Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎State of the Practice)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is a collection of information about a contaminated site that integrates the available evidence regarding its hydrogeologic setting, contaminant sources, exposure pathways, potential receptors, and site history.  A CSM for a [[Wikipedia: Light non-aqueous phase liquid | Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL)]] site focuses on several key concepts:  the stage in the LNAPL site life cycle, LNAPL distribution in the subsurface and the resulting mobility of the LNAPL, LNAPL as a source of dissolved and vapor plumes, and the attenuation of LNAPL sources over time.
+
==PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment==
 +
The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
−
'''Related Article(s)'''
+
'''Related Article(s):'''
−
* [[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]
 
−
* [[NAPL Mobility]]
 
−
* [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]]
 
−
* [[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]
 
−
* [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]]
 
−
* [[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]
 
  
−
'''CONTRIBUTOR(S):''' [[Dr. Charles Newell, P.E. | Charles Newell]]
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
 +
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
 +
*[[PFAS Sources]]
 +
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
 +
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
 +
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Contributors:''' John Xiong, Yida Fang, Raul Tenorio, Isobel Li, and Jinyong Liu
−
* LNAPL Site Management: LCSM Evolution, Decision Process, and Remedial Technologies. LNAPL-3. ITRC.<ref name="LNAPL-3">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2018. LNAPL Site Management: LCSM Evolution, Decision Process, and Remedial Technologies. LNAPL-3. ITRC, LNAPL Update Team, Washington, DC.  [https://lnapl-3.itrcweb.org LNAPL-3 Website]</ref>
 
  
−
* Managing Risk at LNAPL Sites - Frequently Asked Questions, 2nd Edition. API.<ref name="Sale2018"> Sale, T., Hopkins, H., and Kirkman, A., 2018. Managing Risk at LNAPL Sites - Frequently Asked Questions, 2nd Edition. American Petroleum Institute (API), Washington, DC. 72 pages. [https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/clean-water/ground-water/lnapl/lnapl-faqs Free download from API.] [https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=File:Sale-2018_LNAPL_FAQs_2nd_ed.pdf Report.pdf]</ref>
+
'''Key Resources:'''
 +
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]&nbsp; [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]&nbsp; [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
 +
*EradiFluor<sup>TM</sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>
  
−
==Life Cycle of LNAPL Sites==
+
==Introduction==
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig1.png |thumb|left|250px| Figure 1.  Early, Middle, and Late Stage LNAPL releases<ref name= "Sale2018"/>.  The key distinctions are the presence of continuous LNAPL that can be mobile and the amount of time that has elapsed for NSZD to remove LNAPL.]]
+
The hydrated electron (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.  
−
A Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is a collection of information about a contaminated site that integrates the available evidence regarding its hydrogeologic setting, contaminant sources, exposure pathways, potential receptors, and site history (see ASTM E1689-95(2014)<ref name="ASTM2014a"> ASTM, 2014. Standard Guide for Developing Conceptual Site Models for Contaminated Sites. ASTM E1689-95(2014), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. [https://doi.org/10.1520/E1689-95R14 DOI: 10.1520/E1689-95R14]  http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?E1689</ref> and ASTM E2531-06(2014)<ref name="ASTM2014b"> ASTM, 2014. Standard Guide for Development of Conceptual Site Models and Remediation Strategies for Light Nonaqueous-Phase Liquids Released to the Subsurface. ASTM E2531-06(2014), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. [https://doi.org/10.1520/E2531-06R14  DOI: 10.1520/E2531-06R14] http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/resolver.cgi?E2531</ref>). When developing a CSM for an LNAPL site, it is important to understand that LNAPL releases evolve and change from what are referred to as Early Stage sites to Middle Stage and then to Late Stage sites<ref name="Sale2018"/> (Figure 1).
 
