understanding fate and transport of pfas...– detection limits to ~ 2 ng/l (ppt) – commercially...
TRANSCRIPT
1
UNDERSTANDING FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PFAS
Erika Houtz, PhDMay 8-10, 2017NEWMOA PFAS [email protected]
© Arcadis 2016
Presentation Overview
17 May 2017 2
• Major environmental sources of PFAS
• Atmospheric Fate and Transport
• Subsurface Fate and Transport
• Idealized Conceptual Site Model of a Fire Training Area
• Case studies
2
© Arcadis 2016
Historical Perspective on PFAS
2009: The Stockholm Convention classes PFOS as a Persistent Organic Pollutant and add it to Annex B to restrict it’s use.
2006: Eight major manufacturers commit to phase out PFOA by 2015 as part of U.S. EPA PFOA Stewardship Program
2013: After 7 years of research, C8 Science Panel determines probable link between PFOA exposure with ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease, and kidney and testicular cancer.
1938: Roy Plunkett discovers polytetrafluoro-ethylene (PTFE)
1954: Production of first PTFE-coated, non-stick cookware.
1949: Products containing PTFE first used for coatings of pipes and leak proofing of pipe connections.
1956: Products containing perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) become a popular treatment for clothes, carpets, and furniture.
1968: U.S. Navy develops first PFAS-containing firefighting foams known as AFFF in response to catastrophic ship fires.
2008: The European Food Safety Authority establishes “tolerable daily intake” for PFAS.
1997: PFOS ubiquitously detected in blood bank samples from non-occupationally exposed people around the world
1978: Manufacturers become aware of C8 PFAS in blood of their manufacturing workers
2002: The primary global manufacturer of PFOS phases out PFOS production and related chemistries
© Arcadis 2016
Recent Acceleration of Attention on PFAS
May 2015: Hundreds of prominent scientists and professionals sign on to the Madrid Statement, urging a complete move away from PFAS chemistry.
January 2016: Manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, NY named first PFAS-related Superfund site for PFOA-contaminated drinking water
2015: Phase-out of PFOA completed by eight leading manufacturers as part of US EPA Stewardship Council.
October 2015: A manufacturer was found liable for a woman’s kidney cancer in its first of 3500 personal lawsuits related to PFOA contamination of drinking water near a manufacturing facility in Parkersburg, WV.
2015: U.S. EPA UCMR3 sampling of public drinking water finds PFAS in 97 public drinking water supplies.
June 2, 2016:. 100k Alabama residents advised not to drink their local drinking water
February 2016: Guernsey, a Channel Island, loses lawsuit against a manufacturer in pursuit of costs related to cleanup of PFOS-contaminated groundwater and soil.
May 2016: US EPA announces drinking water health advisory limit for PFOS and PFOA (separately or combined) at 70 ppt (ng/L)
3
© Arcadis 2016 5
Major Sources of PFAS Contamination
17 May 2017
© Arcadis 2016
Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs)
• Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) generally are the Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs)
• PFAAs include:
• Perfluoralkyl carboxylates (PFCAs) e.g. PFOA
• Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs) e.g. PFOS
• Perfluoroalkyl phosphinic and phosphonic (minor)
• There are many PFAAs with differing chain lengths, PFOS and PFOA have 8 carbons (C8) –octane
• Anionic at environmental pH
• Recalcitrant to biotransformation
17 May 2017 6
C1 Methane
C2 Ethane
C3 Propane
C4 Butane
C5 Pentane
C6 Hexane
C7 Heptane
C8 Octane
C9 Nonane
C10 Decane
C11 Unodecane
C12 Dodecane
C13 Tridecane
C14 Tetradecane
4
© Arcadis 2016
Polyfluorinated Compounds - “PFAA Precursors” – More diverse transport
Volatile
Likely to sorb strongly to negatively- charged soils
-
Relatively mobile in groundwater
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate
Multiple charges – behavior more difficult to predict
© Arcadis 2016
PFAS Atmospheric Fate & Transport
Vapor Phase Transport ‐Mainly neutral precursors
