS||13 ± 4.1||680 ± 460||164 ± 75
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Fluorine mass balance<small><sup>d</sup></small> || ||106% || 109% || 110% || 65% || 98%
+
|8:2 FTS||1.2 ± 0.46||52 ± 13||16 ± 6.0
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Sorbed organic fluorine<small><sup>e</sup></small> || || 4% || 4% || 33% || N/A || 31%
+
|PFHpS||0.36 ± 0.051||2.9 ± 2.0||5.9 ± 3.4
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="7" style="background-color:white; text-align:left" | <small>Notes:<br>GW = groundwater<br>GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate<br>AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination<br>AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x<br>IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate<br>ND = non-detect<br>MDL = Method Detection Limit<br>RL = Reporting Limit<br><small><sup>a</sup></small>Total PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors<br><small><sup>b</sup></small>Highly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>c</sup></small>High priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>d</sup></small>Ratio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations<br><small><sup>e</sup></small>Percent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment<br></small>
 
 
|}
 
|}
 +
[[File: StultsFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>]]
 +
[[File: StultsFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>.]]
 +
Schaefer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>&nbsp;measured&nbsp;PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.
  
 +
Data from sites A and B showed reasonably good agreement (within ½ order of magnitude) for most PFAS measured in the systems. At site C, more hydrophobic constituents (> C6 PFAS) tended to have higher concentrations in the lab core than the field site while less hydrophobic constituents (< C6) had higher concentrations in the field than lab cores. Site D showed substantially greater (1 order of magnitude or more) PFAS concentrations measured in the laboratory-collected porewater sample compared to what was measured in the field lysimeters. This discrepancy for the Site D soil can likely be attributed to soil heterogeneity (as indicated by ground penetrating radar) and the fact that the soil consisted of back-filled materials rather than undisturbed native soils.
 +
 +
Site&nbsp;C&nbsp;showed&nbsp;elevated PFAS concentrations in the laboratory collected porewater for the more surface-active compounds. This increase was attributed to the soil wetting that occurred at the bench scale, which was reasonably described by the model shown in Equations 1 and 2 (see Table 1<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>). Equations 1 and 2 were also used to predict PFAS porewater concentrations (using porous cup lysimeters) in a highly instrumented test cell<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>(Figure 3). The ability to predict soil concentrations from recurring porewater samples is critical to the practical application of lysimeters in field settings<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>.
  
−
In aqueous solution, the hydrophilic portions of an amphiphile form hydrogen bonds (4 - 120 kJ/mol) and van der Waals interactions (<5 kJ/mol) with water molecules and surfaces, and electrostatic interactions (5 – 300 kJ/mol) can also occur where the amphiphile is ionic<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015">Lombardo, D., Kiselev, M.A., Magazù, S., Calandra, P., 2015. Amphiphiles Self-Assembly: Basic Concepts and Future Perspectives of Supramolecular Approaches. Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, vol. 2015, article ID 151683, 22 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/151683 doi: 10.1155/2015/151683]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: LombardoEtAl2015.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. These interactions, although weak compared to intramolecular covalent bonds within a molecule are energetically favorable and increase the enthalpy of the combined solute-solvent system. Thus, the hydrophilic portion of an amphiphile will look to maximize enthalpic gain through hydrogen bond interactions with the bulk water.
+
Results from suction lysimeters studies and field lysimeter studies show that PFAS concentrations in porewater predicted from soil concentrations using Equations 1 and 2 generally have reasonable agreement with measured ''in situ'' porewater data when air-water interfacial partitioning is considered. Results show that for less hydrophobic components like PFOA, the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption is less significant than for highly hydrophobic components like PFOS. The soil for the field lysimeter in Figure 3 was a sandy soil with a relatively low air-water interfacial area. The effect of air-water interfacial partitioning is expected to be much more significant for a greater range of PFAS in soils with high capillary pressure (i.e. silts/clays) with higher associated air-water interfacial areas<ref name="Brusseau2023"/><ref>Peng, S., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Air-Water Interfacial Area and Capillary Pressure: Porous-Medium Texture Effects and an Empirical Function. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(7), pp. 829-832. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515 doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515]</ref><ref>Brusseau, M.L., Peng, S., Schnaar, G., Costanza-Robinson, M.S., 2006. Relationships among Air-Water Interfacial Area, Capillary Pressure, and Water Saturation for a Sandy Porous Medium. Water Resources Research, 42(3), Article W03501, 5 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004058 doi: 10.1029/2005WR004058]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauEtAl2006.pdf | Free Access Article]]</ref>.
−
 
