Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎PFAS Reactivity and Fate)
(→‎Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone)
 
(80 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Thermal Conduction Heating for Treatment of PFAS-Impacted Soil==  
+
==Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone==  
−
Removal of [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] compounds from impacted soils is challenging due to the modest volatility and varying properties of most PFAS compounds. Thermal treatment technologies have been developed for treatment of semi-volatile compounds in soils such as dioxins, furans, poly-aromatic hydrocarbons and poly-chlorinated biphenyls at temperatures near 325&deg;C. In controlled bench-scale testing, complete removal of targeted PFAS compounds to concentrations below reporting limits of 0.5 µg/kg was demonstrated at temperatures of 400&deg;C<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"> Crownover, E., Oberle, D., Heron, G., Kluger, M., 2019.  Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation. Remediation Journal, 29(4), pp. 77-81. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21623 doi: 10.1002/rem.21623]</ref>. Three field-scale thermal PFAS treatment projects that have been completed in the US include an in-pile treatment demonstration, an ''in situ'' vadose zone treatment demonstration and a larger scale treatment demonstration with excavated PFAS-impacted soil in a constructed pile. Based on the results, thermal treatment temperatures of at least 400&deg;C and a holding time of 7-10 days are recommended for reaching local and federal PFAS soil standards. The energy requirement to treat typical wet soil ranges from 300 to 400 kWh per cubic yard, exclusive of heat losses which are scale dependent. Extracted vapors have been treated using condensation and granular activated charcoal filtration, with thermal and catalytic oxidation as another option which is currently being evaluated for field scale applications. Compared to other options such as soil washing, the ability to treat on site and to treat all soil fractions is an advantage.
+
[[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.  
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
 
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
−
*[[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]]
+
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
 +
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
 +
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
  
−
'''Contributors:''' Gorm Heron, Emily Crownover, Patrick Joyce, Ramona Iery
+
'''Contributors:''' Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer
  
−
'''Key Resource:'''
+
'''Key Resources:'''
−
*Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances thermal desorption evaluation<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/>
+
*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==
−
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]] have become prominent emerging contaminants in soil and groundwater. Soil source zones have been identified at locations where the chemicals were produced, handled or used. Few effective options exist for treatments that can meet local and federal soil standards. Over the past 30 plus years, thermal remediation technologies have grown from experimental and innovative prospects to mature and accepted solutions deployed effectively at many sites. More than 600 thermal case studies have been summarized by Horst and colleagues<ref name="HorstEtAl2021">Horst, J., Munholland, J., Hegele, P., Klemmer, M., Gattenby, J., 2021. In Situ Thermal Remediation for Source Areas: Technology Advances and a Review of the Market From 1988–2020. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation, 41(1), p. 17. [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12424  doi: 10.1111/gwmr.12424]&nbsp; [[Media: gwmr.12424.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. [[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]] has been used for higher temperature applications such as removal of [[1,4-Dioxane]]. This article reports recent experience with TCH treatment of PFAS-impacted soil.
+
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.
  
−
==Target Temperature and Duration==
+
==PFAS Background==
−
PFAS behave differently from most other organics subjected to TCH treatment. While the boiling points of individual PFAS fall in the range of 150-400&deg;C, their chemical and physical behavior creates additional challenges. Some PFAS form ionic species in certain pH ranges and salts under other chemical conditions. This intricate behavior and our limited understanding of what this means for our ability to remove the PFAS from soils means that direct testing of thermal treatment options is warranted. Crownover and colleagues<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> subjected PFAS-laden soil to bench-scale heating to temperatures between 200 and 400&deg;C which showed strong reductions of PFAS concentrations at 350&deg;C and complete removal of many PFAS compounds at 400&deg;C. The soil concentrations of targeted PFAS were reduced to nearly undetectable levels in this study.
+
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.
  
−
==Heating Method==
+
==Lysimeters Background==
−
For semi-volatile compounds such as dioxins, furans, poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), thermal conduction heating has evolved as the dominant thermal technology because it is capable of achieving soil temperatures higher than the boiling point of water, which are necessary for complete removal of these organic compounds. Temperatures between 200 and 500&deg;C have been required to achieve the desired reduction in contaminant concentrations<ref name="StegemeierVinegar2001">Stegemeier, G.L., Vinegar, H.J., 2001. Thermal Conduction Heating for In-Situ Thermal Desorption of Soils. Ch. 4.6, pp. 1-37. In: Chang H. Oh (ed.), Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment Technologies Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 9780849395864 [[Media: StegemeierVinegar2001.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. TCH has become a popular technology for PFAS treatment because temperatures in the 400&deg;C range are needed.
+
[[File: StultsFig1.png |thumb|600 px|Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2024<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>, which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2023<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/]]
 +
Lysimeters,&nbsp;generally&nbsp;speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993"/>. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.
 +
# <u>Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b):</u> These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
 +
# <u>Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c):</u> These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves<ref name="Stannard1992"/><ref name="WintonWeber1996"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/><ref>van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. [https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x]</ref>. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
 +
# <u>Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d):</u>  Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.
  
−
The energy source for TCH can be electricity (most commonly used), or fossil fuels (typically gas, diesel or fuel oil). Electrically powered TCH offers the largest flexibility for power input which also can be supplied by renewable and sustainable energy sources.
+
==Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater==
−
 
+
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
−
==Energy Usage==
+
|+Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
−
Treating PFAS-impacted soil with heat requires energy to first bring the soil and porewater to the boiling point of water, then to evaporate the porewater until the soil is dry, and finally to heat the dry soil up to the target treatment temperature. The energy demand for wet soils falls in the 300-400 kWh/cy range, dependent on porosity and water saturation. Additional energy is consumed as heat is lost to the surroundings and by vapor treatment equipment, yielding a typical usage of 400-600 kWh/cy total for larger soil treatment volumes. Wetter soils and small treatment volumes drive the energy usage towards the higher number, whereas larger soil volumes and dry soil can be treated with less energy. 
 
