Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Technical Performance)
 
(390 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Sediment Capping==
+
==Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction==  
−
Capping is not an ''in situ'' remedial technology that involves placement of a clean substrate on the surface of [[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | contaminated sediments]] to reduce contaminant uptake by benthic organisms and contaminant flux to surface water.  Simple sand caps can be effective in reducing exposure of benthic organisms and in limiting oxygen transport into the contaminated sediments, resulting in precipitation of metal sulfides. Amendments are sometimes included in caps to reduce cap permeability and groundwater upwelling, to increase contaminant sorption or biodegradation, or to improve habitat.
+
Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) is a [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] destruction technology predicated on [[Wikipedia: Ultraviolet | ultraviolet (UV)]] light-activated photochemical reactions. The destruction efficiency of this process is enhanced by the use of a [[Wikipedia: Surfactant | surfactant]] to confine PFAS molecules in self-assembled [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]]. The photochemical reaction produces [[Wikipedia: Solvated electron | hydrated electrons]] from an electron donor that associates with the micelle. The hydrated electrons have sufficient energy to rapidly cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds of PFAS molecules due to the association of the electron donor with the micelle. Micelle-accelerated PRD is a highly efficient method to destroy PFAS in a wide variety of water matrices.
 
<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):'''
−
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]  
−
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
+
*[[PFAS Sources]]
−
*Sediment Risk Assessment
+
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
−
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
+
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
 +
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
 +
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
−
*Danny Reible
+
*Dr. Suzanne Witt
 +
*Dr. Meng Wang
 +
*Dr. Denise Kay
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
−
*Processes, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments<ref name="Reible2014">Reible, D. D., Editor, 2014. Processes, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Springer, New York, NY. 462 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4614-6725-0</ref>
+
*Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement<ref name="ChenEtAl2020">Chen, Z., Li, C., Gao, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Wu, B., Gu, C., 2020. Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 5178–5185. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06599 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06599]</ref>
−
 
+
*Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite<ref name="TianEtAl2016">Tian, H., Gao, J., Li, H., Boyd, S.A., Gu, C., 2016. Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 32949. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32949 doi: 10.1038/srep32949]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: TianEtAl2016.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
−
* Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments<ref name="Palermo1998">Palermo, M., Maynord, S., Miller, J. and Reible, D., 1998. Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, Great Lakes National Program Office, US EPA 905-B96-004. 147 pp. [[Media: USEPA_905-B96-004.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons<ref name="ChenEtAl2019">Chen, Z., Tian, H., Li, H., Li, J. S., Hong, R., Sheng, F., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons. Chemosphere, 235, pp. 1180–1188. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032]</ref>
 +
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a ER21-7569: Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction]<ref name="WittEtAl2023">Kay, D., Witt, S., Wang, M., 2023. Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction: Final Report. ESTCP Project ER21-7569. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
[[File:SedCapFig1.png|thumb|left|470px|Figure 1. Conceptual sketch of a cap configuration]]
+
[[File:WittFig1.png | thumb |600px|Figure 1. Schematic of PRD mechanism<ref name="WittEtAl2023"/>]]
−
Capping is an ''in situ'' remedial technology for contaminated sediments that involves placement of a clean substrate on the sediment surface.  Capping contaminated sediments following [[Wikipedia: Dredging | dredging operations]] and capping of dredged material to stabilize contaminants has been a common practice by the United States Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970s.  Beginning in the 1980s, in Japan and subsequently elsewhere, capping has been used more widely as a remedial approach to improve the quality of the bottom substrate and reduce contaminant exposures to benthic organisms and fish.  The USEPA published a capping guidance document in 1998 that summarizes past uses of sediment capping and outlines its basic design<ref name="Palermo1998"/>.    Although capping technology has developed substantially in the past 20 years, this early reference still provides useful information on the approach and its applications.  A more recent summary of capping is described in Reible 2014<ref name="Reible2014"/>.
+
The&nbsp;Photoactivated&nbsp;Reductive Defluorination (PRD) process is based on a patented chemical reaction that breaks fluorine-carbon bonds and disassembles PFAS molecules in a linear fashion beginning with the [[Wikipedia: Hydrophile | hydrophilic]] functional groups and proceeding through shorter molecules to complete mineralization. Figure 1 shows how PRD is facilitated by adding [[Wikipedia: Cetrimonium bromide | cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)]] to form a surfactant micelle cage that traps PFAS. A non-toxic proprietary chemical is added to solution to associate with the micelle surface and produce hydrated electrons via stimulation with UV light. These highly reactive hydrated electrons have the energy required to cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds resulting in the final products of fluoride, water, and simple carbon molecules (e.g., formic acid and acetic acid). The methods, mechanisms, theory, and reactions described herein have been published in peer reviewed literature<ref name="ChenEtAl2020"/><ref name="TianEtAl2016"/><ref name="ChenEtAl2019"/><ref name="WittEtAl2023"/>.
−
 
 
−
Capping serves to contain contaminated sediment solids, isolate contaminants from benthic organisms and reduce contaminant transport to the sediment surface and overlying water.  The clean substrate may be an inert material such as sand, a natural sorbing material such as other sediments or clays, or be amended with an active/reactive material to enhance the isolation of the contaminants.  Amendments to enhance contaminant isolation include permeability reduction agents to divert groundwater flow, sorbents to retard contaminant migration through the capping layer or provide greater accumulation capacity, or reagents to encourage degradation or transformation of the contaminants.
 
−
 
 
−
The basic concept of a cap is illustrated in Figure 1.  The Figure also illustrates that a cap is often a thin layer or layers relative to water depth and generally causes little disturbance to the underlying sediments or body of water in which it is placed.  Depending upon the erosive forces to which the cap may be subjected, the surface layer may be composed of relatively coarse material to withstand those erosive forces.
 