 
−
The hydrophobic portion of an amphiphile cannot form hydrogen bonds with the bulk solution, and its presence disrupts the hydrogen bond interactions between individual water molecules within the bulk water matrix. This disruption lowers the entropy of the system by reducing the degrees of translational rotational freedom available to the bulk water. The [[wikipedia:Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] dictates that a system will arrange itself to maximize its entropy. With hydrophobic species this can be achieved by their spontaneous aggregation, as the reduction in solution entropy of the aggregated system is less than that which would occur if the component parts were solvated individually. These hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions are weak, and the individual entropy gain per amphiphile upon aggregation is very small. However, taken together the overall effect on the entropy of the aggregate is sufficient to maintain it in solution, and moreover these interactions make the aggregates resistant to minor perturbations while retaining the reversibility of the self-assembled structure<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Regulatory Drivers for Transition to PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==
 
−
Regulations restricting the use and release of PFAS are being proposed and promulgated worldwide, with several enacted regulations addressing the use of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) containing PFAS<ref name="Queensland2016">Queensland (Australia) Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2016. Operational Policy - Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam. 16 pages. [https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/firefighting-foam-policy.pdf Free Download]</ref><ref>U.S. Congress, 2019. S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. United States Library of Congress.&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790 Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Arizona State Legislature, 2019. Title 36, Section 1696. Firefighting foam; prohibited uses; exception; definitions. [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/01696.htm Text of Law]</ref><ref>California Legislature, 2020. Senate Bill No. 1044, Chapter 308, Firefighting equipment and foam: PFAS chemicals. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1044 Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Arkansas General Assembly, 2021. An Act Concerning the Use of Certain Chemicals in Firefighting Foam; and for Other Purposes. Act 315, State of Arkansas. [https://trackbill.com/bill/arkansas-house-bill-1351-concerning-the-use-of-certain-chemicals-in-firefighting-foam/2008913/ Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Espinosa, Summers, Kelly, J., Statler, Hansen, Young, 2021. Amendment to Fire Prevention and Control Act. House Bill 2722. West Virginia Legislature. [https://trackbill.com/bill/west-virginia-house-bill-2722-prohibiting-the-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-for-testing-purposes-if-the-foam-contains-a-certain-class-of-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2047674/ Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Louisiana Legislature, 2021. Act No. 232. [https://trackbill.com/bill/louisiana-house-bill-389-fire-protect-fire-marshal-provides-relative-to-the-discharge-or-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-containing-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2092535/  Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Vermont Legislature, 2021b. Act No. 36, PFAS in Class B Firefighting Foam. [https://trackbill.com/bill/vermont-senate-bill-20-an-act-relating-to-restrictions-on-perfluoroalkyl-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-and-other-chemicals-of-concern-in-consumer-products/1978963/  History and Text of Law]</ref>. In addition to regulated usage, firefighting formulation users are transitioning to PFAS-free firefighting formulations to reduce environmental liability in the event of a release, to reduce the cost of expensive containment systems and management of generated waste streams, and to avoid reputational damage. In 2016, Queensland, Australia was one of the first governments to ban PFAS use in firefighting foam<ref name="Queensland2016"/>. The US 2020 National Defense Authorization Act specified immediate prohibition of controlled releases of AFFF containing PFAS and required the Secretary of the Navy to publish a specification for PFAS-free firefighting formulation use and ensure it is available for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) by October 1, 2023<ref>U.S. Congress, 2021. S.2792 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. United States Library of Congress.&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2792/ Text and History of Law].</ref>. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently removed the requirement for AFFF containing PFAS from their Standard on Aircraft Hangars and added two new chapters to allow users to determine if AFFF containing PFAS is needed at their facility<ref name="NFPA2022">National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2022. Codes and Standards, 409: Standard on Aircraft Hangars. [https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/4/0/9/409?l=42 NFPA Website]</ref>.
 
