Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction)
(→‎Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers))
 
(202 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction==  
+
==Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)==  
−
Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) is a [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] destruction technology predicated on [[Wikipedia: Ultraviolet | ultraviolet (UV)]] light-activated photochemical reactions. The destruction efficiency of this process is enhanced by the use of a [[Wikipedia: Surfactant | surfactant]] to confine PFAS molecules in self-assembled [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]]. The photochemical reaction produces [[Wikipedia: Solvated electron | hydrated electrons]] from an electron donor that associates with the micelle. The hydrated electrons have sufficient energy to rapidly cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds of PFAS molecules due to the association of the electron donor with the micelle. Micelle-accelerated PRD is a highly efficient method to destroy PFAS in a wide variety of water matrices.
+
Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.  
 +
 
 
<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):'''
−
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]  
+
 
−
*[[PFAS Sources]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
−
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
−
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
+
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
−
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
+
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
−
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
+
*[[Sediment Capping]]
 +
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
 +
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
 +
 
  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
−
*Dr. Suzanne Witt
+
 
−
*Dr. Meng Wang
+
*Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
−
*Dr. Denise Kay
+
*Jason Conder, Ph.D.
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
−
*Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement<ref name="ChenEtAl2020">Chen, Z., Li, C., Gao, J., Dong, H., Chen, Y., Wu, B., Gu, C., 2020. Efficient Reductive Destruction of Perfluoroalkyl Substances under Self-Assembled Micelle Confinement. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 5178–5185. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06599 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06599]</ref>
+
 
−
*Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite<ref name="TianEtAl2016">Tian, H., Gao, J., Li, H., Boyd, S.A., Gu, C., 2016. Complete Defluorination of Perfluorinated Compounds by Hydrated Electrons Generated from 3-Indole-Acetic-Acid in Organomodified Montmorillonite. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 32949. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32949 doi: 10.1038/srep32949]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: TianEtAl2016.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
+
*A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater<ref>Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: RisacherEtAl2023a.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>
−
*Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons<ref name="ChenEtAl2019">Chen, Z., Tian, H., Li, H., Li, J. S., Hong, R., Sheng, F., Wang, C., Gu, C., 2019. Application of Surfactant Modified Montmorillonite with Different Conformation for Photo-Treatment of Perfluorooctanoic Acid by Hydrated Electrons. Chemosphere, 235, pp. 1180–1188. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.032]</ref>
+
 
−
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a ER21-7569: Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction]<ref name="WittEtAl2023">Kay, D., Witt, S., Wang, M., 2023. Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination PFAS Destruction: Final Report. ESTCP Project ER21-7569. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c4e21fa2-c7e2-4699-83a9-3427dd484a1a Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ER21-7569_Final_Report.pdf | Final Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023">Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f Project Website]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: ER20-5261BPUG.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 +
 
 +
*[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/db871313-fbc0-4432-b536-40c64af3627f/er20-5261-project-overview Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP Project ER20-5261]
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
[[File:WittFig1.png | thumb |400px|Figure 1. Schematic of PRD mechanism<ref name="WittEtAl2023"/>]]
+
Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater<ref>Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2769 doi: 10.1002/etc.2769]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ConderEtAl2015.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017">Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3884 doi: 10.1002/etc.3884]</ref>. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection<ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016">Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J.,  Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2]</ref>. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics<ref>Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1502 doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: PeijnenburgEtAl2014.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995">Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2 doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2]</ref><ref>Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: SchroederEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>, which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater<ref>Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. [https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/502 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Wise2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="GruzalskiEtAl2016"/>.
−
The Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination (PRD) process is based on a patented chemical reaction that breaks fluorine-carbon bonds and disassembles PFAS molecules in a linear fashion beginning with the [[Wikipedia: Hydrophile | hydrophilic]] functional groups and proceeding through shorter molecules to complete mineralization. Figure 1 shows how PRD is facilitated by adding [[Wikipedia: Cetrimonium bromide | cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB)]] to form a surfactant micelle cage that traps PFAS. A non-toxic proprietary chemical is added to solution to associate with the micelle surface and produce hydrated electrons via stimulation with UV light. These highly reactive hydrated electrons have the energy required to cleave fluorine-carbon and other molecular bonds resulting in the final products of fluoride, water, and simple carbon molecules (e.g., formic acid and acetic acid). The methods, mechanisms, theory, and reactions described herein have been published in peer reviewed literature<ref name="ChenEtAl2020"/><ref name="TianEtAl2016"/><ref name="ChenEtAl2019"/><ref name="WittEtAl2023"/>.
+
 
 +
To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics<ref name="ClevelandEtAl2017"/>. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago<ref name="Hesslein1976">Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912 doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hesslein1976.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref> and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.
 +
 
 +
==Peeper Designs==
 +
[[File:RisacherFig1.png|thumb|300px|Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water]]
 +
[[File:RisacherFig2.png | thumb |400px| Figure 2. Example of Hesslein<ref name="Hesslein1976"/> general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from [https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/peeper-samplers USGS]]]
 +
[[File:RisacherFig3.png | thumb |400px| Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)]]
 +
Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.
 +
 
 +
Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design<ref name="Hesslein1976"/> (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale ''et al.''<ref name="TeasdaleEtAl1995"/>, Serbst ''et al.''<ref>Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C.,  Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5 doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5]</ref>, Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010">Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lom.2010.8.403 doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ThomasArthur2010.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>, Passeport ''et al.''<ref>Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961]</ref>, and Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).
 +
 
 +
==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
 +
[[File:RisacherFig4.png | thumb |300px| Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)]]
 +
Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment<ref>Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. [https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468 doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CarignanEtAl1994.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. However, recent studies<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/> have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.
 +
 
 +
Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>, or by professional divers for the deepest sites.  If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.
 +
 
 +
During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.
 +
 
 +
After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.
 +
 
 +
==Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)==
 +
The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium<ref name="USEPA2017">USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357.&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA_600_R-16_357.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
  
−
==Advantages and Disadvantages==
+
Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.
 +
 
 +
Thomas and Arthur<ref name="ThomasArthur2010"/> studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/> showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (''C<small><sub>0</sub></small>'') based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (''C<small><sub>p,t</sub></small>''), the elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') and the deployment time (''t''):
 
</br>
 
</br>
 
{|  
 
{|  
Line 34: Line 64:
 
| Where: || ||
 
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''C<sub>0</sub>''|| is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
+
| || ''C<small><sub>0</sub></small>''|| is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or &mu;g/L), sometimes referred to as ''C<small><sub>free</sub></small>
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''C<sub>p,t</sub>'' || is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
+
| || ''C<small><sub>p,t</sub></small>'' || is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || ''K'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
| || ''K'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
Line 43: Line 73:
 
|}
 
|}
  
 +
The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 
</br>
 
</br>
 
{|  
 
{|  
Line 52: Line 83:
 
