Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Remediation Technologies)
(→‎Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers))
 
(741 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Mercury in Sediments==
+
==Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)==  
−
Mercury (Hg) is released into the environment typically in the inorganic form. Industrial and natural emissions of gaseous elemental mercury, Hg(0), can travel long distances in the atmosphere before being oxidized and deposited on land and in water as inorganic Hg(II). Direct exposure to Hg(II) and Hg(0) can be a human health risk at heavily contaminated sites. However, the organic form of Hg, methylmercury (MeHg), is a neurotoxin that can [[Wikipedia: Bioaccumulation | bioaccumulate]] and is the form of Hg that poses the greatest human and ecological health risk. As a chemical element, Hg cannot be destroyed, so the goal of Hg-remediation is immobilization and prevention of food web bioaccumulation.
+
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):'''
−
* [[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
 
−
* [[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
 
  
−
'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Grace Schwartz]]
+
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
 +
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
 +
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
 +
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
 +
*[[Sediment Capping]]
 +
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
 +
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
 +
 
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Contributor(s):'''  
−
* Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes<ref name ="Hsu-Kim2018">Hsu-Kim, H., Eckley, C.S., Achá, D., Feng, X., Gilmour, C.C., Jonsson, S., Mitchell, C.P.J., 2018. Challenges and opportunities for managing aquatic mercury pollution in altered landscapes. Ambio, 47, pp. 141-169.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1006-7 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-017-1006-7]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13280-017-1006-7.pdf Free access article]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hsu-Kim2018.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
 
  
−
* The assessment and remediation of mercury contaminated sites: A review of current approaches<ref name="Eckley2020">Eckley, C.S., Gilmour, C.C., Janssen, S., Luxton, T.P., Randall, P.M., Whalin, L., Austin, C., 2020. The assessment and remediation of mercury contaminated sites: A review of current approaches. Science of the Total Environment, 707, Article 136031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136031 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136031]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Eckley/publication/338083205_The_assessment_and_remediation_of_mercury_contaminated_sites_A_review_of_current_approaches/links/5e00f77792851c836496293c/The-assessment-and-remediation-of-mercury-contaminated-sites-A-review-of-current-approaches.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>
+
*Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
 +
*Jason Conder, Ph.D.
  
−
* Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Mercury through Food Webs<ref name="Kidd">Kidd, K., Clayden, M., Jardine, T., 2012. Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Mercury through Food Webs. Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology of Mercury, pp. 453-499. Liu, G., Yong, C. O’Driscoll, N., Eds. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118146644.ch14 DOI: 10.1002/9781118146644.ch14]</ref>
+
'''Key Resource(s):'''
  
−
==Introduction==
+
*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>
−
[[Wikipedia: Mercury (element) | Mercury]] (Hg) is released into the environment typically in the inorganic form. Natural emissions of Hg(0) come mainly from volcanoes and the ocean. Anthropogenic emissions are mainly from artisanal and small-scale gold mining, coal combustion, and various industrial processes that use Hg ( see the [https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/chemicals-waste/what-we-do/mercury/global-mercury-assessment UN Global mercury assessment]). Industrial and natural emissions of gaseous elemental mercury, Hg(0), can travel long distances in the atmosphere before being oxidized and deposited on land and in water as inorganic Hg(II). The long range transport and atmospheric deposition of Hg results in widespread low-level Hg contamination of soils at concentrations of 0.01 to 0.3 mg/kg<ref name="Eckley2020"/>.
 