  
−
An Early Stage site is characterized by the presence of a continuous LNAPL zone where a thick layer of LNAPL accumulation (also known as free product) is observed in monitoring wells. The continuous LNAPL zone (or LNAPL body) may be mobile at Early Stage sites, migrating into previously non-impacted areas. Removal of significant LNAPL mass by active pumping may be feasible at these sites. Early Stage sites are now relatively rare in the United States due to stringent environmental regulations enacted in the 1980s which emphasized preventing releases.
+
Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2−</sup>) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO<sub>3</sub><sup><big>'''•-'''</big></sup>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig2a.png |thumb|500px| Figure 2a.  Time lapse conceptualization of the formation of an LNAPL body<ref name="ITRC2019"> Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2019. LNAPL Training: Connecting the Science to Managing Sites. Part 1: Understanding LNAPL Behavior in the Subsurface. ITRC, Washington, DC. [[Media: ITRC2019_LNAPLtrainingPart1.pdf | Slides.pdf]]</ref>.]]
+
</br>
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig2b.png |thumb|500px| Figure 2b.  Sand tank experiment of an LNAPL release<ref name="ITRC2019"/>.]]
+
::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]
  
−
Many sites in the U.S. are now considered to be in the Middle Stage, where the LNAPL thickness in wells has been largely depleted by natural spreading of the LNAPL body, [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]], smearing of the water table, and/or active remediation, and where the LNAPL bodies are stable or shrinking<ref name="LNAPL-3"/><ref name="Sale2018"/> (Figure 1). Active pumping characteristically only recovers LNAPL at relatively low rates of under 100 gallons per acre per year at Middle Stage sites, but NSZD rates may be much higher, on the order of 100s to 1,000s of gallons per acre per year. Middle Stage dissolved phase plumes, typically comprised of monoaromatics such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes, are stable or shrinking over time.
+
The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.
  
−
Late Stage sites only have a sparse distribution of residual (trapped) LNAPL due to long-term NSZD and any active remediation that has been performed at the site. The potential risks to receptors are typically low at Late Stage sites due to relatively low concentrations of LNAPL constituents in the dissolved phase and/or vapor plumes.
+
==Process Description==
 +
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]]<br clear="left"/>
  
−
==LNAPL Body Formation==
+
==Advantages==
−
LNAPLs released from tanks, pits, pipelines, or other sources will percolate downwards under the influence of gravity through permeable pathways in the unsaturated zone (e.g., soil pore space, fractures, and macropores) depending on the volume and pressure head of the LNAPL release, until encountering an impermeable layer or the water table, causing the LNAPL body to spread laterally. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC)<ref name="LNAPL-3"/> describes this downward movement toward the water table this way:
+
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
 +
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies<ref>Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref><ref>Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref>Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
 +
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
 +
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
 +
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS. 
 +
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
 +
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.
  
−
<blockquote>''During the downward movement of LNAPL through the soil, the presence of confining layers, subsurface heterogeneities, or other preferential pathways may result in irregular and complex lateral spreading and/or perching of LNAPL before the water table is encountered. Once at the water table, the LNAPL will spread laterally in a radial fashion as well as penetrate vertically downward into the saturated zone, displacing water to some depth proportional to the driving force of the vertical LNAPL column (or LNAPL head). The vertical penetration of LNAPL into the saturated zone will continue to occur as long as the downward force produced by the LNAPL head or pressure from the LNAPL release exceeds the counteracting forces produced by the resistance of the soil matrix and the buoyancy resulting from the density difference between LNAPL and groundwater.''<ref name="LNAPL-3"/></blockquote>
+
==Limitations==
 +
Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.
 +
*Environmental factors, such as the presence of elevated concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), dissolved oxygen, or nitrate, can inhibit the efficacy of UV/sulfite treatment systems by scavenging available hydrated electrons. Those interferences are commonly managed through chemical additions, reaction optimization, and/or dilution, and are therefore not considered likely to hinder treatment success.
 +
*Coloration in waste streams may also impact the effectiveness of the UV/sulfite treatment system by blocking the transmission of UV light, thus reducing the UV lamp's effective path length. To address this, pre-treatment may be necessary to enable UV/sulfite destruction of PFAS in the waste stream. Pre-treatment may include the use of strong oxidants or coagulants to consume or remove UV-absorbing constituents.
 +
*The degradation efficiency is strongly influenced by PFAS molecular structure, with fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTS) and [[Wikipedia: Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid | perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)]] exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.
  