−
 
 
−
==Vapor Treatment==
 
−
During the TCH process a significant fraction of the PFAS compounds are volatilized by the heat and then removed from the soil by vacuum extraction. The vapors must be treated and eventually discharged while meeting local and/or federal standards. Two types of vapor treatment have been used in past TCH applications for organics: (1) thermal and catalytic oxidation and (2) condensation followed by granular activated charcoal (GAC) filtration. Due to uncertainties related to thermal destruction of fluorinated compounds and future requirements for treatment temperature and residence time, condensation and GAC filtration have been used in the first three PFAS treatment field demonstrations. It should be noted that PFAS compounds will stick to surfaces and that decontamination of the equipment is important. This could generate additional waste as GAC vessels, pipes and other wetted equipment need careful cleaning with solvents or rinsing agents such as PerfluorAd<sup><small>TM</small></sup>.
 
−
 
 
−
==PFAS Reactivity and Fate==
 
−
While evaluating initial soil treatment results, Crownover ''et al''<ref name="CrownoverEtAl2019"/> noted the lack of complete data sets when the soils were analyzed for non-targeted compounds or extractable precursors. Attempts to establish the fluorine balance suggest that the final fate of the fluorine in the PFAS is not yet fully understood. Transformations are likely occurring in the heated soil as demonstrated in laboratory experiments with and without calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)<small><sub>2</sub></small>) amendment.
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
===Surface Runoff on Ranges===
 
−
[[File: FullerFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of munition constituent production and transport on military ranges. Mesoscale residues are qualitatively defined as being easily visible to the naked eye (e.g., from around 50 µm to multiple cm in size) and less likely to be transported by moving water.  Microscale residues are defined as <50 µm down to below 1 µm, and more likely to be entrained in, and transported by, moving water as particulates. Blue arrows represent possible water flow paths and include both dissolved and solid phase energetics. The red vertical arrow represents the predominant energetics dissolution process in close proximity to the residues due to precipitation.]]
 
−
Surface&nbsp;runoff&nbsp;represents&nbsp;a&nbsp;major potential mechanism through which energetics residues and related materials are transported off site from range soils to groundwater and surface water receptors (Figure 2). This process is particularly important for energetics that are water soluble (e.g., [[Wikipedia: Nitrotriazolone | NTO]] and [[Wikipedia: Nitroguanidine | NQ]]) or generate soluble daughter products (e.g., [[Wikipedia: 2,4-Dinitroanisole | DNAN]] and [[Wikipedia: TNT | TNT]]). While traditional MC such as [[Wikipedia: RDX | RDX]] and [[Wikipedia: HMX | HMX]] have limited aqueous solubility, they also exhibit recalcitrance to degrade under most natural conditions. RDX and [[Wikipedia: Perchlorate | perchlorate]] are frequent groundwater contaminants on military training ranges. While actual field measurements of energetics in surface runoff are limited, laboratory experiments have been performed to predict mobile energetics contamination levels based on soil mass loadings<ref>Cubello, F., Polyakov, V., Meding, S.M., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Dontsova, K., 2024. Movement of TNT and RDX from composition B detonation residues in solution and sediment during runoff. Chemosphere, 350, Article 141023. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.141023 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.141023]</ref><ref>Karls, B., Meding, S.M., Li, L., Polyakov, V., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Dontsova, K., 2023. A laboratory rill study of IMX-104 transport in overland flow. Chemosphere, 310, Article 136866. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136866 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136866]&nbsp; [[Media: KarlsEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Polyakov, V., Beal, S., Meding, S.M., Dontsova, K., 2025. Effect of gypsum on transport of IMX-104 constituents in overland flow under simulated rainfall. Journal of Environmental Quality, 54(1), pp. 191-203. [https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20652 doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20652]&nbsp; [[Media: PolyakovEtAl2025.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref><ref>Polyakov, V., Kadoya, W., Beal, S., Morehead, H., Hunt, E., Cubello, F., Meding, S.M., Dontsova, K., 2023. Transport of insensitive munitions constituents, NTO, DNAN, RDX, and HMX in runoff and sediment under simulated rainfall. Science of the Total Environment, 866, Article 161434. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161434 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161434]&nbsp; [[Media: PolyakovEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref><ref>Price, R.A., Bourne, M., Price, C.L., Lindsay, J., Cole, J., 2011. Transport of RDX and TNT from Composition-B Explosive During Simulated Rainfall. In: Environmental Chemistry of Explosives and Propellant Compounds in Soils and Marine Systems: Distributed Source Characterization and Remedial Technologies. American Chemical Society, pp. 229-240. [https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1069.ch013 doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1069.ch013]</ref>. For example, in a previous small study, MC were detected in surface runoff from an active live-fire range<ref>Fuller, M.E., 2015. Fate and Transport of Colloidal Energetic Residues. Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER-1689. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/10760fd6-fb55-4515-a629-f93c555a92f0 Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER-1689-FR.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>, and more recent sampling has detected MC in marsh surface water adjacent to the same installation (personal communication).  Another recent report from Canada also detected RDX in both surface runoff and surface water at low part per billion levels in a survey of several military demolition sites<ref>Lapointe, M.-C., Martel, R., Diaz, E., 2017. A Conceptual Model of Fate and Transport Processes for RDX Deposited to Surface Soils of North American Active Demolition Sites. Journal of Environmental Quality, 46(6), pp. 1444-1454. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.02.0069 doi: 10.2134/jeq2017.02.0069]</ref>. However, overall, data regarding the MC contaminant profile of surface runoff from ranges is very limited, and the possible presence of non-energetic constituents (e.g., metals, binders, plasticizers) in runoff has not been examined.  Additionally, while energetics-contaminated surface runoff is an important concern, mitigation technologies specifically for surface runoff have not yet been developed and widely deployed in the field.  To effectively capture and degrade MC and associated compounds that are present in surface runoff, novel treatment media are needed to sorb a broad range of energetic materials and to transform the retained compounds through abiotic and/or microbial processes.
 
