Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Abiotic Reduction of Munitions Constituents)
(→‎Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers))
 
(538 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Abiotic Reduction of Munitions Constituents==
+
==Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)==  
−
Munition compounds (MCs) often contain one or more nitro (-NO<sub>2</sub>) functional groups which makes them susceptible to abiotic reduction, i.e., transformation by accepting electrons from a chemical electron donor. In soil and groundwater, the most prevalent electron donors are natural organic carbon and iron minerals. Understanding the kinetics and mechanisms of abiotic reduction of MCs by carbon and iron constituents in soil is not only essential for evaluating the environmental fate of MCs but also key to developing cost-efficient remediation strategies. This article summarizes the recent advances in our understanding of MC reduction by carbon and iron based reductants.
+
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):'''
−
*[[Munitions Constituents]]  
+
 
−
*[[Munitions Constituents - Alkaline Degradation]]
+
*[[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]]
 +
 
  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
−
*Dr. Jimmy Murillo-Gelvez
+
 
−
*Paula Andrea Cárdenas-Hernández
+
*Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
−
*Dr. Pei Chiu
+
*Jason Conder, Ph.D.
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
−
* Schwarzenbach, Gschwend, and Imboden, 2016. Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd ed.<ref name="Schwarzenbach2016">Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 2016. Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 1024 pages. ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8</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>
 +
 
 +
*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:Plasma4PFASFig1.png | thumb |left|700px|Figure 1. Plasmas generated within liquids (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University)]]
+
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"/>.  
−
Plasma processing plays an essential role in various industrial applications such as semiconductor fabrication, polymer functionalization, chemical synthesis, agriculture and food safety, health industry, and hazardous waste management<ref name="VanVeldhuizen2002">Van Veldhuizen, E.M., and Rutgers, W.R., 2002. Pulsed Positive Corona Streamer Propagation and Branching. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 35(17), p.2169. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/35/17/313]</ref><ref name="Yang">Yang, Y., Cho, Y.I. and Fridman, A., 2012. Plasma Discharge in Liquid: Water Treatment and Applications. CRC press. ISBN: 978-1-4398-6623-8  [https://doi.org/10.1201/b11650 DOI: 10.1201/b11650]</ref><ref name="Rezaei2019">Rezaei, F., Vanraes, P., Nikiforov, A., Morent, R., and De Geyter, N., 2019. Applications of Plasma-Liquid Systems: A Review. Materials, 12(17), article 2751, 69 pp. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12172751 DOI: 10.3390/ma12172751]&nbsp;&nbsp;   [https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/12/17/2751 Open access article].</ref><ref name="Herianto2021">Herianto, S., Hou, C.Y., Lin, C.M., and Chen, H.L., 2021. Nonthermal plasma-activated water: A comprehensive review of this new tool for enhanced food safety and quality. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(1), pp. 583-626. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12667 DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12667]</ref>. Plasma is a gaseous state of matter consisting of charged particles, metastable-state molecules or atoms, and free radicals. Depending on the energy or temperature of the electrons, compared with the temperature of the background gas, plasmas can be classified as thermal or non-thermal. In thermal plasma, an example of which is an electrical arc, individual species’ temperatures typically exceed several thousand Kelvins (K). Non-thermal plasmas are formed using less power with temperatures ranging from ambient to approximately 1000 K<ref name="Jiang2014">Jiang, B., Zheng, J., Qiu, S., Wu, M., Zhang, Q., Yan, Z. and Xue, Q., 2014. Review on Electrical Discharge Plasma Technology for Wastewater Remediation. Chemical Engineering Journal, 236, pp. 348–368. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2013.09.090]</ref>. An example of a non-thermal plasma is a dielectric barrier discharge used for commercial ozone generation.  
+
 
 +
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>.
 +
 
 +
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>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;1:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation1r.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''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<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
 +
|-
 +
| || ''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]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 +
|-
 +
| || ''D'' || is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 +
|-
 +
| || ''D<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 +
|}
  