−
 
 
−
Although a cap is typically thin compared to the water depth, it generally must be thicker than the biologically active zone (BAZ) of the sediments.  The biologically active zone is that zone in which benthic organisms live and interact with the sediment.  Their activities tend to mix the BAZ (known as [[Wikipedia: Bioturbation | bioturbation]]) over the course of a few years and thus a cap that is thinner than the BAZ will tend to become intermixed with the underlying contaminated sediments.   Processes other than bioturbation including diffusion, advection or groundwater upwelling, hyporheic exchange near the interface, biogenic gas production and migration and underlying sediment consolidation can all lead to contaminant migration into and through a cap.  These occur at different rates and intensities and their assessment and evaluation ultimately governs the effectiveness of a cap and the feasibility of its use as a sediment remediation technology for a particular site.
 
−
 
 
−
In general, capping is an effective remedial technology for contaminants that are strongly associated with the sediment solids including hydrophobic organic compounds such as high molecular weight [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], [[Wikipedia: Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds | dioxins]] and [[Wikipedia: DDT | DDTx]], but also [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | heavy metals]].  Hydrophobic organic compounds tend to strongly associate with the organic fraction of sediments so organic rich sediments or the addition of organic phases to the capping material can be very effective at containing these contaminants. Many of the common heavy metals of concern, including cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead and mercury, tend to be associated with insoluble sulfides under strongly reducing conditions. Since oxygen penetration into a capping layer is typically limited to a few cm or less at the surface, a cap serves to drive the underlying contaminated sediment toward strongly reducing conditions and, particularly in marine and estuarine sediments, encourage sulfate reduction leading to the formation of these insoluble sulfides.  The low solubility of these sulfides encourages retention by a capping layer and makes the cap extremely effective as a remedial approach for sediments with elevated concentrations of heavy metals.
 
  
−
A variety of tools have been developed to evaluate the processes leading to sorption and retardation of contaminants as well as processes leading to contaminant migration and release. The original references quantifying contaminant behavior in a sediment cap were explored in a series of papers in the early 1990s<ref name="Wang1991">Wang, X.Q., Thibodeaux, L.J., Valsaraj, K.T. and Reible, D.D., 1991. Efficiency of Capping Contaminated Bed Sediments in Situ. 1. Laboratory-Scale Experiments on Diffusion-Adsorption in the Capping Layer. Environmental Science and Technology, 25(9), pp.1578-1584.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00021a008 DOI: 10.1021/es00021a008]</ref><ref name="Thoma1993">Thoma, G.J., Reible, D.D., Valsaraj, K.T. and Thibodeaux, L.J., 1993. Efficiency of Capping Contaminated Bed Sediments in Situ 2. Mathematics of Diffusion-Adsorption in the Capping Layer. Environmental Science and Technology, 27(12), pp.2412-2419.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00048a015 DOI: 10.1021/es00048a015]</ref>.  Since that time, design tools have been continuously improved. [https://www.depts.ttu.edu/ceweb/research/reiblesgroup/downloads.php CapSim] is a commonly used and current tool developed by Dr. Reible and collaborators. This tool can evaluate contaminant release from uncapped, capped, and treated sediments for purposes of design and evaluation.  The model formulation and structure is described in Shen et al. 2018<ref name="Shin2018">Shen, X., Lampert, D., Ogle, S. and Reible, D., 2018. A software tool for simulating contaminant transport and remedial effectiveness in sediment environments. Environmental Modelling and Software, 109, pp. 104-113.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.014]</ref>. One common use of such a tool is to evaluate the effect of various cap materials and thicknesses on the performance of a cap.
+
==Advantages and Disadvantages==
  
