Where Is the <scp>PFAS</scp>? Innovations in <scp>PFAS</scp> Detection and Characterization

Horst, John; Divine, Craig; Quinnan, Joe; Lang, Johnsie R.; Carter, Erika; Guillette, Theresa C.; Pulikkal, Vivek Francis

doi:10.1111/gwmr.12502

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On one end of the spectrum, USEPA risk‐based screening levels for the soil to groundwater leaching pathway for PFOS and PFOA are a fraction of a µg/kg, whereas human health criteria for direct contact and ingestion are approximately 1 mg/kg. State‐specific groundwater protection standards are evolving, ranging from fraction of µg/kg to 10 s of µg/kg for PFOA and PFOS (Horst et al, 2022). These factors combine to a range of soil washing costs between approximately $100−$200/ton, excluding residuals treatment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex situ soil washing to remove PFAS adsorbed to soils from source zones

Quinnan

Morrell²,

Nagle

et al. 2022

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of an Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) demonstration conducted at Eielson Air Force Base in Fairbanks, Alaska: Ex situ soil washing to remove per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) adsorbed to soils from source zones. The ESTCP project information can be found here: https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/ Environmental-Restoration/Risk-Assessment/ER20-5258. The final report is expected to be published in September 2022. The objective of the project was to demonstrate and validate soil washing as a cost-effective mass removal technology that can be applied to treat soil in source zones impacted by PFAS. The approach focused on the treatment of coarse soil fractions (sand and gravel) and separation of fines (silt/clay) for potential treatment by other means such as landfilling, thermal desorption, or stabilization. The goal was to optimize the treatment process to minimize wastes requiring more expensive treatment so that the cost would be competitive with landfilling in the continental United State. The treatment process was designed and optimized at the bench-scale and demonstrated at the field-scale by conducting a treatment trial at the Eielson Air Force Base using a mobile soil washing plant. Approximately 180 tons of PFAS-contaminated soil was treated with untreated perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) concentrations ranging from 4.5 to 560 μg/kg. The technology was validated by measuring PFAS mass removal efficiencies based on soil concentrations of PFAS compounds measured via Department of Defense Quality Standards Manual 5.3 Table B-14 and PFAS leachate concentrations as measured by synthetic precipitation leaching procedure testing. PFAS concentrations in treated soils were compared to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation soil screening levels for the migration to groundwater pathway through leaching for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), PFOS, and perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS). PFAS concentrations in soil leachate were compared to US Environmental Protection Agency groundwater screening criteria for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS. The results of the treatability testing and pilot testsconfirmed that coarse grained sand and gravel were successfully treated to meet performance goals and the fines were segregated for alternative treatment. The benefit of the waste minimization approach is that more cost-effective means can be applied to treat most of the impacted soil volume while limiting expensive residuals

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex situ soil washing to remove PFAS adsorbed to soils from source zones

Quinnan

Morrell²,

Nagle

et al. 2022

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, few literature values 8,20 exist for PFAS beyond the most common PFAS (e.g., PFOA, PFOS), and novel sorbents are continuously produced. 21 Batch experiments to determine the distribution coefficient often employ a similar general method: combine sorbent and water phases in a solution/sorbent mixture, spike target compounds into the mixture via concentrated methanol solution, agitate until equilibrium, and then separate and analyze one or both phases for final target compound concentrations. 22 Methodological details, however, can differ considerably in published studies.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distribution coefficients are often experimentally determined via laboratory batch experiments. However, few literature values , exist for PFAS beyond the most common PFAS (e.g., PFOA, PFOS), and novel sorbents are continuously produced …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avoiding Artifacts in the Determination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Sorbent–Water Distribution

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Characterizing sorbent affinity for a target compound (described by sorbent–water distribution coefficient, K sw) is a necessary step in the sorbent selection and performance-testing process in the process of capturing aquatic contaminants. However, no standardized procedure exists to measure K sw, and studies display significant variations in setup and performance. For per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), most K sw determinations employ batch experiments with small-scale water–sorbent mixtures, methanol-based spike of target compound(s), and analysis after assumed equilibrium, but methodological details of the above procedure differ and might cause artifacts in the determination of K sw. We conducted several batch experiments systematically varying a general procedure to characterize the effects of suboptimal experimental design. Using a selection of PFAS (6-carbon fluorinated chain length with differing functional groups) and two sorbents, we tested variations of a solution/sorbent ratio, methanol content, and PFAS initial concentration and compared derived K sw values. Each methodological component affected log(K sw) usually by suppressing the value (by 0–48%) when compared with a “best design” procedure. Thus, we suggest (1) a reference procedure for PFAS and sorbents used here and (2) general guidelines for batch experiment design with different compounds and sorbents. Additionally, we report well-constrained K sw values for 23 PFAS and two sorbents.

show abstract