−
 
 
−
Surface runoff of organic and inorganic contaminants from live-fire ranges is a challenging issue for the Department of Defense (DoD).  Potentially even more problematic is the fact that inputs to surface waters from large testing and training ranges typically originate from multiple sources, often encompassing hundreds of acres.  No available technologies are currently considered effective for controlling non-point source energetics-laden surface runoff.  While numerous technologies exist to treat collected explosives residues, contaminated soil and even groundwater, the decentralized nature and sheer volume of military range runoff have precluded the use of treatment technologies at full scale in the field.
 
−
 
 
−
==Range Runoff Treatment Technology Components==
 
−
Based on the conceptual foundation of previous research into surface water runoff treatment for other contaminants, with a goal to “trap and treat” the target compounds, the following components were selected for inclusion in the technology developed to address range runoff contaminated with energetic compounds.
 
−
 
 
−
===Peat===
 
−
Previous research demonstrated that a peat-based system provided a natural and sustainable sorptive medium for organic explosives such as HMX, RDX, and TNT, allowing much longer residence times than predicted from hydraulic loading alone<ref>Fuller, M.E., Hatzinger, P.B., Rungkamol, D., Schuster, R.L., Steffan, R.J., 2004. Enhancing the attenuation of explosives in surface soils at military facilities: Combined sorption and biodegradation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(2), pp. 313-324. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-187 doi: 10.1897/03-187]</ref><ref>Fuller, M.E., Lowey, J.M., Schaefer, C.E., Steffan, R.J., 2005. A Peat Moss-Based Technology for Mitigating Residues of the Explosives TNT, RDX, and HMX in Soil. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 14(4), pp. 373-385. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15320380590954097 doi: 10.1080/15320380590954097]</ref><ref name="FullerEtAl2009">Fuller, M.E., Schaefer, C.E., Steffan, R.J., 2009. Evaluation of a peat moss plus soybean oil (PMSO) technology for reducing explosive residue transport to groundwater at military training ranges under field conditions. Chemosphere, 77(8), pp. 1076-1083. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.08.044 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.08.044]</ref><ref>Hatzinger, P.B., Fuller, M.E., Rungkamol, D., Schuster, R.L., Steffan, R.J., 2004. Enhancing the attenuation of explosives in surface soils at military facilities: Sorption-desorption isotherms. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(2), pp. 306-312. [https://doi.org/10.1897/03-186 doi: 10.1897/03-186]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005">Schaefer, C.E., Fuller, M.E., Lowey, J.M., Steffan, R.J., 2005. Use of Peat Moss Amended with Soybean Oil for Mitigation of Dissolved Explosive Compounds Leaching into the Subsurface: Insight into Mass Transfer Mechanisms. Environmental Engineering Science, 22(3), pp. 337-349. [https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2005.22.337 doi: 10.1089/ees.2005.22.337]</ref>. Peat moss represents a bioactive environment for treatment of the target contaminants. While the majority of the microbial reactions are aerobic due to the presence of measurable dissolved oxygen in the bulk solution, anaerobic reactions (including methanogenesis) can occur in microsites within the peat. The peat-based substrate acts not only as a long term electron donor as it degrades but also acts as a strong sorbent. This is important in intermittently loaded systems in which a large initial pulse of MC can be temporarily retarded on the peat matrix and then slowly degraded as they desorb<ref name="FullerEtAl2009"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005"/>. This increased residence time enhances the biotransformation of energetics and promotes the immobilization and further degradation of breakdown products. Abiotic degradation reactions are also likely enhanced by association with the organic-rich peat (e.g., via electron shuttling reactions of [[Wikipedia: Humic substance | humics]])<ref>Roden, E.E., Kappler, A., Bauer, I., Jiang, J., Paul, A., Stoesser, R., Konishi, H., Xu, H., 2010. Extracellular electron transfer through microbial reduction of solid-phase humic substances. Nature Geoscience, 3, pp. 417-421. [https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo870 doi: 10.1038/ngeo870]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Soybean Oil===
 
−
Modeling has indicated that peat moss amended with crude soybean oil would significantly reduce the flux of dissolved TNT, RDX, and HMX through the vadose zone to groundwater compared to a non-treated soil (see [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/20e2f05c-fd50-4fd3-8451-ba73300c7531 ESTCP ER-200434]). The technology was validated in field soil plots, showing a greater than 500-fold reduction in the flux of dissolved RDX from macroscale Composition B detonation residues compared to a non-treated control plot<ref name="FullerEtAl2009"/>. Laboratory testing and modeling indicated that the addition of soybean oil increased the biotransformation rates of RDX and HMX at least 10-fold compared to rates observed with peat moss alone<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2005"/>. Subsequent experiments also demonstrated the effectiveness of the amended peat moss material for stimulating perchlorate transformation when added to a highly contaminated soil (Fuller et al., unpublished data).  These previous findings clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of peat-based materials for mitigating transport of both organic and inorganic energetic compounds through soil to groundwater.
 
