Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎State of the Practice)
 
(473 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS)==  
+
==PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment==  
−
OPTICS combines robust aquatic instrumentation and innovative data processing techniques to measure concentrations of a wide range of dissolved and particulate chemical contaminants in surface water at unprecedented scales. OPTICS is used for a variety of environmental applications including remedial investigation, conceptual site model validation, baseline characterization, source control evaluation, plume characterization, and remedial monitoring.
+
The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
−
 
 
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
  
−
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
−
*[[Characterization, Assessment & Monitoring]]
+
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
−
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
+
*[[PFAS Sources]]
−
 
+
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
−
'''Contributor(s):'''
+
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
−
 
+
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
−
*Grace Chang, Ph.D.
 
−
*Todd Martin, P.E.
 
−
 
 
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
−
 
 
−
*Optically based quantification of fluxes of mercury, methyl mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at Berry’s Creek tidal estuary, New Jersey<ref name="ChangEtAl2019">Chang, G., Martin, T., Whitehead, K., Jones, C., Spada, F., 2019. Optically based quantification of fluxes of mercury, methyl mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at Berry’s Creek tidal estuary, New Jersey. Limnology and Oceanography, 64(1), pp. 93-108. [https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11021 doi: 10.1002/lno.11021]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ChangEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
*OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS) to quantify concentrations of mass fluxes of mercury and methylmercury in South River, Virginia, USA<ref name="ChangEtAl2018">Chang, G., Martin, T., Spada, F., Sackmann, B., Jones, C., Whitehead, K., 2018. OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System (OPTICS) to quantify concentrations and mass fluxes of mercury and methylmercury in South River, Virginia, USA. River Research and Applications, 34(9), pp.  1132-1141. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3361 doi: 10.1002/rra.3361]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
*Evaluation of stormwater as a potential source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii<ref name="ChangEtAl2024">Chang, G., Spada, F., Brodock, K., Hutchings, C., Markillie, K., 2024. Evaluation of stormwater as a potential source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 9, Article 100659. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100659 doi: 10.1016/j.cscee.2024.100659]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ChangEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==Background==
 
−
Nationwide, the liability due to contaminated sediments is estimated in the trillions of dollars. Stakeholders are assessing and developing remedial strategies for contaminated sediment sites in major harbors and waterways throughout the U.S. The mobility of contaminants in surface water is a primary transport and risk mechanism<ref>Thibodeaux, L.J., 1996. Environmental Chemodynamics: Movement of Chemicals in Air, Water, and Soil, 2nd Edition, Volume 110 of Environmental Science and Technology: A Wiley-Interscience Series of Texts and Monographs. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 624 pages. ISBN: 0-471-61295-2</ref><ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Report, EPA-540-R-05-012. [[Media: EPA-540-R-05-012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref>Lick, W., 2008. Sediment and Contaminant Transport in Surface Waters. CRC Press. 416 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420059885 doi:  10.1201/9781420059885]</ref>; therefore, long-term monitoring of both particulate- and dissolved-phase contaminant concentration prior to, during, and following remedial action is necessary to ensure remedy effectiveness. Source control and total maximum daily load (TMDL) actions generally require costly manual monitoring of surface water dissolved and particulate contaminant concentrations. The magnitude of cost for these actions is a strong motivation to implement efficient methods for long-term source control and remedial monitoring.
 
−
 
 
−
Traditional surface water monitoring requires mobilization of field teams to manually collect discrete water samples, send samples to laboratories, and await laboratory analysis so that a site evaluation can be conducted. These traditional methods are well known to have inherent cost and safety concerns and are of limited use in capturing episodic events (e.g., storms) important to site risk and remedy due to safety concerns and standby requirements for resources. Automated water samplers are commercially available but still require significant field support and costly laboratory analysis. Further, automated samplers may not be suitable for analytes with short hold-times and temperature requirements.
 