Longer transport potential~20 days atmospheric lifetime (8:2 FtOH)
Atmospheric transformation of precursors to other PFAS by reaction with:NOx, OH•, O3, O2
Particle phase/ Aerosol transport –PFAAs and Precursors
Wet Deposition of Vapor‐Phase PFASDry
Deposition of Particle –Associated
PFAS
Wet Deposition of Particle –Associated
PFAS
Shorter transport potential~3‐5 days atmospheric lifetime (PM2.5)
PFOA associated with small particles (<0.14 m)PFOS associated with larger particles (1.38 to 3.81 m)A. Dreyer et al. Chemosphere 2015
17 May 2017 8
5
© Arcadis 2016Ahrens et al., Environ. Chem. 2010
• Air deposition is sole source of PFAS to mountainous lakes outside of Grenoble
• Concentrations of PFOS and PFOS precursors in fish were similar between reference lake and lakes near Grenoble
• Concentrations of PFCAs and PFCA precursors in fish were dependent on proximity to local industrial sources
Air Deposition of PFAS to Remote Lakes - Grenoble, France
17 May 2017 9
© Arcadis 2016
PFAA Groundwater Fate & Transport: Chemical Properties and Implications
17 May 2017 10
PFAA plumes are generally longer• High solubility • Low log KOC
• Recalcitrant• Mostly anionic• Anionic head group and carbon chain length are two
primary factors affecting sorption• Sorption increases with perfluorinated chain length• Sulfonates are more sorptive than carboxylates
Chemical Properties
PCB (Arochlor 1260)
PFOA PFOS TCE Benzene
Molecular Weight 358 414 500 132 78
Solubility (@20-25°C), mg/L
0.00273400 –9500
519 1100 1780
Vapor Pressure (@25°C), mmHg
4.1x10-5 0.5-10 2.5x10-6 78 97
Henry’s Constant, atm-m3/mol
4.6x10-3 1.01x10-4 3.1x10-9 0.01 0.0056
Log Koc 5 – 7 2.06 2.57 2.47 2.13
6
© Arcadis 2016
Subsurface Retardation of PFAS in Groundwater
• Hydrophobic interaction• Predominant sorption mechanism for long chain PFAS• ~0.5 log Koc increase for each CF2 group (Higgins &
Luthy 2006, ES&T)• Organic rich soils retard movement of PFAS• foc increases -> Kd increases• Oil and other organics may also increase sorption
• Electrostatic effects• Positively charged PFAS (i.e., some precursors) sorb to
negatively charged minerals• Negatively charged PFAS sorb to positively charged
minerals• Electrostatic repulsion can decrease PFAS sorption• High ionic strength dulls electrostatic repulsion and
attraction
17 May 2017 11
© Arcadis 2016
Abiotic Transformation of PFAA Precursors
Both Sulfonamido and Fluorotelomer Precursors predominately oxidize to form PFCAs
8:2 FTOH
PFOA
Ethyl-FOSA
Atmospheric Oxidation,
Aqueous Indirect
Photolysis
C8F17S
NH
O
O
C7F15
O
OC8F17
OH
PFOA
C7F15
O
O
+ shorter PFCAs
7
© Arcadis 2016
Aerobic Biotransformation of Fluorotelomer Precursors Forms PFCAsExample of Soil Microcosms with Ansul AFFF (Harding-Marjanovic et al. ES&T 2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
[6:2
FtT
AoS
] M
Day
LiveAFFF AFFF DGBE
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
[FtCA]
M
Day
5:3 FtCA ‐ Live 6:2 FtUCA ‐ Live 5:3 FtCA ‐ Autoclaved 6:2 FtUCA ‐ Autoclaved
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
[PFCA] µ
M
Day
PFBA ‐ Live PFPeA ‐ Live PFHxA ‐ Live PFBA ‐ Autoclaved PFPeA ‐ Autoclaved PFHxA ‐ Autoclaved
6:2 FtUCA
5:3 FtCA
PFHxA
PFPeA
PFBA
Similar results with fluorotelomer compounds seen in: Dinglasan et al. 2004, Wang et al. 2005, Lee et al. 2010, Liu et al 2010, Dasu et al. 2012, Zhang et al. 2013
© Arcadis 2016
Slow transformation of Sulfonamido Precursors to PFOSAerobic Soil Microcosms from Mejia-Avendano et al. ES&T 2016
17 May 2017 14
8
© Arcadis 2016
Biotransformation of Fluorotelomer Precursor under Sulfate-Reducing Conditions: No PFCAs observedShan Yi – American Chemical Society Philadelphia 2016
17 May 2017 15
24% 30%
36% 30%
6:2 FtTAoS
6:2 FtTPA
Related study - Zhang et al. 2016, Chemosphere: no transformation of 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate observed in anaerobic sediment, transformation of 6:2 FtOH did not yield significant PFCA products
© Arcadis 2016
Precursors form dead end PFAAs such as PFOS and PFOA through aerobic biotransformation
PFAAs persist indefinitely17 May 2017 16
9
-300mV -200mVREDOX
ZONATION-100mV 0mV
Increasing mobility of shorter perfluoroalkyl chain PFAS
C6 C4 C5 C3? C2?