−
 
 
−
===Biochar===
 
−
Recent reports have highlighted additional materials that, either alone, or in combination with electron donors such as peat moss and soybean oil, may further enhance the sorption and degradation of surface runoff contaminants, including both legacy energetics and [[Wikipedia: Insensitive_munition#Insensitive_high_explosives | insensitive high explosives (IHE)]].  For instance, [[Wikipedia: Biochar | biochar]], a type of black carbon, has been shown to not only sorb a wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants including MCs<ref>Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A.U., Lim, J.E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S.S., Ok, Y.S., 2014. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review. Chemosphere, 99, pp. 19-33. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071]</ref><ref>Mohan, D., Sarswat, A., Ok, Y.S., Pittman, C.U., 2014. Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent – A critical review. Bioresource Technology, 160, pp. 191-202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.120 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.01.120]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Seo, Y.-D., Jeong, T.-Y., Kim, S.-D., 2018. Sorption of Nitro Explosives to Polymer/Biomass-Derived Biochar. Journal of Environmental Quality, 47(2), pp. 353-360. [https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.09.0357 doi: 10.2134/jeq2017.09.0357]</ref><ref>Xie, T., Reddy, K.R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., Spokas, K., 2015. Characteristics and Applications of Biochar for Environmental Remediation: A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45(9), pp. 939-969. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2014.924180 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2014.924180]</ref>, but also to facilitate their degradation<ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.-J., Chiu, P.C., 2002. Effect of adsorption to elemental iron on the transformation of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine in solution. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(7), pp. 1384-1389. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620210708 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620210708]</ref><ref>Ye, J., Chiu, P.C., 2006. Transport of Atomic Hydrogen through Graphite and its Reaction with Azoaromatic Compounds. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(12), pp. 3959-3964. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es060038x doi: 10.1021/es060038x]</ref><ref name="OhChiu2009">Oh, S.-Y., Chiu, P.C., 2009. Graphite- and Soot-Mediated Reduction of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene and Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(18), pp. 6983-6988. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es901433m doi: 10.1021/es901433m]</ref><ref name="OhEtAl2013">Oh, S.-Y., Son, J.-G., Chiu, P.C., 2013. Biochar-mediated reductive transformation of nitro herbicides and explosives. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(3), pp. 501-508. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2087 doi: 10.1002/etc.2087]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: OhEtAl2013.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref><ref name="XuEtAl2010">Xu, W., Dana, K.E., Mitch, W.A., 2010. Black Carbon-Mediated Destruction of Nitroglycerin and RDX by Hydrogen Sulfide. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(16), pp. 6409-6415. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es101307n doi: 10.1021/es101307n]</ref><ref>Xu, W., Pignatello, J.J., Mitch, W.A., 2013. Role of Black Carbon Electrical Conductivity in Mediating Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) Transformation on Carbon Surfaces by Sulfides. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(13), pp. 7129-7136. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4012367 doi: 10.1021/es4012367]</ref>. Depending on the source biomass and [[Wikipedia: Pyrolysis| pyrolysis]] conditions, biochar can possess a high [[Wikipedia: Specific surface area | specific surface area]] (on the order of several hundred m<small><sup>2</sup></small>/g)<ref>Zhang, J., You, C., 2013. Water Holding Capacity and Absorption Properties of Wood Chars. Energy and Fuels, 27(5), pp. 2643-2648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4000769 doi: 10.1021/ef4000769]</ref><ref>Gray, M., Johnson, M.G., Dragila, M.I., Kleber, M., 2014. Water uptake in biochars: The roles of porosity and hydrophobicity. Biomass and Bioenergy, 61, pp. 196-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.12.010]</ref> and hence a high sorption capacity.  Biochar and other black carbon also exhibit especially high affinity for [[Wikipedia: Nitro compound | nitroaromatic compounds (NACs)]] including TNT and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (DNT)<ref>Sander, M., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Characterization of Charcoal Adsorption Sites for Aromatic Compounds:  Insights Drawn from Single-Solute and Bi-Solute Competitive Experiments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(6), pp. 1606-1615. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049135l doi: 10.1021/es049135l]</ref><ref name="ZhuEtAl2005">Zhu, D., Kwon, S., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Adsorption of Single-Ring Organic Compounds to Wood Charcoals Prepared Under Different Thermochemical Conditions. Environmental Science and Technology 39(11), pp. 3990-3998. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050129e doi: 10.1021/es050129e]</ref><ref name="ZhuPignatello2005">Zhu, D., Pignatello, J.J., 2005. Characterization of Aromatic Compound Sorptive Interactions with Black Carbon (Charcoal) Assisted by Graphite as a Model. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(7), pp. 2033-2041. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0491376 doi: 10.1021/es0491376]</ref>. This is due to the strong [[Wikipedia: Pi-interaction | ''&pi;-&pi;'' electron donor-acceptor interactions]] between electron-rich graphitic domains in black carbon and the electron-deficient aromatic ring of the NAC<ref name="ZhuEtAl2005"/><ref name="ZhuPignatello2005"/>. These characteristics make biochar a potentially effective, low cost, and sustainable sorbent for removing MC and other contaminants from surface runoff and retaining them for subsequent degradation ''in situ''.
 