−
 
 
−
Optically-based characterization of surface water contaminants is a cost-effective alternative to traditional discrete water sampling methods. Unlike discrete water sampling, which typically results in sparse data at low resolution, and therefore, is of limited use in determining mass loading, OPTICS (OPTically-based In-situ Characterization System) provides continuous data and allows for a complete understanding of water quality and contaminant transport in response to natural processes and human impacts<ref name="ChangEtAl2019"/><ref name="ChangEtAl2018"/><ref name="ChangEtAl2024"/><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Fleck, J.A., Downing, B.D., Boss, E., Pellerin, B., Ganju, N.K., Schoellhamer, D.H., Byington, A.A., Heim, W.A., Stephenson, M., Fujii, R., 2011. Methyl mercury dynamics in a tidal wetland quantified using in situ optical measurements. Limnology and Oceanography, 56(4), pp. 1355-1371. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1355 doi: 10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1355]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2011.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Fleck, J.A., Downing, B.D., Boss, E., Pellerin, B.A., Ganju, N.K., Schoellhamer, D.H., Byington, A.A., Heim, W.A., Stephenson, M., Fujii, R., 2012. Mercury Dynamics in a San Francisco Estuary Tidal Wetland: Assessing Dynamics Using In Situ Measurements. Estuaries and Coasts, 35, pp. 1036-1048. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9501-3 doi: 10.1007/s12237-012-9501-3]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2012a.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Bergamaschi, B.A., Krabbenhoft, D.P., Aiken, G.R., Patino, E., Rumbold, D.G., Orem, W.H., 2012. Tidally driven export of dissolved organic carbon, total mercury, and methylmercury from a mangrove-dominated estuary. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(3), pp. 1371-1378. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es2029137 doi: 10.1021/es2029137]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: BergamaschiEtAl2012b.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. The OPTICS tool integrates commercial off-the-shelf in-situ aquatic sensors, periodic discrete surface water sample collection, and a multi-parameter statistical prediction model<ref name="deJong1993">de Jong, S., 1993. SIMPLS: an alternative approach to partial least squares regression. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 18(3), pp. 251-263. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-7439(93)85002-X doi: 10.1016/0169-7439(93)85002-X]</ref><ref name="RosipalKramer2006">Rosipal, R. and Krämer, N., 2006. Overview and Recent Advances in Partial Least Squares, In: Subspace, Latent Structure, and Feature Selection: Statistical and Optimization Perspectives Workshop, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3940), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. pp. 34-51. [https://doi.org/10.1007/11752790_2 doi: 10.1007/11752790_2]</ref> to provide high temporal and/or spatial resolution characterization of surface water chemicals of potential concern (COPCs).
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
[[File:StrathmannFig1.png | thumb |300px|Figure 1. Illustration of PFAS adsorption by anion exchange resins (AERs). Incorporation of longer alkyl group side chains on the cationic quaternary amine functional groups leads to PFAS-resin hydrophobic interactions that increase resin selectivity for PFAS over inorganic anions like Cl<sup>-</sup>.]]
 
−
 
 
−
[[File:StrathmannFig2.png | thumb | 300px| Figure 2. Effect of perfluoroalkyl carbon chain length on the estimated bed volumes (BVs) to 50% breakthrough of PFCAs and PFSAs observed in a pilot study<ref name="StrathmannEtAl2020">Strathmann, T.J., Higgins, C., Deeb, R., 2020. Hydrothermal Technologies for On-Site Destruction of Site Investigation Wastes Impacted by PFAS, Final Report - Phase I. SERDP Project ER18-1501. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/b34d6396-6b6d-44d0-a89e-6b22522e6e9c Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER18-1501.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref> treating PFAS-contaminated groundwater with the PFAS-selective AER (Purolite PFA694E) ]]
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
==Technology Overview==
 
−
[[File:StrathmannFig3.png | thumb | 300px| Figure 3. Fixed bed reactor vessels containing anion exchange resins treating PFAS-contaminated water in the City of Orange, NJ. Water flow goes through both vessels in a lead-lag configuration. Picture credit: AqueoUS  Vets.]]
 
