Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Introduction)
(→‎Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers))
 
(597 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Sediment Capping==
+
==Sediment Porewater Dialysis Passive Samplers for Inorganics (Peepers)==  
−
Capping is an ''in situ'' remedial technology that involves placement of a clean substrate on the surface of [[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction | contaminated sediments]] to reduce contaminant uptake by benthic organisms and contaminant flux to surface water. Simple sand caps can be effective in reducing exposure of benthic organisms and by limiting oxygen transport, resulting in precipitation of metal sulfides. Amendments are sometimes included in caps to reduce permeability and water flow, to increase contaminant sorption or biodegradation, or to improve habitat.
+
Sediment porewater dialysis passive samplers, also known as “peepers,” are sampling devices that allow the measurement of dissolved inorganic ions in the porewater of a saturated sediment. Peepers function by allowing freely-dissolved ions in sediment porewater to diffuse across a micro-porous membrane towards water contained in an isolated compartment that has been inserted into sediment. Once retrieved after a deployment period, the resulting sample obtained can provide concentrations of freely-dissolved inorganic constituents in sediment, which provides measurements that can be used for understanding contaminant fate and risk. Peepers can also be used in the same manner in surface water, although this article is focused on the use of peepers in sediment.  
 +
 
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 
'''Related Article(s):'''
 +
 
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
 
*[[Contaminated Sediments - Introduction]]
 +
*[[Contaminated Sediment Risk Assessment]]
 
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
 
*[[In Situ Treatment of Contaminated Sediments with Activated Carbon]]
−
*Sediment Risk Assessment
+
*[[Passive Sampling of Munitions Constituents]]
 +
*[[Sediment Capping]]
 +
*[[Mercury in Sediments]]
 
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
 
*[[Passive Sampling of Sediments]]
 +
  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
 
'''Contributor(s):'''  
−
*Danny Reible
+
 
 +
*Florent Risacher, M.Sc.
 +
*Jason Conder, Ph.D.
  
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
 
'''Key Resource(s):'''
−
*Processes, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments<ref name="Reible2014">Reible, D. D., Editor, 2014. Processes, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Springer, New York, NY. 462 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4614-6725-0</ref>
 
  
−
* Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments<ref name="Palermo1998">Palermo, M., Maynord, S., Miller, J. and Reible, D., 1998. Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments. Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, Great Lakes National Program Office, US EPA 905-B96-004. 147 pp.</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:SedCapFig1.png|thumb|left|Figure 1. Conceptual sketch of a cap configuration]]
+
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"/>.  
−
Capping is an ''in situ'' remedial technology for contaminated sediments that involves placement of a clean substrate on the sediment surface. Capping contaminated sediments following [[Wikipedia: Dredging | dredging operations]] and capping of dredged material to stabilize contaminants has been a common practice by the United States Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970s.  Beginning in the 1980s, in Japan and subsequently elsewhere, capping has been used more widely as a remedial approach to improve the quality of the bottom substrate and reduce contaminant exposures to benthic organisms and fish. The USEPA published a capping guidance document in 1998 that summarizes past uses of sediment capping and outlines its basic design<ref name="Palermo1998"/>.   Although capping technology has developed substantially in the past 20 years, this early reference still provides useful information on the approach and its applications. A more recent summary of capping is described in Reible 2014<ref name="Reible2014"/>.
 
  
−
Capping serves to contain contaminated sediment solids, isolate contaminants from benthic organisms and reduce contaminant transport to the sediment surface and overlying water. The clean substrate may be an inert material such as sand, a natural sorbing material such as other sediments or clays, or be amended with an active/reactive material to enhance the isolation of the contaminants.  Amendments to enhance contaminant isolation include permeability reduction agents to divert groundwater flow, sorbents to retard contaminant migration through the capping layer or provide greater accumulation capacity, or reagents to encourage degradation or transformation of the contaminants.  
+
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.
  
−
The basic concept of a cap is illustrated in Figure 1. The Figure also illustrates that a cap is often a thin layer or layers relative to water depth and generally causes little disturbance to the underlying sediments or body of water in which it is placed.   Depending upon the erosive forces to which the cap may be subjected, the surface layer may be composed of relatively coarse material to withstand those erosive forces.  
+
==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.  
  
−
Although a cap is typically thin compared to the water depth, it generally must be thicker than the biologically active zone (BAZ) of the sediments.  The biologically active zone is that zone in which benthic organisms live and interact with the sediment. Their activities tend to mix the BAZ (known as [[Wikipedia: Bioturbation | bioturbation]]) over the course of a few years and thus a cap that is thinner than the BAZ will tend to become intermixed with the underlying contaminated sediments.   Processes other than bioturbation including diffusion, advection or groundwater upwelling, hyporheic exchange near the interface, biogenic gas production and migration and underlying sediment consolidation can all lead to contaminant migration into and through a cap. These occur at different rates and intensities and their assessment and evaluation ultimately governs the effectiveness of a cap and the feasibility of its use as a sediment remediation technology for a particular site.
+
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).
  