−
 
 
−
Furthermore, black carbon such as biochar can promote abiotic and microbial transformation reactions by facilitating electron transfer.  That is, biochar is not merely a passive sorbent for contaminants, but also a redox mediator for their degradation.  Biochar can promote contaminant degradation through two different mechanisms: electron conduction and electron storage<ref>Sun, T., Levin, B.D.A., Guzman, J.J.L., Enders, A., Muller, D.A., Angenent, L.T., Lehmann, J., 2017. Rapid electron transfer by the carbon matrix in natural pyrogenic carbon. Nature Communications, 8, Article 14873. [https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14873 doi: 10.1038/ncomms14873]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SunEtAl2017.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
First, the microscopic graphitic regions in biochar can adsorb contaminants like NACs strongly, as noted above, and also conduct reducing equivalents such as electrons and atomic hydrogen to the sorbed contaminants, thus promoting their reductive degradation.  This catalytic process has been demonstrated for TNT, DNT, RDX, HMX, and [[Wikipedia: Nitroglycerin | nitroglycerin]]<ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Chiu, P.C., 2002. Graphite-Mediated Reduction of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene with Elemental Iron. Environmental Science and Technology, 36(10), pp. 2178-2184. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es011474g doi: 10.1021/es011474g]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.J., Chiu, P.C., 2004. Reduction of Nitroglycerin with Elemental Iron:  Pathway, Kinetics, and Mechanisms. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(13), pp. 3723-3730. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0354667 doi: 10.1021/es0354667]</ref><ref>Oh, S.-Y., Cha, D.K., Kim, B.J., Chiu, P.C., 2005. Reductive transformation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine, and methylenedinitramine with elemental iron. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(11), pp. 2812-2819. [https://doi.org/10.1897/04-662R.1 doi: 10.1897/04-662R.1]</ref><ref name="OhChiu2009"/><ref name="XuEtAl2010"/> and is expected to occur also for IHE including DNAN and NTO.
 
−
 
 
−
Second, biochar contains in its structure abundant redox-facile functional groups such as [[Wikipedia: Quinone | quinones]] and [[Wikipedia: Hydroquinone | hydroquinones]], which are known to accept and donate electrons reversibly.  Depending on the biomass and pyrolysis temperature, certain biochar can possess a rechargeable electron storage capacity (i.e., reversible electron accepting and donating capacity) on the order of several millimoles e<small><sup>–</sup></small>/g<ref>Klüpfel, L., Keiluweit, M., Kleber, M., Sander, M., 2014. Redox Properties of Plant Biomass-Derived Black Carbon (Biochar). Environmental Science and Technology, 48(10), pp. 5601-5611. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es500906d doi: 10.1021/es500906d]</ref><ref>Prévoteau, A., Ronsse, F., Cid, I., Boeckx, P., Rabaey, K., 2016. The electron donating capacity of biochar is dramatically underestimated. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 32870. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32870 doi: 10.1038/srep32870]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: PrevoteauEtAl2016.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref><ref>Xin, D., Xian, M., Chiu, P.C., 2018. Chemical methods for determining the electron storage capacity of black carbon. MethodsX, 5, pp. 1515-1520. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2018.11.007]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: XinEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article.pdf]]</ref>. This means that when "charged", biochar can provide electrons for either abiotic or biotic degradation of reducible compounds such as MC. The abiotic reduction of DNT and RDX mediated by biochar has been demonstrated<ref name="OhEtAl2013"/> and similar reactions are expected to occur for DNAN and NTO as well. Recent studies have shown that the electron storage capacity of biochar is also accessible to microbes.  For example, soil bacteria such as [[Wikipedia: Geobacter | ''Geobacter'']] and [[Wikipedia: Shewanella | ''Shewanella'']] species can utilize oxidized (or "discharged") biochar as an electron acceptor for the oxidation of organic substrates such as lactate and acetate<ref>Kappler, A., Wuestner, M.L., Ruecker, A., Harter, J., Halama, M., Behrens, S., 2014. Biochar as an Electron Shuttle between Bacteria and Fe(III) Minerals. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 1(8), pp. 339-344. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ez5002209 doi: 10.1021/ez5002209]</ref><ref name="SaquingEtAl2016">Saquing, J.M., Yu, Y.-H., Chiu, P.C., 2016. Wood-Derived Black Carbon (Biochar) as a Microbial Electron Donor and Acceptor. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 3(2), pp. 62-66. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00354 doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.5b00354]</ref> and reduced (or "charged") biochar as an electron donor for the reduction of nitrate<ref name="SaquingEtAl2016"/>. This is significant because, through microbial access of stored electrons in biochar, contaminants that do not sorb strongly to biochar can still be degraded.
 
−
 
 
−
Similar to nitrate, perchlorate and other relatively water-soluble energetic compounds (e.g., NTO and NQ) may also be similarly transformed using reduced biochar as an electron donor.  Unlike other electron donors, biochar can be recharged through biodegradation of organic substrates<ref name="SaquingEtAl2016"/> and thus can serve as a long-lasting sorbent and electron repository in soil.  Similar to peat moss, the high porosity and surface area of biochar not only facilitate contaminant sorption but also create anaerobic reducing microenvironments in its inner pores, where reductive degradation of energetic compounds can take place.
 
