Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction)
(→‎State of the Practice)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Passive Sampling of Sediments==
+
==PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment==  
−
"Passive sampling" refers to a group of methods used to quantify the availability of organic contaminants to move between different media and/or to react in environmental systems such as indoor air, lake waters, or contaminated sediment beds.  To do this, the passive sampling material is deployed in the environmental system and allowed to absorb chemicals of interest via diffusive transfers from the surroundings. Upon recovery of the passive sampler, the accumulated contaminants are measured, and the concentrations in the sampler are interpreted to infer the chemical concentrations in specific surrounding media like porewater in a sediment bed.  Such data are then useful inputs for site assessments such as those seeking to quantify fluxes from contaminated sediment beds to overlying waters or to evaluate the risk of significant uptake into benthic infauna and the larger food web.
+
The ultraviolet (UV)/sulfite based reductive defluorination process has emerged as an effective and practical option for generating hydrated electrons (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) which can destroy [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] in water. It offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction, including significant defluorination, high treatment efficiency for long-, short-, and ultra-short chain PFAS without mass transfer limitations, selective reactivity by hydrated electrons, low energy consumption, low capital and operation costs, and no production of harmful byproducts. A UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor">Haley and Aldrich, Inc. (commercial business), 2024. EradiFluor. [https://www.haleyaldrich.com/about-us/applied-research-program/eradifluor/ Comercial Website]</ref>) has been demonstrated in two field demonstrations in which it achieved near-complete defluorination and greater than 99% destruction of 40 PFAS analytes measured by EPA method 1633.
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
−
* [[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
 
−
* [[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
 
  
−
'''Contributor(s):''' [[Dr. Philip M. Gschwend]]
+
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
 +
*[[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment]]
 +
*[[PFAS Sources]]
 +
*[[PFAS Treatment by Electrical Discharge Plasma]]
 +
*[[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)]]
 +
*[[Photoactivated Reductive Defluorination - PFAS Destruction]]
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Contributors:''' John Xiong, Yida Fang, Raul Tenorio, Isobel Li, and Jinyong Liu
−
* Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds<ref name ="Apell2014">Apell, J.N. and Gschwend, P.M., 2014. Validating the Use of Performance Reference Compounds in Passive Samplers to Assess Porewater Concentrations in Sediment Beds.  Environmental Science and Technology, 48(17), pp. 10301-10307.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es502694g DOI: 10.1021/es502694g]</ref>
 
  
−
* ''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data<ref name="Apell2016">Apell, J.N., and Gschwend, P.M., 2016. ''In situ'' passive sampling of sediments in the Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund site: Replicability, comparison with ''ex situ'' measurements, and use of data. Environmental Pollution, 218, pp. 95-101. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.023]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ApellGschwend2016.pdf | Authors’ Manuscript]]</ref>
+
'''Key Resources:'''
−
 
+
*Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management<ref name="BentelEtAl2019">Bentel, M.J., Yu, Y., Xu, L., Li, Z., Wong, B.M., Men, Y., Liu, J., 2019. Defluorination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) with Hydrated Electrons: Structural Dependence and Implications to PFAS Remediation and Management. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(7), pp. 3718-28. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06648 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06648]&nbsp; [[Media: BentelEtAl2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
−
* Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual<ref name="Burgess2017">Burgess, R.M., Kane Driscoll, S.B., Burton, A., Gschwend, P.M., Ghosh, U., Reible, D., Ahn, S., and Thompson, T., 2017. Laboratory, Field, and Analytical Procedures for Using Passive Sampling in the Evaluation of Contaminated Sediments: User’s Manual, EPA/600/R-16/357. SERDP/ESTCP and U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC 20460. [https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NHEERL&dirEntryID=308731 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: EPA600R16357.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
*Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies<ref>Liu, Z., Chen, Z., Gao, J., Yu, Y., Men, Y., Gu, C., Liu, J., 2022. Accelerated Degradation of Perfluorosulfonates and Perfluorocarboxylates by UV/Sulfite + Iodide: Reaction Mechanisms and System Efficiencies. Environmental Science and Technology, 56(6), pp. 3699-3709. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07608 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c07608]&nbsp; [[Media: LiuZEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>
 +
*Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment<ref>Tenorio, R., Liu, J., Xiao, X., Maizel, A., Higgins, C.P., Schaefer, C.E., Strathmann, T.J., 2020. Destruction of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) with UV-Sulfite Photoreductive Treatment. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(11), pp. 6957-67. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00961 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00961]</ref>
 +
*EradiFluor<sup>TM</sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>
  