−
In general, capping is an effective remedial technology for contaminants that are strongly associated with the sediment solids including hydrophobic organic compounds such as high molecular weight [[Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) | polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)]], [[Wikipedia: Polychlorinated biphenyl | polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)]], [[Wikipedia: Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds | dioxins]] and [[Wikipedia: DDT | DDTx]], but also [[Metal and Metalloid Contaminants | heavy metals]]. Hydrophobic organic compounds tend to strongly associate with the organic fraction of sediments so organic rich sediments or the addition of organic phases to the capping material can be very effective at containing these contaminants. Many of the common heavy metals of concern, including cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead and mercury, tend to be associated with insoluble sulfides under strongly reducing conditions. Since oxygen penetration into a capping layer is typically limited to a few cm or less at the surface, a cap serves to drive the underlying contaminated sediment toward strongly reducing conditions and, particularly in marine and estuarine sediments, encourage sulfate reduction leading to the formation of these insoluble sulfides.  The low solubility of these sulfides encourages retention by a capping layer and makes the cap extremely effective as a remedial approach for sediments with elevated concentrations of heavy metals.
+
==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.
  
−
A variety of tools have been developed to evaluate the processes leading to sorption and retardation of contaminants as well as processes leading to contaminant migration and release. The original references quantifying contaminant behavior in a sediment cap were explored in a series of papers in the early 1990s<ref name="Wang1991">Wang, X.Q., Thibodeaux, L.J., Valsaraj, K.T. and Reible, D.D., 1991. Efficiency of Capping Contaminated Bed Sediments in Situ. 1. Laboratory-Scale Experiments on Diffusion-Adsorption in the Capping Layer. Environmental Science and Technology, 25(9), pp.1578-1584.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00021a008 DOI: 10.1021/es00021a008]</ref><ref name="Thoma1993">Thoma, G.J., Reible, D.D., Valsaraj, K.T. and Thibodeaux, L.J., 1993. Efficiency of Capping Contaminated Bed Sediments in Situ 2. Mathematics of Diffusion-Adsorption in the Capping Layer. Environmental Science and Technology, 27(12), pp.2412-2419.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es00048a015 DOI: 10.1021/es00048a015]</ref>.  Since that time, design tools have been continuously improved. [https://www.depts.ttu.edu/ceweb/research/reiblesgroup/downloads.php CapSim] is a commonly used and current tool developed by Dr. Reible and collaborators. This tool can evaluate contaminant release from uncapped, capped, and treated sediments for purposes of design and evaluation. The model formulation and structure is described in Shen et al. 2018<ref name="Shin2018">Shen, X., Lampert, D., Ogle, S. and Reible, D., 2018. A software tool for simulating contaminant transport and remedial effectiveness in sediment environments. Environmental Modelling and Software, 109, pp. 104-113.  [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.014 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.014]</ref>. One common use of such a tool is to evaluate the effect of various cap materials and thicknesses on the performance of a cap.
+
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.
  
−
==Environmental Fate==
+
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.  
−
TCP’s fate in the environment is governed by its physical and chemical properties (Table 1). TCP does not adsorb strongly to soil, making it likely to leach into groundwater and exhibit high mobility. In addition, TCP is moderately volatile and can partition from surface water and moist soil into the atmosphere. Because TCP is only slightly soluble and denser than water, it can form a [[Wikipedia: Dense non-aqueous phase liquid | dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)]] as observed at the Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site<ref name="USEPA2019"> United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2019. Fifth Five-year Review Report, Tyson’s Dump Superfund Site, Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Free download from: [https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2282817.pdf USEPA]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA2019.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. TCP is generally resistant to aerobic biodegradation, hydrolysis, oxidation, and reduction under naturally occurring conditions making it persistent in the environment<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.
 
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;text-align:center;"
+
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.
−
|+Table 1.  Physical and chemical properties of TCP<ref name="USEPA2017">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2017. Technical Fact Sheet—1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). EPA Project 505-F-17-007. 6 pp. Free download from: [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-10/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminants_tcp_9-15-17_508.pdf  USEPA]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: epa_tcp_2017.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>
+
 
 +
==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)
 
|-
 
|-
−
!Property
+
| || ''K'' || is the elimination rate of the target analyte
−
!Value
 