−
==Cap Design and Materials for Chemical Containment==
+
===Advantages===
−
An inert material such as sand can be effective as a capping material where contaminants are strongly associated with solids and where the operative site specific transport mechanisms do not lead to rapid contaminant migration through such a material. Additional contaminant containment can often be achieved through the placement of clean sediment, e.g. dredged material from a nearby location.  Other materials as cap layers or amendments may be useful to address particularly mobile contaminants or when particular degradative mechanisms can be exploited. The Anacostia River was the site of a demonstration that first tested “active” or “amended” capping in the field<ref name="Reible2003">Reible, D., Constant, D.W., Roberts, K. and Zhu, Y., 2003. Active capping demonstration project in anacostia DC. In Second International Conference on the Remediation of Contaminated Sediments: October. Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Danny-Reible/publication/237747790_ACTIVE_CAPPING_DEMONSTRATION_PROJECT_IN_ANACOSTIA_DC/links/0c96053861030b7699000000/ACTIVE-CAPPING-DEMONSTRATION-PROJECT-IN-ANACOSTIA-DC.pdf ResearchGate]</ref><ref name="Reible2006">Reible, D., Lampert, D., Constant, D., Mutch Jr, R.D. and Zhu, Y., 2006. Active Capping Demonstration in the Anacostia River, Washington, DC. Remediation Journal: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies and Techniques, 17(1), pp. 39-53. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20111 DOI: 10.1002/rem.20111]  Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/44146457/Remediation_Journal_Paper_2006.pdf Academia.edu]</ref>. Amended caps are often the best option when groundwater upwelling or other advective processes promote significant mobility of contaminants and the addition of sorbents can slow that contaminant migration<ref name="Ghosh2011">Ghosh, U., Luthy, R.G., Cornelissen, G., Werner, D. and Menzie, C.A., 2011. In-situ Sorbent Amendments: A New Direction in Contaminated Sediment Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(4), pp. 1163-1168. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es102694h DOI: 10.1021/es102694h]  Open access article from: [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es102694h American Chemical Society]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Ghosh2011.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  Although a variety of materials have been proposed for sediment caps, a far smaller number of options have been successfully employed in the field.
+
In comparison to other reported PFAS destruction techniques, PRD offers several advantages:
−
+
*Relative to UV/sodium sulfite and UV/sodium iodide systems, the fitted degradation rates in the micelle-accelerated PRD reaction system were ~18 and ~36 times higher, indicating the key role of the self-assembled micelle in creating a confined space for rapid PFAS destruction<ref name="ChenEtAl2020"/>. The negatively charged hydrated electron associated with the positively charged cetyltrimethylammonium ion (CTA<sup>+</sup>) forms the surfactant micelle to trap molecules with similar structures, selectively mineralizing compounds with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups (e.g., PFAS).
−
Metals migration is very site dependent due to the potential for many metals to complex with other species in the interstitial water and the specific metal speciation present at a site.  Often, the strongly reducing environment beneath a cap renders many common metals unavailable through the formation of metal sulfides.  In such cases, a simple sand cap can be very effective.  Amended caps to manage metal contaminated sediments may be advantageous when site specific conditions lead to elevated metals mobility, but should be supported with site specific testing<ref name="Viana2008">Viana, P.Z., Yin, K. and Rockne, K.J., 2008. Modeling Active Capping Efficacy. 1. Metal and Organometal Contaminated Sediment Remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(23), pp. 8922-8929. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es800942t DOI: 10.1021/es800942t]</ref>.
+
*The PRD reaction does not require solid catalysts or electrodes, which can be expensive to acquire and difficult to regenerate or dispose.  
 +
*The aqueous solution is not heated or pressurized, and the UV wavelength used does not cause direct water [[Wikipedia: Photodissociation | photolysis]], therefore the energy input to the system is more directly employed to destroy PFAS, resulting in greater energy efficiency.  
 +
*Since the reaction is performed at ambient temperature and pressure, there are limited concerns regarding environmental health and safety or volatilization of PFAS compared to heated and pressurized systems.  
 +
*Due to the reductive nature of the reaction, there is no formation of unwanted byproducts resulting from oxidative processes, such as [[Wikipedia: Perchlorate | perchlorate]] generation during electrochemical oxidation<ref>Veciana, M., Bräunig, J., Farhat, A., Pype, M. L., Freguia, S., Carvalho, G., Keller, J., Ledezma, P., 2022. Electrochemical Oxidation Processes for PFAS Removal from Contaminated Water and Wastewater: Fundamentals, Gaps and Opportunities towards Practical Implementation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 434, Article 128886. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886]</ref><ref>Trojanowicz, M., Bojanowska-Czajka, A., Bartosiewicz, I., Kulisa, K., 2018. Advanced Oxidation/Reduction Processes Treatment for Aqueous Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) – A Review of Recent Advances. Chemical Engineering Journal, 336, pp. 170–199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153]</ref><ref>Wanninayake, D.M., 2021. Comparison of Currently Available PFAS Remediation Technologies in Water: A Review. Journal of Environmental Management, 283, Article 111977. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977]</ref>.
 +
*Aqueous fluoride ions are the primary end products of PRD, enabling real-time reaction monitoring with a fluoride [[Wikipedia: Ion-selective electrode | ion selective electrode (ISE)]], which is far less expensive and faster than relying on PFAS analytical data alone to monitor system performance.
  
−
For hydrophobic organic contaminants, cap amendments that directly control groundwater upwelling and also sorbents that can remove migrating contaminants from that groundwater have been successfully employed.   Examples include clay materials such as AquaBlok<sup>&reg;</sup> for permeability control, sorbents such as [[Wikipedia: Activated carbon | activated carbon]] for truly dissolved contaminants, and [[Wikipedia: Organoclay | organophilic clays]] for separate phase contaminants.
+
===Disadvantages===
 +
*The CTAB additive is only partially consumed during the reaction, and although CTAB is not problematic when discharged to downstream treatment processes that incorporate aerobic digestors, CTAB can be toxic to surface waters and anaerobic digestors. Therefore, disposal options for treated solutions will need to be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Possible options include removal of CTAB from solution for reuse in subsequent PRD treatments, or implementation of an oxidation reaction to degrade CTAB.
 +
*The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). It is hypothesized that in high TDS solutions (e.g., ion exchange still bottoms with TDS of 200,000 ppm), the presence of ionic species inhibits the association of the electron donor with the micelle, thus decreasing the reaction rate.
 +
*The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with very low UV transmissivity. Low UV transmissivity (i.e., < 1 %) prevents the penetration of UV light into the solution, such that the utilization efficiency of UV light decreases.  
  
−
The placement of clean sediment as an ''in situ'' cap can be difficult when the material is fine grained or has a low density.  Capping with a layer of coarse grained material such as clean sand mitigates this issue although clean sands have minimal sorption capacity.  Because of this limitation, sand caps may not be sufficient for achieving remedial goals in sites where contamination levels are high or transport rates are fast due to pore water upwelling or tidal pumping effects. Conditions such as these may require the use of “active” amendments to reduce transport rates.
+
==State of the Art==
−
   
 
−
Capping with clean sand provides a physical barrier between the underlying contaminated material and the overlying water, stabilizes the underlying sediment to prevent re-suspension of contaminated particles, and can reduce chemical exposure under certain conditions.  Sand primarily provides a passive barrier to the downward penetration of bioturbating organisms and the upward movement of sediment or contaminants.  Although conventional sandy caps can often be an effective means of managing contaminated sediments, there are conditions when sand caps may not be capable of achieving design objectives.  Some factors that reduce the effectiveness of sand caps include:
 