  
−
Hg-contaminated sites are most commonly contaminated with Hg(II) from industrial discharge and have soil concentrations in the range of 100s to 1000s of mg/kg<ref name="Eckley2020"/>. Direct exposure to Hg(II) and Hg(0) can be a human health risk at heavily contaminated sites. However, the organic form of Hg, [[Wikipedia: Methylmercury | methylmercury]] (MeHg) is typically the greater concern. MeHg is a neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to developing fetuses and young children. Direct contamination of the environment with MeHg is not common, but has occurred, most notably in [https://www.minamatadiseasemuseum.net/10-things-to-know Minamata Bay, Japan] (see also [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease Minamata disease]). More commonly, MeHg is formed in the environment from Hg(II) in oxygen-limited conditions in a processes mediated by anaerobic microorganisms. Because MeHg [[Wikipedia: Biomagnification | biomagnifies]] in the aquatic food web, MeHg concentrations in fish can be elevated in areas that have relatively low levels of Hg contamination. The MeHg production depends heavily on site geochemistry, and high total Hg sediment concentrations do not always correlate with MeHg production potential.
+
*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>
  
−
==Biogeochemistry/Mobility of Hg in soils==
+
*[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]
−
In the environment, Hg mobility is largely controlled by chelation with various ligands or adsorption to particles<ref name ="Hsu-Kim2018"/>. Hg(II) is most strongly attracted to the sulfur functional groups in dissolved organic matter (DOM) and to sulfur ligands. Over time, newly released Hg(II) “ages” and becomes less reactive to ligands and is less likely to be found in the dissolved phase. Legacy Hg(II) found in sediments and soils is more likely to be strongly adsorbed to the soil matrix and not very bioavailable compared to newly released Hg(II)<ref name ="Hsu-Kim2018"/>. MeHg has mobility tendencies similar to Hg, with DOM and sulfur ligands competing with each other to form complexes with MeHg<ref name="Loux2007">Loux, N.T., 2007. An assessment of thermodynamic reaction constants for simulating aqueous environmental monomethylmercury speciation. Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 19(4), pp.183-196.  [https://doi.org/10.3184/095422907X255947  DOI: 10.3184/095422907X255947]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3184/095422907X255947?needAccess=true Free access article]&nbsp;&nbsp; [Media: Loux2007.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. However, unlike Hg-S complexes, MeHg-S does not have limited solubility.
 
  
−
The bioavailability of Hg(II) is one of the factors controlling MeHg production in the environment. MeHg production occurs in anoxic environments and is affected by: (1) the bioavailability of Hg(II) complexes to Hg-[[Wikipedia: Methylation | methylating]] microorganisms, (2) the activity of Hg-methylating microorganisms, and (3) the rate of biotic and abiotic [[Wikipedia: Demethylation | demethylation]]. MeHg is produced by anaerobic microorganisms that contain the ''hgcAB'' gene<ref name="Parks2013">Parks, J.M., Johs, A., Podar, M., Bridou, R. Hurt, R.A., Smith, S.D., Tomanicek, S.J., Qian, Y., Brown, S.D., Brandt, C.C., Palumbo, A.V., Smith, J.C., Wall, J.D., Elias, D.A., Liang, L., 2013. The Genetic Basis for Bacterial Mercury Methylation. Science, 339(6125), pp. 1332-1335. [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6125/1332 DOI: 10.1126/science.1230667]</ref>. These microorganisms are a diverse group and include, sulfate-reducing bacteria, iron-reducing bacteria, and methanogenic bacteria. Site geochemistry has a significant effect on MeHg production. Methylating microorganisms are sensitive to oxygen, and MeHg production occurs in oxygen-depleted or anaerobic zones in the environment, such as anoxic aquatic sediments, saturated soils, and biofilms with anoxic microenvironments<ref name="Bravo2020">Bravo, A.G., Cosio, C., 2020. Biotic formation of methylmercury: A bio–physico–chemical conundrum. Limnology and Oceanography, 65(5), pp. 1010-1027. [https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11366 DOI: 10.1002/lno.11366]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lno.11366 Free Access Article]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Bravo2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. The activity of methylating microorganisms can be impacted by redox conditions, the concentrations of organic carbon, and different electron acceptors (e.g. sulfate vs iron)<ref name="Bravo2020"/>. Overall, MeHg concentrations and production are impacted by demethylation as well. Demethylation can occur both abiotically and biotically and occurs at a much faster rate than methylation. The main routes of abiotic demethylation are photochemical reactions and demethylation catalyzed by reduced sulfur surfaces<ref name="Du2019">Du, H. Ma, M., Igarashi, Y., Wang, D., 2019. Biotic and Abiotic Degradation of Methylmercury in Aquatic Ecosystems: A Review. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 102 pp. 605-611. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-018-2530-2 DOI: 10.1007/s00128-018-2530-2]</ref><ref name="Jonsson2016">Jonsson, S., Mazrui, N.M., Mason, R.P., 2016. Dimethylmercury Formation Mediated by Inorganic and Organic Reduced Sulfur Surfaces. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 27958. [https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27958 DOI: 10.1038/srep27958]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep27958.pdf Free access article]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Jonsson2016.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Methylmercury can be degraded biotically by aerobic bacteria containing the mercury detoxification, ''mer'' [[Wikipedia: Operon | operon]] and through oxidative demethylation by anaerobic microorganisms<ref name="Du2019"/>.  
+
==Introduction==
 +
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"/>.  
  