C8 C7 C6 C4 C5 C3? C2?
Anionic PFAA dead end daughters
Hidden anionic mobile PFAA precursors -“Dark Matter”
Anionic precursor biotransformation increases as aerobic conditions develop
Direction of groundwater flow
0 C8 C7C8F17 S 0 0
0
0
C F S 08 17
0
00H3C 0
C4H9
0
C8F17 S 0 0
0
00H3C 0
C4H9
0
0
S 0C8F17
C F
0
0
S 08 17
0
0
C6F13
S 0
0
0
C8F17
0
0
S 0S 0 C8F17
0
0
S 0C8F17
0
S 0C8F17
0
0
S 0C6F13
0
C6F13
0 0
0
S 0S 0
0 C6F13
Source Zone - Hidden Cationic and Zwitterionic “Dark Matter”
Cationic and zwitterionic PFAS are bound via ion exchange to negatively charged soils (e.g. silts & clays) in the source zone.
Precursor biotransformation is slow under anaerobic source conditions.
Hydrocarbon LNAPL
F
N+
0
0H
0
00C1H9
C F
H3C 0
0
0
S 08 17
0
0
S
N H
C8F17
NH+
FF Cn
0
0 0H
NS
F
F C
F n0
0
H3C 00 C4H9
0
0H
0
N+F
F
F C
F
C6F13
0
0
S 0 N
NNS
0 H
0
F
F C
F n
0
0‐C5F11
0
H3C 0
0
00H3C 0
C4H9
0 C4H9
0 0
C6F17 S 0
0
Class B Foam
CH
CH
CH
CHCH
CH
CH
CH3
CH 3
CH3
CH3
CH 3
Short hydrocarbon plume
100mV 200mV
17 May 2017 17
© Arcadis 2016
• US EPA Method 537: Analysis for selected PFAS in drinking water
• 12 PFAAs and 2 Precursors:
– PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUA, PFDoA, PFTrA, PFTeA
– PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS
– N-EtFOSAA, N-MeFOSAA
• Method 537 has been adapted with more analytes to other media
• Up to 39 analytes (laboratory dependent)
• PFAS LOD in GW ~ 2 to 10 ng/L
• Soil with LODs as low as 0.2 µg/kg
• Availability of standards and other factors limit the number of PFAS that can be measured with a single method
• Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.1 has guidelines for GW and soil; new EPA methods are under development for these media
Standard PFAS Analyses
10
© Arcadis 2016
Expanding Analytical Tool Box for PFAA Precursors• Total oxidizable precursor (TOP) Assay
– Initial LC-MS/MS analysis with re-analysis following oxidative digest
– Detection limits to ~ 2 ng/L (ppt)
– Commercially available in UK, Australia, US & Canada
• Particle-induced gamma emission (PIGE) Spectroscopy
– Isolates organofluorine compounds on solid phase extraction, measures total fluorine
– Detection limits to ~ 15 ug/L (ppb) F
– Commercially available in US
• Adsorbable organofluorine (AOF)
– Isolates organofluorine compounds with activated carbon and measures F by combustion ion chromatography
– Detection limits to ~ 1 ug/L (ppb) F
– Commercially available in Germany, Australia
• LC-QTOF (Quantitative Time of Flight)
– Tentative identification of PFAS through exact mass measurement
– Commercially available in U.S.17 May 2017 19
© Arcadis 2016
TOP Assay Applied to AFFF Formulations: Many formulations appear PFAS-free until precursors are revealed by TOP Assay
0
5
10
15
20
ECF,2001
FT 1,2005
FT 2,2002
FT 3,2009
FT 4,2003
Con
cent
ratio
n, g
/L
AFFF Formulations, Pre-TOPA
PFOS
PFHpS
PFHxS
PFBS
PFNA
PFOA
PFHpA
PFHxA
PFPA
PFBA0
5
10
15
20
ECF,2001
FT 1,2005
FT 2,2002
FT 3,2009
FT 4,2003
Con
cent
ratio
n, g
/L
AFFF Formulations, Post-TOPA
PFOS
PFHpS
PFHxS
PFBS
PFNA
PFOA
PFHpA
PFHxA
PFPA
PFBA
FT = Fluorotelomer-based AFFF
ECF = Electrochemical Fluorination- based AFFF
11
© Arcadis 2015
TOP Assay Applied to Groundwater
17 May 2017 21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Sample 1Pre-TOPA
Sample 1Post-TOPA