 
==Introduction==
 
==Introduction==
−
Environmental media such as sediments typically contain many different materials or phases, including liquid solutions (e.g. water, [[Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPLs)| nonaqueous phase liquids]]like spilled oils) and diverse solids (e.g., quartz, aluminosilicate clays, and combustion-derived soots).  Further, the chemical concentration in the porewater medium includes both molecules that are "truly dissolved" in the water and others that are associated with colloids in the porewater<ref name="Brownawell1986">Brownawell, B.J., and Farrington, J.W., 1986. Biogeochemistry of PCBs in interstitial waters of a coastal marine sediment. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 50(1), pp. 157-169.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X DOI: 10.1016/0016-7037(86)90061-X]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/268631.pdf US EPA].</ref><ref name="Chin1992">Chin, Y.P., and Gschwend, P.M., 1992. Partitioning of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons to Marine Porewater Organic Colloids. Environmental Science and Technology, 26(8), pp. 1621-1626.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00032a020 DOI: 10.1021/es00032a020]</ref><ref name="Achman1996">Achman, D.R., Brownawell, B.J., and Zhang, L., 1996. Exchange of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Between Sediment and Water in the Hudson River Estuary. Estuaries, 19(4), pp. 950-965.  [https://doi.org/10.2307/1352310 DOI: 10.2307/1352310]&nbsp;&nbsp; Free download available from: [https://www.academia.edu/download/55010335/135231020171114-2212-b93vic.pdf Academia.edu]</ref>. As a result, contaminant chemicals distribute among these diverse media (Figure 1) according to their affinity for each and the amount of each phase in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996">Gustafsson, Ö., Haghseta, F., Chan, C., MacFarlane, J., and Gschwend, P.M., 1996. Quantification of the Dilute Sedimentary Soot Phase: Implications for PAH Speciation and Bioavailability. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(1), pp. 203-209.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es960317s  DOI: 10.1021/es960317s]</ref><ref name="Luthy1997">Luthy, R.G., Aiken, G.R., Brusseau, M.L., Cunningham, S.D., Gschwend, P.M., Pignatello, J.J., Reinhard, M., Traina, S.J., Weber, W.J., and Westall, J.C., 1997. Sequestration of Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants by Geosorbents. Environmental Science and Technology, 31(12), pp. 3341-3347.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es970512m DOI: 10.1021/es970512m]</ref><ref name="Lohmann2005">Lohmann, R., MacFarlane, J.K., and Gschwend, P.M., 2005. Importance of Black Carbon to Sorption of Native PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs in Boston and New York Harbor Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(1), pp.141-148.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049424+  DOI: 10.1021/es049424+]</ref><ref name="Cornelissen2005">Cornelissen, G., Gustafsson, Ö., Bucheli, T.D., Jonker, M.T., Koelmans, A.A., and van Noort, P.C., 2005. Extensive Sorption of Organic Compounds to Black Carbon, Coal, and Kerogen in Sediments and Soils: Mechanisms and Consequences for Distribution, Bioaccumulation, and Biodegradation. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(18), pp. 6881-6895.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050191b  DOI: 10.1021/es050191b]</ref><ref name="Koelmans2009">Koelmans, A.A., Kaag, K., Sneekes, A., and Peeters, E.T.H.M., 2009. Triple Domain in Situ Sorption Modeling of Organochlorine Pesticides, Polychlorobiphenyls, Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins, and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans in Aquatic Sediments. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(23), pp. 8847-8853.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es9021188 DOI: 10.1021/es9021188]</ref>. As such, the chemical concentration in any one medium (e.g., truly dissolved in porewater) in a multi-material system like sediment is very hard to know from measures of the total sediment concentration, which unfortunately is the information typically found by analyzing for chemicals in sediment samples.
+
The hydrated electron (''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'' ) can be described as an electron in solution surrounded by a small number of water molecules<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988">Buxton, G.V., Greenstock, C.L., Phillips Helman, W., Ross, A.B., 1988. Critical Review of Rate Constants for Reactions of Hydrated Electrons, Hydrogen Atoms and Hydroxyl Radicals (⋅OH/⋅O-) in Aqueous Solution. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 17(2), pp. 513-886. [https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555805 doi: 10.1063/1.555805]</ref>. Hydrated electrons can be produced by photoirradiation of solutes, including sulfite, iodide, dithionite, and ferrocyanide, and have been reported in literature to effectively decompose per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water. The hydrated electron is one of the most reactive reducing species, with a standard reduction potential of about −2.9 volts. Though short-lived, hydrated electrons react rapidly with many species having more positive reduction potentials<ref name="BuxtonEtAl1988"/>.  
−
 