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''K<sub>tracer</sub>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''D'' || is the free-water diffusion of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
+
| || ''D'' || is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''D<sub>tracer</sub>'' || is the free-water diffusion of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
+
| || ''D<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
|}
 
|}
  
 +
The elimination rate of the tracer (''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 
</br>
 
</br>
 
{|  
 
{|  
Line 66: Line 98:
 
| Where: || ||
 
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''K<sub>tracer</sub>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''C<sub>tracer,i</sub>''|| is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
+
| || ''C<small><sub>tracer,i</sub></small>''|| is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| || ''C<sub>tracer,t</sub>'' || is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
+
| || ''C<small><sub>tracer,t</sub></small>'' || is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or &mu;g/L)
 
|-
 
|-
 
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
The self-assembly of [[Wikipedia: Amphiphile | amphiphilic]] molecules into supramolecular bilayers is a result of their structure and how it interacts with the bulk water of a solution. Single chain hydrocarbon based amphiphiles can form [[Wikipedia: Micelle | micelles]] under relatively dilute aqueous concentrations, however for hydrocarbon based surfactants the formation of more complex organized system such as [[Wikipedia: Vesicle (biology and chemistry) | vesicles]] is rarely seen, requiring double chain amphiphiles such as [[wikipedia: Phospholipid|phospholipids]]. Associations of single chain [[wikipedia: Ion#Anions_and_cations|cationic and anionic]] hydrocarbon based amphiphiles into stable supramolecular structures such as vesicles has however been demonstrated<ref>Fukuda, H., Kawata, K., Okuda, H., 1990. Bilayer-Forming Ion-Pair Amphiphiles from Single-Chain Surfactants. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112(4), pp. 1635-1637. [https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00160a057 doi: 10.1021/ja00160a057]</ref>, with the ion pairing of the polar head groups mimicking the a double tail situation. The behavior of single chain [[wikipedia: Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances#Fluorosurfactants|fluorosurfactant]] amphiphiles has been demonstrated to be significantly different from similar hydrocarbon based analogues. Not only are [[Wikipedia: Critical micelle concentration | critical micelle concentrations (CMC)]] of fluorosurfactants typically two orders of magnitude lower than corresponding hydrocarbon surfactants but self-assembly can occur even when fluorosurfactants are dispersed at low concentrations significantly below the CMC in water and other solvents<ref name="Krafft2006">Krafft, M.P., 2006. Highly fluorinated compounds induce phase separation in, and nanostructuration of liquid media. Possible impact on, and use in chemical reactivity control. Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry, 44(14), pp. 4251-4258. [https://doi.org/10.1002/pola.21508 doi: 10.1002/pola.21508]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media:Krafft2006.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. The assembly of fluorinated amphiphiles structurally similar to those found in AFFF have been shown to readily form stable, complex structures including vesicles, fibers, and globules at concentrations as low as 0.5% w/v in contrast to their hydrocarbon analogues which remained fluid at 30% w/v<ref>Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1993. Can Single-Chain Perfluoroalkylated Amphiphiles Alone form Vesicles and Other Organized Supramolecular Systems? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 32(5), pp. 741-743. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199307411 doi: 10.1002/anie.199307411]</ref><ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994">Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1994. Supramolecular assemblies from single chain perfluoroalkylated phosphorylated amphiphiles. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 84(1), pp. 113-119. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4 doi: 10.1016/0927-7757(93)02681-4]</ref>.
+
Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher ''et al.''<ref name="RisacherEtAl2023"/>.
−
 
 
−
Krafft found that fluorinated amphiphiles formed bilayer membranes with phospholipids, and that the resulting vesicles were more stable than those made of phospholipids alone<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998">Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 1998. Highly Fluorinated Amphiphiles and Collodial Systems, and their Applications in the Biomedical Field. A Contribution. Biochimie, 80(5-6), pp. 489-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4 doi: 10.1016/S0300-9084(00)80016-4]</ref>. The similarities in amphiphilic properties between phospholipids and the hydrocarbon-based surfactants in AFFF suggests that bilayer vesicles may form between these and the fluorosurfactants also present in the concentrate. Krafft demonstrated that both the permeability of resulting mixed vesicles and their propensity to fuse with each other at increasing ionic strength was reduced as a result of the creation of an inert hydrophobic and [[wikipedia: Lipophobicity|lipophobic]] film within the membrane, and also suggested that the fluorinated amphiphiles increased [[Wikipedia: van der Waals force | van der Waals interactions]] in the hydrocarbon region<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998"/>. Thus this low permeability may allow vesicles formed by the surfactants present in AFFF to act as long term repositories of PFAS not only as part of the bilayer itself but also solvated within the vesicle. This prediction is supported by the observation that supramolecular structures formed from single chain fluorinated amphiphiles have been demonstrated to be stable at elevated temperature (15 min at 121&deg;C) and have been shown to be stable over periods of months, even increasing in size over time when stored at environmentally relevant temperatures<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1994"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Formation of complex structures at relatively low solute concentrations requires the monomer molecules to be well ordered to maintain tight packing in the supramolecular structure<ref>Ringsdorf, H., Schlarb, B., Venzmer, J., 1988. Molecular Architecture and Function of Polymeric Oriented Systems: Models for the Study of Organization, Surface Recognition, and Dynamics of Biomembranes. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 27(1), pp. 113-158. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.198801131 doi: 10.1002/anie.198801131]</ref>. This order results from electrostatic forces, [[wikipedia: Hydrogen bond|hydrogen bonding]], and in the case of fluorinated amphiphiles, hydrophobic interactions. The geometry of the amphiphile also potentially contributes to the type of supramolecular aggregation<ref>Israelachvili, J.N., Mitchell, D.J., Ninham, B.W., 1976. Theory of Self-Assembly of Hydrocarbon Amphiphiles into Micelles and Bilayers. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 2: Molecular and Chemical Physics, 72, pp. 1525-1568. [https://doi.org/10.1039/F29767201525 doi: 10.1039/F29767201525]</ref>. Surfactants which adopt a conical shape (such as a typical hydrocarbon based surfactant with a large polar head group and a single alkyl chain as a tail) tend to form micelles more easily. Increasing the bulk of the tail makes the surfactant more cylindrically shaped which makes assembly into bilayers more likely.
 