  
−
*erosion and loss of cap integrity
+
===Technical Performance===
−
*high groundwater upwelling rates
+
[[File:WittFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Enspired Solutions<small><sup>TM</sup></small> commercial PRD PFAS destruction equipment, the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small>. Dimensions are 8 feet long by 4 feet wide by 9 feet tall.]]
−
*mobile (low sorption) contaminants of concern (COCs)
 
−
*high COC concentrations
 
−
*unusually toxic COCs
 
−
*the presence of tidal influences
 
−
*the presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs)
 
−
*high rates of gas ebullition
 
  
−
Of these, the first three are common limitations to capping and often control the ability to effectively design and implement a cap as a sediment remedial strategy. In these cases, it may be possible to offset these issues by increasing the thickness of the cap.  However, the required thickness can reach infeasible levels in shallow streams or navigable water bodies. In addition, increased construction costs associated with thick caps may become prohibitive.  As a result of these issues, caps that use alternative materials (also known as active caps) to reduce the thickness or increase the protectiveness of a cap may be necessary. The materials in active caps are designed to interact with the COCs to enhance the containment properties of the cap.  
+
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
 +
|+Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
 +
|-
 +
! Analytes
 +
!
 +
! GW
 +
! FF
 +
! AFFF<br>Rinsate
 +
! AFF<br>(diluted 10X)
 +
! IDW NF
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Total PFAS<small><sup>a</sup></small> (ND=0)
 +
| rowspan="9" style="background-color:white;" | <p style="writing-mode: vertical-rl">% Decrease<br>(Initial Concentration, &mu;g/L)</p>
 +
| 93%<br>(370) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 89%<br>(57,000) || 86 %<br>(770,000) || 84%<br>(82)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=MDL) || 93%<br>(400) || 86%<br>(32,000) || 90%<br>(59,000) || 71%<br>(770,000) || 88%<br>(110)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=RL) || 94%<br>(460) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 91%<br>(66,000) || 34%<br>(770,000) || 92%<br>(170)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS<small><sup>b</sup></small> (ND=0) || >99%<br>(180) || >99%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 92%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(50)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL) || >99%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 88%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br> (52)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL) || >99%<br>(190) || 93%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(55)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; High Priority PFAS<small><sup>c</sup></small> (ND=0) || 91%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 82%<br>(400,000) || 94%<br>(53)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; High Priority PFAS (ND=MDL) || 91%<br>(190) || 94%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(400,000) || 86%<br>(58)
 +
|-
 +
| &Sigma; High Priority PFAS (ND=RL) || 92%<br>(200) || 87%<br>(20,000) || 86%<br>(21,000) || 70%<br>(400,000) || 87%<br>(65)
 +
|-
 +
| Fluorine mass balance<small><sup>d</sup></small> || ||106% || 109% || 110% || 65% || 98%
 +
|-
 +
| Sorbed organic fluorine<small><sup>e</sup></small> || || 4% || 4% || 33% || N/A || 31%
 +
|-
 +
| colspan="7" style="background-color:white; text-align:left" | <small>Notes:<br>GW = groundwater<br>GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate<br>AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination<br>AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x<br>IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate<br>ND = non-detect<br>MDL = Method Detection Limit<br>RL = Reporting Limit<br><small><sup>a</sup></small>Total PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors<br><small><sup>b</sup></small>Highly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>c</sup></small>High priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>d</sup></small>Ratio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations<br><small><sup>e</sup></small>Percent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment<br></small>
 +
|}
 +
</br>
 +
The&nbsp;PRD&nbsp;reaction&nbsp;has&nbsp;been validated at the bench scale for the destruction of PFAS in a variety of environmental samples from Department of Defense sites (Table 1). Enspired Solutions<small><sup>TM</sup></small> has designed and manufactured a fully automatic commercial-scale piece of equipment called PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small>, specializing in PRD PFAS destruction (Figure 2). This equipment is modular and scalable, has a small footprint, and can be used alone or in series with existing water treatment trains. The PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> employs commercially available UV reactors and monitoring meters that have been used in the water industry for decades. The system has been tested on PRD efficiency operational parameters, and key metrics were proven to be consistent with benchtop studies.  
  
−
[[Wikipedia: Apatite | Apatites]] are a class of naturally occurring minerals that have been investigated as a sorbent for metals in soils and sediments<ref name="Melton2003">Melton, J.S., Crannell, B.S., Eighmy, T.T., Wilson, C. and Reible, D.D., 2003. Field Trial of the UNH Phosphate-Based Reactive Barrier Capping System for the Anacostia River. EPA Grant R819165-01-0</ref><ref name="Reible2003"/><ref name="Knox2012">Knox, A.S., Paller, M.H. and Roberts, J., 2012. Active Capping Technology—New Approaches for In Situ Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Remediation Journal, 22(2), pp.93-117.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21313 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21313] Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anna-Knox-2/publication/233374607_Active_Capping_Technology-New_Approaches_for_In_Situ_Remediation_of_Contaminated_Sediments/links/5a7de4c5aca272a73765c344/Active-Capping-Technology-New-Approaches-for-In-Situ-Remediation-of-Contaminated-Sediments.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>.  Apatites consist of a matrix of calcium phosphate and various other common anions, including fluoride, chloride, hydroxide, and occasionally carbonate. Metals are sequestered either through direct ion exchange with the calcium atom or dissolution of hydroxyapatite followed by precipitation of lead apatite.  [[Wikipedia: Zeolite | Zeolites]], which are microporous aluminosilicate minerals with a high cationic exchange capacity (CEC), have also been proposed to manage metal species<ref name="Zhan2019">Zhan, Y., Yu, Y., Lin, J., Wu, X., Wang, Y. and Zhao, Y., 2019. Simultaneous control of nitrogen and phosphorus release from sediments using iron-modified zeolite as capping and amendment materials. Journal of Environmental Management, 249, p.109369.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109369 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109369]</ref>.
+
Bench scale PRD tests were performed for the following samples collected from Department of Defense sites: groundwater (GW), groundwater foam fractionate (FF), firefighting truck rinsate ([[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | AFFF]] Rinsate), 3M Lightwater AFFF, investigation derived waste nanofiltrate (IDW NF), [[Wikipedia: Ion exchange | ion exchange]] still bottom (IX SB), and Ansulite AFFF. The PRD treatment was more effective in low conductivity/TDS solutions. Generally, PRD reaction rates decrease for solutions with a TDS > 10,000 ppm, with an upper limit of 30,000 ppm. Ansulite AFFF and IX SB samples showed low destruction efficiencies during initial screening tests, which was primarily attributed to their high TDS concentrations. Benchtop testing data are shown in Table 1 for the remaining five sample matrices.
−
 