 
−
If an animal moves into this system, it will also accumulate the chemical in its tissues from the loads in all the other materials (Figure 1).  This is important if one is concerned with exposures of the chemical to other organisms, including humans, who may eat such shellfish.  Predicting the quantity of contaminant in the clam requires knowledge of the relative affinities of the chemical for the clam versus the sediment materials.  For example, if one knew the chemical's truly dissolved concentration in the porewater and could reasonably assume the chemical of interest in the clams has mostly accumulated in its lipids (as is often the case for very hydrophobic compounds), then one could estimate the chemical concentration in the clam (''C<sub><small>clam</small></sub>'', typically in units of &mu;g/kg clam wet weight) using a lipid-water [[Wikipedia: Partition coefficient | partition coefficient]], ''K<sub><small>lipid-water</small></sub>'', typically in units of (&mu;g/kg lipid)/(&mu;g/L water), and the porewater concentration of the chemical (''C<sub><small>porewater</small></sub>'', in &mu;g/L) with Equation 1.
 
−
{|
 
−
|
 
−
|-
 
−
| || Equation 1.
 
−
| style="text-align:center;"| <big>'''''C<sub><small>clam</small></sub> = f<sub><small>lipid</small></sub> x K<sub><small>lipid-water</small></sub> x C<sub><small>porewater</small></sub>'''''</big>
 
−
|-
 
−
| where:
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''f<sub><small>lipid</small></sub>'' || is the fraction lipids contribute to the total wet weight of a clam (kg lipid/kg clam wet weight), and
 
−
|-
 
−
| || ''C<sub><small>porewater</small></sub>'' || is the freely dissolved contaminant concentration in the porewater surrounding the clam.
 
−
|}
 
−
 
 
−
While there is a great deal of information on the values of ''K<sub><small>lipid-water</small></sub>'' for many chemicals<ref name="Schwarzenbach2017">Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P.M., and Imboden, D.M., 2017.  Environmental Organic Chemistry, 3rd edition. Ch. 16: Equilibrium Partitioning from Water and Air to Biota, pp. 469-521. John Wiley and Sons.  ISBN: 978-1-118-76723-8</ref>, it is often very inaccurate to estimate truly dissolved porewater concentrations from total sediment concentrations using assumptions about the affinity of those chemicals for the solids in the system<ref name="Gustafsson1996"/>. Further, it is difficult to isolate porewater without colloids and/or measure the very low truly dissolved concentrations of hydrophobic contaminants of concern like [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], nonionic pesticides like [[Wikipedia: DDT | dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)]], and [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins | polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs)]]/[[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated dibenzofurans | dibenzofurans (PCDFs)]]<ref name="Hawthorne2005">Hawthorne, S.B., Grabanski, C.B., Miller, D.J., and Kreitinger, J.P., 2005. Solid-Phase Microextraction Measurement of Parent and Alkyl Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Milliliter Sediment Pore Water Samples and Determination of K<sub><small>DOC</small></sub> Values. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(8), pp. 2795-2803. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es0405171 DOI: 10.1021/es0405171]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Passive Samplers==
 