  
−
==Selection of Replacement PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==        
+
==Summary and Recommendations==
−
Since they first entered the market in the 2000s, the operational capabilities of PFAS-free firefighting formulations have grown<ref>Allcorn, M., Bluteau, T., Corfield, J., Day, G., Cornelsen, M., Holmes, N.J.C., Klein, R.A., McDowall, J.G., Olsen, K.T., Ramsden, N., Ross, I., Schaefer, T.H., Weber, R., Whitehead, K., 2018. Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (3F) – Viable Alternatives to Fluorinated Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF). White Paper prepared for the IPEN by members of the IPEN F3 Panel and associates, POPRC-14, Rome. [https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/IPEN_F3_Position_Paper_POPRC-14_12September2018d.pdf Free Download].</ref> and numerous companies are now manufacturing and delivering PFAS-free firefighting formulations for fixed systems and AFFF vehicles<ref>Ansul (Company), Ansul NFF-331 3%x3% Non-Fluorinated Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://docs.johnsoncontrols.com/specialhazards/api/khub/documents/1nbeVfynU1IW~eJcCOA0Bg/content Product Data Sheet].</ref><ref>BioEx (Company), Ecopol A+ (Commercial Product). [https://www.bio-ex.com/en/our-products/product/ecopol-aplus/  Website]</ref><ref>National Foam (Company), 2020. Avio F3 Green KHC 3%, Fluorine Free Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://nationalfoam.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/NMS515-Avio-Green-KHC-3-FF.pdf Safety Data Sheet]</ref>. Key factors in the selection of a PFAS-free firefighting formulation product are compatibility of the new formulation with the existing system (as confirmed by a fire protection engineer) and environmental certifications (i.e., verifying the absence of organic fluorine or PFAS or the absence of other non-fluorine environmental contaminants).
+
The majority of research with lysimeters for PFAS site investigations has been done using porous cup suction lysimeters<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. Porous cup suction lysimeters are advantageous because they can be routinely sampled or sampled after specific wetting or drying events much like groundwater wells. This sampling is easier and more efficient than routinely collecting soil samples from the same locations. Co-locating lysimeters with soil samples is important for establishing the baseline soil concentration levels at the lysimeter location and developing correlations between the soil concentrations and the mobile porewater concentration<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Appropriate standard operation procedures for lysimeter installation and operation have been established and have been reviewed in recent literature<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>. Lysimeters should typically be installed near the source area and just above the maximum groundwater level elevation to obtain accurate results of porewater concentrations year round. Depending upon the geology and vertical PFAS distribution in the soil, multilevel lysimeter installations should also be considered.
  
−
In January 2023, the US Department of Defense (DoD) published the [https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jan/12/2003144157/-1/-1/1/MILITARY-SPECIFICATION-FOR-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING-AGENT-FLUORINE-FREE-FOAM-F3-LIQUID-CONCENTRATE-FOR-LAND-BASED-FRESH-WATER-APPLICATIONS.PDF Performance Specification for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate for Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications]<ref name="DoD2023"/>. This Military Performance Specification (Mil-Spec) allows PFAS-free firefighting formulations to be certified as meeting certain standardized operational goals for use in military settings. In addition to Mil-Spec requirements, PFAS-free firefighting formulations can also be certified through Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, UL 162, which requires the new firefighting formulations be investigated for suitability and compatibility with the specific equipment with which they are intended to be used<ref>Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 2018. UL162, UL Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, 8th Edition, Revised 2022. 40 pages. [https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=UL%20162&item_s_key=00096960 Website]</ref>. Several PFAS-free foams have been certified under various parts of EN1568, the European Standard which specifies the necessary foam properties and performance requirements<ref>European Standards, 2018. CSN EN 1568-1 ed. 2: Fire extinguishing media - Foam concentrates - Part 1: Specification for medium expansion foam concentrates for surface application to water-immiscible liquids. 48 pages. [https://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-1568-1-ed-2-fire-extinguishing-media-foam-concentrates-part-1-specification-for-medium-expansion-foam-concentrates-for-surface-application-to-water-immiscible-liquids/ European Standards Website.]</ref>. Both [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ ESTCP and SERDP] have supported (and continue to support) the development and field validation of PFAS-free firefighting formulations (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/baa72637-e3c8-40ee-a007-f295311c72ad WP22-7456], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-4bdd-98d2-1f9cfeb5f3d9/wp21-3465-project-overview WP21-3465], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/bc932800-cfc8-4e86-a212-5f8c9d27f17c WP20-1535]). Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have performed a variety of foam certification tests on numerous PFAS-free firefighting formulations<ref>Back, G.G., Farley, J.P., 2020. Evaluation of the Fire Protection Effectiveness of Fluorine Free Firefighting Foams. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Research Foundation. [https://www.iafc.org/docs/default-source/1safehealthshs/effectivenessofflourinefreefoam.pdf Free Download].</ref><ref>Casey, J., Trazzi, D., 2022. Fluorine-Free Foam Testing. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Final Report. [https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/DocumentDownload.ashx?portalid=0&moduleid=3682&articleid=2882&documentid=3054  Open Access Article]</ref>.
+
Results from several lysimeters studies across multiple field sites and modelling analysis has shown that lysimeters can produce reasonable results between field and laboratory studies<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/>. Transient effects of wetting and drying as well as media heterogeneity affects appear to be responsible for some variability and uncertainty in lysimeter based PFAS measurements in the vadose zone. These mobile porewater concentrations can be coupled with effective recharge estimates and simplified modelling approaches to determine mass flux from the vadose zone to the underlying groundwater<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024"/><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/><ref>Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., MacBeth, T., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Laboratory Validation of a Simplified Model for Estimating Equilibrium PFAS Mass Leaching from Unsaturated Soils. Science of The Total Environment, 970, Article 179036. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036]</ref><ref>Smith, J. Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2024. An Integrated Analytical Modeling Framework for Determining Site-Specific Soil Screening Levels for PFAS. Water Research, 252, Article121236. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236]</ref>.
  