 
−
It is possible to create a hydrophobic, sorbing layer for non-polar organics by exchanging a cationic surfactant onto the surface of clays such as zeolites and bentonites,. Organoclay is a modified bentonite containing such substitutions that has been evaluated for control of non-aqueous phase NAPLs and other organic contaminants<ref name="Reible2007">Reible, D.D., Lu, X., Moretti, L., Galjour, J. and Ma, X., 2007. Organoclays for the capping of contaminated sediments. AIChE Annual Meeting.  ISBN: 978-081691022-9</ref>.  An organoclay cap has been implemented for sediment remediation at the McCormick and Baxter site in Portland, OR<ref name="Parrett2005">Parrett, K. and Blishke, H., 2005. 23-Acre Multilayer Sediment Cap in Dynamic Riverine Environment Using Organoclay an Adsorptive Capping Material. Presentation to Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 26th Annual Meeting.</ref>.  A similar organic sorbing phase can be formed by treating zeolites with surfactants but this approach has not been reported for contaminated sediments.  
 
  
−
Activated carbon is a strong sorbent of hydrophobic organic compounds and has been used as a [[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon | treatment for sediments]] or as an active sorbent within a capping layer<ref name="Zimmerman2004">Zimmerman, J.R., Ghosh, U., Millward, R.N., Bridges, T.S. and Luthy, R.G., 2004. Addition of Carbon Sorbents to Reduce PCB and PAH Bioavailability in Marine Sediments: Physicochemical Tests. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(20), pp. 5458-5464.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es034992v DOI: 10.1021/es034992v]</ref><ref name="Werner2005">Werner, D., Higgins, C.P. and Luthy, R.G., 2005. The sequestration of PCBs in Lake Hartwell sediment with activated carbon. Water Research, 39(10), pp. 2105-2113.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2005.03.019 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2005.03.019]</ref><ref name="Abel2018">Abel, S. and Akkanen, J., 2018. A Combined Field and Laboratory Study on Activated Carbon-Based Thin Layer Capping in a PCB-Contaminated Boreal Lake. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(8), pp. 4702-4710. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05114 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05114] Open access article available from: [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.7b05114 American Chemical Society]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Abel2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Payne 2018">Payne, R.B., Ghosh, U., May, H.D., Marshall, C.W. and Sowers, K.R., 2019. A Pilot-Scale Field Study: In Situ Treatment of PCB-Impacted Sediments with Bioamended Activated Carbon. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(5), pp. 2626-2634. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05019 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b05019]</ref><ref name="Yan2020">Yan, S., Rakowska, M., Shen, X., Himmer, T., Irvine, C., Zajac-Fay, R., Eby, J., Janda, D., Ohannessian, S. and Reible, D.D., 2020. Bioavailability Assessment in Activated Carbon Treated Coastal Sediment with In situ and Ex situ Porewater Measurements. Water Research, 185, p. 116259.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116259 DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116259]</ref>.  Placement of activated carbon for sediment capping is difficult due to the near neutral buoyancy of the material but it has been applied in this manner in relatively low energy environments such as Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, NY<ref name="Vlassopoulos2017">Vlassopoulos, D., Russell, K., Larosa, P., Brown, R., Mohan, R., Glaza, E., Drachenberg, T., Reible, D., Hague, W., McAuliffe, J. and Miller, S., 2017. Evaluation, Design, and Construction of Amended Reactive Caps to Restore Onondaga Lake, Syracuse, New York, USA. Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering, 10(1), pp. 13-27.  Free download available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317762995_Evaluation_design_and_construction_of_amended_reactive_caps_to_restore_Onondaga_lake_Syracuse_New_York_USA ResearchGate]</ref>. Alternatives in higher energy environments include placement of activated carbon in a mat such as the CETCO Reactive Core Mat (RCM)<sup>&reg;</sup> or Huesker Tektoseal<sup>&reg;</sup>, or as a composite material such as SediMite<sup>&reg;</sup> or AquaGate<sup>&reg;</sup>.  In the case of the mats, powdered or granular activated carbon can be placed in a controlled layer while the density of the composite materials is such that they can be broadcast from the surface and allowed to settle to the bottom.  In a sediment treatment application, the composite material would either be worked into the surface or allowed to intermix gradually by bioturbation and other processes.  In a capping application, the mat or composite material would typically be combined or overlain with a sand or other capping layer to keep it in place and to provide a chemical isolation layer away from the sediment surface.  
+
During treatment, PFOS and PFOA concentrations decreased 96% to >99% and 77% to 97%, respectively. For the PFAS with proposed drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) recently established by the USEPA (PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA), concentrations decreased >99% for GW, 93% for FF, 95% for AFFF Rinsate and IDW NF, and 79% for AFFF (diluted 10x) during the treatment time allotted. Meanwhile, the total PFAS concentrations, including all 40 known PFAS analytes and unidentified perfluorocarboxylic acid (PFCA) precursors, decreased from 34% to 96% following treatment. All of these concentration reduction values were calculated by using reporting limits (RL) as the concentrations for non-detects.  
  