−
One approach to address this problem for contaminated sediments is to insert organic polymers like low density polyethylene (LDPE), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), or polyoxymethylene (POM) that can absorb such chemicals in the sediment
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
[[File: Schwartz1w2Fig1.PNG | thumb | 500px | Figure 1.  Conceptual model of mercury speciation in the environment<ref>European Commission's Joint Research Centre, 2017. A new CRM to make mercury measurements in food more reliable. [https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-update/new-crm-make-mercury-measurements-food-more-reliable Website]</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 or CH<sub>3</sub>Hg<sup>+</sup>) 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.
+
Among the electron source chemicals, sulfite (SO<sub>3</sub><sup>2−</sup>) has emerged as one of the most effective and practical options for generating hydrated electrons to destroy PFAS in water. The mechanism of hydrated electron production in a sulfite solution under ultraviolet is shown in Equation 1 (UV is denoted as ''hv, SO<sub>3</sub><sup><big>'''•-'''</big></sup>'' is the sulfur trioxide radical anion):
 +
</br>
 +
::<big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: XiongEq1.png | 200 px]]
  
−
==Biogeochemistry/Mobility of Hg in soils==
+
The hydrated electron has demonstrated excellent performance in destroying PFAS such as [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]], [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]<ref>Gu, Y., Liu, T., Wang, H., Han, H., Dong, W., 2017. Hydrated Electron Based Decomposition of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in the VUV/Sulfite System. Science of The Total Environment, 607-608, pp. 541-48. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.197]</ref> and [[Wikipedia: GenX|GenX]]<ref>Bao, Y., Deng, S., Jiang, X., Qu, Y., He, Y., Liu, L., Chai, Q., Mumtaz, M., Huang, J., Cagnetta, G., Yu, G., 2018. Degradation of PFOA Substitute: GenX (HFPO–DA Ammonium Salt): Oxidation with UV/Persulfate or Reduction with UV/Sulfite? Environmental Science and Technology, 52(20), pp. 11728-34. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02172 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02172]</ref>. Mechanisms include cleaving carbon-to-fluorine (C-F) bonds (i.e., hydrogen/fluorine atom exchange) and chain shortening (i.e., [[Wikipedia: Decarboxylation | decarboxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Hydroxylation | hydroxylation]], [[Wikipedia: Elimination reaction | elimination]], and [[Wikipedia: Hydrolysis | hydrolysis]])<ref name="BentelEtAl2019"/>.
−
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"/>.
+
==Process Description==
 +
A commercial UV/sulfite treatment system designed and developed by Haley and Aldrich (EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) includes an optional pre-oxidation step to transform PFAS precursors (when present) and a main treatment step to break C-F bonds by UV/sulfite reduction. The effluent from the treatment process can be sent back to the influent of a pre-treatment separation system (such as a [[Wikipedia: Foam fractionation | foam fractionation]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | regenerable ion exchange]], or a [[Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration Membrane Filtration Systems for PFAS Removal | membrane filtration system]]) for further concentration or sent for off-site disposal in accordance with relevant disposal regulations. A conceptual treatment process diagram is shown in Figure 1. [[File: XiongFig1.png | thumb | left | 600 px | Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream]]<br clear="left"/>
  