−
 
 
−
Perfluoroalkyl chains are significantly more bulky than their hydrocarbon based analogues both in cross sectional area (28-30 Å<sup>2</sup> versus 20 Å<sup>2</sup>, respectively) and mean volume (CF<sub>2</sub> and CF<sub>3</sub> estimated as 38 Å<sup>3</sup> and 92 Å<sup>3</sup> compared to 27 Å<sup>3</sup> and 54 Å<sup>3</sup> for CH<sub>2</sub> and CH<sub>3</sub>)<ref name="KrafftEtAl_1998"/><ref name="Krafft2006"/>. Structural studies on linear PFOS have shown that the molecule adopts an unusual helical structure<ref>Erkoç, Ş., Erkoç, F., 2001. Structural and electronic properties of PFOS and LiPFOS. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM, 549(3), pp. 289-293. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X doi:10.1016/S0166-1280(01)00553-X]</ref><ref name="TorresEtAl2009">Torres, F.J., Ochoa-Herrera, V., Blowers, P., Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2009. Ab initio study of the structural, electronic, and thermodynamic properties of linear perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its branched isomers. Chemosphere 76(8), pp. 1143-1149. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.04.009]</ref> in aqueous and solvent phases to alleviate [[wikipedia: Steric_effects#Steric_hindrance|steric hindrance]]. This arrangement results from the carbon chain starting in the planar all anti [[wikipedia:Conformational isomerism|conformation]] and then successively twisting all the CC-CC dihedrals by 15&deg;-20&deg; in the same direction<ref>Abbandonato, G., Catalano, D., Marini, A., 2010. Aggregation of Perfluoroctanoate Salts Studied by <sup>19</sup>F NMR and DFT Calculations: Counterion Complexation, Poly(ethylene glycol) Addition, and Conformational Effects. Langmuir 26(22), pp. 16762-16770. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la102578k  doi: 10.1021/la102578k].</ref>. The conformation also minimizes the electrostatic repulsion between fluorine atoms bonded to the same side of the carbon backbone by maximizing the interatomic distances between them<ref name="TorresEtAl2009"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
A consequence of the helical structure is that there is limited carbon-carbon bond rotation within the perfluoroalkyl chain giving them increased rigidity compared to alkyl chains<ref>Barton, S.W., Goudot, A., Bouloussa, O., Rondelez, F., Lin, B., Novak, F., Acero, A., Rice, S., 1992. Structural transitions in a monolayer of fluorinated amphiphile molecules. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 96(2), pp. 1343-1351. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.462170 doi: 10.1063/1.462170]</ref>. The bulkiness of the perfluoroalkyl chain confers a cylindrical shape on the fluorosurfactant amphiphile and therefore favors the formation of bilayers and vesicles the aggregation of which is further assisted by the rigidity of the molecules which allow close packing in the supramolecular structure. Fluorosurfactants therefore cannot be regarded as more hydrophobic analogues of hydrogenated surfactants. Their self-assembly behavior is characterized by a strong tendency to form vesicles and lamellar phases rather than micelles, due to the bulkiness and rigidity of the perfluoroalkyl chain that tends to decrease the curvature of the aggregates they form in solution<ref>Barton, C.A., Butler, L.E., Zarzecki, C.J., Flaherty, J., Kaiser, M., 2006. Characterizing Perfluorooctanoate in Ambient Air near the Fence Line of a Manufacturing Facility: Comparing Modeled and Monitored Values. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56, pp. 48-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429 doi: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429]&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429?needAccess=true Open Access Article]</ref>. The larger tail cross section of fluorinated compared to hydrogenated amphiphiles tends to favor the formation of aggregates with lesser surface curvature, therefore rather than micelles they form bilayer membranes, vesicles, tubules and fibers<ref>Krafft, M.P., Guilieri, F., Riess, J.G., 1993. Can Single-Chain Perfluoroalkylated Amphiphiles Alone form Vesicles and Other Organized Supramolecular Systems? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 32(5), pp. 741-743. [https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.199307411 doi: 10.1002/anie.199307411]</ref><ref>Furuya, H., Moroi, Y., Kaibara, K., 1996. Solid and Solution Properties of Alkylammonium Perfluorocarboxylates. The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 100(43), pp. 17249-17254.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9612801 doi: 10.1021/jp9612801]</ref><ref>Giulieri, F., Krafft, M.P., 1996. Self-organization of single-chain fluorinated amphiphiles with fluorinated alcohols. Thin Solid Films, 284-285, pp. 195-199. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9 doi: 10.1016/S0040-6090(95)08304-9]</ref><ref>Gladysz, J.A., Curran, D.P., Horvath, I.T., 2004. Handbook of Fluorous Chemistry. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA,, Weinheim, Germany. ISBN: 3-527-30617-X</ref>. Rojas ''et al.'' (2002) demonstrated that perfluorooctyl sulphonamide formed a contiguous bilayer at 50 mg/L with self-assembled aggregates present at concentrations as low as 10 mg/L<ref name="RojasEtAl2002">Rojas, O.J., Macakova, L., Blomberg, E., Emmer, A., and Claesson, P.M., 2002. Fluorosurfactant Self-Assembly at Solid/Liquid Interfaces. Langmuir, 18(21), pp. 8085-8095. [https://doi.org/10.1021/la025989c doi: 10.1021/la025989c]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Thermodynamics of PFAS Accumulations on Solid Surfaces==
 
−
The thermodynamics of formation of amphiphiles into supramolecular species requires consideration of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions resulting from the amphoteric nature of the molecule. The hydrophilic portions of the molecule are driven to maximize their solvation interaction with as many water molecules as possible, whereas the hydrophobic portions of the molecule are driven to aggregate together thus minimizing interaction with the bulk water. Both of these processes change the [[wikipedia:Enthalpy|enthalpy]] and [[wikipedia: Entropy|entropy]] of the system.
 
−
 
 
−
<center><big>Anion Exchange Reaction:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;'''PFAS<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(aq)</sub><big>&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cl<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(resin bound)</sub><big>&nbsp;&nbsp;&rArr;&nbsp;&nbsp;PFAS<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(resin bound)</sub><big>&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cl<sup>-</sup></big><sub>(aq)</sub>'''</center>
 
−
 
 
−
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
 
−
|+Table 1. Percent decreases from initial PFAS concentrations during benchtop testing of PRD treatment in different water matrices
 
−
|-
 
−
! Analytes
 
−
!
 