−
 
 
−
===Other Sorbents===
 
−
Chitin and unmodified cellulose were predicted by [[Wikipedia: Density functional theory | Density Functional Theory]] methods to be favorable for absorption of NTO and NQ, as well as the legacy explosives<ref>Todde, G., Jha, S.K., Subramanian, G., Shukla, M.K., 2018. Adsorption of TNT, DNAN, NTO, FOX7, and NQ onto Cellulose, Chitin, and Cellulose Triacetate. Insights from Density Functional Theory Calculations. Surface Science, 668, pp. 54-60. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2017.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.susc.2017.10.004]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ToddeEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Manuscript.pdf]]</ref>. Cationized cellulosic materials (e.g., cotton, wood shavings) have been shown to effectively remove negatively charged energetics like perchlorate and NTO from solution<ref name="FullerEtAl2022">Fuller, M.E., Farquharson, E.M., Hedman, P.C., Chiu, P., 2022. Removal of munition constituents in stormwater runoff: Screening of native and cationized cellulosic sorbents for removal of insensitive munition constituents NTO, DNAN, and NQ, and legacy munition constituents HMX, RDX, TNT, and perchlorate. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 424(C), Article 127335. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127335 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.127335]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: FullerEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript.pdf]]</ref>. A substantial body of work has shown that modified cellulosic biopolymers can also be effective sorbents for removing metals from solution<ref>Burba, P., Willmer, P.G., 1983. Cellulose: a biopolymeric sorbent for heavy-metal traces in waters. Talanta, 30(5), pp. 381-383. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-9140(83)80087-3 doi: 10.1016/0039-9140(83)80087-3]</ref><ref>Brown, P.A., Gill, S.A., Allen, S.J., 2000. Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Research, 34(16), pp. 3907-3916. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00152-4 doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00152-4]</ref><ref>O’Connell, D.W., Birkinshaw, C., O’Dwyer, T.F., 2008. Heavy metal adsorbents prepared from the modification of cellulose: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99(15), pp. 6709-6724. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.036 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.036]</ref><ref>Wan Ngah, W.S., Hanafiah, M.A.K.M., 2008. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater by chemically modified plant wastes as adsorbents: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99(10), pp. 3935-3948. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.011]</ref> and therefore will also likely be applicable for some of the metals that may be found in surface runoff at firing ranges.
 
−
 
 
−
==Technology Evaluation==
 
−
Based on the properties of the target munition constituents, a combination of materials was expected to yield the best results to facilitate the sorption and subsequent biotic and abiotic degradation of the contaminants.
 
−
 
 
−
===Sorbents===
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right: 30px; margin-left: auto; float:left; text-align:center;"
 
−
|+Table 1. [[Wikipedia: Freundlich equation | Freundlich]] and [[Wikipedia: Langmuir adsorption model | Langmuir]] adsorption parameters for insensitive and legacy explosives
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="2" | Compound
 
−
! colspan="5" | Freundlich
 
−
! colspan="5" | Langmuir
 
−
|-
 
−
! <small>Parameter</small> !! Peat !! <small>CAT</small> Pine !! <small>CAT</small> Burlap !! <small>CAT</small> Cotton !! <small>Parameter</small> !! Peat !! <small>CAT</small> Pine !! <small>CAT</small> Burlap !! <small>CAT</small> Cotton
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | HMX
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| 0.08 +/- 0.00 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| 0.29 +/- 0.04 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| 1.70 +/- 0.18 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| 0.39 +/- 0.09 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.91 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.93 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | RDX
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| 0.11 +/- 0.02 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| 0.38 +/- 0.05 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| 2.75 +/- 0.63 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| 0.23 +/- 0.08 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.69 || -- || -- || --
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.69 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | TNT
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| 1.21 +/- 0.15 || 1.02 +/- 0.04 || 0.36 +/- 0.02 || --
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| 3.63 +/- 0.18 || 1.26 +/- 0.06 || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| 2.78 +/- 0.67 || 4.01 +/- 0.44 || 1.59 +/- 0.09 || --
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| 0.89 +/- 0.13 || 0.76 +/- 0.10 || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.81 || 0.93 || 0.98 || --
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.97 || 0.97 || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | NTO
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| -- || 0.94 +/- 0.05 || 0.41 +/- 0.05 || 0.26 +/- 0.06
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| -- || 4.07 +/- 0.26 || 1.29 +/- 0.12 || 0.83 +/- .015
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| -- || 1.61 +/- 0.11 || 2.43 +/- 0.41 || 2.53 +/- 0.76
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| -- || 0.30 +/- 0.04 || 0.36 +/- 0.08 || 0.30 +/- 0.15
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| -- || 0.97 || 0.82 || 0.57
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| -- || 0.99 || 0.89 || 0.58
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | DNAN
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| 0.38 +/- 0.05 || 0.01 +/- 0.01 || -- || --
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| 2.57 +/- 0.33 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| 1.71 +/- 0.20 || 0.70 +/- 0.13 || -- || --
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| 0.13 +/- 0.03 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.89 || 0.76 || -- || --
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| 0.92 || -- || -- || --
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="background-color:white;" |
 
−
|-
 
−
! rowspan="3" | ClO<sub>4</sup>
 
−
! ''K<sub>f</sub>''
 
−
| -- || 1.54 +/- 0.06 || 0.53 +/- 0.03 || --
 
−
! ''q<sub>m</sub>'' <small>(mg/g)</small>
 
−
| -- || 3.63 +/- 0.18 || 1.26 +/- 0.06 || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''n''
 
−
| -- || 2.42 +/- 0.16 || 2.42 +/- 0.26 || --
 
−
! ''b'' <small>(L/mg)</small>
 
−
| -- || 0.89 +/- 0.13 || 0.76 +/- 0.10 || --
 
−
|-
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| -- || 0.97 || 0.92 || --
 
−
! ''r<sup><small>2</small></sup>''
 
−
| -- || 0.97 || 0.97 || --
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="12" style="text-align:left; background-color:white;" |<small>Notes:</small><br /><big>'''--'''</big> <small>Indicates the algorithm failed to converge on the model fitting parameters, therefore there was no successful model fit.<br />'''CAT''' Indicates cationized material.</small>
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
The&nbsp;materials&nbsp;screened&nbsp;included [[Wikipedia: Sphagnum | ''Sphagnum'' peat moss]], primarily for sorption of HMX, RDX, TNT, and DNAN, as well as [[Wikipedia: Cationization of cotton | cationized cellulosics]] for removal of perchlorate and NTO.  The cationized cellulosics that were examined included: pine sawdust, pine shavings, aspen shavings, cotton linters (fine, silky fibers which adhere to cotton seeds after ginning), [[Wikipedia: Chitin | chitin]], [[Wikipedia: Chitosan |  chitosan]], burlap (landscaping grade), [[Wikipedia: Coir | coconut coir]], raw cotton, raw organic cotton, cleaned raw cotton, cotton fabric, and commercially cationized fabrics.
 