−
==Bioaccumulation and Toxicology==
+
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.
−
Regulatory criteria are most often based on total Hg concentrations, however, MeHg is the form of Hg that can [[Wikipedia: Bioaccumulation | bioaccumulate]] in wildlife and is the greatest human and ecological health risk<ref name=”ATSDR1999”>Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury.  [https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46.pdf Free download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ATSDR1999.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. MeHg represents over 95% of the Hg found in fish<ref name="Bloom1992">Bloom, N.S., 1992. On the Chemical Form of Mercury in Edible Fish and Marine Invertebrate Tissue. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(5), pp. 1010-117. [https://doi.org/10.1139/f92-113 DOI: 10.1139/f92-113]</ref>. Hg and MeHg can be taken up directly from contaminated water into organisms, with the identity of the Hg-ligand complexes determining how readily the Hg is taken up into the organism<ref name="Kidd2012">Kidd, K., Clayden, M., Jardine, T., 2012. Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification of Mercury through Food Webs. Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology of Mercury, pp. 453-499. Liu, G., Yong, C. O’Driscoll, N., Eds. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118146644.ch14 DOI: 10.1002/9781118146644.ch14]</ref>. Direct bioconcentration from water is the major uptake route at the base of the food web. Hg and MeHg can also enter the food web when benthic organisms ingest contaminated sediments<ref name="Mason2001">Mason, R.P., 2001. The Bioaccumulation of Mercury, Methylmercury and Other Toxic Elements into Pelagic and Benthic Organisms. Coastal and Estuarine Risk Assessment, pp. 127-149. Newman, M., Roberts, M., and Hale, R.C., Ed.s. CRC Press. ISBN: 978-1-4200-3245-1  Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Mason-13/publication/266354387_The_Bioaccumulation_of_Mercury_Methylmercury_and_Other_Toxic_Elements_into_Pelagic_and_Benthic_Organisms/links/55083eff0cf26ff55f80662d/The-Bioaccumulation-of-Mercury-Methylmercury-and-Other-Toxic-Elements-into-Pelagic-and-Benthic-Organisms.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. Further up the food web organisms are exposed to Hg and MeHg both through exposure to contaminated water and through their diet. The higher up the trophic level, the more important dietary exposure becomes. Fish obtain more than 90% of Hg from their diet<ref name="Kidd2012"/>.  
 
  
−
Humans are mainly exposed to Hg in the forms of MeHg and Hg(0). Hg(0) exposure comes from dental amalgams and industrial/contaminated site exposures. Hg(0) readily crosses the blood/brain barrier and mainly effects the nervous system and the kidneys<ref name="Clarkson2003">Clarkson, T.W., Magos, L., Myers, G.J., 2003. The Toxicology of Mercury — Current Exposures and Clinical Manifestations. New England Journal of Medicine, 349, pp. 1731-1737. [https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra022471 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra022471]</ref>. MeHg exposure comes from the consumption of contaminated fish. In the human body, MeHg is readily absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract into the bloodstream and crosses the blood/brain barrier, affecting the central nervous system. MeHg can also pass through the placenta to the fetus and is particularly harmful to the developing nervous system of the fetus.  
+
==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.  
  