−
! GW
 
−
! FF
 
−
! AFFF<br>Rinsate
 
−
! AFF<br>(diluted 10X)
 
−
! IDW NF
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS<small><sup>a</sup></small> (ND=0)
 
−
| rowspan="9" style="background-color:white;" | <p style="writing-mode: vertical-rl">% Decrease<br>(Initial Concentration, &mu;g/L)</p>
 
−
| 93%<br>(370) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 89%<br>(57,000) || 86 %<br>(770,000) || 84%<br>(82)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=MDL) || 93%<br>(400) || 86%<br>(32,000) || 90%<br>(59,000) || 71%<br>(770,000) || 88%<br>(110)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Total PFAS (ND=RL) || 94%<br>(460) || 96%<br>(32,000) || 91%<br>(66,000) || 34%<br>(770,000) || 92%<br>(170)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS<small><sup>b</sup></small> (ND=0) || >99%<br>(180) || >99%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 92%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(50)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=MDL) || >99%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 88%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br> (52)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Highly Regulated PFAS (ND=RL) || >99%<br>(190) || 93%<br>(20,000) || 95%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(390,000) || 95%<br>(55)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS<small><sup>c</sup></small> (ND=0) || 91%<br>(180) || 98%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 82%<br>(400,000) || 94%<br>(53)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS (ND=MDL) || 91%<br>(190) || 94%<br>(20,000) || 85%<br>(20,000) || 79%<br>(400,000) || 86%<br>(58)
 
−
|-
 
−
| &Sigma; Priority PFAS (ND=RL) || 92%<br>(200) || 87%<br>(20,000) || 86%<br>(21,000) || 70%<br>(400,000) || 87%<br>(65)
 
−
|-
 
−
| Fluorine mass balance<small><sup>d</sup></small> || ||106% || 109% || 110% || 65% || 98%
 
−
|-
 
−
| Sorbed organic fluorine<small><sup>e</sup></small> || || 4% || 4% || 33% || N/A || 31%
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="7" style="background-color:white; text-align:left" | <small>Notes:<br>GW = groundwater<br>GW FF = groundwater foam fractionate<br>AFFF rinsate = rinsate collected from fire system decontamination<br>AFFF (diluted 10x) = 3M Lightwater AFFF diluted 10x<br>IDW NF = investigation derived waste nanofiltrate<br>ND = non-detect<br>MDL = Method Detection Limit<br>RL = Reporting Limit<br><small><sup>a</sup></small>Total PFAS = 40 analytes + unidentified PFCA precursors<br><small><sup>b</sup></small>Highly regulated PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>c</sup></small>High priority PFAS = PFNA, PFOA, PFHxA, PFBA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFBS, HFPO-DA<br><small><sup>d</sup></small>Ratio of the final to the initial organic fluorine plus inorganic fluoride concentrations<br><small><sup>e</sup></small>Percent of organic fluorine that sorbed to the reactor walls during treatment<br></small>
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
  
−
In aqueous solution, the hydrophilic portions of an amphiphile form hydrogen bonds (4 - 120 kJ/mol) and van der Waals interactions (<5 kJ/mol) with water molecules and surfaces, and electrostatic interactions (5 – 300 kJ/mol) can also occur where the amphiphile is ionic<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015">Lombardo, D., Kiselev, M.A., Magazù, S., Calandra, P., 2015. Amphiphiles Self-Assembly: Basic Concepts and Future Perspectives of Supramolecular Approaches. Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, vol. 2015, article ID 151683, 22 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/151683 doi: 10.1155/2015/151683]&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Media: LombardoEtAl2015.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. These interactions, although weak compared to intramolecular covalent bonds within a molecule are energetically favorable and increase the enthalpy of the combined solute-solvent system. Thus, the hydrophilic portion of an amphiphile will look to maximize enthalpic gain through hydrogen bond interactions with the bulk water.
+
==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
 +
Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.
  
−
The hydrophobic portion of an amphiphile cannot form hydrogen bonds with the bulk solution, and its presence disrupts the hydrogen bond interactions between individual water molecules within the bulk water matrix. This disruption lowers the entropy of the system by reducing the degrees of translational rotational freedom available to the bulk water. The [[wikipedia:Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] dictates that a system will arrange itself to maximize its entropy. With hydrophobic species this can be achieved by their spontaneous aggregation, as the reduction in solution entropy of the aggregated system is less than that which would occur if the component parts were solvated individually. These hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions are weak, and the individual entropy gain per amphiphile upon aggregation is very small. However, taken together the overall effect on the entropy of the aggregate is sufficient to maintain it in solution, and moreover these interactions make the aggregates resistant to minor perturbations while retaining the reversibility of the self-assembled structure<ref name="LombardoEtAl2015"/>.
+
'''Nature and Extent:''' Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C<small><sub>0</sub></small>. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.
  
−
==Regulatory Drivers for Transition to PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==
+
'''Sources and Fate:''' A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C<small><sub>0</sub></small> results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C<small><sub>0</sub></small> using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C<small><sub>0</sub></small> and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.
−
Regulations restricting the use and release of PFAS are being proposed and promulgated worldwide, with several enacted regulations addressing the use of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) containing PFAS<ref name="Queensland2016">Queensland (Australia) Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2016. Operational Policy - Environmental Management of Firefighting Foam. 16 pages. [https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/firefighting-foam-policy.pdf Free Download]</ref><ref>U.S. Congress, 2019. S.1790 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. United States Library of Congress.&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790 Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Arizona State Legislature, 2019. Title 36, Section 1696. Firefighting foam; prohibited uses; exception; definitions. [https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/01696.htm Text of Law]</ref><ref>California Legislature, 2020. Senate Bill No. 1044, Chapter 308, Firefighting equipment and foam: PFAS chemicals. [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1044 Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Arkansas General Assembly, 2021. An Act Concerning the Use of Certain Chemicals in Firefighting Foam; and for Other Purposes. Act 315, State of Arkansas. [https://trackbill.com/bill/arkansas-house-bill-1351-concerning-the-use-of-certain-chemicals-in-firefighting-foam/2008913/ Text and History of Law].</ref><ref>Espinosa, Summers, Kelly, J., Statler, Hansen, Young, 2021. Amendment to Fire Prevention and Control Act. House Bill 2722. West Virginia Legislature. [https://trackbill.com/bill/west-virginia-house-bill-2722-prohibiting-the-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-for-testing-purposes-if-the-foam-contains-a-certain-class-of-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2047674/ Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Louisiana Legislature, 2021. Act No. 232. [https://trackbill.com/bill/louisiana-house-bill-389-fire-protect-fire-marshal-provides-relative-to-the-discharge-or-use-of-class-b-fire-fighting-foam-containing-fluorinated-organic-chemicals/2092535/  Text and History of Law]</ref><ref>Vermont Legislature, 2021b. Act No. 36, PFAS in Class B Firefighting Foam. [https://trackbill.com/bill/vermont-senate-bill-20-an-act-relating-to-restrictions-on-perfluoroalkyl-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-and-other-chemicals-of-concern-in-consumer-products/1978963/  History and Text of Law]</ref>. In addition to regulated usage, firefighting formulation users are transitioning to PFAS-free firefighting formulations to reduce environmental liability in the event of a release, to reduce the cost of expensive containment systems and management of generated waste streams, and to avoid reputational damage. In 2016, Queensland, Australia was one of the first governments to ban PFAS use in firefighting foam<ref name="Queensland2016"/>. The US 2020 National Defense Authorization Act specified immediate prohibition of controlled releases of AFFF containing PFAS and required the Secretary of the Navy to publish a specification for PFAS-free firefighting formulation use and ensure it is available for use by the Department of Defense (DoD) by October 1, 2023<ref>U.S. Congress, 2021. S.2792 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. United States Library of Congress.&nbsp;&nbsp;[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2792/ Text and History of Law].</ref>. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recently removed the requirement for AFFF containing PFAS from their Standard on Aircraft Hangars and added two new chapters to allow users to determine if AFFF containing PFAS is needed at their facility<ref name="NFPA2022">National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), 2022. Codes and Standards, 409: Standard on Aircraft Hangars. [https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/4/0/9/409?l=42 NFPA Website]</ref>.
 