−
 
 
−
As shown in Table 1<ref name="FullerEtAl2022"/>, batch sorption testing indicated that a combination of Sphagnum peat moss and cationized pine shavings provided good removal of both the neutral organic energetics (HMX, RDX, TNT, DNAN) as well as the negatively charged energetics (perchlorate, NTO).
 
−
 
 
−
===Slow Release Carbon Sources===
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="margin-right: 30px; margin-left: auto; float:left; text-align:center;"
 
−
|+Table 2. Slow-release Carbon Sources
 
−
|-
 
−
! Material !! Abbreviation !! Commercial Source !! Notes
 
−
|-
 
−
| polylactic acid || PLA6 || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || high molecular weight thermoplastic polyester
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
| polylactic acid || PLA80 || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || low molecular weight thermoplastic polyester
+
!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)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| polyhydroxybutyrate || PHB || [https://www.goodfellow.com/usa?srsltid=AfmBOoqEiqIbrvWb1Hn1Bc090efBUUfg6V4N3Vrn6ytajHMJR-FG1Ez- Goodfellow] || bacterial polyester
+
|Site A||PFOS||6.2 ± 3.4||3.0 ± 0.37||6.6 ± 3.3
 
|-
 
|-
−
| polycaprolactone || PCL || [https://www.sarchemlabs.com/?hsa_acc=4540346154&hsa_cam=20281343997&hsa_grp&hsa_ad&hsa_src=x&hsa_tgt&hsa_kw&hsa_mt&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21209931835 Sarchem Labs] || biodegradable polyester
+
|Site B||PFOS||2.2 ± 2.0||0.78 ± 0.38||2.8
 
|-
 
|-
−
| polybutylene succinate || BioPBS || [https://us.mitsubishi-chemical.com/company/performance-polymers/ Mitsubishi Chemical Performance Polymers] || compostable bio-based product
+
|rowspan="3"|Site C||PFOS||13 ± 4.1||680 ± 460||164 ± 75
 
|-
 
|-
−
| sucrose ester of fatty acids || SEFA SP10 || [https://www.sisterna.com/ Sisterna] || food and cosmetics additive
+
|8:2 FTS||1.2 ± 0.46||52 ± 13||16 ± 6.0
 
|-
 
|-
−
| sucrose ester of fatty acids || SEFA SP70 || [https://www.sisterna.com/ Sisterna] || food and cosmetics additive
+
|PFHpS||0.36 ± 0.051||2.9 ± 2.0||5.9 ± 3.4
 
|}
 
|}
 +
[[File: StultsFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>]]
 +
[[File: StultsFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>.]]
 +
Schaefer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>&nbsp;measured&nbsp;PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.
  
−
A&nbsp;range&nbsp;of&nbsp;biopolymers&nbsp;widely used in the production of biodegradable plastics were screened for their ability to support aerobic and anoxic biodegradation of the target munition constituents. These compounds and their sources are listed in Table 2.
+
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.  
−
 
+
−
[[File: FullerFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Schematic of interactions between biochar and munitions constituents]]
+
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"/>.
−
Multiple pure bacterial strains and mixed cultures were screened for their ability to utilize the solid biopolymers as a carbon source to support energetic compound transformation and degradation. Pure strains included the aerobic RDX degrader [[Wikipedia: Rhodococcus | ''Rhodococcus'']] species DN22 (DN22 henceforth)<ref name="ColemanEtAl1998">Coleman, N.V., Nelson, D.R., Duxbury, T., 1998. Aerobic biodegradation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) as a nitrogen source by a Rhodococcus sp., strain DN22. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30(8-9), pp. 1159-1167. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00172-7 doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00172-7]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: Gordonia (bacterium)|''Gordonia'']] species KTR9 (KTR9 henceforth)<ref name="ColemanEtAl1998"/>, the anoxic RDX degrader [[Wikipedia: Pseudomonas fluorencens | ''Pseudomonas fluorencens'']] species I-C (I-C henceforth)<ref>Pak, J.W., Knoke, K.L., Noguera, D.R., Fox, B.G., Chambliss, G.H., 2000. Transformation of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene by Purified Xenobiotic Reductase B from Pseudomonas fluorescens I-C. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(11), pp. 4742-4750. [https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.66.11.4742-4750.2000 doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.11.4742-4750.2000]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: PakEtAl2000.pdf | Open AccessArticle.pdf]]</ref><ref>Fuller, M.E., McClay, K., Hawari, J., Paquet, L., Malone, T.E., Fox, B.G., Steffan, R.J., 2009. Transformation of RDX and other energetic compounds by xenobiotic reductases XenA and XenB. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 84, pp. 535-544. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2024-6 doi: 10.1007/s00253-009-2024-6]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: FullerEtAl2009.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>, and the aerobic NQ degrader [[Wikipedia: Pseudomonas | ''Pseudomonas extremaustralis'']] species NQ5 (NQ5 henceforth)<ref>Kim, J., Fuller, M.E., Hatzinger, P.B., Chu, K.-H., 2024. Isolation and characterization of nitroguanidine-degrading microorganisms. Science of the Total Environment, 912, Article 169184. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169184 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169184]</ref>. Anaerobic mixed cultures were obtained from a membrane bioreactor (MBR) degrading a mixture of six explosives (HMX, RDX, TNT, NTO, NQ, DNAN), as well as perchlorate and nitrate<ref name="FullerEtAl2023">Fuller, M.E., Hedman, P.C., Chu, K.-H., Webster, T.S., Hatzinger, P.B., 2023. Evaluation of a sequential anaerobic-aerobic membrane bioreactor system for treatment of traditional and insensitive munitions constituents. Chemosphere, 340, Article 139887. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139887 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139887]</ref>. The results indicated that the slow-release carbon sources [[Wikipedia: Polyhydroxybutyrate | polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB)]], [[Wikipedia: Polycaprolactone | polycaprolactone (PCL)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polybutylene succinate | polybutylene succinate (BioPBS)]] were effective for supporting the biodegradation&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;mixture&nbsp;of&nbsp;energetics.
 