Sample 2Pre-TOPA
Sample 2Post-TOPA
Sample 3Pre-TOPA
Sample 3Post-TOPA
Sample 4Pre-TOPA
Sample 4Post-TOPA
Sample 5Pre-TOPA
Sample 5Post-TOPA
Con
cent
ratio
n, m
icro
gram
s/L
PFNA
PFOA
PFHpA
PFHxA
PFPA
PFBA
6:2 FtS
PFOS
PFHxS
PFBS
Sample 1 Key use of TOP Assay and Expanded Analyte List – both indicate
significant PFAS mass that
conventional analysis does not
capture
Sample 2 Key use of TOP
Assay– indicates significant PFAS
mass that conventional
analysis does not capture
Sample 3: TOP Assay provides
additional information on
PFAS contamination
scale
Sample 4: TOP Assay Confirms no Additional
PFAS
Sample 5: Key use of
TOP Assay –confirms no
PFAS present
© Arcadis 2016
• ~1990’s compost blended with industrial sludge used as agricultural fertilizer in SW Germany near Baden Baden
• Sludge contained PolyfluoroalkylPhosphates (PAPs) and fluorinated polymers
• Additional AFFF source from fire event
• Largest PFAS Site in Germany (3.7 Km2); 3 Million m3 of affected soil.
• Underlying alluvial sandy aquifer used for drinking water
Case Study 1: PFAS-Impacted Industrial Sludges used as Agricultural Fertilizer, Southwest Germany
17 May 2017 22
12
© Arcadis 2016
PFAS Fingerprint: Average Concentrations
• > 100 individual samples of soil and groundwater
• Soil fingerprint dominated by longer chain compounds; groundwater shows predominance of shorter chain compounds & PFOA – possibly reflective of a mixture of sources
• Lab scale KD determinations (compounds with arrows) to evaluate adsorption
• Possible Influencing Factors: foc, carbon chain length, functional groups, anion exchange capacity, pH, ionic strength, PFAS concentration
C8
17 May 2017 23
© Arcadis 2016
Adsorption strongly correlated with foc
KD did not show strong relationship to • Anion Exchange Capacity• pH• Grain size • Clay content
KD did show strong relationship to • Total organic carbon (TOC)• PFAS chain length
17 May 2017 24
13
© Arcadis 2016
Precursor Analysis via TOP Assay: Most precursors found on soils
TOP Assay on groundwater:~5-10% increase in PFAAs
Minimal evidence of precursors
TOP Assay on soils:~30-70% increase in PFAAsC4 to C9 increases observed
Soil 1 Soil 1Pre TOP Post TOP
Soil 2 Soil 2Pre TOP Post TOP
Soil 3 Soil 3Pre TOP Post TOP
Soil 4 Soil 4Pre TOP Post TOP
GW 1 GW 1Pre TOP Post TOP
GW 2 GW 2Pre TOP Post TOP
GW 3 GW 3Pre TOP Post TOP
GW 4 GW 4Pre TOP Post TOP
17 May 2017 25
© Arcadis 2016
PFAAs sorbed better to anionic exchange resins (AIX)PFAA Precursors sorbed better to GAC
Faster breakthrough of PFAAs with GAC than AIX
Total organofluorine (i.e. PFAAs + PFAA precursors) show that total PFAS has faster breakthrough with AIX
Inflow Effluent – Post GAC
Effluent – Post Re-activated GAC
Effluent – Post AIX
Inflow Effluent – Post GAC
Effluent – Post Re-activated GAC
Effluent – Post AIX
t1 ~ 2 weekst2 ~ 4 weeks
17 May 2017 26
14
© Arcadis 2016
Case study 2: Fate of AFFF in a Wastewater Treatment Plant during Annual AFFF Testing
11/19First AFFF Addition
11/25End of 1st
Round of AFFF
12/1More AFFF
12/3End of AFFF
11/19
11/20
11/2311/25 11/30 12/2 12/6 12/9 12/14
12/1512/3
Sample collectedAnalyzed by LC‐MS/MS for PFAS Suite
Analyzed by TOP AssayAnalyzed by LC‐QTOF‐MS
~ 15 days of testing performance of AFFF equipment and AFFF specs
AFFF waters conveyed via wash racks to industrial treatment system