  
−
==Selection of Replacement PFAS-Free Firefighting Formulations==       
+
'''Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life:''' Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (''in situ'') or surface water (''ex situ''), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals<ref name="USEPA2017"/>. C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model<ref>Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4572 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572]</ref> to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.
−
Since they first entered the market in the 2000s, the operational capabilities of PFAS-free firefighting formulations have grown<ref>Allcorn, M., Bluteau, T., Corfield, J., Day, G., Cornelsen, M., Holmes, N.J.C., Klein, R.A., McDowall, J.G., Olsen, K.T., Ramsden, N., Ross, I., Schaefer, T.H., Weber, R., Whitehead, K., 2018. Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (3F) – Viable Alternatives to Fluorinated Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF). White Paper prepared for the IPEN by members of the IPEN F3 Panel and associates, POPRC-14, Rome. [https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/IPEN_F3_Position_Paper_POPRC-14_12September2018d.pdf Free Download].</ref> and numerous companies are now manufacturing and delivering PFAS-free firefighting formulations for fixed systems and AFFF vehicles<ref>Ansul (Company), Ansul NFF-331 3%x3% Non-Fluorinated Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://docs.johnsoncontrols.com/specialhazards/api/khub/documents/1nbeVfynU1IW~eJcCOA0Bg/content Product Data Sheet].</ref><ref>BioEx (Company), Ecopol A+ (Commercial Product). [https://www.bio-ex.com/en/our-products/product/ecopol-aplus/  Website]</ref><ref>National Foam (Company), 2020. Avio F3 Green KHC 3%, Fluorine Free Foam Concentrate (Commercial Product). [https://nationalfoam.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/NMS515-Avio-Green-KHC-3-FF.pdf Safety Data Sheet]</ref>. Key factors in the selection of a PFAS-free firefighting formulation product are compatibility of the new formulation with the existing system (as confirmed by a fire protection engineer) and environmental certifications (i.e., verifying the absence of organic fluorine or PFAS or the absence of other non-fluorine environmental contaminants).
 
  
−
In January 2023, the US Department of Defense (DoD) published the [https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jan/12/2003144157/-1/-1/1/MILITARY-SPECIFICATION-FOR-FIRE-EXTINGUISHING-AGENT-FLUORINE-FREE-FOAM-F3-LIQUID-CONCENTRATE-FOR-LAND-BASED-FRESH-WATER-APPLICATIONS.PDF Performance Specification for Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate for Land-Based, Fresh Water Applications]<ref name="DoD2023"/>. This Military Performance Specification (Mil-Spec) allows PFAS-free firefighting formulations to be certified as meeting certain standardized operational goals for use in military settings. In addition to Mil-Spec requirements, PFAS-free firefighting formulations can also be certified through Underwriters Laboratories Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, UL 162, which requires the new firefighting formulations be investigated for suitability and compatibility with the specific equipment with which they are intended to be used<ref>Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 2018. UL162, UL Standard for Safety, Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates, 8th Edition, Revised 2022. 40 pages. [https://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?document_name=UL%20162&item_s_key=00096960 Website]</ref>. Several PFAS-free foams have been certified under various parts of EN1568, the European Standard which specifies the necessary foam properties and performance requirements<ref>European Standards, 2018. CSN EN 1568-1 ed. 2: Fire extinguishing media - Foam concentrates - Part 1: Specification for medium expansion foam concentrates for surface application to water-immiscible liquids. 48 pages. [https://www.en-standard.eu/csn-en-1568-1-ed-2-fire-extinguishing-media-foam-concentrates-part-1-specification-for-medium-expansion-foam-concentrates-for-surface-application-to-water-immiscible-liquids/ European Standards Website.]</ref>. Both [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ ESTCP and SERDP] have supported (and continue to support) the development and field validation of PFAS-free firefighting formulations (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/baa72637-e3c8-40ee-a007-f295311c72ad WP22-7456], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-4bdd-98d2-1f9cfeb5f3d9/wp21-3465-project-overview WP21-3465], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/bc932800-cfc8-4e86-a212-5f8c9d27f17c WP20-1535]). Both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have performed a variety of foam certification tests on numerous PFAS-free firefighting formulations<ref>Back, G.G., Farley, J.P., 2020. Evaluation of the Fire Protection Effectiveness of Fluorine Free Firefighting Foams. National Fire Protection Association, Fire Protection Research Foundation. [https://www.iafc.org/docs/default-source/1safehealthshs/effectivenessofflourinefreefoam.pdf Free Download].</ref><ref>Casey, J., Trazzi, D., 2022. Fluorine-Free Foam Testing. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Final Report. [https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/DesktopModules/EasyDNNNews/DocumentDownload.ashx?portalid=0&moduleid=3682&articleid=2882&documentid=3054  Open Access Article]</ref>.
+
'''Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life:''' Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C<small><sub>0</sub></small> and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C<small><sub>0</sub></small>-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C<small><sub>0</sub></small> value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C<small><sub>0</sub></small> measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C<small><sub>0</sub></small>-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.
  