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Number || 96-18-4
+
| || ''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]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Physical Description</br>(at room temperature) || Colorless to straw-colored liquid
+
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Molecular weight  (g/mol) || 147.43
+
| || ''K''|| is the elimination rate of the target analyte
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Water solubility at 25°C  (mg/L)|| 1,750 (slightly soluble)
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Melting point  (°C)|| -14.7
+
| || ''D'' || is the free water diffusivity of the analyte (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Boiling point  (°C) || 156.8
+
| || ''D<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the free water diffusivity of the tracer (cm<sup>2</sup>/s)
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
The elimination rate of the tracer (''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'') is calculated using Equation 3:
 +
</br>
 +
{|
 +
| || '''Equation&nbsp;3:'''
 +
|&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[[File: Equation3r2.png]]
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Vapor pressure at 25°C  (mm Hg) || 3.10 to 3.69
+
| Where: || ||
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Density at 20°C (g/cm<sup>3</sup>) || 1.3889
+
| || ''K<small><sub>tracer</sub></small>'' || is the elimination rate of the tracer
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Octanol-water partition coefficient</br>(log''K<sub>ow</sub>'') || 1.98 to 2.27</br>(temperature dependent)
+
| || ''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)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Organic carbon-water partition coefficient</br>(log''K<sub>oc</sub>'') || 1.70 to 1.99</br>(temperature dependent)
+
| || ''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)
 
|-
 
|-
−
| Henry’s Law constant at 25°C</br>(atm-m<sup>3</sup>/mol) || 3.17x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="ATSDR2021"/> to 3.43x10<sup>-4</sup><ref name="LeightonCalo1981">Leighton Jr, D.T. and Calo, J.M., 1981. Distribution Coefficients of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Dilute Air-Water Systems for Groundwater Contamination Applications. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, 26(4), pp. 382-385.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/je00026a010 DOI: 10.1021/je00026a010]</ref>
+
| || ''t'' || is the deployment time (days)
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
==Occurrence==
+
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"/>.
−
TCP has been detected in approximately 1% of public water supply and domestic well samples tested by the United States Geological Survey. More specifically, TCP was detected in 1.2% of public supply well samples collected between 1993 and 2007 by Toccalino and Hopple<ref name="ToccalinoHopple2010">Toccalino, P.L., Norman, J.E., Hitt, K.J., 2010. Quality of Source Water from Public-Supply Wells in the United States, 1993–2007. Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5024. U.S. Geological Survey. [https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20105024 DOI: 10.3133/sir20105024]  Free download from: [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20105024 USGS]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Quality_of_source_water_from_public-supply_wells_in_the_United_States%2C_1993-2007.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> and 0.66% of domestic supply well samples collected between 1991 and 2004 by DeSimone<ref name="DeSimone2009">DeSimone, L.A., 2009. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004. U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5227. 139 pp. Free download from: [http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5227 USGS]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: DeSimone2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. TCP was detected at a higher rate in domestic supply well samples associated with agricultural land-use studies than samples associated with studies comparing primary aquifers (3.5% versus 0.2%)<ref name="DeSimone2009"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Regulation==
 
−
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has not established an MCL for TCP, although guidelines and health standards are in place<ref name="USEPA2017"/>. TCP was included in the Contaminant Candidate List 3<ref name="USEPA2009">United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2009. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3-Final. Federal Register 74(194), pp. 51850–51862, Document E9-24287. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/10/08/E9-24287/drinking-water-contaminant-candidate-list-3-final Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: FR74-194DWCCL3.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> and the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3)<ref name="USEPA2012">United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2012. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Mentoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems. Federal Register 77(85) pp. 26072-26101. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/05/02/2012-9978/revisions-to-the-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-regulation-ucmr-3-for-public-water-systems  Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: FR77-85UCMR3.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. The UCMR 3 specified that data be collected on TCP occurrence in public water systems over the period of January 2013 through December 2015 against a reference concentration range of 0.0004 to 0.04 μg/L<ref name="USEPA2017a">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2017. The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3): Data Summary. EPA 815-S-17-001. [https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/data-summary-third-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule  Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ucmr3-data-summary-january-2017.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. The reference concentration range was determined based on a cancer risk of 10-6 to 10-4 and derived from an oral slope factor of 30 mg/kg-day, which was determined by the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System<ref name="IRIS2009">USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), 2009. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (CASRN 96-18-4). [https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=200 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: TCPsummaryIRIS.pdf | Summary.pdf]]</ref>. Of 36,848 samples collected during UCMR 3, 0.67% exceeded the minimum reporting level of 0.03 µg/L. 1.4% of public water systems had at least one detection over the minimum reporting level, corresponding to 2.5% of the population<ref name="USEPA2017a"/>. While these occurrence percentages are relatively low, the minimum reporting level of 0.03 µg/L is more than 75 times the USEPA-calculated Health Reference Level of 0.0004 µg/L. Because of this, TCP may occur in public water systems at concentrations that exceed the Health Reference Level but are below the minimum reporting level used during UCMR 3 data collection. These analytical limitations and lack of lower-level occurrence data have prevented the USEPA from making a preliminary regulatory determination for TCP<ref name="USEPA2021">USEPA, 2021. Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. Free download from: [https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/10019.70.ow_ccl_reg_det_4.final_web.pdf USEPA]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CCL4.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Some US states have established their own standards including Hawaii which has established an MCL of 0.6 μg/L<ref name="HDOH2013">Hawaii Department of Health, 2013. Amendment and Compilation of Chapter 11-20 Hawaii Administrative Rules. Free download from: [http://health.hawaii.gov/sdwb/files/2016/06/combodOPPPD.pdf Hawaii Department of Health]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Amendment_and_Compilation_of_Chapter_11-20_Hawaii_Administrative_Rules.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. California has established an MCL of 0.005 μg/L<ref name="CCR2021">California Code of Regulations, 2021. Section 64444 Maximum Contaminant Levels – Organic Chemicals (22 CA ADC § 64444). [https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IA7B3800D18654ABD9E2D24A445A66CB9 Website]</ref>,  a notification level of 0.005 μg/L, and a public health goal of 0.0007 μg/L<ref name="OEHHA2009">Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Final Public Health Goal for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane in Drinking Water. [https://oehha.ca.gov/water/public-health-goal/final-public-health-goal-123-trichloropropane-drinking-water Website]</ref>, and New Jersey has established an MCL of 0.03 μg/L<ref name="NJAC2020">New Jersey Administrative Code 7:10, 2020. Safe Drinking Water Act Rules. Free download from: [https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_10.pdf  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Transformation Processes==
 