−
While the release at the surface is still active, the LNAPL body can expand until the LNAPL addition rate is equal to the NSZD depletion rate. However, once the release at the surface is stopped, the expansion will stop relatively quickly, and the LNAPL body will stabilize.  Figure 2a shows a conceptual depiction of this release scenario and Figure 2b shows a sand tank experiment of an LNAPL release. Because of the buoyancy effects, LNAPL releases that reach the water table will form LNAPL bodies that “like icebergs, are partially above and below the water table”.<ref name="Sale2018"/>
+
==State of the Practice==
−
 
+
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
−
==Key Implications of the LNAPL Conceptual Site Model==
+
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]]  
−
The nature of multi-phase flow processes in porous media (e.g., the interaction of LNAPL, water, and air in the pore spaces of an unconsolidated aquifer) has several important implications for environmental professionals in areas including interpretation of LNAPL thickness in monitoring wells and assessment of the long-term risk associated with LNAPL source zones.  A few of the key implications are described below.
+
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.  
−
 
+
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
−
===Three States of LNAPL===
+
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
−
LNAPL can be found in the subsurface in three different states:
 
−
 
 
−
# '''Residual LNAPL''' is trapped and immobile but can undergo composition and phase changes and generate dissolved hydrocarbon plumes in saturated zones and/or vapors in unsaturated zones. The fraction of the total pore space occupied by this discontinuous LNAPL is referred to as the residual saturation, with other phases such as water and air in the remainder of the pore space.
 
−
# '''Mobile LNAPL''' is LNAPL at greater than the residual saturation. Mobile LNAPL can accumulate in a well and is potentially recoverable, but is not migrating (i.e., the LNAPL body is not expanding).
 
−
# '''Migrating LNAPL''' is LNAPL at greater than the residual concentration which is observed to expand into previously non-impacted locations over time (e.g., LNAPL appears in a monitoring well that had previously been clean). 
 
−
 
 
−
These three LNAPL states can cause different concerns and in some cases require different remediation goals.
 
−
 
 
−
===LNAPL “Apparent Thickness” is a Poor Metric for Risk Management===
 
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig3.png |thumb|left|600px| Figure 3. Five LNAPL Thickness Scenarios for five different physical settings<ref name="Sale2018"/>.]]
 
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig4.png |thumb|350px| Figure 4.  Apparent LNAPL thickness versus LNAPL transmissivity, showing no correlation<ref name="Hawthorne2015">Hawthorne, J.M., 2015.  Nationwide (USA) Statistical Analysis of LNAPL Transmissivity, in: R. Darlington and A.C. Barton (Chairs), Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies—2015. Third International Symposium on Bioremediation and Sustainable Environmental Technologies (Miami, FL), page C-017, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH.  www.battelle.org/biosymp  [[Media:Hawthorne2015.pdf | Abstract.pdf]]</ref>.]]
 
−
LNAPL thickness in monitoring wells is often referred to as the “apparent LNAPL thickness” because at first glance this LNAPL thickness might be expected to be the thickness of LNAPL that is in the formation, but in reality it is not well correlated with the thickness of the LNAPL zone in the subsurface for several reasons.
 
−
 
 
−
First, different physical settings can produce different LNAPL thicknesses in monitoring wells.  Sale et al. (2018) show five different scenarios that produce very different responses with regard to apparent LNAPL thickness (Figure 3).  Scenario A shows an LNAPL apparent thickness in the monitoring well that is at static equilibrium with LNAPL in an unconfined aquifer. Scenario B, while also an unconfined aquifer, is comprised of very fine-grained soils that cause the LNAPL thickness in the well to be much higher than in Scenario A. In Scenario C, the LNAPL has accumulated under a confined unit (likely due to an underground release of LNAPL below the confining unit), and the LNAPL has risen above the groundwater potentiometric surface, leading to a large (and misleading) LNAPL thickness in the monitoring well.  Scenario D, LNAPL in a perched unit, also shows a very different response from the other scenarios. Scenario E, LNAPL in fractured system, shows that the LNAPL can penetrate below the water table, and that LNAPL thickness in a well is dependent on the pressure from accumulation of LNAPL in the fractures<ref name="Sale2018"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Second, apparent LNAPL thickness is affected by changes in the groundwater surface elevation (or water table).  Generally, when groundwater elevations are higher than typical, the LNAPL thickness in monitoring wells will decrease or go to zero because the groundwater will redistribute any mobile LNAPL into what previously was the unsaturated zone.  During lower groundwater elevation periods, much more of the LNAPL will occur as a continuous phase near the water table, leading to higher LNAPL thicknesses in wells.
 