−
==Selection of Flushing Agent==
+
'''Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy:''' Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment to C<small><sub>0</sub></small> in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.
−
General industry guidance has typically recommended several rinses with water to remove PFAS from impacted equipment. Owing to the unique physical and chemical properties of PFAS, the use of room temperature water to remove PFAS from impacted equipment has not been very effective. To address these recalcitrant accumulations, companies are developing new methods to remove self-assembled PFAS bilayers from existing fire-fighting infrastructure so that it can be successfully transitioned to PFAS-free formulations. Arcadis developed a non-toxic cleaning agent, Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>, which has been demonstrated to be effective for removal of PFAS from equipment by disrupting the accumulated layers of PFAS coating the AFFF-wetted surfaces.
 
−
 
 
−
Laboratory studies have supported the optimization of this PFAS removal method in fire suppression system piping obtained from a commercial airport hangar in Sydney, Australia<ref name="LangEtAl2022"/>. Prior to removal from the hangar, the stainless-steel pipe held PFAS-containing AFFF for more than three decades. Results indicated that Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>, as well as flushing at elevated temperatures, removed more surface associated PFAS in comparison to equivalent extractions using methanol or water at room temperature. ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of best practices for methodologies to clean foam delivery systems (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1 ER20-5364], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/6d0750be-f20b-4765-bdfa-872adccaf37a ER20-5361], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4fd2e4ab-ddb7-40f8-835e-e1d637c0d650 ER21-7229]).
 
−
 
 
−
==PFAS Verification Testing==
 
−
In general, PFAS sampling techniques used to support firefighting formulation transition activities are consistent with conventional sampling techniques used in the environmental industry, but special consideration is made regarding high concentration PFAS materials, elevated detection levels, cross-contamination potential, precursor content, and matrix interferences. The analytical method selected should be appropriate for the regulatory requirements in the site area.
 
−
 
 
−
==Rinsate Treatment==
 
−
Numerous technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including rinsates, have been and are currently being developed. These include separation technologies such as [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment|foam fractionation, nanofiltration, sorbents/flocculants, ion exchange resins, reverse osmosis, and destructive technologies such as sonolysis, electrochemical oxidation, hydrothermal alkaline treatment]], [[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma |enhanced contact plasma]], and [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) |supercritical water oxidation (SCWO)]]. Many of these technologies have rapidly developed from bench-scale (e.g., microcosms, columns, single reactors) to commercially available field-scale units capable of managing PFAS-impacted waters of varying waste volumes and PFAS compositions and concentrations. Ongoing field research continues to improve the treatment efficiency, reliability, and versatility of these technologies, both individually and as coupled treatment solutions (e.g., treatment train). ESTCP has supported (and continues to support) the development and field validation of separation and destructive technologies for treatment of PFAS-impacted water sources, including rinsates (e.g. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0c7af048-3a00-471f-9480-292aa78ecd4f ER20-5370], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0aa2fb20-b851-4b5b-ac64-e72795986b8a ER20-5369], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d ER20-5350], [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/790e2dda-1f7b-4ff5-b77e-08ed10a456b1 ER20-5355]).
 
−
 
 
−
Remedy selection for treatment of rinsates involves several key factors. It is critical that environmental practitioners have up-to-date technical and practical knowledge on the suitability of these remedial options for different site conditions, treatment volumes, PFAS composition (e.g., presence of precursors, co-contaminants), PFAS concentrations, safety considerations, potential for undesired byproducts (e.g., perchlorate, disinfection byproducts), and treatment costs (e.g., energy demand, capital costs, operational labor).
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 158: Line 126:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
[https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CFPC/KO/2022/Latest-News/DESPP-DEEP-AFFF-MuniFDupdate-2022-05-26.pdf  Connecticut Take-Back Program for municipal fire departments using AFFF containing PFAS]
+
*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
−
 
+
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
−
[https://www.arcadis.com/en-us/knowledge-hub/blog/united-states/johnsie-lang/2021/transitioning-to-pfas-free-firefighting  Arcadis blog on Fluoro Fighter<sup>TM</sup>]  
+
*[https://vimeo.com/811328715/aea3073540 Peeper Processing Video]
−
 
+
*[https://sepub-prod-0001-124733793621-us-gov-west-1.s3.us-gov-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2024-09/ER20-5261%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf?VersionId=malAixSQQM3mWCRiaVaxY8wLdI0jE1PX Fact Sheet]
−
[https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/1521652f-a8b2-4c52-9232-c1018989a6b1  Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5634: Demonstration and Validation of Environmentally Sustainable Methods to Effectively Remove PFAS from Fire Suppression Systems]
 
−
 
 
−
[https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/0d7c91a8-d755-4876-a8bb-c3e896feee0d  Project Summary ESTCP ER20-5350: Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction]
 

Latest revision as of 21:47, 14 October 2024

Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)

Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.

Related Article(s):


Contributor(s):

  • Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
  • Jason Conder, Ph.D.

Key Resource(s):

  • A review of peeper passive sampling approaches to measure the availability of inorganics in sediment porewater[1]
  • Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern[2]

Introduction

Biologically available inorganic constituents associated with sediment toxicity can be quantified by measuring the freely-dissolved fraction of contaminants in the porewater[3][4]. Classical sediment porewater analysis usually consists of collecting large volumes of bulk sediments which are then mechanically squeezed or centrifuged to produce a supernatant, or suction of porewater from intact sediment, followed by filtration and collection[5]. The extraction and measurement processes present challenges due to the heterogeneity of sediments, physical disturbance, high reactivity of some complexes, and interaction between the solid and dissolved phases, which can impact the measured concentration of dissolved inorganics[6]. For example, sampling disturbance can affect redox conditions[7][8], which can lead to under or over representation of inorganic chemical concentrations relative to the true dissolved phase concentration in the sediment porewater[9][5].

To address the complications with mechanical porewater sampling, passive sampling approaches for inorganics have been developed to provide a method that has a low impact on the surrounding geochemistry of sediments and sediment porewater, thus enabling more precise measurements of inorganics[4]. Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” were developed more than 45 years ago[10] and refinements to the method such as the use of reverse tracers have been made, improving the acceptance of the technology as decision making tool.

Peeper Designs

Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of peeper construction showing (top, left to right) the peeper cap (optional), peeper membrane and peeper chamber, and (bottom) an assembled peeper containing peeper water
Figure 2. Example of Hesslein[10] general peeper design (42 peeper chambers), from USGS
Figure 3. Peeper deployment structure to allow the measurement of metal availability in different sediment layers using five single-chamber peepers (Photo: Geosyntec Consultants)

Peepers (Figure 1) are inert containers with a small volume (typically 1-100 mL) of purified water (“peeper water”) capped with a semi-permeable membrane. Peepers can be manufactured in a wide variety of formats (Figure 2, Figure 3) and deployed in in various ways.