Project undertaken by California DTSC Environmental Chemistry Lab
0
3
6
9
12
11/19/2015 11/24/2015 11/29/2015 12/4/2015 12/9/2015 12/14/2015
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n µ
g/L
6:2 FtS
PFOS
17 May 2017 27
© Arcadis 2016
Schematic of SFO Industrial Treatment Plant
Wash water
Stormwater, Detention basins<50%, dry weather
>50%, dry weatherEqualization Tank
Rapid Mix Basin 1
Flocculation Tank
Influent Sample
Dissolved Air Flotation Tanks
Rapid Mix Basin 2
Trickling Filter
Midpoint Sample
Clarifiers
Disinfection/Dechlor
Effluent Sample
Discharge to SF Bay
AFFF
~0.5‐.6 MGD<3 hrs residence
time
17 May 2017 28
15
© Arcadis 2016
Directly Measured Analytes vs. Post-TOP Assay Total PFAS Mass
~95‐98% of PFAS mass is not directly measured by target analyte list
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
42 FtS
62 FtS
82 FtS
PFBA
PFPeA
PFH
xA
PFH
pA
PFO
A
PFN
A
PFD
A
PFBS
PFH
xS
PFO
S
PFH
xPA
Concentration, µ
g/L
12‐2‐15 Composite Influent
12‐2‐15 Composite Midpoint
12‐2‐15 Composite Effluent
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Sum PFAS Pre‐TOP
Sum PFASPost‐TOP
Concentration, µ
g/L
17 May 2017 29
© Arcadis 2016
Influent to Effluent:>99% loss of 6:2 FTSAoS, ~50% loss of Total PFAS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Sum PFAS Post‐TOP
Concentration, µ
g/L
0.00E+00
4.00E+07
8.00E+07
1.20E+08
1.60E+08
2.00E+08
2.40E+08
FTAB FTSAS
QTO
F Inst. Response
Influent12/3/15Midpoint12/3/15
6
Substantial disappearance after trickling filter –sorption or transformation?
Minimal effect of treatment processes
17 May 2017 30
16
© Arcadis 2016
Biotransformation Pathway in WWTP Resembles Aerobic Soil Microcosm Pathway
Biotransformation of Ansul 6:2 FtTAoS in Aerobic Soil Microcosms (Harding-Marjanovic et al. 2015)
PFHpA
This WWTP
17 May 2017 31
© Arcadis 2016
Plant Clearance of PFAS
17 May 2017 32
17
© Arcadis 2016
Case Study 3: Ellsworth AFB Fire Training Area (FTA)
17 May 2017 33
• Active FTA from 1942 to 1990
• Site received treatment for VOCs, SVOCs until 2011:
• Soil vapor extraction
• Pump and treat (watch discharged back to on-site pond): oil water separation, air sparging, GAC
• Dual phase extraction trench
• Several wells received bioventing and oxygen infusion
• Surface soil, aquifer solids, and groundwater collected in 2011 for PFAS analysis
• Data summarized in two studies: Houtz et al. ES&T 2013, McGuire et al. ES&T 2014
© Arcadis 2016
Case Study: Ellsworth AFB Fire Training Area
17 May 2017 34
• Surface Soil PFAS profile resembled original benzene plume 10+ years after active remediation
PFHxA PFOA PFOS
McGuire et al. 2014, ES&T
18
© Arcadis 2016
Case Study: Ellsworth AFB Fire Training Area
17 May 2017 35
Total Precursors (TOP Assay) in GW
PFHxA in GW
PFOA in GW
PFOS in GW
• Why the spatial disparity between PFCAs and PFOS/Precursors?
McGuire et al. 2014, ES&T
© Arcadis 2016
Case Study: Ellsworth AFB Fire Training Area
17 May 2017 36
Total Precursors (TOP Assay) in GW
PFHxA in GW
• Historical benzene plume received significant treatment
• PFHxA signal (and other PFCAs) likely the result of precursor transformation
• In Eastern source area, no treatment
• Precursor signal is more dominant, suggesting significant transformation to terminal products has not occurred McGuire et al.