−
MeHg and Hg toxicity in the body occurs through multiple pathways and may be linked to the affinity of Hg for sulfur groups. Hg and MeHg bind to S-containing groups, which can block normal bodily functions<ref name="Bjørklund2017">Bjørklund, G., Dadar, M., Mutter, J. and Aaseth, J., 2017. The toxicology of mercury: Current research and emerging trends. Environmental Research, 159, pp.545-554. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.051 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.051]</ref>.  
+
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).
  
−
==Regulatory Framework for Mercury==
+
==Peepers Preparation, Deployment and Retrieval==
−
In the United States, mercury is regulated by several different [[Wikipedia: Mercury regulation in the United States | environmental laws]] including: the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act of 1996, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act,  the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act<ref name=”USEPA2021”>US EPA, 2021. Environmental Laws that Apply to Mercury. [https://www.epa.gov/mercury/environmental-laws-apply-mercury US EPA Website]</ref>.  
+
[[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.
  
−
In 2013, the United States signed the international [https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/minamata-convention-mercury Minamata Convention on Mercury]. The Minamata Convention on Mercury seeks to address and reduce human activities that are contributing to widespread mercury pollution. Worldwide, 128 countries have signed the Convention.
+
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.
  
−
==Remediation Technologies==
+
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.  
−
As a chemical element, Hg cannot be destroyed, so the goal of Hg-remediation is immobilization and prevention of food web bioaccumulation. At very highly contaminated sites (>100s ppm), sediments are often removed and landfilled<ref name="Eckley2020"/>. ''In situ'' capping is also a common remediation approach. Both dredging and capping can be costly and ecologically destructive, and the development of less invasive, less costly remediation technologies for Hg and MeHg contaminated sediments is an active research field. Eckley et al.<ref name="Eckley2020"/>and Wang et al.<ref name="Wang2020">Wang, L., Hou, D., Cao, Y., Ok, Y.S., Tack, F., Rinklebe, J., O’Connor, D., 2020. Remediation of mercury contaminated soil, water, and air: A review of emerging materials and innovative technologies. Environmental International, 134, 105281.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105281  DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105281]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019324754 Free access article]</ref> give thorough reviews of standard and emerging technologies.  
 
  
−
Recently application of ''in situ'' sorbents has garnered interest as a remediation solution for Hg<ref name="Eckley2020"/>. Many different materials, including biochar and various formulations of [[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon | activated carbon]], are successful in lowering porewater concentrations of Hg and MeHg in contaminated sediments<ref name="Gilmour2013">Gilmour, C.C., Riedel, G.S., Riedel, G., Kwon, S., Landis, R., Brown, S.S., Menzie, C.A., Ghosh, U., 2013. Activated Carbon Mitigates Mercury and Methylmercury Bioavailability in Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(22), pp. 13001-13010.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es4021074 DOI: 10.1021/es4021074]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven-Brown-18/publication/258042399_Activated_Carbon_Mitigates_Mercury_and_Methylmercury_Bioavailability_in_Contaminated_Sediments/links/5702a10e08aea09bb1a30083/Activated-Carbon-Mitigates-Mercury-and-Methylmercury-Bioavailability-in-Contaminated-Sediments.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. More research is needed to determine whether Hg and MeHg sorbed to these materials are available for uptake into organisms. Site biogeochemistry can also impact the efficacy sorbent materials, with dissolved organic matter and sulfide concentrations impacting Hg and MeHg sorption. Overall, knowing site biogeochemical characteristics is important for predicting Hg mobility and MeHg production risks as well as for designing a remediation strategy that will be effective.
+
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>.
  