−
[[File:123TCPFig2.png|thumb|600px|left|Figure 2. Figure 2. Summary of anticipated primary reaction pathways for degradation of TCP. Oxidation, hydrolysis, and hydrogenolysis are represented by the horizontal arrows. Elimination (dehydrochlorination) and reductive elimination are shown with vertical arrows. [O] represents oxygenation (by oxidation or hydrolysis), [H] represents reduction. Gray indicates products that appear to be of lesser significance<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.]]
 
−
Potential TCP degradation pathways include hydrolysis, oxidation, and reduction (Figure 2). These pathways are expected to be similar overall for abiotic and biotic reactions<ref name="Sarathy2010">Sarathy, V., Salter, A.J., Nurmi, J.T., O’Brien Johnson, G., Johnson, R.L., and Tratnyek, P.G., 2010. Degradation of 1, 2, 3-Trichloropropane (TCP): Hydrolysis, Elimination, and Reduction by Iron and Zinc. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2), pp.787-793.  [https://doi.org/10.1021/es902595j DOI: 10.1021/es902595j]</ref>, but the rates of the reactions (and their resulting significance for remediation) depend on natural and engineered conditions.
 
−
 
 
−
The rate of hydrolysis of TCP is negligible under typical ambient pH and temperature conditions but is favorable at high pH and/or temperature<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/><ref name="Sarathy2010"/>. For example, ammonia gas can be used to raise soil pH and stimulate alkaline hydrolysis of chlorinated propanes including TCP<ref name="Medina2016">Medina, V.F., Waisner, S.A., Griggs, C.S., Coyle, C., and Maxwell, M., 2016. Laboratory-Scale Demonstration Using Dilute Ammonia Gas-Induced Alkaline Hydrolysis of Soil Contaminants (Chlorinated Propanes and Explosives). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory (ERDC/EL), Report TR-16-10. [http://hdl.handle.net/11681/20312 Website]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ERDC_EL_TR_16_10.pdf  | Report.pdf]]</ref>. [[Thermal Conduction Heating (TCH)]] may also produce favorable conditions for TCP hydrolysis<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/><ref name="Sarathy2010"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Treatment Approaches==
 
−
Compared to more frequently encountered CVOCs such as [[Wikipedia: Trichloroethylene | trichloroethene (TCE)]] and [[Wikipedia: Tetrachloroethylene | tetrachloroethene (PCE)]], TCP is relatively recalcitrant<ref name="Merrill2019">Merrill, J.P., Suchomel, E.J., Varadhan, S., Asher, M., Kane, L.Z., Hawley, E.L., and Deeb, R.A., 2019. Development and Validation of Technologies for Remediation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane in Groundwater. Current Pollution Reports, 5(4), pp. 228–237.  [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-019-00122-7 | DOI: 10.1007/s40726-019-00122-7]</ref><ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>. TCP is generally resistant to hydrolysis, bioremediation, oxidation, and reduction under natural conditions<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.  The moderate volatility of TCP makes air stripping, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction (SVE) less effective compared to other VOCs<ref name="Merrill2019"/>. Despite these challenges, both ''ex situ'' and ''in situ'' treatment technologies exist. ''Ex situ'' treatment processes are relatively well established and understood but can be cost prohibitive. ''In situ'' treatment methods are comparatively limited and less-well developed, though promising field-scale demonstrations of some ''in situ'' treatment technologies have been conducted.
 