Two designs are commonly used for peepers. Frequently, the designs are close adaptations of the original multi-chamber Hesslein design[10] (Figure 2), which consists of an acrylic sampler body with multiple sample chambers machined into it. Peeper water inside the chambers is separated from the outside environment by a semi-permeable membrane, which is held in place by a top plate fixed to the sampler body using bolts or screws. An alternative design consists of single-chamber peepers constructed using a single sample vial with a membrane secured over the mouth of the vial, as shown in Figure 3, and applied in Teasdale et al.[7], Serbst et al.[11], Thomas and Arthur[12], Passeport et al.[13], and Risacher et al.[2]. The vial is filled with deionized water, and the membrane is held in place using the vial cap or an o-ring. Individual vials are either directly inserted into sediment or are incorporated into a support structure to allow multiple single-chamber peepers to be deployed at once over a given depth profile (Figure 3).

Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval

Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of peeper passive sampling in a sediment matrix, showing peeper immediately after deployment (top) and after equilibration between the porewater and peeper chamber water (bottom)

Peepers are often prepared in laboratories but are also commercially available in a variety of designs from several suppliers. Peepers are prepared by first cleaning all materials to remove even trace levels of metals before assembly. The water contained inside the peeper is sometimes deoxygenated, and in some cases the peeper is maintained in a deoxygenated atmosphere until deployment[14]. However, recent studies[2] have shown that deoxygenation prior to deployment does not significantly impact sampling results due to oxygen rapidly diffusing out of the peeper during deployment. Once assembled, peepers are usually shipped in a protective bag inside a hard-case cooler for protection.

Peepers are deployed by insertion into sediment for a period of a few days to a few weeks. Insertion into the sediment can be achieved by wading to the location when the water depth is shallow, by using push poles for deeper deployments[2], or by professional divers for the deepest sites. If divers are used, an appropriate boat or ship will be required to accommodate the diver and their equipment. Whichever method is used, peepers should be attached to an anchor or a small buoy to facilitate retrieval at the end of the deployment period.

During deployment, passive sampling is achieved via diffusion of inorganics through the peeper’s semi-permeable membrane, as the enclosed volume of peeper water equilibrates with the surrounding sediment porewater (Figure 4). It is assumed that the peeper insertion does not greatly alter geochemical conditions that affect freely-dissolved inorganics. Additionally, it is assumed that the peeper water equilibrates with freely-dissolved inorganics in sediment in such a way that the concentration of inorganics in the peeper water would be equal to that of the concentration of inorganics in the sediment porewater.

After retrieval, the peepers are brought to the surface and usually preserved until they can be processed. This can be achieved by storing the peepers inside a sealable, airtight bag with either inert gas or oxygen absorbing packets[2]. The peeper water can then be processed by quickly pipetting it into an appropriate sample bottle which usually contains a preservative (e.g., nitric acid for metals). This step is generally conducted in the field. Samples are stored on ice to maintain a temperature of less than 4°C and shipped to an analytical laboratory. The samples are then analyzed for inorganics by standard methods (i.e., USEPA SW-846). The results obtained from the analytical laboratory are then used directly or assessed using the equations below if a reverse tracer is used because deployment time is insufficient for all analytes to reach equilibrium.

Equilibrium Determination (Tracers)

The equilibration period of peepers can last several weeks and depends on deployment conditions, analyte of interest, and peeper design. In many cases, it is advantageous to use pre-equilibrium methods that can use measurements in peepers deployed for shorter periods to predict concentrations at equilibrium[15].

Although the equilibrium concentration of an analyte in sediment can be evaluated by examining analyte results for peepers deployed for several different amounts of time (i.e., a time series), this is impractical for typical field investigations because it would require several mobilizations to the site to retrieve samplers. Alternately, reverse tracers (referred to as a performance reference compound when used with organic compound passive sampling) can be used to evaluate the percentage of equilibrium reached by a passive sampler.

Thomas and Arthur[12] studied the use of a reverse tracer to estimate percent equilibrium in lab experiments and a field application. They concluded that bromide can be used to estimate concentrations in porewater using measurements obtained before equilibrium is reached. Further studies were also conducted by Risacher et al.[2] showed that lithium can also be used as a tracer for brackish and saline environments. Both studies included a mathematical model for estimating concentrations of ions in external media (C0) based on measured concentrations in the peeper chamber (Cp,t), the elimination rate of the target analyte (K) and the deployment time (t):

Equation 1:      Equation1r.png
Where:
C0 is the freely dissolved concentration of the analyte in the sediment (mg/L or μg/L), sometimes referred to as Cfree
Cp,t is the measured concentration of the analyte in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
K is the elimination rate of the target analyte
t is the deployment time (days)

The elimination rate of the target analyte (K) is calculated using Equation 2:

Equation 2:      Equation2r.png
Where:
K is the elimination rate of the target analyte
Ktracer is the elimination rate of the tracer
D is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm2/s)
Dtracer is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm2/s)

The elimination rate of the tracer (Ktracer) is calculated using Equation 3:

Equation 3:          Equation3r2.png
Where:
Ktracer is the elimination rate of the tracer
Ctracer,i is the measured initial concentration of the tracer in the peeper prior to deployment (mg/L or μg/L)
Ctracer,t is the measured final concentration of the tracer in the peeper at time of retrieval (mg/L or μg/L)
t is the deployment time (days)

Using this set of equations allows the calculation of the porewater concentration of the analyte prior to its equilibrium with the peeper water. A template for these calculations can be found in the appendix of Risacher et al.[2].

Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site

Peeper data can be used to enable site specific decision making in a variety of ways. Some of the most common uses for peepers and peeper data are discussed below.

Nature and Extent: Multiple peepers deployed in sediment can help delineate areas of increased metal availability. Peepers are especially helpful for sites that are comprised of coarse, relatively inert materials that may not be conducive to traditional bulk sediment sampling. Because much of the inorganics present in these types of sediments may be associated with the porewater phase rather than the solid phase, peepers can provide a more representative measurement of C0. Additionally, at sites where tidal pumping or groundwater flux may be influencing the nature and extent of inorganics, peepers can provide a distinct advantage to bulk sediment sampling or other point-in-time measurements, as peepers can provide an average measurement that integrates the variability in the hydrodynamic and chemical conditions over time.