−
 
 
−
Overall, LNAPL thickness measurements are useful for delineating the extent of mobile LNAPL in the saturated zone and can provide useful data for understanding the vertical distribution of LNAPL in the formation<ref name="Hawthorne2011">Hawthorne, J.M., 2011. Diagnostic Gauge Plots—Simple Yet Powerful LCSM Tools. Applied NAPL Science Review (ANSR), 1(2). [http://naplansr.com/diagnostic-gauge-plots-volume-1-issue-2-february-2011/ Website] [[Media:Hawthorne2011.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Kirkman2013">Kirkman, A.J., Adamski, M., and Hawthorne, M., 2013. Identification and Assessment of Confined and Perched LNAPL Conditions. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 33 (1), pp. 75–86. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01412.x  DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01412.x]</ref>. But LNAPL thickness by itself is a very poor indicator of the feasibility of LNAPL recovery<ref name="LNAPL-2">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2009. Evaluating LNAPL Remedial Technologies for Achieving Project Goals. LNAPL-2. ITRC, LNAPLs Team, Washington, DC. www.itrcweb.org  [[Media:ITRC-LNAPL-2.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Hawthorne2015"/> (see [[NAPL Mobility]]) (Figure 4).  Because there is little correlation between apparent LNAPL thickness and LNAPL mobility, there is also little correlation between apparent thickness and the risk to receptors from the LNAPL.
 
−
 
 
−
===Complete LNAPL Remediation Is Very Challenging===
 
−
Sale et al. (2018) described the problems with attaining complete LNAPL remediation this way:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote>''Experience of the last few decades has taught us: 1) our best efforts often leave some LNAPL in place, and 2) the remaining LNAPL often sustains exceedances of drinking water standards in release areas for extended periods. Entrapment of LNAPLs at residual saturations is a primary factor constraining our success. Other challenges include the low solubility of LNAPL, the complexity of the subsurface geologic environment, access limitations associated with surface structures, and concentration goals that are often three to five orders of magnitude less than typical initial concentrations within LNAPL zones.''<ref name="Sale2018"/></blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
In particular, the discontinuous residual LNAPL cannot be removed (or recovered) by pumping, and ''in situ'' remediation is expensive and not completely effective (see [[LNAPL Remediation Technologies]]).  However, many regulatory programs require “LNAPL recovery to the extent practicable.”  The lack of quantitative metrics and the lack of correlation between apparent LNAPL thicknesses and subsurface LNAPL makes this a problematic requirement in many cases and the ITRC (2018) cautions “Thickness or concentration data alone may not provide a sound basis for defining the point at which a cleanup objective is achieved.”<ref name="LNAPL-3"/>  However, Sale et al. (2018) describe metrics such as LNAPL transmissivity, limited/infrequent well thicknesses, decline curve analysis, asymptotic analysis, and comparison to NSZD rates that can be used to determine when LNAPL has been removed the extent practicable<ref name="Sale2018"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Attenuation Processes are Active and Important===
 
−
Both LNAPL source zones and their dissolved phase hydrocarbon plumes are attenuated by biodegradation and other attenuation process.  In the source zone, this attenuation is called [[Natural Source Zone Depletion (NSZD)]] (see also [[Natural Attenuation in Source Zone and Groundwater Plume - Bemidji Crude Oil Spill]]).  In the dissolved plume it is called [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA)]] (see also  [[Biodegradation - Hydrocarbons]]). These processes generally limit the length of dissolved phase hydrocarbon plumes to a few hundred feet<ref name="Newell1998">Newell, C.J., and Connor, J.A., 1998. Characteristics of Dissolved Hydrocarbon Plumes: Results from Four Studies, Version 1.1. American Petroleum Institute, Soil/Groundwater Technical Task Force, Washington, DC. [https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=File:Newell-1998-chararacterization_of_dissolved_Pet._Hydro_Plumes.pdf  Report.pdf]</ref> via processes that have been well known and understood since the mid-1990s.
 