−
Plasma that is applied in water treatment (Figure 1) is typically non-thermal, which offers high-energy process efficiency and selectivity<ref name="Jiang2014"/><ref name="Magureanu2018">Magureanu, M., Bradu, C., and Parvulescu, V.I., 2018. Plasma Processes for the Treatment of Water Contaminated with Harmful Organic Compounds. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 51(31), p. 313002. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c DOI:     10.1088/1361-6463/aacd9c]</ref>. Since the 1980s when the first plasma reactor was utilized to oxidize a dye<ref name="Clements1987">Clements, J.S., Sato, M., and Davis, R.H., 1987. Preliminary Investigation of Prebreakdown Phenomena and Chemical Reactions Using a Pulsed High-Voltage Discharge in Water. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, IA-23(2), pp. 224-235.  [https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897 DOI: 10.1109/TIA.1987.4504897]</ref>, over a hundred different plasma reactors have been developed to treat a range of contaminants of environmental importance including biological species. Examples include treatment of pharmaceuticals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 1,4-dioxane, herbicides, pesticides, warfare agents, bacteria, yeasts and viruses using direct-in-liquid discharges with and without bubbles and discharges in a gas over and contacting the surface of a liquid. Different excitation sources including AC, nanosecond pulsed and DC voltages have been utilized to produce pulsed corona, corona-like, spark, arc, and glow discharges, among other discharge types. Many reviews of plasma processing for water treatment applications have recently been published<ref name="Zeghioud2020">Zeghioud, H., Nguyen-Tri, P., Khezami, L., Amrane, A., and Assadi, A.A., 2020. Review on Discharge Plasma for Water Treatment: Mechanism, Reactor Geometries, Active Species and Combined Processes. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 38, p.101664. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664 DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101664]</ref><ref name="Murugesan2020">Murugesan, P., Evanjalin Monica, V., Moses, J.A., and Anandharamakrishnan, C., 2020. Water Decontamination Using Non-Thermal Plasma: Concepts, Applications, and Prospects. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 8(5), p. 104377. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377 DOI: 10.1016/j.jece.2020.104377]</ref>.
+
The elimination rate of the tracer (''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'') is calculated using Equation 3:
−
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig2.png | thumb |500px|Figure 2. Continuous flow enhanced contact plasma treatment system (Courtesy of Plasma Research Laboratory, Clarkson University).]]
+
</br>
−
Plasma-based water treatment (PWT) owes its strong oxidation and disinfection capabilities to the production of reactive oxidative species (ROS), primarily OH radicals, atomic oxygen, singlet oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. The process also produces reductive species such as solvated electrons and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) when nitrogen and oxygen are present in the discharge. This process has the advantage of synergistic effects of high electric fields, UV/VUV light emissions and in some cases shockwave formation in a liquid. It requires no chemical additions, and can be optimized for batch or continuous processing.
+
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;3:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation3r2.png]]
 +
|-
 +
| Where: || ||
 +
|-
 +
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 +
|-
 +
| || ''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)
 +
|}
  