−
 
 
−
===''Ex Situ'' Treatment===
 
−
The most common ''ex situ'' treatment technology for groundwater contaminated with TCP is groundwater extraction and treatment<ref name="SaminJanssen2012">Samin, G. and Janssen, D.B., 2012. Transformation and biodegradation of 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP). Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 19(8), pp. 3067-3078. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-0859-3 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-012-0859-3]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media:  SaminJanssen2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. Extraction of TCP is generally effective given its relatively high solubility in water and low degree of partitioning to soil. After extraction, TCP is typically removed by adsorption to granular activated carbon (GAC)<ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="CalEPA2017">California Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. Groundwater Information Sheet, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program, 8 pp. Free download from: [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_tcp123.pdf California Waterboards]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: CalEPA2017tcp123.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
TCP contamination in drinking water sources is typically treated using granular activated carbon (GAC)<ref name="Hooker2012">Hooker, E.P., Fulcher, K.G. and Gibb, H.J., 2012. Report to the Hawaii Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch, Regarding the Human Health Risks of 1, 2, 3-Trichloropropane in Tap Water. [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.269.2485&rep=rep1&type=pdf Free Download]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Hooker2012.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
In California, GAC is considered the best available technology (BAT) for treating TCP, and as of 2017 seven full-scale treatment facilities were using GAC to treat groundwater contaminated with TCP<ref name="CalEPA2017a">California Environmental Protection Agency, 2017.  Initial Statement of Reasons 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Maximum Contaminant Level Regulations. Water Resources Control Board, Title 22, California Code of Regulations (SBDDW-17-001). 36 pp.  [https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/123-tcp/sbddw17_001/isor.pdf  Free download]</ref>. Additionally, GAC has been used for over 30 years to treat 60 million gallons per day of TCP-contaminated groundwater in Hawaii<ref name="Babcock2018">Babcock Jr, R.W., Harada, B.K., Lamichhane, K.M., and Tsubota, K.T., 2018. Adsorption of 1, 2, 3-Trichloropropane (TCP) to meet a MCL of 5 ppt. Environmental Pollution, 233, 910-915. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.085  DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.09.085]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
GAC has a low to moderate adsorption capacity for TCP, which can necessitate larger treatment systems and result in higher treatment costs relative to other organic contaminants<ref name="USEPA2017"/>.  Published Freundlich adsorption isotherm parameters<ref name="SnoeyinkSummers1999">Snoeyink, V.L. and Summers, R.S, 1999. Adsorption of Organic Compounds (Chapter 13), In: Water Quality and Treatment, 5th ed., Letterman, R.D., editor.  McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. ISBN 0-07-001659-3</ref> indicate that less TCP mass is adsorbed per gram of carbon compared to other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), resulting in increased carbon usage rate and treatment cost.  Recent bench-scale studies indicate that subbituminous coal-based GAC and coconut shell-based GAC are the most effective types of GAC for treatment of TCP in groundwater<ref name="Babcock2018"/><ref name="Knappe2017">Knappe, D.R.U., Ingham, R.S., Moreno-Barbosa, J.J., Sun, M., Summers, R.S., and Dougherty, T., 2017. Evaluation of Henry’s Law Constants and Freundlich Adsorption Constants for VOCs. Water Research Foundation Project 4462 Final Report. [https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/evaluation-henrys-law -constant-and-freundlich-adsorption-constant-vocs  Website]</ref>. To develop more economical and effective treatment approaches, further treatability studies with site groundwater (e.g., rapid small-scale column tests) may be needed.
 
−
 
 
−
===''In Situ'' Treatment===
 
−
''In situ'' treatment of TCP to concentrations below current regulatory or advisory levels is difficult to achieve in both natural and engineered systems. However, several ''in situ'' treatment technologies have demonstrated promise for TCP remediation, including chemical reduction by zero-valent metals (ZVMs), chemical oxidation with strong oxidizers, and anaerobic bioremediation<ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
===''In Situ'' Chemical Reduction (ISCR)===
 