 +
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.
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:left; margin-right:15px;"
+
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''):
−
|+ Table 1.  Comparison of SCWO with other thermal technologies
+
</br>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;1:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation1r.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
! Technology
+
| || ''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>
−
! SCWO
 
−
! SCWG
 
−
! HTL/HTC
 
−
! WAO
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Temperature || >380&deg;C || >380&deg;C || 250-300&deg;C || 150-320&deg;C
+
| || ''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)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Pressure || >240 bar || >240 bar || 40-200 bar || 10-200 bar
+
| || ''K'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Oxidant || Required || None || None || Required
+
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
The elimination rate of the target analyte (''K'') is calculated using Equation 2:
 +
</br>
 +
{|  
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;2:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation2r.png]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Reaction time || 2-10 sec. || 40-90 sec. || 30 min. to 2 hr.s || 30 min. to 3 hr.s
+
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Corrosion potential || Moderate to high || Moderate || Low || Low to moderate
+
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Risk of reactor plugging || Moderate to high || High || High || Low
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Reaction || Exothermic || Endothermic || Endothermic || Exothermic
+
| || ''D'' || is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Useable products || CO<sub>2</sub> + clean H<sub>2</sub>O + heat + minerals || Syngas (H<sub>2</sub> + CH<sub>4</sub> + CO) || Biocrude/Biochar || Possible H<sub>2</sub>O, volatile fatty acids
+
| || ''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>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;3:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation3r2.png]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| By-products || None || Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N,</br>contaminated water || Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N,</br>contaminated water ||Tars, phenols, recalcitrant N,</br>contaminated water
+
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Fate of feedstock N,</br>if any || N<sub>2</sub> gas || NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> in liquid effluent || NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> in liquid effluent +</br>N in (by)-products || NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> in liquid effluent +</br>N in (by)-products
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| colspan="5" style="background:white;" | Notes: SCWG = supercritical water gasification, HTL/HTC = [[Wikipedia: Hydrothermal liquefaction | hydrothermal liquefaction]]/carbonization, WAO = wet air oxidation
+
| || ''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<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)
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
For&nbsp;SCWO&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;economical, the heat from the oxidation reaction is recovered and used in part to heat the influent stream, while the excess heat can be converted to electricity. Depending on the concentration of waste in the feedstock, SCWO reactors can be operated autothermally, i.e., no outside input of heat is required. Typical reaction times are in the order of 2-10 seconds, resulting in SCWO systems that are quite compact compared to other technologies (see Table 1). The process does not generate harmful by-products such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) or Sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), or odors<ref Name="Bermejo">Bermejo, M.D. and Cocero, M.J., 2006. Supercritical water oxidation: A technical review. AIChE Journal, 52(11) pp. 3933-3951.  [https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.10993 DOI: 10.1002/aic.10993]</ref>. Typically, if present, ammonia and organic nitrogen in the waste undergoing treatment are converted to nitrogen gas, while phosphorous precipitates as phosphates and can be recovered. When [[Wikipedia: Halogen | halogen]] containing contaminants are treated (e.g., [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)| PFAS]]), halogen-carbon bonds are generally broken and [[Wikipedia: Halide | halide]] anions are released in solution (e.g., F- when treating PFAS or Cl- when treating [[Wikipedia: Trichloroethylene | trichloroethene (TCE)]] and [[Wikipedia: Tetrachloroethylene | tetrachloroethene (PCE)]]).
+
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"/>.
  
−
==Advantages and Disadvantages==
+
==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
−
There are many advantages to SCWO treatment. SCWO is a destructive treatment in that the compounds treated are mineralized to simple elements or harmless molecules (e.g., water and carbon dioxide) rather than just being transferred to another medium. Another advantage is the absence of reaction by-products, incompletely oxidized contaminants or unreacted harmful oxidants (e.g., ozone). SCWO is an extremely rapid and effective reaction (typical reaction times are in the order of 5-10 seconds) making it possible to build systems that are very compact and have a high throughput. SCWO is also a very clean process. The highly oxidizing environment makes it possible to effectively treat all sorts of organic contaminants, often recalcitrant to other processes, with very high (>99%) destruction efficiencies. This includes treatment of trace contaminants, slurries of biosolids, waste oil, food wastes, plastics, or emerging contaminants such as PFAS or 1,4-dioxane. Also, the relatively moderate temperatures (380-600&deg;C) compared to other destructive technologies such as incineration, combined with the presence of supercritical water prevent the formation of NOx and SOx compounds. Lastly, SCWO treatment does not require drying of the waste, and both liquids and slurries can be treated using SCWO.  
+
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.
  