−
==Selection of Flushing Agent==
+
Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:
−
General industry guidance has typically recommended several rinses with water to remove PFAS from impacted equipment. Owing to the unique physical and chemical properties of PFAS, the use of room temperature water to remove PFAS from impacted equipment has not been very effective. To address these recalcitrant accumulations, companies are developing new methods to remove self-assembled PFAS bilayers from existing fire-fighting infrastructure so that it can be successfully transitioned to PFAS-free formulations. Arcadis developed a non-toxic cleaning agent, Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>, which has been demonstrated to be effective for removal of PFAS from equipment by disrupting the accumulated layers of PFAS coating the AFFF-wetted surfaces.
+
#<u>Collect larger datasets of PFAS concentrations</u> to determine how transient wetting or drying periods and media type affect PFAS concentrations in the mobile porewater. Some research has shown that non-equilibrium processes can occur in the vadose zone, which can affect grab sample concentration in the porewater at specific time periods.  
−
 
+
#<u>More work should be done with flux averaging lysimeters</u> like the drainage cup or wicking lysimeter. These lysimeters can directly measure net recharge and provide time averaged concentrations of PFAS in water over the sampling period. However, there is little work detailing their potential applications in PFAS research, or operational considerations for their use in remedial investigations for PFAS.
−
Laboratory studies have supported the optimization of this PFAS removal method in fire suppression system piping obtained from a commercial airport hangar in Sydney, Australia<ref name="LangEtAl2022"/>. Prior to removal from the hangar, the stainless-steel pipe held PFAS-containing AFFF for more than three decades. Results indicated that Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>, as well as flushing at elevated temperatures, removed more surface associated PFAS in comparison to equivalent extractions using methanol or water at room temperature. ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of best practices for methodologies to clean foam delivery systems (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1 ER20-5364], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/6d0750be-f20b-4765-bdfa-872adccaf37a ER20-5361], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4fd2e4ab-ddb7-40f8-835e-e1d637c0d650 ER21-7229]).
+
#<u>Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying</u> in the vadose zone using ''in situ'' soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
−
 
+
#<u>Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data</u> are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.
−
==PFAS Verification Testing==
 
−
In general, PFAS sampling techniques used to support firefighting formulation transition activities are consistent with conventional sampling techniques used in the environmental industry, but special consideration is made regarding high concentration PFAS materials, elevated detection levels, cross-contamination potential, precursor content, and matrix interferences. The analytical method selected should be appropriate for the regulatory requirements in the site area.
 
−
 
 
−
==Rinsate Treatment==
 
−
Numerous technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including rinsates, have been and are currently being developed. These include separation technologies such as [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment|foam fractionation, nanofiltration, sorbents/flocculants, ion exchange resins, reverse osmosis, and destructive technologies such as sonolysis, electrochemical oxidation, hydrothermal alkaline treatment]], [[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma |enhanced contact plasma]], and [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) |supercritical water oxidation (SCWO)]]. Many of these technologies have rapidly developed from bench-scale (e.g., microcosms, columns, single reactors) to commercially available field-scale units capable of managing PFAS-impacted waters of varying waste volumes and PFAS compositions and concentrations. Ongoing field research continues to improve the treatment efficiency, reliability, and versatility of these technologies, both individually and as coupled treatment solutions (e.g., treatment train). ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of separation and destructive technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including rinsates (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0c7af048-3a00-471f-9480-292aa78ecd4f ER20-5370], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d ER20-5350], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/790e2dda-1f7b-4ff5-b77e-08ed10a456b1 ER20-5355]).
 