−
Reduction of TCP under conditions relevant to natural attenuation has been observed to be negligible. Achieving significant degradation rates of TCP requires the addition of a chemical reductant to the contaminated zone<ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.  Under reducing environmental conditions, some ZVMs have demonstrated the ability to reduce TCP all the way to [[wikipedia:Propene | propene]]. As shown in Figure 2, the desirable pathway for reduction of TCP is the formation of [[Wikipedia: Allyl_chloride | 3-chloro-1-propene (also known as allyl chloride)]] via [[Biodegradation_-_Reductive_Processes#Dihaloelimination | dihaloelimination]], which is then rapidly reduced to propene through [[Wikipedia:Hydrogenolysis |  hydrogenolysis]] <ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="Tratnyek2010"/><ref name="Torralba-Sanchez2020">Torralba-Sanchez, T.L., Bylaska, E.J., Salter-Blanc, A.J., Meisenheimer, D.E., Lyon, M.A., and Tratnyek, P.G., 2020. Reduction of 1, 2, 3-trichloropropane (TCP): pathways and mechanisms from computational chemistry calculations. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(3), 606-616. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00557A DOI: 10.1039/C9EM00557A]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Torralba-Sanchez2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>.  ZVMs including granular zero-valent iron (ZVI), nano ZVI, [[wikipedia: In_situ_chemical_reduction#Bimetallic%20materials | palladized nano ZVI]], and [[wikipedia: In_situ_chemical_reduction#Zero_valent_metals_%28ZVMs%29 | zero-valent zinc (ZVZ)]] have been evaluated by researchers<ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
ZVI is a common reductant used for ISCR and, depending on the form used, has shown variable levels of success for TCP treatment. The Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project ER-1457 measured the TCP degradation rates for various forms of ZVI and ZVZ.  Nano-scale ZVI and palladized ZVI increased the TCP reduction rate over that of natural attenuation, but the reaction is not anticipated to be fast enough to be useful in typical remediation applications<ref name="Sarathy2010"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Commercial-grade zerovalent zinc (ZVZ) on the other hand is a strong reductant that reduces TCP relatively quickly under a range of laboratory and field conditions to produce propene without significant accumulation of intermediates<ref name="Sarathy2010"/><ref name="Salter-BlancTratnyek2011">Salter-Blanc, A.J. and Tratnyek, P.G., 2011. Effects of Solution Chemistry on the Dechlorination of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane by Zero-Valent Zinc. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(9), pp 4073–4079. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es104081p DOI: 10.1021/es104081p]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Salter-BlancTratnyek2011.pdf | Open access article]]</ref><ref name="Salter-Blanc2012">Salter-Blanc, A.J., Suchomel, E.J., Fortuna, J.H., Nurmi, J.T., Walker, C., Krug, T., O'Hara, S., Ruiz, N., Morley, T. and Tratnyek, P.G., 2012. Evaluation of Zerovalent Zinc for Treatment of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane‐Contaminated Groundwater: Laboratory and Field Assessment. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, 32(4), pp.42-52. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01402.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01402.x]</ref><ref name="Merrill2019"/>. Of the ZVMs tested as part of SERDP Project ER-1457, ZVZ had the fastest degradation rates for TCP<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>. In bench-scale studies, TCP was reduced by ZVZ to propene with 3-chloro-1-propene as the only detectable chlorinated intermediate, which was short-lived and detected only at trace concentrations<ref name="Torralba-Sanchez2020"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Navy Environmental Sustainability Development to Integration (NESDI) Project 434 conducted bench-scale testing which demonstrated that commercially available ZVZ was effective for treating TCP. Additionally, this project evaluated field-scale ZVZ column treatment of groundwater impacted with TCP at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP) in Oceanside, California. This study reported reductions of TCP concentrations by up to 95% which was maintained for at least twelve weeks with influent concentrations ranging from 3.5 to 10 µg/L, without any significant secondary water quality impacts detected<ref name="Salter-Blanc2012"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Following the column study, a 2014 pilot study at MCBCP evaluated direct injection of ZVZ with subsequent monitoring. Direct injection of ZVZ was reportedly effective for TCP treatment, with TCP reductions ranging from 90% to 99% in the injection area. Concentration reduction downgradient of the injection area ranged from 50 to 80%. TCP concentrations have continued to decrease, and reducing conditions have been maintained in the aquifer since injection, demonstrating the long-term efficacy of ZVZ for TCP reduction<ref name="Kane2020"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Potential ''in situ'' applications of ZVZ include direct injection, as demonstrated by the MCBCP pilot study, and permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). Additionally, ZVZ could potentially be deployed in an ''ex situ'' flow-through reactor, but the economic feasibility of this approach would depend in part on the permeability of the aquifer and in part on the cost of the reactor volumes of ZVZ media necessary for complete treatment.
 
−
 
 
−
===''In Situ'' Chemical Oxidation (ISCO)===
 
−
Chemical oxidation of TCP with mild oxidants such as permanganate or ozone is ineffective. However, stronger oxidants (e.g. activated peroxide and persulfate) can effectively treat TCP, although the rates are slower than observed for most other organic contaminants<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/><ref name="CalEPA2017"/>. [[Wikipedia: Fenton's reagent | Fenton-like chemistry]] (i.e., Fe(II) activated hydrogen peroxide) has been shown to degrade TCP in the laboratory with half-lives ranging from 5 to 10 hours<ref name="Tratnyek2010"/>, but field-scale demonstrations of this process have not been reported. Treatment of TCP with heat-activated or base-activated persulfate is effective but secondary water quality impacts from high sulfate may be a concern at some locations.
 