−
==Application of Plasma for the Treatment of PFAS-Contaminated Water==
+
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"/>.
−
Several research groups have investigated the use of plasma to treat and remove PFAS from contaminated water<ref name="Hayashi2015">Hayashi, R., Obo, H., Takeuchi, N., and Yasuoka, K., 2015. Decomposition of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by DC Plasma within Oxygen Bubbles. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 190(3), pp.9-16. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22499 DOI: 10.1002/eej.22499]&nbsp;&nbsp;  [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eej.22499 Open access article].</ref><ref name="Matsuya2014">Matsuya, Y., Takeuchi, N., Yasuoka, K., 2014. Relationship Between Reaction Rate of Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Decomposition at a Plasma-Liquid Interface and Adsorbed Amount. Electrical Engineering in Japan, 188(2), pp.1-8. [https://doi.org/10.1002/eej.22526 DOI:  10.1002/eej.22526]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eej.22526 Open access article].</ref><ref name="Stratton2017">Stratton, G.R., Dai, F., Bellona, C.L., Holsen, T.M., Dickenson, E.R., and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2017. Plasma-Based Water Treatment: Efficient Transformation of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Prepared Solutions and Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(3), pp.1643-1648. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04215 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04215]</ref><ref name="Takeuchi2013">Takeuchi, N., Kitagawa, Y., Kosugi, A., Tachibana, K., Obo, H., and Yasuoka, K., 2013. Plasma-Liquid Interfacial Reaction in Decomposition of Perfluoro Surfactants. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 47(4), p.045203. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203 DOI: 10.1088/0022-3727/47/4/045203]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2011">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., and Hayashi, R., 2011. An Energy-Efficient Process for Decomposing Perfluorooctanoic and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acids Using DC Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. Plasma Sources Science and Technology, 20(3), p. 034009. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009 DOI: 10.1088/0963-0252/20/3/034009]</ref><ref name="Yasuoka2010">Yasuoka, K., Sasaki, K., Hayashi, R., Kosugi, A., and Takeuchi, N., 2010. Degradation of Perfluoro Compounds and F<sup>-</sup> Recovery in Water Using Discharge Plasmas Generated within Gas Bubbles. International Journal of Plasma Environmental Science and Technology, 4(2), 113–117.  [http://ijpest.com/Contents/04/2/PDF/04-02-113.pdf Open access article].</ref><ref name="Lewis2020">Lewis, A.J., Joyce, T., Hadaya, M., Ebrahimi, F., Dragiev, I., Giardetti, N., Yang, J., Fridman, G., Rabinovich, A., Fridman, A.A., McKenzie, E.R., and Sales, C.M., 2020. Rapid Degradation of PFAS in Aqueous Solutions by Reverse Vortex Flow Gliding Arc Plasma. Environmental Science: Water Research and Technology, 6(4), pp.1044-1057. [https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew01050e DOI: 10.1039/c9ew01050e]</ref><ref name="Saleem2020">Saleem, M., Biondo, O., Sretenović, G., Tomei, G., Magarotto, M., Pavarin, D., Marotta, E. and Paradisi, C., 2020. Comparative Performance Assessment of Plasma Reactors for the Treatment of PFOA; Reactor Design, Kinetics, Mineralization and Energy Yield. Chemical Engineering Journal, 382, p.123031. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031 DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2019.123031]</ref><ref name="Palma2021">Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M. and Richard, C., 2021. PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. Molecules, 26(4), p. 924. [https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26040924 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26040924]&nbsp;&nbsp; [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/26/4/924/htm Open access article].</ref>.  Of those studies, the Enhanced Contact (EC) plasma reactor developed by researchers at Clarkson University is one of the most promising in terms of treatment time, cost, the range of PFAS treated and scale up/throughput. Their process has been shown to degrade PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS in a variety of PFAS-impacted water sources.  
 
  
−
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig3.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 3. Degradation profiles of combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations in investigation derived waste (IDW) obtained from nine different Air Force site investigations. In all the IDW samples, both PFOS and PFOA were removed to below EPA’s lifetime health advisory level concentrations (70 ng/L) in < 1 minute of treatment, demonstrating the lack of sensitivity of the plasma-based process to the effects of co-contaminants<ref name="Singh2019a"/>.]]
+
==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
−
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig4.png | thumb |550px|Figure 4. (a) Mobile plasma treatment trailer depicting the (b) plasma side of the trailer featuring two plasma reactors and the plasma-generating network; and (c) control and plumbing side of the plasma trailer featuring multiple rotameters, storage tanks and plumbing.]]
+
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.
−
In the EC plasma reactor (Figure 2), argon gas is continuously pumped through the solution to form a layer of foam and thus concentrate PFAS at the gas-liquid interface where plasma is formed. The process is able to lower the concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater obtained from multiple DoD sites to below Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) lifetime health advisory level (HAL) of 70 parts per trillion (70 nanogram per liter, ng/L)<ref name="USEPA2016">US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Federal Register, Notices, 81(101), p. 33250-33251.  [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/2016-12361.pdf Free download].</ref> within 1 minute of treatment (Figure 3) with energy requirements much lower than those of alternative technologies (~2-6 kWh/m3 for plasma vs. 5000 kWh/m3 for persulfate, photochemical oxidation and sonolytic processes and 132 kWh/m3 for electrochemical oxidation)<ref name="Singh2019a"/><ref name="Nzeribe2019"/>. The EC plasma reactor owes its high efficacy to the plasma reactor design, in particular to the gas bubbling through submerged diffusers to transport PFAS to the plasma-liquid interface and thus minimize bulk liquid limitations.
 
−
[[File: Plasma4PFASFig5.png | thumb |left|350px|Figure 5. Plasma destruction of PFAS-impacted groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021"/>. One cycle = 18 gallons.]]
 