−
 
 
−
Remedy selection for treatment of rinsates involves several key factors. It is critical that environmental practitioners have up-to-date technical and practical knowledge on the suitability of these remedial options for different site conditions, treatment volumes, PFAS composition (e.g., presence of precursors, co-contaminants), PFAS concentrations, safety considerations, potential for undesired byproducts (e.g., perchlorate, disinfection byproducts), and treatment costs (e.g., energy demand, capital costs, operational labor).
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 164: Line 81:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
[https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CFPC/KO/2022/Latest-News/DESPP-DEEP-AFFF-MuniFDupdate-2022-05-26.pdf  Connecticut Take-Back Program for municipal fire departments using AFFF containing PFAS]
 
−
 
−
[https://www.arcadis.com/en-us/knowledge-hub/blog/united-states/johnsie-lang/2021/transitioning-to-pfas-free-firefighting  Arcadis blog on Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>]
 
−
 
−
[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1  Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5634: Demonstration and Validation of Environmentally Sustainable Methods to Effectively Remove PFAS from Fire Suppression Systems]
 
−
 
−
[https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d  Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5350: Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction]
 

Latest revision as of 15:50, 15 January 2026

Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone

PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through soil surface applications which then transport through the vadose zone to reach underlying groundwater receptors. Due to their unique properties and resulting transport and retention behaviors, PFAS in the vadose zone can be a persistent contaminant source to underlying groundwater systems. Determining the fraction of PFAS present in the mobile porewater relative to the total concentrations in soils is critical to understanding the risk posed by PFAS in vadose zone source areas. Lysimeters are instruments that have been used by agronomists and vadose zone researchers for decades to determine water flux and solute concentrations in unsaturated porewater. Lysimeters have recently been developed as a critical tool for field investigations and characterizations of PFAS impacted source zones.

Related Article(s):

Contributors: Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer

Key Resources:

  • Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters[1]
  • PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces[2]
  • Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review[3]
  • Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching[4]
  • PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces[5]

Introduction

Lysimeters are devices that are placed in the subsurface above the groundwater table to monitor the movement of water through the soil[6][7][3]. Lysimeters have historically been used in agricultural sciences for monitoring nutrient or contaminant movement, soil moisture release curves, natural drainage patterns, and dynamics of plant-water interactions[6][8][9][10][4][11][12][13][14]. Recently, there has been strong interest in the use of lysimeters to measure and monitor movement of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through the vadose zone[15][1][5][16][17][18]. PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through land surface application and have been found to be strongly retained within the upper 5 feet of soil[19][20]. PFAS recalcitrance in the vadose zone means that environmental program managers and consultants need a cost-effective way of monitoring concentration conditions within the vadose zone. Repeated soil sampling and extraction processes are time consuming and only give a representative concentration of total PFAS in the matrix[21], not what is readily transportable in mobile porewater[16][22][23][2]. Fortunately, lysimeters have been found to be a viable option for monitoring the concentration of PFAS in the mobile porewater phase in the vadose zone[15][1]. Note that while some lysimeters, known as weighing lysimeters, can directly measure water flux, the most commonly utilized lysimeters in PFAS investigations only provide measurements of porewater concentrations.

PFAS Background

PFAS are a broad class of chemicals with highly variable chemical structures[24][25][26]. One characteristic feature of PFAS is that they are fluorosurfactants, distinct from more traditional hydrocarbon surfactants[25][27][28][29]. Fluorosurfactants typically have a fully or partially fluorinated, hydrophobic tail with ionic (cationic, zwitterionic, or anionic) head group that is hydrophilic[25][26]. The hydrophobic tail and ionic head group mean PFAS are very stable at hydrophobic adsorption interfaces when present in the aqueous phase[30]. Examples of these interfaces include naturally occurring organic matter in soils and the air-water interface in the vadose zone[31][32][33][34][35]. Their strong adsorption to both soil organic matter and the air-water interface is a major contributor to elevated concentrations of PFAS observed in the upper 5 feet of the soil column[19][20]. While several other PFAS partitioning processes exist[27], adsorption to solid phase soils and air-water interfaces are the two primary processes present at nearly all PFAS sites[36]. The total PFAS mass obtained from a vadose zone soil sample contains the solid phase, air-water interfacial, and aqueous phase PFAS mass, which can be converted to porewater concentrations using Equation 1[2].