  
−
===Aerobic Bioremediation===
+
==Using Peeper Data at a Sediment Site==
−
No naturally occurring microorganisms have been identified that degrade TCP under aerobic conditions<ref name="SaminJanssen2012"/>. Relatively slow aerobic cometabolism by the ammonia oxidizing bacterium [[Wikipedia: Nitrosomonas europaea | Nitrosomonas europaea]] and other populations has been reported<ref name="Vanelli1990">Vannelli, T., Logan, M., Arciero, D.M., and Hooper, A.B., 1990. Degradation of Halogenated Aliphatic Compounds by the Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacterium Nitrosomonas europaea. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56(4), pp. 1169–1171. [https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.56.4.1169-1171.1990 DOI: 10.1128/aem.56.4.1169-1171.1990] Free download from: [https://journals.asm.org/doi/epdf/10.1128/aem.56.4.1169-1171.1990 American Society of Microbiology]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Vannelli1990.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="SaminJanssen2012"/>, and genetic engineering has been used to develop organisms capable of utilizing TCP as a sole carbon source under aerobic conditions<ref name="Bosma2002">Bosma, T., Damborsky, J., Stucki, G., and Janssen, D.B., 2002. Biodegradation of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane through Directed Evolution and Heterologous Expression of a Haloalkane Dehalogenase Gene. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68(7), pp. 3582–3587. [https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.7.3582-3587.2002 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.7.3582-3587.2002] Free download from: [https://journals.asm.org/doi/epub/10.1128/AEM.68.7.3582-3587.2002 American Society for Microbiology]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Bosma2002.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="SaminJanssen2012"/><ref name="JanssenStucki2020">Janssen, D. B., and Stucki, G., 2020. Perspectives of genetically engineered microbes for groundwater bioremediation. Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(3), pp. 487-499. [https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00601J DOI: 10.1039/C9EM00601J] Open access article from: [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/em/c9em00601j Royal Society of Chemistry]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: JanssenStucki2020.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.  
+
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.
  
−
===Anaerobic Bioremediation===
+
'''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.
−
Like other CVOCs, TCP has been shown to undergo biodegradation under anaerobic conditions via reductive dechlorination by [[Wikipedia:Dehalogenimonas | Dehalogenimonas (Dhg)]] species<ref name="Merrill2019"/><ref name="Yan2009">Yan, J., B.A. Rash, F.A. Rainey, and W.M. Moe, 2009. Isolation of novel bacteria within the Chloroflexi capable of reductive dechlorination of 1,2,3-trichloropropane. Environmental Microbiology, 11(4), pp. 833–843. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01804.x DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2008.01804.x]</ref><ref name="Bowman2013">Bowman, K.S., Nobre, M.F., da Costa, M.S., Rainey, F.A., and Moe, W.M., 2013. Dehalogenimonas alkenigignens sp. nov., a chlorinated-alkane-dehalogenating bacterium isolated from groundwater. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 63(Pt_4), pp. 1492-1498. [https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.045054-0 DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.045054-0]  Free access article from: [https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.045054-0?crawler=true Microbiology Society]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Bowman2013.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Loffler1997">Loffler, F.E., Champine, J.E., Ritalahti, K.M., Sprague, S.J. and Tiedje, J.M., 1997. Complete Reductive Dechlorination of 1, 2-Dichloropropane by Anaerobic Bacteria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 63(7), pp.2870-2875. Free download from: [https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/aem.63.7.2870-2875.1997 American Society for Micrebiology]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Loffler1997.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="Moe2019">Moe, W.M., Yan, J., Nobre, M.F., da Costa, M.S. and Rainey, F.A., 2009. Dehalogenimonas lykanthroporepellens gen. nov., sp. nov., a reductively dehalogenating bacterium isolated from chlorinated solvent-contaminated groundwater. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 59(11), pp.2692-2697. [https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.011502-0 DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.011502-0] Free download from: [https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.011502-0?crawler=true Microbiology Society]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: Moe2009.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="SaminJanssen2012"/>. However, the kinetics are slower than for other CVOCs.  Bioaugmentation cultures containing Dehalogenimonas (KB-1 Plus, SiREM) are commercially available and have been implemented for remediation of TCP-contaminated groundwater<ref name="Schmitt2017">Schmitt, M., Varadhan, S., Dworatzek, S., Webb, J. and Suchomel, E., 2017. Optimization and validation of enhanced biological reduction of 1,2,3-trichloropropane in groundwater. Remediation Journal, 28(1), pp.17-25. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21539 DOI: 10.1002/rem.21539]</ref>. One laboratory study examined the effect of pH on biotransformation of TCP over a wide range of TCP concentrations (10 to 10,000 µg/L) and demonstrated that successful reduction occurred from a pH of 5 to 9, though optimal conditions were from pH 7 to 9<ref name="Schmitt2017"/>.
 
  
−
As with other microbial cultures capable of reductive dechlorination, coordinated amendment with a fermentable organic substrate (e.g. lactate or vegetable oil), also known as biostimulation, creates reducing conditions in the aquifer and provides a source of hydrogen which is required as the primary electron donor for reductive dechlorination.  
+
'''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.
  
