UNDERSTANDING FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PFAS...– Detection limits to ~ 2 ng/L (ppt) – Commercially...

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




GW 1 GW 1Pre 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


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?


© Arcadis 2016


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


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


© 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

UNDERSTANDING FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PFAS...– Detection limits to ~ 2 ng/L (ppt) – Commercially...

Documents

Transcript of UNDERSTANDING FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PFAS...– Detection limits to ~ 2 ng/L (ppt) – Commercially...