Equation 1:   StultsEq1.png

Where Cp is the porewater concentration, Ct is the total PFAS concentration, ρb is the bulk density of the soil, θw is the volumetric water content, Rd is the PFAS retardation factor, Kd is the solid phase adsorption coefficient, Kia is the air-water interfacial adsorption coefficient, and Aaw is the air-water interfacial area. The air-water interfacial area of the soil is primarily a function of both the soil properties and the degree of volumetric water saturation in the soil. There are several methods of estimating air-water interfacial areas including thermodynamic functions based on the soil moisture retention curve. However, the thermodynamic function has been shown to underestimate air-water interfacial area[37], and must typically be scaled using empirical scaling factors. An empirical method recently developed to estimate air-water interfacial area is presented in Equation 2[37].

Equation 2:   StultsEq2.png

Where Sw is the water phase saturation as a ratio of the water content over the volumetric soil porosity, and d50 is the median grain diameter.

Lysimeters Background

Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer et al. 2024[5], which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer et al. 2023[16]. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/

Lysimeters, generally speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils[4][11]. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.

  1. Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b): These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head[3][5][18]. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases[3]. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
  2. Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c): These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter[4]. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves[13][14][16][17][38]. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
  3. Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d): Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.

Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater

Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
Site PFAS Field
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L) 		Lab Core
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L) 		Predicted
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L)
Site A PFOS 6.2 ± 3.4 3.0 ± 0.37 6.6 ± 3.3
Site B PFOS 2.2 ± 2.0 0.78 ± 0.38 2.8
Site C PFOS 13 ± 4.1 680 ± 460 164 ± 75
8:2 FTS 1.2 ± 0.46 52 ± 13 16 ± 6.0
PFHpS 0.36 ± 0.051 2.9 ± 2.0 5.9 ± 3.4
Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites[1]
Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered[16].

Schaefer et al.[5] measured PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.

Data from sites A and B showed reasonably good agreement (within ½ order of magnitude) for most PFAS measured in the systems. At site C, more hydrophobic constituents (> C6 PFAS) tended to have higher concentrations in the lab core than the field site while less hydrophobic constituents (< C6) had higher concentrations in the field than lab cores. Site D showed substantially greater (1 order of magnitude or more) PFAS concentrations measured in the laboratory-collected porewater sample compared to what was measured in the field lysimeters. This discrepancy for the Site D soil can likely be attributed to soil heterogeneity (as indicated by ground penetrating radar) and the fact that the soil consisted of back-filled materials rather than undisturbed native soils.

Site C showed elevated PFAS concentrations in the laboratory collected porewater for the more surface-active compounds. This increase was attributed to the soil wetting that occurred at the bench scale, which was reasonably described by the model shown in Equations 1 and 2 (see Table 1[1]). Equations 1 and 2 were also used to predict PFAS porewater concentrations (using porous cup lysimeters) in a highly instrumented test cell[16](Figure 3). The ability to predict soil concentrations from recurring porewater samples is critical to the practical application of lysimeters in field settings[1].

Results from suction lysimeters studies and field lysimeter studies show that PFAS concentrations in porewater predicted from soil concentrations using Equations 1 and 2 generally have reasonable agreement with measured in situ porewater data when air-water interfacial partitioning is considered. Results show that for less hydrophobic components like PFOA, the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption is less significant than for highly hydrophobic components like PFOS. The soil for the field lysimeter in Figure 3 was a sandy soil with a relatively low air-water interfacial area. The effect of air-water interfacial partitioning is expected to be much more significant for a greater range of PFAS in soils with high capillary pressure (i.e. silts/clays) with higher associated air-water interfacial areas[37][39][40].

Summary and Recommendations

The majority of research with lysimeters for PFAS site investigations has been done using porous cup suction lysimeters[3][1][5][18]. Porous cup suction lysimeters are advantageous because they can be routinely sampled or sampled after specific wetting or drying events much like groundwater wells. This sampling is easier and more efficient than routinely collecting soil samples from the same locations. Co-locating lysimeters with soil samples is important for establishing the baseline soil concentration levels at the lysimeter location and developing correlations between the soil concentrations and the mobile porewater concentration[3]. Appropriate standard operation procedures for lysimeter installation and operation have been established and have been reviewed in recent literature[3][5]. Lysimeters should typically be installed near the source area and just above the maximum groundwater level elevation to obtain accurate results of porewater concentrations year round. Depending upon the geology and vertical PFAS distribution in the soil, multilevel lysimeter installations should also be considered.