Sources and Fate: A considerable advantage to using peepers is that C0 results are expressed as concentration in units of mass per volume (e.g., mg/L), providing a common unit of measurement to compare across multiple media. For example, synchronous measurements of C0 using peepers deployed in both surface water and sediment can elucidate the potential flux of inorganics from sediment to surface water. Paired measurements of both C0 and bulk metals in sediment can also allow site specific sediment-porewater partition coefficients to be calculated. These values can be useful in understanding and predicting contaminant fate, especially in situations where the potential dissolution of metals from sediment are critical to predict, such as when sediment is dredged.

Direct Toxicity to Aquatic Life: Peepers are frequently used to understand the potential direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as benthic invertebrates and fish. A C0 measurement obtained from a peeper deployed in sediment (in situ) or surface water (ex situ), can be compared to toxicological benchmarks for aquatic life to understand the potential toxicity to aquatic life and to set remediation goals[15]. C0 measurements can also be incorporated in more sophisticated approaches, such as the Biotic Ligand Model[16] to understand the potential for toxicity or the need to conduct toxicological testing or ecological evaluations.

Bioaccumulation of Inorganics by Aquatic Life: Peepers can also be used to understand site specific relationship between C0 and concentrations of inorganics in aquatic life. For example, measuring C0 in sediment from which organisms are collected and analyzed can enable the estimation of a site-specific uptake factor. This C0-to-organism uptake factor (or model) can then be applied for a variety of uses, including predicting the concentration of inorganics in other organisms, or estimating a sediment C0 value that would be safe for consumption by wildlife or humans. Because several decades of research have found that the correlation between C0 measurements and bioavailability is usually better than the correlation between measurements of chemicals in bulk sediment and bioavailability, C0-to-organism uptake factors are likely to be more accurate than uptake factors based on bulk sediment testing.

Evaluating Sediment Remediation Efficacy: Passive sampling has been used widely to evaluate the efficacy of remedial actions such as active amendments, thin layer placements, and capping to reduce the availability of contaminants at sediment sites. A particularly powerful approach is to compare baseline (pre-remedy) C0 in sediment to C0 in sediment after the sediment remedy has been applied. Peepers can be used in this context for inorganics, allowing the sediment remedy’s success to be evaluated and monitored in laboratory benchtop remedy evaluations, pilot scale remedy evaluations, and full-scale remediation monitoring.

References

  1. ^ Risacher, F.F., Schneider, H., Drygiannaki, I., Conder, J., Pautler, B.G., and Jackson, A.W., 2023. A Review of Peeper Passive Sampling Approaches to Measure the Availability of Inorganics in Sediment Porewater. Environmental Pollution, 328, Article 121581. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121581   Open Access Manuscript
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Risacher, F.F., Nichols, E., Schneider, H., Lawrence, M., Conder, J., Sweett, A., Pautler, B.G., Jackson, W.A., Rosen, G., 2023b. Best Practices User’s Guide: Standardizing Sediment Porewater Passive Samplers for Inorganic Constituents of Concern, ESTCP ER20-5261. Project Website   Report.pdf
  3. ^ Conder, J.M., Fuchsman, P.C., Grover, M.M., Magar, V.S., Henning, M.H., 2015. Critical review of mercury SQVs for the protection of benthic invertebrates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 34(1), pp. 6-21. doi: 10.1002/etc.2769   Open Access Article
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 Cleveland, D., Brumbaugh, W.G., MacDonald, D.D., 2017. A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(11), pp. 2906-2915. doi: 10.1002/etc.3884
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 Gruzalski, J.G., Markwiese, J.T., Carriker, N.E., Rogers, W.J., Vitale, R.J., Thal, D.I., 2016. Pore Water Collection, Analysis and Evolution: The Need for Standardization. In: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Vol. 237, pp. 37–51. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-23573-8_2
  6. ^ Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M., Teasdale, P.R., Reible, D., Mondon, J., Bennett, W.W., Campbell, P.G.C., 2014. Passive Sampling Methods for Contaminated Sediments: State of the Science for Metals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10(2), pp. 179–196. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1502   Open Access Article
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Teasdale, P.R., Batley, G.E., Apte, S.C., Webster, I.T., 1995. Pore water sampling with sediment peepers. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 14(6), pp. 250–256. doi: 10.1016/0165-9936(95)91617-2
  8. ^ Schroeder, H., Duester, L., Fabricius, A.L., Ecker, D., Breitung, V., Ternes, T.A., 2020. Sediment water (interface) mobility of metal(loid)s and nutrients under undisturbed conditions and during resuspension. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 394, Article 122543. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122543   Open Access Article
  9. ^ Wise, D.E., 2009. Sampling techniques for sediment pore water in evaluation of reactive capping efficacy. Master of Science Thesis. University of New Hampshire Scholars’ Repository. 178 pages. Website   Report.pdf
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Hesslein, R.H., 1976. An in situ sampler for close interval pore water studies. Limnology and Oceanography, 21(6), pp. 912-914. doi: 10.4319/lo.1976.21.6.0912   Open Access Article
  11. ^ Serbst, J.R., Burgess, R.M., Kuhn, A., Edwards, P.A., Cantwell, M.G., Pelletier, M.C., Berry, W.J., 2003. Precision of dialysis (peeper) sampling of cadmium in marine sediment interstitial water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 45(3), pp. 297–305. doi: 10.1007/s00244-003-0114-5
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 Thomas, B., Arthur, M.A., 2010. Correcting porewater concentration measurements from peepers: Application of a reverse tracer. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 8(8), pp. 403–413. doi: 10.4319/lom.2010.8.403   Open Access Article
  13. ^ Passeport, E., Landis, R., Lacrampe-Couloume, G., Lutz, E.J., Erin Mack, E., West, K., Morgan, S., Lollar, B.S., 2016. Sediment Monitored Natural Recovery Evidenced by Compound Specific Isotope Analysis and High-Resolution Pore Water Sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 50(22), pp. 12197–12204. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02961
  14. ^ Carignan, R., St‐Pierre, S., Gachter, R., 1994. Use of diffusion samplers in oligotrophic lake sediments: Effects of free oxygen in sampler material. Limnology and Oceanography, 39(2), pp. 468-474. doi: 10.4319/lo.1994.39.2.0468   Open Access Article
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 USEPA, 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual. EPA/600/R-16/357.   Report.pdf
  16. ^ Santore, C.R., Toll, E.J., DeForest, K.D., Croteau, K., Baldwin, A., Bergquist, B., McPeek, K., Tobiason, K., and Judd, L.N., 2022. Refining our understanding of metal bioavailability in sediments using information from porewater: Application of a multi-metal BLM as an extension of the Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Benchmarks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(5), pp. 1335–1347. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4572

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=16899"