  
 +
'''Contributors:''' John Xiong, Yida Fang, Raul Tenorio, Isobel Li, and Jinyong Liu
  
−
Anion exchange treatment of water is accomplished by pumping contaminated water through fixed bed reactors filled with AERs (Figure 3). A common configuration involves flowing water through two reactors arranged in a lead-lag configuration<ref name="WoodardEtAl2017">Woodard, S., Berry, J., Newman, B., 2017. Ion Exchange Resin for PFAS Removal and Pilot Test Comparison to GAC. Remediation, 27(3), pp. 19–27. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21515 doi: 10.1002/rem.21515]</ref>. Water flows through the pore spaces in close contact with resin beads. Sufficient contact time needs to be provided, referred to as empty bed contact time (EBCT), to allow PFAS to diffuse from the water into the resin structure and adsorb to exchange sites. Typical EBCTs for AER treatment of PFAS are 2-5 min, shorter than contact times recommended for granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorbents (≥10 min)<ref name="LiuEtAl2022">Liu, C. J., Murray, C.C., Marshall, R.E., Strathmann, T.J., Bellona, C., 2022. Removal of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Contaminated Groundwater by Granular Activated Carbon and Anion Exchange Resins: A Pilot-Scale Comparative Assessment. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 8(10), pp. 2245–2253. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EW00080F doi: 10.1039/D2EW00080F]</ref><ref>Liu, C.J., Werner, D., Bellona, C., 2019. Removal of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) from Contaminated Groundwater Using Granular Activated Carbon: A Pilot-Scale Study with Breakthrough Modeling. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 5(11), pp. 1844–1853. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EW00349E doi: 10.1039/C9EW00349E]</ref>. The higher adsorption capacities and shorter EBCTs of AERs enable use of much less media and smaller vessels than GAC, reducing expected capital costs for AER treatment systems<ref name="EllisEtAl2023">Ellis, A.C., Boyer, T.H., Fang, Y., Liu, C.J., Strathmann, T.J., 2023. Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Anion Exchange and Granular Activated Carbon Systems for Remediation of Groundwater Contaminated by Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Water Research, 243, Article 120324. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120324 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2023.120324]</ref>.
+
'''Key Resources:'''
 +
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]&nbsp; [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]&nbsp; [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
 +
*EradiFluor<sup>TM</sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>
  
−
Like other adsorption media, PFAS will initially adsorb to media encountered near the inlet side of the reactor, but as ion exchange sites become saturated with PFAS, the active zone of adsorption will begin to migrate through the packed bed with increasing volume of water treated. Moreover, some PFAS with lower affinity for exchange sites (e.g., shorter-chain PFAS that are less hydrophobic) will be displaced by competition from other PFAS (e.g., longer-chain PFAS that are more hydrophobic) and move further along the bed to occupy open sites<ref name="EllisEtAl2022">Ellis, A.C., Liu, C.J., Fang, Y., Boyer, T.H., Schaefer, C.E., Higgins, C.P., Strathmann, T.J., 2022. Pilot Study Comparison of Regenerable and Emerging Single-Use Anion Exchange Resins for Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated by per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Water Research, 223, Article 119019. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119019 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.119019]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Special:FilePath/EllisEtAl2022.pdf| Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. Eventually, PFAS will start to breakthrough into the effluent from the reactor, typically beginning with the shorter-chain compounds. The initial breakthrough of shorter-chain PFAS is similar to the behavior observed for AER treatment of inorganic contaminants.  
+
==Introduction==
 +
The hydrated electron (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.  
  