Results from several lysimeters studies across multiple field sites and modelling analysis has shown that lysimeters can produce reasonable results between field and laboratory studies[5][16][17]. Transient effects of wetting and drying as well as media heterogeneity affects appear to be responsible for some variability and uncertainty in lysimeter based PFAS measurements in the vadose zone. These mobile porewater concentrations can be coupled with effective recharge estimates and simplified modelling approaches to determine mass flux from the vadose zone to the underlying groundwater[15][22][2][41][42].

Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:

  1. Collect larger datasets of PFAS concentrations to determine how transient wetting or drying periods and media type affect PFAS concentrations in the mobile porewater. Some research has shown that non-equilibrium processes can occur in the vadose zone, which can affect grab sample concentration in the porewater at specific time periods.
  2. More work should be done with flux averaging lysimeters like the drainage cup or wicking lysimeter. These lysimeters can directly measure net recharge and provide time averaged concentrations of PFAS in water over the sampling period. However, there is little work detailing their potential applications in PFAS research, or operational considerations for their use in remedial investigations for PFAS.
  3. Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying in the vadose zone using in situ soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
  4. Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Anderson, R.H., Feild, J.B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., Elsharnouby, O., Krebs, R.K., 2022. Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters. Chemosphere, 308(1), Article 136247. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2022. PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces. Chemosphere, 302, Article 134938. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938  Open Access Manuscript
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C.D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., Wilkin, R.T., 2025. Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 59(9), pp. 4215-4229. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c10246
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Meissner, R., Rupp, H., Haselow, L., 2020. Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching. In: Climate Change and Soil Interactions. Elsevier, pp. 171-205. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Fang, Y., Gonda, N., Zhang, C., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., 2024. PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 264, Article 104359. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359  Open Access Manuscript
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 Goss, M.J., Ehlers, W., 2009. The Role of Lysimeters in the Development of Our Understanding of Soil Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Ecosystems. Soil Use and Management, 25(3), pp. 213–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x
  7. ^ Pütz, T., Fank, J., Flury, M., 2018. Lysimeters in Vadose Zone Research. Vadose Zone Journal, 17 (1), pp. 1-4. doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035  Open Access Article
  8. ^ Bergström, L., 1990. Use of Lysimeters to Estimate Leaching of Pesticides in Agricultural Soils. Environmental Pollution, 67 (4), 325–347. doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S
  9. ^ Dabrowska, D., Rykala, W., 2021. A Review of Lysimeter Experiments Carried Out on Municipal Landfill Waste. Toxics, 9(2), Article 26. doi: 10.3390/toxics9020026  Open Access Article
  10. ^ Fernando, S.U., Galagedara, L., Krishnapillai, M., Cuss, C.W., 2023. Lysimeter Sampling System for Optimal Determination of Trace Elements in Soil Solutions. Water, 15(18), Article 3277. doi: 10.3390/w15183277  Open Access Article
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Rogers, R.D., McConnell, J.W. Jr., 1993. Lysimeter Literature Review, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Numbers: NUREG/CR--6073, EGG--2706. [1] ID: 10183270. doi: 10.2172/10183270  Open Access Article
  12. ^ Sołtysiak, M., Rakoczy, M., 2019. An Overview of the Experimental Research Use of Lysimeters. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 7(2), pp. 49-56. doi: 10.2478/environ-2019-0012  Open Access Article
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 Stannard, D.I., 1992. Tensiometers—Theory, Construction, and Use. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(1), pp. 48-58. doi: 10.1520/GTJ10224J
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 Winton, K., Weber, J.B., 1996. A Review of Field Lysimeter Studies to Describe the Environmental Fate of Pesticides. Weed Technology, 10(1), pp. 202-209. doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00045929
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Anderson, R.H., 2021. The Case for Direct Measures of Soil-to-Groundwater Contaminant Mass Discharge at AFFF-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(10), pp. 6580-6583. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01543
  16. ^ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Schaum, A., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2023. Leaching of Perfluoroalkyl Acids During Unsaturated Zone Flushing at a Field Site Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(5), pp. 1940-1948. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06903
  17. ^ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., O’Hare, S., Lemes, M.C.S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. A Field Study to Assess the Role of Air-Water Interfacial Sorption on PFAS Leaching in an AFFF Source Area. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 248, Article 104001. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001  Open Access Manuscript
  18. ^ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Quinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., Hasbrouck, K., 2021. Application of PFAS-Mobile Lab to Support Adaptive Characterization and Flux-Based Conceptual Site Models at AFFF Releases. Remediation, 31(3), pp. 7-26. doi: 10.1002/rem.21680