−
==Bioaccumulation and Toxicology==
+
==Advantages==
−
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"/>.  
+
A UV/sulfite treatment system offers significant advantages for PFAS destruction compared to other technologies, including high defluorination percentage, high treatment efficiency for short-chain PFAS without mass transfer limitation, selective reactivity by ''e<sub><small>aq</small></sub><sup><big>'''-'''</big></sup>'', low energy consumption, and the production of no harmful byproducts. A summary of these advantages is provided below:
 +
*'''High efficiency for short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS:''' While the degradation efficiency for short-chain PFAS is challenging for some treatment technologies<ref>Singh, R.K., Brown, E., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2021. Treatment of PFAS-containing landfill leachate using an enhanced contact plasma reactor. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 408, Article 124452. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124452]</ref><ref>Singh, R.K., Multari, N., Nau-Hix, C., Woodard, S., Nickelsen, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holson, T.M., 2020. Removal of Poly- and Per-Fluorinated Compounds from Ion Exchange Regenerant Still Bottom Samples in a Plasma Reactor. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(21), pp. 13973-80. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02158 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c02158]</ref><ref>Nau-Hix, C., Multari, N., Singh, R.K., Richardson, S., Kulkarni, P., Anderson, R.H., Holsen, T.M., Mededovic Thagard S., 2021. Field Demonstration of a Pilot-Scale Plasma Reactor for the Rapid Removal of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater. American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) Water, 1(3), pp. 680-87. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170 doi: 10.1021/acsestwater.0c00170]</ref>, the UV/sulfite process demonstrates excellent defluorination efficiency for both short- and ultrashort-chain PFAS, including [[Wikipedia: Trifluoroacetic acid | trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)]] and [[Wikipedia: Perfluoropropionic acid | perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)]].
 +
*'''High defluorination ratio:''' As shown in Figure 3, the UV/sulfite treatment system has demonstrated near 100% defluorination for various PFAS under both laboratory and field conditions.
 +
*'''No harmful byproducts:''' While some oxidative technologies, such as electrochemical oxidation, generate toxic byproducts, including perchlorate, bromate, and chlorate, the UV/sulfite system employs a reductive mechanism and does not generate these byproducts.
 +
*'''Ambient pressure and low temperature:''' The system operates under ambient pressure and low temperature (<60°C), as it utilizes UV light and common chemicals to degrade PFAS. 
 +
*'''Low energy consumption:''' The electrical energy per order values for the degradation of [[Wikipedia: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids | perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs)]] by UV/sulfite have been reduced to less than 1.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per cubic meter under laboratory conditions. The energy consumption is orders of magnitude lower than that for many other destructive PFAS treatment technologies (e.g., [[Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) | supercritical water oxidation]])<ref>Nzeribe, B.N., Crimi, M., Mededovic Thagard, S., Holsen, T.M., 2019. Physico-Chemical Processes for the Treatment of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 49(10), pp. 866-915. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916 doi: 10.1080/10643389.2018.1542916]</ref>.
 +
*'''Co-contaminant destruction:''' The UV/sulfite system has also been reported effective in destroying certain co-contaminants in wastewater. For example, UV/sulfite is reported to be effective in reductive dechlorination of chlorinated volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride<ref>Jung, B., Farzaneh, H., Khodary, A., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2015. Photochemical degradation of trichloroethylene by sulfite-mediated UV irradiation. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 3(3), pp. 2194-2202. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jece.2015.07.026]</ref><ref>Liu, X., Yoon, S., Batchelor, B., Abdel-Wahab, A., 2013. Photochemical degradation of vinyl chloride with an Advanced Reduction Process (ARP) – Effects of reagents and pH. Chemical Engineering Journal, 215-216, pp. 868-875. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086 doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.086]</ref><ref>Li, X., Ma, J., Liu, G., Fang, J., Yue, S., Guan, Y., Chen, L., Liu, X., 2012. Efficient Reductive Dechlorination of Monochloroacetic Acid by Sulfite/UV Process. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(13), pp. 7342-49. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es3008535 doi: 10.1021/es3008535]</ref><ref>Li, X., Fang, J., Liu, G., Zhang, S., Pan, B., Ma, J., 2014. Kinetics and efficiency of the hydrated electron-induced dehalogenation by the sulfite/UV process. Water Research, 62, pp. 220-228. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.05.051]</ref>.
  
−
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.  
+
==Limitations==
 +
Several environmental factors and potential issues have been identified that may impact the performance of the UV/sulfite treatment system, as listed below. Solutions to address these issues are also proposed.
 +
*Environmental factors, such as the presence of elevated concentrations of natural organic matter (NOM), dissolved oxygen, or nitrate, can inhibit the efficacy of UV/sulfite treatment systems by scavenging available hydrated electrons. Those interferences are commonly managed through chemical additions, reaction optimization, and/or dilution, and are therefore not considered likely to hinder treatment success.
 +
*Coloration in waste streams may also impact the effectiveness of the UV/sulfite treatment system by blocking the transmission of UV light, thus reducing the UV lamp's effective path length. To address this, pre-treatment may be necessary to enable UV/sulfite destruction of PFAS in the waste stream. Pre-treatment may include the use of strong oxidants or coagulants to consume or remove UV-absorbing constituents.
 +
*The degradation efficiency is strongly influenced by PFAS molecular structure, with fluorotelomer sulfonates (FTS) and [[Wikipedia: Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid | perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)]] exhibiting greater resistance to degradation by UV/sulfite treatment compared to other PFAS compounds.
  