−
Upon breakthrough, treatment is halted, and the exhausted resins are either replaced with fresh media or regenerated before continuing treatment. Most vendors are currently operating AER treatment systems for PFAS in single-use mode where virgin media is delivered to replace exhausted resins, which are transported off-site for disposal or incineration<ref name="BoyerEtAl2021a" />. As an alternative, some providers are developing regenerable AER treatment systems, where exhausted resins are regenerated on-site by desorbing PFAS from the resins using a combination of salt brine (typically ≥1 wt% NaCl) and cosolvent (typically ≥70 vol% methanol)<ref name="BoyerEtAl2021a" /><ref name="BoyerEtAl2021b">Boyer, T.H., Ellis, A., Fang, Y., Schaefer, C.E., Higgins, C.P., Strathmann, T.J., 2021. Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Regeneration Options for Anion Exchange Resin Remediation of PFAS Impacted Water. Water Research, 207, Article 117798. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117798 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117798]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Special:FilePath/BoyerEtAl2021b.pdf| Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref>Houtz, E., (projected completion 2025). Treatment of PFAS in Groundwater with Regenerable Anion Exchange Resin as a Bridge to PFAS Destruction, Project ER23-8391. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/a12b603d-0d4a-4473-bf5b-069313a348ba/treatment-of-pfas-in-groundwater-with-regenerable-anion-exchange-resin-as-a-bridge-to-pfas-destruction Project Website].</ref>. This mode of operation allows for longer term use of resins before replacement, but requires more complex and extensive site infrastructure. Cosolvent in the resulting waste regenerant can be recycled by distillation, which reduces chemical inputs and lowers the volume of PFAS-contaminated still bottoms requiring further treatment or disposal<ref name="BoyerEtAl2021b" />. Currently, there is active research on various technologies for destruction of PFAS concentrates in AER still bottoms residuals<ref name="StrathmannEtAl2020"/><ref name="HuangEtAl2021">Huang, Q., Woodard, S., Nickleson, M., Chiang, D., Liang, S., Mora, R., 2021. Electrochemical Oxidation of Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Still Bottoms from Regeneration of Ion Exchange Resins Phase I - Final Report. SERDP Project ER18-1320. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/ccaa70c4-b40a-4520-ba17-14db2cd98e8f Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Special:FilePath/ER18-1320.pdf| Report.pdf]]</ref>.
+
Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2−</sup>) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO<sub>3</sub><sup><big>'''•-'''</big></sup>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):
 +
</br>
 +
::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]
  
−
==Field Demonstrations==
+
The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.
−
[[File:StrathmannFig4.png | thumb | 300px| Figure 4. Pilot treatment system comparing three AERs (2.5 min EBCT) with GAC (10 min EBCT) for treatment of a PFAS-contaminated groundwater. Picture courtesy of Charlie Liu.]]
 
−
Field pilot studies are critical to demonstrating the effectiveness and expected costs of PFAS treatment technologies. A growing number of pilot studies testing the performance of commercially available AERs to treat PFAS-contaminated groundwater, including sites impacted by historical use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), have been published recently (Figure 4)<ref name="WoodardEtAl2017"/><ref name="LiuEtAl2022"/><ref name="EllisEtAl2022"/><ref name="ChowEtAl2022">Chow, S.J., Croll, H.C., Ojeda, N., Klamerus, J., Capelle, R., Oppenheimer, J., Jacangelo, J.G., Schwab, K.J., Prasse, C., 2022. Comparative Investigation of PFAS Adsorption onto Activated Carbon and Anion Exchange Resins during Long-Term Operation of a Pilot Treatment Plant. Water Research, 226, Article 119198. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.119198 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2022.119198]</ref><ref>Zaggia, A., Conte, L., Falletti, L., Fant, M., Chiorboli, A., 2016. Use of Strong Anion Exchange Resins for the Removal of Perfluoroalkylated Substances from Contaminated Drinking Water in Batch and Continuous Pilot Plants. Water Research, 91, pp. 137–146. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.039 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2015.12.039]</ref>. A 9-month pilot study treating contaminated groundwater near an AFFF source zone, with total PFAS concentrations >20 &mu;g/L, showed that single-use PFAS-selective resins significantly outperform more traditional regenerable resins<ref name="EllisEtAl2022"/>. No detectable concentrations of ≥C7 PFCAs or PFSAs of any length were observed in the first 150,000 bed volumes (BVs) of water treated with PFAS-selective resins provided by three different manufacturers (one BV is a volume of water equivalent to the volume occupied by the pore spaces in the reactor). Earlier breakthrough of shorter-chain PFCAs was observed for all resins, with the shortest chain structures eluting chromatographically (PFAS breakthrough order follows increasing chain length). Moreover, the superiority of PFAS-selective resins was less dramatic for shorter-chain PFCAs, highlighting the importance of site-specific treatment criteria when selecting among resins. Analysis  of the used resin beds following completion of the study shows that breakthrough of PFAS with the lowest affinity for AERs (e.g., short-chain PFCAs) is accelerated by competitive displacement from adsorption sites by PFAS with greater affinity (e.g., PFSAs and long-chain PFCAs).
 