−
There are several disadvantages to SCWO treatment. First, a significant amount of energy needs to be expended to bring the oxidant and the waste undergoing treatment to the critical point of water. Although a large fraction of this energy can be efficiently recovered in heat exchangers, compensating for heat losses constrains SCWO to the treatment of concentrated wastes with sufficient organic content for the exothermic oxidation reaction to provide the necessary heat. Typically, a minimum calorific content of around 2 MJ/kg (which generally corresponds to a chemical oxygen demand of about 120-150 g/L) is needed for autothermal operation. For more dilute streams, external heating or supplementation of fuel (diesel, alcohol, waste oil, etc.) can be implemented, but it can rapidly become cost prohibitive. Thus, SCWO is currently not economical for very large volumes (>50,000 gallon/day) of very dilute waste streams. A second limitation is related to the pumping of the waste. Because the process is conducted at high pressure (240 bars or 3500 psi), positive displacement pumps are required. This limits SCWO to liquids and slurries that can be pumped. Waste streams that contain excessive grit or abrasive materials, and soils cannot currently be processed using SCWO.  
+
'''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.
  
−
The many appealing benefits of supercritical water processing have stimulated engineers and entrepreneurs to invest significant efforts and resources in the development of the technology. Today, after roughly 30 years of development, commercial deployment is on the horizon<ref name="Marrone2013"/>. Technical challenges that have slowed down commercial deployment of SCWO are linked to the complex nature of a high-pressure, high-temperature process. Critical issues include reactor materials selection to resist corrosion (typically high nickel alloys are used), reactor designs and construction to withstand the corrosive nature of the reactive mass, dealing with highly exothermic reactions at high pressure and high temperature, plugging of the reactor by minerals deposits, and energy recovery for autothermal operation. Another challenge was the unrealistic goal of some companies entering the SCWO market to produce power from waste streams (often wastewater sludge) at a competitive cost (3-5 cents/kWh). This was not feasible with the available technology, which led to several business failures.  
+
'''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.
  
−
The value proposition of treating recalcitrant wastes using SCWO is markedly different, especially in today’s context of increasing liability for trace levels of emerging contaminants such as PFAS. SCWO may prove to be the optimal treatment technology for many highly concentrated aqueous waste streams.
+
'''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.
−
[[File: Nagar1w2Fig2.png | thumb | 500px | Figure 2. Duke SCWO pilot-scale system (during construction, thermal insulation removed). The system is housed in a standard 20 ft shipping container and can treat about 1 ton (or 270 gallons) of waste per day.]]
 
  
−
==State of the Art==
+
'''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.
−
[[File: Nagar1w2Fig3.png | thumb |left| 400px | Figure 3.  Landfill leachate (left) and SCWO treated effluent (right). Effluent is odorless.]]
 
−
Relatively few large scale SCWO systems exist. Researchers at Duke University ([http://sanitation.pratt.duke.edu/community-treatment/about-community-treatment-project Deshusses lab]) have designed and built a prototype pilot-scale SCWO system housed in a standard 20-foot shipping container (Figure 2). This project was funded by the Reinvent the Toilet program of the [https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]. The pilot system is a continuous process designed to treat 1 ton of sludge per day at 10-20% dry solids content. The unit has been undergoing testing at Duke since early 2015. The design includes moderate preheating of the waste slurry, followed by mixing with supercritical water (~600&deg;C) and air, which serves as the oxidant. This internal mixing rapidly brings the waste undergoing treatment to supercritical conditions thereby minimizing corrosion and the risks of waste charring and associated reactor plugging. The organics in the sludge are rapidly oxidized to CO<sub>2</sub>, while the heat of oxidation is recovered to heat the influent waste. The reactor is a single tubular reactor. The high supercritical fluid velocity in the system helps with controlling mineral salts deposition in the reactor. The system is well instrumented, and operation is controlled using a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system with historian software for trends analysis and reporting of key performance indicators (e.g., temperatures and pressures, pollutant destruction). Experiments conducted with this pilot plant have shown effective treatment of a wide variety of otherwise problematic wastes such as primary, secondary and digested sludge slurries, landfill leachate (see Figure 3), animal waste, and co-contaminants including waste oil, food wastes, and plastics. The results are consistent with other SCWO studies and show very rapid treatment of all wastes with near complete conversion (often >99.9%) of organics to CO<sub>2</sub>. Total nitrogen and phosphorous removal are generally over 95% and 98%, respectively. Emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]], [[1,4-Dioxane | 1,4-dioxane]] and [[Wikipedia: Microplastics | microplastics]] are also treated with destruction generally exceeding 99%.
 