−
As an alternative to a sorptive capping amendment, low-permeability cap amendments have been proposed to enhance cap design life by decreasing pore water advection. Low permeability clays are an effective means to divert upwelling groundwater away from a contaminated sediment area but are difficult to place in the aqueous environment.  Bentonite clays can be placed in mats similar to what is done to provide a low permeability liner in landfills. There are also commercial products that can place clays directly such as the composite material AquaBlok<sup>&reg;</sup>, a bentonite clay and polymer based mineral around an aggregate core<ref name="Barth2008">Barth, E.F., Reible, D. and Bullard, A., 2008. Evaluation of the physical stability, groundwater seepage control, and faunal changes associated with an AquaBlok<sup>&reg;</sup> sediment cap. Remediation: The Journal of Environmental Cleanup Costs, Technologies and Techniques, 18(4), pp.63-70.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.20183 DOI: 10.1002/rem.20183]</ref>.
+
Excellent fluorine/fluoride mass balance was achieved. There was nearly a 1:1 conversion of organic fluorine to free inorganic fluoride ion during treatment of GW, FF and AFFF Rinsate. The 3M Lightwater AFFF (diluted 10x) achieved only 65% fluorine mass balance, but this was likely due to high adsorption of PFAS to the reactor.
−
 
 
−
Sediment caps become colonized by microorganisms from the sediments and surface water and potentially become a zone of pollutant biotransformation over time. Aerobic degradation occurs only near the solids-water interface in which benthic organisms are active and thus there might still be significant benthic organism exposure to contaminants. Biotransformation in the anaerobic zone of a cap, which typically extends well beyond the zone of benthic activity, could significantly reduce the risk of pollutant exposure but successful caps encouraging deep degradation processes have not been demonstrated beyond the laboratory.  The addition of materials such as nutrients and oxygen releasing compounds for enhancing the attenuation of contaminants through biodegradation has also been assessed but not applied in the field.  Short term improvements in biodegradation rates can be achieved through tailoring of conditions or addition of nutrients but long term efficacy has not been demonstrated<ref name="Pagnozzi2020">Pagnozzi, G., Carroll, S., Reible, D.D. and Millerick, K., 2020. Biological Natural Attenuation and Contaminant Oxidation in Sediment Caps: Recent Advances and Future Opportunities. Current Pollution Reports, pp.1-14.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-020-00153-5 DOI: 10.1007/s40726-020-00153-5]</ref>. 
 
−
[[File: SedCapFig2.png | thumb |600px|Figure 2. A conceptualization of a cap with accompanying habitat layer]]
 
  
−
==Cap Design and Materials for Habitat Restoration==
+
===Application===
−
In addition to providing chemical isolation and containment, a cap can also be used to provide improvements for organisms by enhancing the habitat characteristics of the bottom substrate<ref name="Yozzo2004">Yozzo, D.J., Wilber, P. and Will, R.J., 2004. Beneficial use of dredged material for habitat creation, enhancement, and restoration in New York–New Jersey Harbor. Journal of Environmental Management, 73(1), pp. 39-52.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.05.008 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.05.008]</ref><ref name="Zhang2016">Zhang, C., Zhu, M.Y., Zeng, G.M., Yu, Z.G., Cui, F., Yang, Z.Z. and Shen, L.Q., 2016. Active capping technology: a new environmental remediation of contaminated sediment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(5), pp.4370-4386.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6076-8 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-6076-8]</ref><ref name="Vlassopoulos2017"/>.  Often, contaminated sediment environments are degraded for a variety of reasons in addition to the toxic constituents.  One way to overcome this is to provide both a habitat layer and chemical isolation or contaminant capping layer. Figure 2 illustrates just such a design providing a more appropriate habitat enhancing substrate, in this case by incorporation additional organic material, vegetation and debris, which is often used by fish species for protection, into the surface layer. In a high energy environment, it should be recognized that it may not be possible to keep a suitable habitat layer in place during high flow events.  This would be true of suitable habitat that had developed naturally as well as a constructed habitat layer and it is presumed that if such a habitat is the normal condition of the waterbody that it will recover over time between such high flow events.
+
Due to the first-order kinetics of PRD, destruction of PFAS is most energy efficient when paired with a pre-concentration technology, such as foam fractionation (FF), nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, or resin/carbon adsorption, that remove PFAS from water. Application of the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> is therefore proposed as a part of a PFAS treatment train that includes a pre-concentration step.
  