−
 
−
Another study treating a more dilute plume of AFFF-impacted groundwater (100 – 200 ng/L total PFAS) compared PFAS-selective AER with GAC<ref name="LiuEtAl2022"/>. The same compound-dependent breakthrough patterns were observed with all media, where earlier PFCA breakthrough will likely dictate media changeout requirements. Comparing AER with GAC shows that the former adsorbed 6-7 times more PFAS than the latter before breakthrough. All PFSAs appear to breakthrough AER simultaneously after >100,000 BVs due to fouling of resins by metals present in the sourcewater, highlighting the potential importance of sourcewater pretreatment. Although AERs outperform GAC, estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for both media are similar due to the higher unit media costs for AER.
 
  
−
A third pilot study compared the long-term (>1 year) performance of PFAS-selective AERs with GAC treating contaminated groundwater dominated by short-chain PFCAs<ref name="ChowEtAl2022"/>. As noted in other studies, AER outperform GAC on a bed volume-normalized basis, especially for longer-chain PFCAs and PFSAs. With lower site groundwater concentrations, quantitative relationships between chain length and breakthrough was observed for both PFCAs and PFSAs, with log-linear relationships being observed between BV10 and BV50 (bed volumes at which 10% and 50% breakthrough occurs, respectively) and chain length. These investigators also noted that deviations from a linear PFAS structure (e.g., branching of the perfluoroalkyl chain) negatively affects AER adsorption to a lesser extent than GAC.
+
==Process Description==
 +
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]]<br clear="left"/>
  
−
While most pilot studies have focused on evaluating single-use AERs, pilot studies have also been undertaken to test anion exchange treatment systems employing regenerable AER<ref name="WoodardEtAl2017"/>. Operating lead-lag packed beds, with 5-min EBCT each, the regenerable AER delayed breakthrough of PFCAs and PFSAs compared to GAC. Effluent PFOA breakthrough from the lag bed of AER occurred after ~10,000 BVs, necessitating resin regeneration, which was accomplished by backflushing with 10 BVs of a salt brine/organic cosolvent mixture (+1 BV salt brine pre-rinse and 10 BVs potable water post-rinse). PFAS removal results using the regenerated resin were then found to be comparable with virgin resin. Preliminary tests showed that cosolvent use can be minimized by recovering from the waste regenerant mixture by distillation. A number of studies are currently underway to test the effectiveness of different technologies for destruction of PFAS concentrates in the resulting still bottoms residual.
+
==Advantages==
 +
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
 +
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies<ref>Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref><ref>Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref>Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
 +
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
 +
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
 +
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS.
 +
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
 +
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.
  