  
−
Early projections for treatment costs (Capital Expenditures + Operating Expenditures) for slurries are in the range of $12 to $90 per ton (or $0.04 to $0.37 per gallon) depending on system scale and contaminant concentration, with a majority of the cost coming from amortizing the equipment. These cost projections make SCWO treatment very competitive compared to other treatment technologies for high-strength wastes. When treating large volumes of water, combining SCWO with another technology (e.g., nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, or adsorption onto GAC) should be considered so that only the concentrated brines or spent sorbent are treated using SCWO, thereby increasing the cost effectiveness of the overall treatment.
+
'''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.
−
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; float:right; margin-left:15px;"
 
−
|+ Table 2.  Results for influent biosolids and treated effluent using Duke University SCWO pilot-scale plant
 
−
|-
 
−
! Substance
 
−
! Residual</br>(ng/L)
 
−
! Removal
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFBA || 10.20 || 99.86%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFHxA || 5.15 || 99.89%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFNA || 1.07 || 99.90%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFDA || 0.80 || 99.97%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFUnA || <1.10 || >99.89%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFBS || <0.19|| >99.98%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFPes || <0.29 || >99.98%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFHxS || 0.28 || 99.99%
 
−
|-
 
−
| PFOS || 0.65 || 99.99%
 
−
|-
 
−
| colspan="3" style="background:white;" | Note: Similar destruction efficiencies were obtained when treating AFFF solutions.
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
==SCWO for the Treatment of PFAS and AFFF==
 
−
Several reports have indicated that PFAS can be treated using SCWO<ref name="Kucharzyk2017">Kucharzyk, K.H., Darlington, R., Benotti, M., Deeb, R. and Hawley, E., 2017. Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Management, 204(2), pp. 757-764.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016]&nbsp;&nbsp; Manuscript available from: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katarzyna_kate_Kucharzyk/publication/319125507_Novel_treatment_technologies_for_PFAS_compounds_A_critical_review/links/5a06590b4585157013a3be77/Novel-treatment-technologies-for-PFAS-compounds-A-critical-review.pdf ResearchGate]</ref>. Several runs treating biosolids known to contain PFAS as well as dilutions of pure [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)]] have also been conducted with the Duke SCWO system. Typical results are shown in Table 2. They indicate very effective treatment performance, with for example 110,000 ng/L PFOS in the feed reduced to 0.79 ng/L in the effluent, and many other PFAS reduced to below their detection limits. No HF was found in the effluent gas, and all the fluorine from the destroyed PFAS was accounted for as fluoride in the effluent water. These results show the ability of the SCWO process to destroy PFAS to levels well below the EPA health advisory levels of 70 ng/L for PFOS and PFOA. The [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] project number [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5350/ER20-5350 ER20-5350]<ref name="Deshusses2020">Deshusses, M.A., 2020. Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) for Complete PFAS Destruction. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project number ER20-5350. [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5350/ER20-5350 Project website]</ref> launched in June 2020 will assess the technical feasibility of using supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) for the complete destruction of PFAS in a variety of relevant waste streams and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the treatment.
 
−
<br clear="left" />
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
−
 
 
<references />
 
<references />
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
 +
*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
 +
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
 +
*[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]

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"