−
A 2016 field demonstration of ''in situ'' bioremediation (ISB) was performed in California’s Central Valley at a former agricultural chemical site with relatively low TCP concentrations (2 µg/L). The site was first biostimulated by injecting amendments of emulsified vegetable oil (EVO) and lactate, which was followed by bioaugmentation with a microbial consortium containing Dhg. After an initial lag period of six months, TCP concentrations decreased to below laboratory detection limits (<0.005 µg/L)<ref name="Schmitt2017"/>.
+
'''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.
  
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;text-align:center;"
+
'''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.
−
|+Table 2.  Advantages and limitations of TCP treatment technologies<ref name="Kane2020"/>
 
−
|-
 
−
! Technology
 
−
! Advantages
 
−
! Limitations
 
−
|-
 
−
| ZVZ
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Can degrade TCP at relatively high and low concentrations
 
−
* Faster reaction rates than ZVI
 
−
* Material is commercially available
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Higher cost than ZVI
 
−
* Difficult to distribute in subsurface ''in situ'' applications
 
−
|-
 
−
| Groundwater</br>Extraction and</br>Treatment
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Can cost-effectively capture and treat larger, more dilute</br>groundwater plumes than ''in situ'' technologies
 
−
* Well understood and widely applied technology
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Requires construction, operation and maintenance of</br>aboveground treatment infrastructure
 
−
* Typical technologies (e.g. GAC) may be expensive due</br>to treatment inefficiencies
 
−
|-
 
−
| ZVI
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Can degrade TCP at relatively high and low concentrations
 
−
* Lower cost than ZVZ
 
−
* Material is commercially available
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Lower reactivity than ZVZ, therefore may require higher</br>ZVI volumes or thicker PRBs
 
−
* Difficult to distribute in subsurface ''in situ'' applications
 
−
|-
 
−
| ISCO
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Can degrade TCP at relatively high and low concentrations
 
−
* Strategies to distribute amendments ''in situ'' are well established
 
−
* Material is commercially available
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Most effective oxidants (e.g., base-activated or heat-activated</br>persulfate) are complex to implement
 
−
* Secondary water quality impacts (e.g., high pH, sulfate, </br>hexavalent chromium) may limit ability to implement
 
−
|-
 
−
| ''In Situ''</br>Bioremediation
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Can degrade TCP at moderate to high concentrations
 
−
* Strategies to distribute amendments ''in situ'' are well established
 
−
* Materials are commercially available and inexpensive
 
−
| style="text-align:left;" |
 
−
* Slower reaction rates than ZVZ or ISCO
 
−
|}
 
−
The 2016 field demonstration was expanded to full-scale treatment in 2018 with biostimulation and bioaugmentation occurring over several months. The initial TCP concentration in performance monitoring wells ranged from 0.008 to 1.7 µg/L. As with the field demonstration, a lag period of approximately 6 to 8 months was observed before TCP was degraded, after which concentrations declined over fifteen months to non-detectable levels (less than 0.005 µg/L). TCP degradation was associated with increases in Dhg population and propene concentration. Long term monitoring showed that TCP remained at non-detectable levels for at least three years following treatment implementation<ref name="Merrill2019"/>.
 
  
−
==Treatment Comparisons and Considerations==
+
'''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.
−
When selecting a technology for TCP treatment, considerations include technical feasibility, ability to treat to regulated levels, potential secondary water quality impacts and relative costs. A comparison of some TCP treatment technologies is provided in Table 2.
 
−
 
 
−
==Summary==
 
−
The relatively high toxicity of TCP has led to the development of health-based drinking water concentration values that are very low. TCP is sometimes present in groundwater and in public water systems at concentrations that exceed these health-based goals. While a handful of states have established MCLs for TCP, US federal regulatory determination is hindered by the lack of low-concentration occurrence data. Because TCP is persistent in groundwater and resistant to typical remediation methods (or costly to treat), specialized strategies may be needed to meet drinking-water-based treatment goals.  ''In situ'' chemical reduction (ISCR) with zero valent zinc (ZVZ) and ''in situ'' bioremediation have been demonstrated to be effective for TCP remediation.
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 180: Line 126:
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==
−
ATSDR Toxicological Profile: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/TP.asp?id=912&tid=186
+
*[https://vimeo.com/809180171/c276c1873a Peeper Deployment Video]
−
 
+
*[https://vimeo.com/811073634/303edf2693 Peeper Retrieval Video]
−
EPA Technical Fact Sheet: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminant_tcp_january2014_final.pdf
+
*[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]
−
Cal/EPA State Water Resources Control Board Groundwater Information Sheet: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_tcp123.pdf
 
−
 
 
−
California Water Boards Fact Sheet: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/123-tcp/123tcp_factsheet.pdf
 

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"