−
==Costs and the Importance of Treatment Criteria==
+
==Limitations==
−
Life cycle cost analyses show that anion exchange treatment is a viable alternative to GAC adsorption<ref name="LiuEtAl2022"/><ref name="EllisEtAl2023"/>. Like other adsorption treatment systems, single-use AER treatment systems have fairly simple design with lead-lag reactor vessels in series together with associated pumping, plumbing and any water pretreatment processes (e.g., sediment filters, process for metals removal). While similar in design to GAC treatment systems, single-use AER treatment systems can have significantly lower capital costs due to the smaller reaction vessels used (as a result of shorter required EBCTs for AER)<ref name="EllisEtAl2023"/>. The smaller reactor sizes may also reduce associated costs for any structure required to house the reactors. Capital costs for regenerable AER systems are more difficult to estimate because of their added system complexity, including added infrastructure for resin regeneration, cosolvent recovery by distillation, and still bottoms management. Over the full life cycle of AER treatment systems, typically >10 years, operating costs are expected to dominate overall PFAS treatment costs<ref name="EllisEtAl2023"/>. These costs are determined largely by media usage rate (MUR), which is the frequency for replacement and disposal or regeneration of exhausted resins. Despite the higher unit costs of anion exchange media relative to GAC (often ≥3-fold greater per m<sup>3</sup>), the superior adsorption capacity and PFAS affinity of AERs leads to lower MURs that more than offset this increased sorbent cost.
+
Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.
 +
*Environmental factors, such as the presence of elevated concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), dissolved oxygen, or nitrate, can inhibit the efficacy of UV/sulfite treatment systems by scavenging available hydrated electrons. Those interferences are commonly managed through chemical additions, reaction optimization, and/or dilution, and are therefore not considered likely to hinder treatment success.
 +
*Coloration in waste streams may also impact the effectiveness of the UV/sulfite treatment system by blocking the transmission of UV light, thus reducing the UV lamp's effective path length. To address this, pre-treatment may be necessary to enable UV/sulfite destruction of PFAS in the waste stream. Pre-treatment may include the use of strong oxidants or coagulants to consume or remove UV-absorbing constituents.
 +
*The degradation efficiency is strongly influenced by PFAS molecular structure, with fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTS) and [[Wikipedia: Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid | perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)]] exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.
  
−
A critical parameter that will dictate media usage or regeneration, and ultimately O&M costs, is the criteria used to determine when ‘PFAS breakthrough’ is reached. Sites are typically contaminated with a mix of different PFAS that will breakthrough resin beds into effluent at different bed volumes of water. For example, short-chain PFCAs breakthrough much more rapidly than long-chain PFCAs and PFSAs, so selection of treatment criteria that include short-chain PFCAs like perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) will necessitate more frequent media replacement or regeneration than criteria focused on long-chain PFAS. Likewise, adoption of the proposed drinking water limits for PFOS and PFOA (4 ng/L each)<ref>USEPA, 2023. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation Rulemaking. 88 Federal Register, pp. 18638-18754. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/29/2023-05471/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation-rulemaking Federal Register Website]</ref> in effluent of the lead vessel of a lead-lag reactor system as the breakthrough criteria will require more frequent media replacement than using a less stringent criteria (e.g., 50% breakthrough of either compound in the lead vessel). Breakthrough criteria can also affect media selection because the performance advantages of the more expensive PFAS-selective AER over regenerable AER and GAC are most apparent when media replacement/regeneration is dictated by breakthrough of long-chain PFCAs and PFSAs, and when a greater extent of media adsorption capacity is used before replacement/regeneration; these advantages shrink when media replacement/regeneration is dictated by breakthrough of short-chain PFCAs<ref name="EllisEtAl2023"/><ref name="EllisEtAl2022"/><ref name="ChowEtAl2022"/>. While purchase of new media and disposal of exhausted media are minimal with regenerable AER, costs are still linked closely to regeneration frequency because of the needs for consumables (salt brine, cosolvent) and management and disposal of the resulting waste regenerant solutions, which often far exceeds media waste in terms of total waste mass and volume. These costs may be reduced by recovering cosolvent and destruction of PFAS in the resulting still bottoms<ref name="BoyerEtAl2021b"/>, areas of active research and development<ref name="StrathmannEtAl2020"/><ref name="HuangEtAl2021"/>
+
==State of the Practice==
 +
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
 +
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]] 
 +
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.  
 +
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
 +
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 11:33, 29 January 2026

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

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

Related Article(s):

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

Key Resources:

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

Introduction

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

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

Equation 1:   XiongEq1.png

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

Process Description

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

Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream


Advantages

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

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

Limitations

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

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

State of the Practice

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

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

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

References

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

See Also

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