2014, ES&T
19
© Arcadis 2016
Case Study: Ellsworth AFB Fire Training Area
17 May 2017 37
• Ratio of PFHxS to PFOS measured in some AFFF formulations is 1:10 (Houtz et al. 2013)
• Significant presence of PFHxS precursors documented in some AFFF formulations (Houtz et al. 2013)
• Ratio of PFHxS to PFOS is up to 50:1 in the historical benzene plume
• Significant formation of PFHxS from precursors is apparent
Ratio of PFHxS to PFOS in GW
McGuire et al. 2014, ES&T
© Arcadis 2016
Evolving Regulatory PFAS Values – OverviewDrinking, Surface and Ground Water (g/l or ppb)
Soil Regulations are Uncommon
PFOS O=8
PFOA O=8
PFBS B=4
PFBA B=4
PFPeA/S Pe=5
PFHxA Hx=6
DENMARK(Drinking & Groundwater)
FEDERALGERMANY
(Drinking Water)
(0.1)
UK(Drinking Water)
AUSTRALIA(Drinking Water)
(0.09)
THE NETHERLANDSUS EPA
(Drinking Water)
VERMONT(Drinking Water)
MINNESOTA(Drinking Water)
NEW JERSEY
CANADA(Drinking Water)
PFHxS Hx=6
PFHpA Hp=7
PFOSA O=8
PFNA N=9
PFDA D=10
COMPOUND REGULATED AND CHAIN LENGTH KEY
(0.07)ITALY
(Drinking Water)
0.07
TEXAS-Residential(Groundwater)
0.56
(1)
0.3/0.3/
0.3/
0.3/0.3/
3/
7/3/1/
.030.5
0.5
(0.1)
0.3
0.60.2
15
30
0.20.2
0.2
0.2
.014.013
(0.02)0.30.3
7
7
0.560.29
34
71
.093.093
0.56
0.290.37
.093
0.6
.53
.023ground
drinking
0.5
drinkingdrinking.01ground
0.29
SWEDEN(Drinking Water)
(0.5)(0.5)
(0.5)(0.5)
(0.5)(0.5)
0.3
STATE OF BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG
(Groundwater)0.23/(0.3)
European Surface Waters (PFOS) 0.00065
Australian Surface Waters (PFOS) 0.00023
Data - October 2016May 17, 2017 38
20
© Arcadis 2016
Arcadis PFAS Management
May 17, 2017 39
Remediation is not always necessary:
• Site A: Site-specific characterization of PFOS aquifer retardation factors justified an MNA management approach to protect a drinking water supply well
• Site B: Site-specific modelling of soil leaching, groundwater flow, and reservoir hydraulics determined acceptable residual PFOS concentrations in impacted soils
Arcadis is developing new technologies for sites where remediation or treatment of PFAS may be required:
• Water treatment reactor systems which destroy PFAS via sonolysis
• Regenerable, cost effective sorbent materials which remove both short and long chain PFAS
• PFAS stabilization solutions using multiple reagents for source areas
• Oxidative and reductive technologies showing promise for PFAS treatment
© Arcadis 2016
Conclusions
17 May 2017 40
• Despite broad background PFAS contamination, there are a finite number of PFAS point sources
• Transport depends on chemical structure:
• Precursors have many different kinds of functional groups
• PFAAs are generally non-volatile and mobile in groundwater
• PFAAs are non-reactive
• PFAA precursors biotransform more rapidly under aerobic than anaerobic conditions
• Similar transformation pathways seen in lab studies and full-scale wastewater treatment plants
21
© Arcadis 2016
Conclusions
17 May 2017 41
• Atmospheric deposition of PFAS can occur tens of miles away from the release location
• Long chain PFAA retardation in subsurface is dominated by hydrophobic sorption
• Electrostatic effects may be more significant for cationic precursors and short chain PFAAs
• Multiple sources and local hydrogeology contribute to PFAS distribution at specific sites
• Subsurface fate and transport concepts have implications on performance of GAC, AIX, and other sorptive treatment technologies
• Treatment solutions are available and constantly being innovated
© Arcadis 2016
Discover the innovations that will change the remediation industry. Download your free copy of our new Advances in Remediation book today!
Go to: arcad.is/AIR2016
Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts
Purchase your copy of this fully updated 2nd edition of the industry’s premier textbook that covers current remediation technologies as well as future trends.
Receive a 20% discount by using AQQ80 when you order online at www.crcpress.com.
(Regular price: $169.95)
Arcadis Authored Guidance on PFAS –Available at:https://www.concawe.eu/publications/concawe-reports
17 May 2017 42