−
==Summary==
+
The first pilot study with the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> was conducted in late 2023 at an industrial facility in Michigan with PFAS-impacted groundwater. The goal of the pilot study was to treat the groundwater to below the limits for regulatory discharge permits. For the pilot demonstration, the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> was paired with an FF unit, which pre-concentrated the PFAS into a foamate that was pumped into the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> for batch PFAS destruction. Residual PFAS remaining after the destruction batch was treated by looping back the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> effluent to the FF system influent. During the one-month field pilot duration, site-specific discharge limits were met, and steady state operation between the FF unit and PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> was achieved such that the PFASigator<small><sup>TM</sup></small> destroyed the required concentrated PFAS mass and no off-site disposal of PFAS contaminated waste was required.
−
Clean substrate can be placed at the sediment-water interface for the purposes of reducing exposure to and risk from contaminants in the sediments. The cap can consist of simple materials such as sand designed to physically stabilize contaminated sediments and separate the benthic community from those contaminants or may include other materials designed to sequester contaminants even under adverse conditions including strong groundwater upwelling or highly mobile contaminants. The surface of a cap may be designed of coarse material such as gravel or cobble to be stable under high flow events or designed to be more appropriate habitat for benthic and aquatic organisms. As a result of its flexibility, simplicity and low cost relative to its effectiveness, capping is one of the most prevalent remedial technologies for sediments.  
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 18:43, 8 May 2024

Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction

Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) is a PFAS destruction technology predicated on ultraviolet (UV) light-activated photochemical reactions. The destruction efficiency of this process is enhanced by the use of a surfactant to confine PFAS molecules in self-assembled micelles. The photochemical reaction produces hydrated electrons from an electron donor that associates with the micelle. The hydrated electrons have sufficient energy to rapidly cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds of PFAS molecules due to the association of the electron donor with the micelle. Micelle-accelerated PRD is a highly efficient method to destroy PFAS in a wide variety of water matrices.

Related Article(s):

Contributor(s):

  • Dr. Suzanne Witt
  • Dr. Meng Wang
  • Dr. Denise Kay

Key Resource(s):

  • Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement[1]
  • Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite[2]
  • Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons[3]
  • ER21-7569: Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction[4]

Introduction

Figure 1. Schematic of PRD mechanism[4]

The Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) process is based on a patented chemical reaction that breaks fluorine-carbon bonds and disassembles PFAS molecules in a linear fashion beginning with the hydrophilic functional groups and proceeding through shorter molecules to complete mineralization. Figure 1 shows how PRD is facilitated by adding cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) to form a surfactant micelle cage that traps PFAS. A non-toxic proprietary chemical is added to solution to associate with the micelle surface and produce hydrated electrons via stimulation with UV light. These highly reactive hydrated electrons have the energy required to cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds resulting in the final products of fluoride, water, and simple carbon molecules (e.g., formic acid and acetic acid). The methods, mechanisms, theory, and reactions described herein have been published in peer reviewed literature[1][2][3][4].

Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages

In comparison to other reported PFAS destruction techniques, PRD offers several advantages:

  • Relative to UV/sodium sulfite and UV/sodium iodide systems, the fitted degradation rates in the micelle-accelerated PRD reaction system were ~18 and ~36 times higher, indicating the key role of the self-assembled micelle in creating a confined space for rapid PFAS destruction[1]. The negatively charged hydrated electron associated with the positively charged cetyltrimethylammonium ion (CTA+) forms the surfactant micelle to trap molecules with similar structures, selectively mineralizing compounds with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups (e.g., PFAS).
  • The PRD reaction does not require solid catalysts or electrodes, which can be expensive to acquire and difficult to regenerate or dispose.
  • The aqueous solution is not heated or pressurized, and the UV wavelength used does not cause direct water photolysis, therefore the energy input to the system is more directly employed to destroy PFAS, resulting in greater energy efficiency.
  • Since the reaction is performed at ambient temperature and pressure, there are limited concerns regarding environmental health and safety or volatilization of PFAS compared to heated and pressurized systems.
  • Due to the reductive nature of the reaction, there is no formation of unwanted byproducts resulting from oxidative processes, such as perchlorate generation during electrochemical oxidation[5][6][7].
  • Aqueous fluoride ions are the primary end products of PRD, enabling real-time reaction monitoring with a fluoride ion selective electrode (ISE), which is far less expensive and faster than relying on PFAS analytical data alone to monitor system performance.

Disadvantages

  • The CTAB additive is only partially consumed during the reaction, and although CTAB is not problematic when discharged to downstream treatment processes that incorporate aerobic digestors, CTAB can be toxic to surface waters and anaerobic digestors. Therefore, disposal options for treated solutions will need to be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Possible options include removal of CTAB from solution for reuse in subsequent PRD treatments, or implementation of an oxidation reaction to degrade CTAB.
  • The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS). It is hypothesized that in high TDS solutions (e.g., ion exchange still bottoms with TDS of 200,000 ppm), the presence of ionic species inhibits the association of the electron donor with the micelle, thus decreasing the reaction rate.
  • The PRD reaction rate decreases in water matrices with very low UV transmissivity. Low UV transmissivity (i.e., < 1 %) prevents the penetration of UV light into the solution, such that the utilization efficiency of UV light decreases.

State of the Art

Technical Performance

Figure 2. Enspired SolutionsTM commercial PRD PFAS destruction equipment, the PFASigatorTM. Dimensions are 8 feet long by 4 feet wide by 9 feet tall.
Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
Analytes GW FF AFFF
Rinsate 		AFF
(diluted 10X) 		IDW NF
Σ Total PFASa (ND=0)

% Decrease
(Initial Concentration, μg/L)