−
 
 
−
===Biochar===
 
−
[[File: FullerFig4.png | thumb | left | 500 px | Figure 4. Composition of the columns during the sorption-biodegradation experiments]]
 
−
[[File: FullerFig5.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 5. Representative breakthrough curves of energetics during the second replication of the column sorption-biodegradation experiment]]
 
−
The&nbsp;ability&nbsp;of&nbsp;biochar&nbsp;to sorb and abiotically reduce legacy and insensitive munition constituents, as well as biochar’s use as an electron donor for microbial biodegradation of energetic compounds was examined.  Batch experiments indicated that biochar was a reasonable sorbent for some of the energetics (RDX, DNAN), but could also serve as both an electron acceptor and an electron donor to facilitate abiotic (RDX, DNAN, NTO) and biotic (perchlorate) degradation (Figure 3)<ref>Xin, D., Giron, J., Fuller, M.E., Chiu, P.C., 2022. Abiotic reduction of 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one (NTO), DNAN, and RDX by wood-derived biochars through their rechargeable electron storage capacity. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 24(2), pp. 316-329. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00447F doi: 10.1039/D1EM00447F]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: XinEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript.pdf]]</ref>.
 
  
−
===Sorption-Biodegradation Column Experiments===
+
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&nbsp;selected&nbsp;materials&nbsp;and&nbsp;cultures discussed above, along with a small amount of range soil and crushed oyster shell as a slow-release pH buffering agent, were packed into columns, and a steady flow of dissolved energetics was passed through the columns. The composition of the four columns is presented in Figure 4. The influent and effluent concentrations of the energetics was monitored over time. The column experiment was performed twice. As seen in Figure 5, there was sustained almost complete removal of RDX and ClO<sub>4</sub><sup>-</sup>, and more removal of the other energetics in the bioactive columns compared to the sorption only columns, over the course of the experiments. For reference, 100 PV is approximately equivalent to three months of operation. The higher effectiveness of sorption with biodegradation compared to sorption only is further illustrated in Figure 6, where the energetics mass removal in the bioactive columns was shown to be 2-fold (TNT) to 20-fold (RDX) higher relative to that observed in the sorption only column. The mass removal of HMX and NQ were both over 40% higher with biochar added to the sorption with biodegradation treatment, although biochar showed little added benefit for&nbsp;removal&nbsp;of&nbsp;other&nbsp;energetics&nbsp;tested.
 
  
−
===Trap and Treat Technology===
+
==Summary and Recommendations==
−
[[File: FullerFig6.png | thumb | left | 400 px | Figure 6. Energetic mass removal relative to the sorption only removal during the column sorption-biodegradation experiments.  Dashed line given for reference to C1 removal = 1.]]
+
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.
−
These&nbsp;results&nbsp;provide&nbsp;a proof-of-concept for the further development of a passive and sustainable “trap-and-treat” technology for remediation of energetic compounds in stormwater runoff at military testing and training ranges.  At a given site, the stormwater runoff would need to be fully characterized with respect to key parameters (e.g., pH, major anions), and site specific treatability testing would be recommended to assure there was nothing present in the runoff that would reduce performance.  Effluent monitoring on a regular basis would also be needed (and would be likely be expected by state and local regulators) to assess performance decline over time.
 
  
−
The components of the technology would be predominantly peat moss and cationized pine shavings, supplemented with biochar, ground oyster shell, the biopolymer carbon sources, and the bioaugmentation cultures. The entire mix would likely be emplaced in a concrete vault at the outflow end of the stormwater runoff retention basin at the contaminated site.  The deployed treatment system would have further design elements, such as a system to trap and retain suspended solids in the runoff in order to minimize clogging the matrix. the inside of the vault would be baffled to maximize the hydraulic retention time of the contaminated runoff. The biopolymer carbon sources and oyster shell may need be refreshed periodically (perhaps yearly) to maintain performance. However, a complete removal and replacement of the base media (peat moss, CAT pine) would not be advised, as that would lead to a loss&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;acclimated&nbsp;biomass.
+
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>.
  
−
==Summary==
+
Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:
−
Novel&nbsp;sorbents&nbsp;and&nbsp;slow-release carbon sources can be an effective way to promote the sorption and biodegradation of a range of legacy and insensitive munition constituents from surface runoff, and the added benefits of biochar for both sorption and biotic and abiotic degradation of these compounds was demonstrated. These results establish a foundation for a passive, sustainable surface runoff treatment technology for both active and&nbsp;inactive&nbsp;military&nbsp;ranges.
+
#<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.
 +
#<u>Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying</u> in the vadose zone using ''in situ'' soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
 +
#<u>Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data</u> are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 240: Line 81:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/10760fd6-fb55-4515-a629-f93c555a92f0/er-1689-project-overview Fate and Transport of Colloidal Energetic Residues, SERDP Project ER-1689]
 
−
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/20e2f05c-fd50-4fd3-8451-ba73300c7531/er-200434-project-overview In Place Soil Treatments for Prevention of Explosives Contamination, ESTCP Project ER-200434]
 

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"