−
 
 
−
However, NSZD is “by far, the biggest new idea for LNAPLs in the last decade.”<ref name="Sale2018"/>  Originally, LNAPL bodies were thought to attenuate very slowly via dissolution and volatilization.  In 2006, it was discovered that NSZD rates are orders of magnitude higher than originally thought, largely due to direct biodegradation of LNAPL constituents to methane and carbon dioxide by methanogenic consortiums of naturally occurring bacteria<ref name="Lundegard2006">Lundegard, P.D., and Johnson, P.C., 2006. Source Zone Natural Attenuation at Petroleum Spill Sites—II: Application to a Former Oil Field. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. 26(4), pp. 93-106.  [ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00115.x  DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00115.x]</ref><ref name="Garg2017">Garg, S., Newell, C., Kulkarni, P., King, D., Adamson, D.T., Irianni Renno, M., and Sale, T., 2017. Overview of Natural Source Zone Depletion: Processes, Controlling Factors, and Composition Change. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 37(3), pp. 62-81.  [https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12219 DOI:  10.1111/gwmr.12219] [[Media:Garg2017gwmr.12219.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  NSZD processes play an important role in risk mitigation and the long-term stability of LNAPL bodies<ref name="Mahler2012">
 
−
Mahler, N., Sale, T., and Lyverse, M., 2012. A Mass Balance Approach to Resolving LNAPL Stability. Groundwater, 50(6), pp 861-871.  [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00949.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00949.x]</ref><ref name="LNAPL-3"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
===Risk from LNAPL Source Zones Diminishes Over Time===
 
−
At Early Stage LNAPL sites, the expansion of the LNAPL body is a risk that needs to be addressed. Fortunately, this type of site is relatively rare.  For Middle and Late Stage sites, the primary risks are associated with phase changes (dissolution of the LNAPL forming a dissolved plume and volatilization from the LNAPL or dissolved plume forming hydrocarbon vapors).  As described above, MNA can often control the dissolved phase (see [[Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) of Fuels]]), while aerobic biodegradation in the unsaturated zone greatly reduces the vapor intrusion risk from hydrocarbon vapors (see [[Vapor Intrusion - Separation Distances from Petroleum Sources]]).
 
−
 
 
−
Understanding LNAPL body mobility and stability is important to understand the potential risks posed by LNAPL.  The relative magnitude of LNAPL mobility can be determined by measuring the LNAPL transmissivity (see [[NAPL Mobility]]).  If the transmissivity is below a threshold level (in the range of 0.1 to 0.8 ft2/day) then the LNAPL likely cannot be recovered efficiently by pumping, but above this transmissivity level recovery is feasible<ref name="LNAPL-3"/>.  Michigan’s LNAPL guidance states “if the NAPL has a transmissivity greater than 0.5 ft2/day, it is likely that the NAPL can be recovered in a cost-effective and efficient manner unless a demonstration is made to show otherwise.”  Kansas LNAPL guidance requires “recovery of all LNAPL with a transmissivity greater than 0.8 ft2/day that can be recovered in an efficient, cost-effective manner.”<ref name="LNAPL-3"/>.  The stability of the entire LNAPL body can be evaluated using statistical tools to determine if migration of LNAPL is occurring<ref name="Hawthorne2013">Hawthorne, J.M., Stone, C.D., Helsel, D., 2013. LNAPL Body Stability Part 2: Daughter Plume Stability via Spatial Moments Analysis. Applied NAPL Science Review (ANSR), 3(5).  [http://naplansr.com/lnapl-body-stability-part-2-daughter-plume-stability-via-spatial-moments-analysis-volume-3-issue-5-september-2013/ Website] [[Media:Hawthorne2013.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Overview of Modern LNAPL Conceptual Site Model==
 
−
[[File:Newell1w2Fig5.png |thumb|500px| Figure 5.  A higher tier of LNAPL CSM is useful as LNAPL site complexity increases<ref name="LNAPL-3"/>.]]
 
−
The ITRC (2018) describes the typical evolution of an LCSM over the course of the remediation process which can be broken into three separate stages:
 
−
* An ''Initial LCSM'' focuses on identifying the LNAPL concerns, such as a risk to health or safety, any LNAPL migration, LNAPL-specific regulations, and physical or aesthetic impacts.
 