 93%
(370)		 96%
(32,000)		 89%
(57,000)		 86 %
(770,000)		 84%
(82)
Σ Total PFAS (ND=MDL) 93%
(400)		 86%
(32,000)		 90%
(59,000)		 71%
(770,000)		 88%
(110)
Σ Total PFAS (ND=RL) 94%
(460)		 96%
(32,000)		 91%
(66,000)		 34%
(770,000)		 92%
(170)
Σ Highly Regulated PFASb (ND=0) >99%
(180)		 >99%
(20,000)		 95%
(20,000)		 92%
(390,000)		 95%
(50)
Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL) >99%
(180)		 98%
(20,000)		 95%
(20,000)		 88%
(390,000)		 95%
(52)
Σ Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL) >99%
(190)		 93%
(20,000)		 95%
(20,000)		 79%
(390,000)		 95%
(55)
Σ High Priority PFASc (ND=0) 91%
(180)		 98%
(20,000)		 85%
(20,000)		 82%
(400,000)		 94%
(53)
Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=MDL) 91%
(190)		 94%
(20,000)		 85%
(20,000)		 79%
(400,000)		 86%
(58)
Σ High Priority PFAS (ND=RL) 92%
(200)		 87%
(20,000)		 86%
(21,000)		 70%
(400,000)		 87%
(65)
Fluorine mass balanced 106% 109% 110% 65% 98%
Sorbed organic fluorinee 4% 4% 33% N/A 31%
Notes:
GW = groundwater
GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate
AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination
AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x
IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate
ND = non-detect
MDL = Method Detection Limit
RL = Reporting Limit
aTotal PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors
bHighly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA
cHigh priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA
dRatio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations
ePercent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment


The PRD reaction has been validated at the bench scale for the destruction of PFAS in a variety of environmental samples from Department of Defense sites (Table 1). Enspired SolutionsTM has designed and manufactured a fully automatic commercial-scale piece of equipment called PFASigatorTM, specializing in PRD PFAS destruction (Figure 2). This equipment is modular and scalable, has a small footprint, and can be used alone or in series with existing water treatment trains. The PFASigatorTM employs commercially available UV reactors and monitoring meters that have been used in the water industry for decades. The system has been tested on PRD efficiency operational parameters, and key metrics were proven to be consistent with benchtop studies.

Bench scale PRD tests were performed for the following samples collected from Department of Defense sites: groundwater (GW), groundwater foam fractionate (FF), firefighting truck rinsate ( AFFF Rinsate), 3M Lightwater AFFF, investigation derived waste nanofiltrate (IDW NF), ion exchange still bottom (IX SB), and Ansulite AFFF. The PRD treatment was more effective in low conductivity/TDS solutions. Generally, PRD reaction rates decrease for solutions with a TDS > 10,000 ppm, with an upper limit of 30,000 ppm. Ansulite AFFF and IX SB samples showed low destruction efficiencies during initial screening tests, which was primarily attributed to their high TDS concentrations. Benchtop testing data are shown in Table 1 for the remaining five sample matrices.

During treatment, PFOS and PFOA concentrations decreased 96% to >99% and 77% to 97%, respectively. For the PFAS with proposed drinking water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) recently established by the USEPA (PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA), concentrations decreased >99% for GW, 93% for FF, 95% for AFFF Rinsate and IDW NF, and 79% for AFFF (diluted 10x) during the treatment time allotted. Meanwhile, the total PFAS concentrations, including all 40 known PFAS analytes and unidentified perfluorocarboxylic acid (PFCA) precursors, decreased from 34% to 96% following treatment. All of these concentration reduction values were calculated by using reporting limits (RL) as the concentrations for non-detects.

Excellent fluorine/fluoride mass balance was achieved. There was nearly a 1:1 conversion of organic fluorine to free inorganic fluoride ion during treatment of GW, FF and AFFF Rinsate. The 3M Lightwater AFFF (diluted 10x) achieved only 65% fluorine mass balance, but this was likely due to high adsorption of PFAS to the reactor.

Application

Due to the first-order kinetics of PRD, destruction of PFAS is most energy efficient when paired with a pre-concentration technology, such as foam fractionation (FF), nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, or resin/carbon adsorption, that remove PFAS from water. Application of the PFASigatorTM is therefore proposed as a part of a PFAS treatment train that includes a pre-concentration step.

The first pilot study with the PFASigatorTM was conducted in late 2023 at an industrial facility in Michigan with PFAS-impacted groundwater. The goal of the pilot study was to treat the groundwater to below the limits for regulatory discharge permits. For the pilot demonstration, the PFASigatorTM was paired with an FF unit, which pre-concentrated the PFAS into a foamate that was pumped into the PFASigatorTM for batch PFAS destruction. Residual PFAS remaining after the destruction batch was treated by looping back the PFASigatorTM effluent to the FF system influent. During the one-month field pilot duration, site-specific discharge limits were met, and steady state operation between the FF unit and PFASigatorTM was achieved such that the PFASigatorTM destroyed the required concentrated PFAS mass and no off-site disposal of PFAS contaminated waste was required.

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Chen, Z., Li, C., Gao, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Wu, B., Gu, C., 2020. Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 5178–5185. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06599
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Tian, H., Gao, J., Li, H., Boyd, S.A., Gu, C., 2016. Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 32949. doi: 10.1038/srep32949   Open Access Article
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 Chen, Z., Tian, H., Li, H., Li, J. S., Hong, R., Sheng, F., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons. Chemosphere, 235, pp. 1180–1188. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Kay, D., Witt, S., Wang, M., 2023. Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction: Final Report. ESTCP Project ER21-7569. Project Website   Final Report.pdf
  5. ^ Veciana, M., Bräunig, J., Farhat, A., Pype, M. L., Freguia, S., Carvalho, G., Keller, J., Ledezma, P., 2022. Electrochemical Oxidation Processes for PFAS Removal from Contaminated Water and Wastewater: Fundamentals, Gaps and Opportunities towards Practical Implementation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 434, Article 128886. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.128886
  6. ^ Trojanowicz, M., Bojanowska-Czajka, A., Bartosiewicz, I., Kulisa, K., 2018. Advanced Oxidation/Reduction Processes Treatment for Aqueous Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) – A Review of Recent Advances. Chemical Engineering Journal, 336, pp. 170–199. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.153
  7. ^ Wanninayake, D.M., 2021. Comparison of Currently Available PFAS Remediation Technologies in Water: A Review. Journal of Environmental Management, 283, Article 111977. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=16446"