  19. ^ 19.0 19.1 Brusseau, M.L., Anderson, R.H., Guo, B., 2020. PFAS Concentrations in Soils: Background Levels versus Contaminated Sites. Science of The Total Environment, 740, Article 140017. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 Bigler, M.C., Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., Jones, S.L., Pritchard, J.C., Higgins, C.P., Hatton, J., 2024. High-Resolution Depth-Discrete Analysis of PFAS Distribution and Leaching for a Vadose-Zone Source at an AFFF-Impacted Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 58(22), pp. 9863-9874. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c01615
  21. ^ Nickerson, A., Maizel, A.C., Kulkarni, P.R., Adamson, D.T., Kornuc, J. J., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 4952-4962. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00792
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D., Real, I., Hao, S., Guelfo, J.L., 2024. Air-Water Interfacial Collapse and Rate-Limited Solid Desorption Control Perfluoroalkyl Acid Leaching from the Vadose Zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 265, Article 104382. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382  Open Access Manuscript
  23. ^ Stults, J.F., Choi, Y.J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D.D., Knappe, D.R.U., Illangasekare, T.H., Higgins, C.P., 2023. Predicting Concentration- and Ionic-Strength-Dependent Air–Water Interfacial Partitioning Parameters of PFASs Using Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships (QSPRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 57(13), pp. 5203-5215. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07316
  24. ^ Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. doi: 10.1021/es981355+
  25. ^ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 2000. Perfluorinated Surfactants and the Environmental Implications of Their Use in Fire-Fighting Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(18), pp. 3864-3870. doi: 10.1021/es991359u
  26. ^ 26.0 26.1 Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Trier, X., Wang, Z., 2020. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(12), pp. 2345-2373. doi: 10.1039/D0EM00291G  Open Access Article
  27. ^ 27.0 27.1 Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065  Open Access Manuscript
  28. ^ Dave, N., Joshi, T., 2017. A Concise Review on Surfactants and Its Significance. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(3), pp. 663-672. doi: 10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672  Open Access Article
  29. ^ García, R.A., Chiaia-Hernández, A.C., Lara-Martin, P.A., Loos, M., Hollender, J., Oetjen, K., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., 2019. Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in Afffs and Afff-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(14), pp. 8068-8077. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01895
  30. ^ Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs): Environmental Challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 20(3), pp. 192-212. doi: 10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004
  31. ^ Schaefer, C.E., Culina, V., Nguyen, D., Field, J., 2019. Uptake of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances at the Air–Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), pp. 12442-12448. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04008
  32. ^ Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air–Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348
  33. ^ Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., 2019. Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the Air-Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 6(8), pp. 487-491. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355
  34. ^ Li, F., Fang, X., Zhou, Z., Liao, X., Zou, J., Yuan, B., Sun, W., 2019. Adsorption of Perfluorinated Acids onto Soils: Kinetics, Isotherms, and Influences of Soil Properties. Science of The Total Environment, 649, pp. 504-514. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209
  35. ^ Nguyen, T.M.H., Bräunig, J., Thompson, K., Thompson, J., Kabiri, S., Navarro, D.A., Kookana, R.S., Grimison, C., Barnes, C.M., Higgins, C.P., McLaughlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., 2020. Influences of Chemical Properties, Soil Properties, and Solution pH on Soil–Water Partitioning Coefficients of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science and Technology, 54(24), pp. 15883-15892. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05705  Open Access Article
  36. ^ Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035
  37. ^ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Brusseau, M.L., 2023. Determining Air-Water Interfacial Areas for the Retention and Transport of PFAS and Other Interfacially Active Solutes in Unsaturated Porous Media. Science of The Total Environment, 884, Article 163730. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730  Open Access Article
  38. ^ van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
  39. ^ Peng, S., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Air-Water Interfacial Area and Capillary Pressure: Porous-Medium Texture Effects and an Empirical Function. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(7), pp. 829-832. doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515
  40. ^ Brusseau, M.L., Peng, S., Schnaar, G., Costanza-Robinson, M.S., 2006. Relationships among Air-Water Interfacial Area, Capillary Pressure, and Water Saturation for a Sandy Porous Medium. Water Resources Research, 42(3), Article W03501, 5 pages. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004058  Free Access Article
  41. ^ Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., MacBeth, T., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Laboratory Validation of a Simplified Model for Estimating Equilibrium PFAS Mass Leaching from Unsaturated Soils. Science of The Total Environment, 970, Article 179036. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036
  42. ^ Smith, J. Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2024. An Integrated Analytical Modeling Framework for Determining Site-Specific Soil Screening Levels for PFAS. Water Research, 252, Article121236. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=17811"