−
In 2019, a mobile plasma treatment system (Figure 4) was successfully demonstrated for the treatment of PFAS-contaminated groundwater at the fire-training area at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base<ref name="Nau-Hix2021">Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M. and Mededovic Thagard, S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. ACS ES&T Water, 1(3), pp. 680-687. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 DOI: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>.
 
  
−
Over 300 gallons of PFAS-impacted groundwater were treated at a maximum flowrate of 1.1  gallons per minute (gpm) resulting in ≥90% reduction (mean percent removal of 99.7%) of long-chain PFAAs (fluorocarbon chain ≥ 6) and PFAS precursors in a single pass through the reactor (Figure 5) at a treatment cost of $7.30/1000 gallons<ref name="Nau-Hix2021"/>. As expected, the removal of short-chain PFAS was slower due to their lower potential for interfacial adsorption compared to long-chain PFAS. However, post-field laboratory studies revealed that the addition of a cationic surfactant such as CTAB (cetrimonium bromide) minimizes bulk liquid transport limitations for short-chain PFAS by electrostatically interacting with these compounds and transporting them to the plasma-liquid interface where they are degraded<ref name="Palma2021"/>. Both bench and pilot-scale EC plasma-based process have been extended for the treatment of PFAS in membrane concentrate, ion exchange brine, and landfill leachate<ref name="Singh2020">Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S. and Holsen, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- And Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp.13973-13980. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref name="Singh2021">Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., and Holsen, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-Containing Landfill Leachate Using an Enhanced Contact Plasma Reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, p.124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref>.  
+
'''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.
  
−
As a part of a currently-funded ESTCP project (ESTCP ER20-5535)<ref name="Mededovic2020">Mededovic, S., 2020. An Innovative Plasma Technology for Treatment of AFFF Rinsate from Firefighting Delivery Systems. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5355. [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER20-5355  Project Overview]</ref>, the Clarkson University team with the support of GSI Environmental Inc. is evaluating the effectiveness of their plasma process in treating diluted aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) as well as the benefits of pre-oxidation of PFAS precursors in high concentration AFFF solutions in terms of post-oxidation plasma treatment time, destruction efficiency and cost.
+
'''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.
  
−
==Advantages and Limitations of the Technology for PFAS Treatment==
+
'''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.
−
===Advantages:===
 
−
* High removal rates of long-chain PFAS (C5-C8) due to the production of versatile reactive species
 
−
* Requires no chemical additions and produces no residual waste
 
−
* Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration and other non-surfactant co-contaminants do not influence the process efficiency
 
−
* The process is mobile and scalable
 
−
* Versatile: can be used in batch and continuous systems
 
  
−
===Limitations:===
+
'''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.
−
* Limited removal of short-chain PFAS due to their inability to concentrate at plasma-liquid interfaces. Addition of surfactants such as CTAB improves their removal and degradation rates.
 
−
* Excessive foaming caused by bubbling argon gas through a solution containing high (>10 mg/L) concentrations of long-chain (surfactant) PFAS may interfere with the formation of plasma.
 
  
−
==Summary==
+
'''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.
−
PFAS are susceptible to plasma treatment because the hydrophobic PFAS accumulates at the gas-liquid interface, exposing more of the PFAS to the plasma. Plasma-based treatment of PFAS contaminated water successfully degrades PFOA and PFOS to below the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt and accomplishes the near complete destruction of other PFAS within a short treatment time. PFAS concentration reductions of ≥90% and post-treatment concentrations below laboratory detection levels are common for long chain PFAS and precursors. 
 
−
The lack of sensitivity of plasma to co-contaminants, coupled with high PFAS removal and defluorination efficiencies, makes plasma-based water treatment a promising technology for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated water. The plasma treatment process is currently developed for ''ex situ'' application and can also be integrated into a treatment train<ref name="Richardson2021">Richardson, S., 2021. Nanofiltration Followed by Electrical Discharge Plasma for Destruction of PFAS and Co-occurring Chemicals in Groundwater: A Treatment Train Approach. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project Number ER21-5136.  [https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Program-Areas/Environmental-Restoration/ER21-5136  Project Overview]</ref>.
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 56: Line 126:
  
 
==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"