−
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>.  
+
==State of the Practice==
 +
[[File: XiongFig2.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 2. Field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> for PFAS destruction in a concentrated waste stream in a Mid-Atlantic Naval Air Station: a) Target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99% of PFAS were destroyed; meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 15 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective PFAS destruction; b) AOF concentrations at each step of the treatment provided additional evidence to show near-complete mineralization of PFAS. Average results from multiple batches of treatment are shown here.]]
 +
[[File: XiongFig3.png | thumb | 500 px | Figure 3. Field demonstration of a treatment train (SAFF + EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>) for groundwater PFAS separation and destruction at an Air Force base in California: a) Two main components of the treatment train, i.e. SAFF and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>; b) Results showed the effective destruction of various PFAS in the foam fractionate. The target PFAS at each step of the treatment shows that about 99.9% of PFAS were destroyed. Meanwhile, the final degradation product, i.e., fluoride, increased to 30 mg/L in concentration, demonstrating effective destruction of PFAS in a foam fractionate concentrate. After a polishing treatment step (GAC) via the onsite groundwater extraction and treatment system, all PFAS were removed to concentrations below their MCLs.]] 
 +
The effectiveness of UV/sulfite technology for treating PFAS has been evaluated in two field demonstrations using the EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> system. Aqueous samples collected from the system were analyzed using EPA Method 1633, the [[Wikipedia: TOP Assay | total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay]], adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) method, and non-target analysis. A summary of each demonstration and their corresponding PFAS treatment efficiency is provided below.  
 +
*Under the [https://serdp-estcp.mil/ Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP)] [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/4c073623-e73e-4f07-a36d-e35c7acc75b6/er21-5152-project-overview Project ER21-5152], a field demonstration of EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was conducted at a Navy site on the east coast, and results showed that the technology was highly effective in destroying various PFAS in a liquid concentrate produced from an ''in situ'' foam fractionation groundwater treatment system. As shown in Figure 2a, total PFAS concentrations were reduced from 17,366 micrograms per liter (µg/L) to 195 µg/L at the end of the UV/sulfite reaction, representing 99% destruction. After the ion exchange resin polishing step, all residual PFAS had been removed to the non-detect level, except one compound (PFOS) reported as 1.5 nanograms per liter (ng/L), which is below the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Meanwhile, the fluoride concentration increased up to 15 milligrams per liter (mg/L), confirming near complete defluorination. Figure 2b shows the adsorbable organic fluorine results from the same treatment test, which similarly demonstrates destruction of 99% of PFAS.
 +
*Another field demonstration was completed at an Air Force base in California, where a treatment train combining [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/263f9b50-8665-4ecc-81bd-d96b74445ca2 Surface Active Foam Fractionation (SAFF)] and EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was used to treat PFAS in groundwater. As shown in Figure 3, PFAS analytical data and fluoride results demonstrated near-complete destruction of various PFAS. In addition, this demonstration showed: a) high PFAS destruction ratio was achieved in the foam fractionate, even in very high concentration (up to 1,700 mg/L of booster), and b) the effluent from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/> was sent back to the influent of the SAFF system for further concentration and treatment, resulting in a closed-loop treatment system and no waste discharge from EradiFluor<sup><small>TM</small></sup><ref name="EradiFluor"/>. This field demonstration was conducted with the approval of three regulatory agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Toxic Substances Control).
  
−
==Regulatory Framework for Mercury==
 
−
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>.
 
−
 
−
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.
 
−
 
−
==Remediation Technologies==
 
−
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 of 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.
 
−
<br clear="left" />
 
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
<references />
 
<references />
 +
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Latest revision as of 11:33, 29 January 2026

PFAS Destruction by Ultraviolet/Sulfite Treatment

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

Related Article(s):

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

Key Resources:

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

Introduction

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

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

Equation 1:   XiongEq1.png

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

Process Description

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

Figure 1: Conceptual Treatment Process for a Concentrated PFAS Stream


Advantages

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

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

Limitations

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

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

State of the Practice

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

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

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

References

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

See Also

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