−
* A ''Remedy Selection LCSM'' supports remedial technology evaluation by characterizing aspects of the LNAPL and site subsurface that may impact remedial technology performance.
 
−
* A ''Design and Performance LCSM'' focuses on presenting the technical information needed to establish remediation objectives, design and implement remedies or control measures, and track progress toward defined remediation endpoints.
 
−
 
 
−
One key question when developing an LCSM is “how much data is enough.”  In general, the answer is that the existing data is sufficient for the current stage of the remediation project when it allows the stakeholders to agree on a path forward<ref name="LNAPL-3"/>.  Figure 5 shows that as the level of complexity of a site increases, a higher tier of LCSM is useful to provide enough information for making decisions<ref name="LNAPL-3"/><ref name="ASTM2014a"/>. The higher tier of information could be higher data density, additional tools for a given line of evidence, or other evaluations.
 
−
 
 
−
==LNAPL Concerns, Remediation Goals and Objectives==
 
−
Finally, the ITRC (2018) provides a methodology for identifying LNAPL concerns, verifying those concerns, selecting LNAPL remediation goals, and determining LNAPL remediation objectives.  Examples of each of these concepts are provided below:
 
−
 
 
−
* '''Potential Concerns:'''  Human or ecological risk concerns, fire or explosivity issues, LNAPL migration, LNAPL-specific regulatory concerns, other concerns such as odors or geotechnical issues.
 
−
* '''Verifying Concerns:'''  Measure LNAPL transmissivity to determine if it is recoverable; measure vertical and horizontal separation distances between buildings and LNAPL bodies to screen for vapor intrusion concerns.
 
−
* '''Remediation Goals:'''  Reduce mobile LNAPL saturation, abate unacceptable soil concentrations, terminate LNAPL body migration, abate unacceptable constituent concentrations in dissolved and vapor phases.
 
−
* '''Remediation Objectives:'''  Recover LNAPL to the extent practicable based on transmissivity, reduce soil concentrations to below regulatory limits, stop LNAPL migration with a barrier, contain migrating groundwater plume (if present), reduce groundwater and vapor concentration to acceptable levels.
 
−
* '''Remediation Technologies:'''  LNAPL Mass Recovery technologies, LNAPL phase change technologies, LNAPL Mass Control technologies, combinations of technologies.
 
−
 
 
−
Overall, a LNAPL Conceptual Site Model that integrates key site specific information and current technical knowledge about LNAPL sites in general is instrumental to successful site management, where LNAPL concerns drive remediation goals, goals drive remediation objectives, and the objectives form the basis for the selection of remediation technologies.  
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
+
<references />
−
<references/>
 
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
 
 

Latest revision as of 11:33, 29 January 2026

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (eaq- ) which can destroy PFAS in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM[1]) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.

Related Article(s):

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

Key Resources:

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

Introduction

The hydrated electron (eaq- ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules[5]. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials[5].

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

Equation 1:   XiongEq1.png

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

Process Description

A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluorTM[1]) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a foam fractionation, regenerable ion exchange, or a membrane filtration system) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream


Advantages

A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by eaq-, low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:

  • High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS: While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies[8][9][10], the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA).
  • High defluorination ratio: As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
  • No harmful byproducts: While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
  • Ambient pressure and low temperature: The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
  • Low energy consumption: The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., supercritical water oxidation)[11].
  • Co-contaminant destruction: The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride[12][13][14][15].

Limitations

Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.

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

State of the Practice

Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[1] for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.
Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluorTM[1]) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluorTM[1]; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.

The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluorTM[1] system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay, adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.

  • Under the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER21-5152, a field demonstration of EradiFluorTM[1] was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an in situ foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
  • Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF) and EradiFluorTM[1] was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluorTM[1] was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluorTM[1]. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).

References

  1. ^ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. Comercial Website
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648  Open Access Article
  3. ^ Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608  Open Access Article
  4. ^ Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. doi: 10.1063/1.555805
  6. ^ Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197
  7. ^ Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172
  8. ^ Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452
  9. ^ Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158
  10. ^ Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170
  11. ^ Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916
  12. ^ Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026
  13. ^ Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086
  14. ^ Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. doi: 10.1021/es3008535
  15. ^ Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051

See Also

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