User:Jhurley/sandbox

From Enviro Wiki
Revision as of 23:26, 12 February 2021 by Jhurley (talk | contribs) (→‎Activated Carbon Adsorption)
Jump to: navigation, search

PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment

Well-developed ex situ treatment technologies applicable to treatment of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water and non-potable groundwater include membrane filtration (reverse osmosis and nanofiltration), activated carbon adsorption (granular and powdered), and anion exchange. There are also a variety of separation and destructive technologies in developmental stages. Some of these processes may also be applicable to more complex matrices including wastewater and landfill leachate.

Related Article(s):

Contributor(s): Dr. Scott Grieco and James Hatton

Key Resource(s):

Established PFAS Treatment Technologies

Three technologies are well demonstrated for removal of PFAS from drinking water and non-potable groundwater (as described below):

However, these technologies are less demonstrated for removal of PFAS from more complex matrices such as wastewater and leachate. Site-specific considerations that affect the selection of optimum treatment technologies for a given site include water chemistry, required flow rate, treatment criteria, waste residual generation, residual disposal options, and operational complexity. Treatability studies with site water are highly recommended because every site has different factors that may affect engineering design for these technologies.

Membrane Filtration

Figure 1. A RO municipal drinking water plant in Arizona

Given their ability to remove dissolved contaminants at a molecular size level, RO and some NF membranes can be highly effective for PFAS removal. For RO systems (Figure 1), several studies have demonstrated effective removal of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) (see PFAS for nomenclature) from drinking water with removal rates well above 90%[5][6][7]. RO potable water reuse treatment systems implemented in California have also demonstrated effective PFOS and PFOA removal as reported by the Water Research Foundation (WRF)[1]. Analysis of permeate at both sites referenced by the WRF confirmed that short and long chain PFAS concentrations in the treated water were reduced to levels below test method reporting limits.

Full-scale studies using larger effective pore size NF membranes for PFAS removal are limited in number but are promising since NF systems are somewhat less costly than RO and may be nearly as effective in removing PFAS. Recent laboratory or pilot studies have shown good performance of NF membranes[8][9][10][11][12].

Although membrane RO and NF processes are generally capable of providing uniform removal rates relative to short and long chain PFAS compounds (see PFAS for nomenclature), other aspects of these treatment technologies are more challenging:

  • Membranes must be flushed and cleaned periodically, such that overall water recovery rates (process water volumes consumed, wasted, and lost vs. treated water volumes produced) are much lower than those for GAC and IX processes. Membrane fouling can be slowed or avoided depending on operating conditions, membrane modifications, and feed modifications[13]. Typically, 70-90% of the water supplied into a membrane RO process is recoverable as treated water. The remaining 10-30% is reject containing approximately 4 to 8 times the initial PFAS concentration (depending on recovery rate).
  • These cleaning and flushing processes create a continuous liquid waste stream, which periodically includes harsh membrane cleaning chemicals as well as a continuous flow of concentrated membrane reject chemicals (i.e., PFAS) that must be properly managed and disposed of. Management often includes further treatment to remove PFAS from the liquid waste.
  • RO and NF systems are inherently more expensive and complicated systems to implement, operate, and maintain compared to adsorption processes. Treatment system operator certification and process monitoring requirements are correspondingly markedly higher for RO and NF than they are for GAC and IX.
  • Water feed pressures required to drive flow through membrane RO and NF processes are considerably higher than those involved with GAC and IX processes. This results in reduced process efficiency and higher pumping and electrical operating costs.
  • Membrane systems can also be subject to issues with irreversible membrane fouling, clogging, and scaling or other physical membrane damage and failures. Additional water pretreatment and higher levels of monitoring and maintenance are then required, further adding to the higher costs of such systems.

Activated Carbon Adsorption

Figure 2. Typical private water supply well GAC installation for removal of VOCs and PFAS. Pressure gages and sample ports installed before the first (or lead) vessel, at the midpoint, and after the second (or lag) vessel allow monitoring for pressure drop due to fouling and for contaminant breakthrough.

Activated carbon is a form of carbon processed to have small pores that increase the surface area available for adsorption of constituents from water. Activated carbon is derived from many source materials, including coconut shells, wood, lignite, and bituminous coal. Different types of activated carbon base materials have varied adsorption characteristics such that some may be better suited to removing certain contaminant compounds than others. Results from laboratory testing, pilot evaluations, and full-scale system operations suggest that bituminous coal-based GAC is generally the best performing carbon for PFAS removal


Table 1. Developmental Technologies
Stage Separation/Transfer Destructive*
Developing
  • Biochar (20, 21, 22)
  • Modified Zeolites (23, 24)
  • Specialty adsorbents
  • Electro-oxidation (32, 33, 34)
  • Heat activated persulfate (35)
  • Alkaline perozone (36)
  • Sonolysis (37, 38, 39, 40)
  • Super Critical Water Oxidation
Maturing and
Demonstrated
  • Chemical coagulation (28)
  • Electrocoagulation (29)
  • Foam fractionation (30, 31)
  • Low temperature plasma (41, 42)
* There are several other destructive technologies such as alternative oxidants, and activation
methods of oxidants, but for the purpose of this article, the main categories are presented here.


PFAS are a class of highly fluorinated compounds including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and many other compounds with a variety of industrial and consumer uses. These compounds are often highly resistant to treatment[14] and the more mobile compounds are often problematic in groundwater systems[15]. The US EPA has published lifetime drinking water health advisories for the combined concentration of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) for two common and recalcitrant PFAS: PFOS, a perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acid (PFSA), and PFOA, a perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acid (PFCA)[16][17].(See Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) for nomenclature.)

While many of the earliest sites where these compounds were detected in groundwater were manufacturing sites, some recent detections have been attributed to fire training activities associated with aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). AFFF is the US Department of Defense (DoD) designation for Class B firefighting foam containing PFAS, which is required for fighting fires involving petroleum liquids. Fire training areas and other source areas where AFFF was released at the surface have the potential to be ongoing sources of groundwater contamination[18]. (See also PFAS Sources.)

No national soil cleanup standards have been promulgated by the US EPA, although Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) have been calculated and published for perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS)[19] and data are available to calculate RSLs for PFOA and PFOS[20]. Several states have promulgated standards[21] or screening levels[22][23][24][25][26] for soil concentrations protective of groundwater, which are several orders of magnitude lower than direct dermal exposure guidelines. These single-digit part per billion criteria will likely drive remedial actions in PFAS source areas in the future. At present, the lack of federally promulgated standards and uncertainty about future standards causes temporary stockpiling of PFAS-impacted soils on sites with soil generated from construction or investigation activities.

Soil Treatment

Figure 1. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil stabilization project at a military base in Australia. Image courtesy of RemBind™.

Addressing recalcitrant contaminants in soil has traditionally been done through containment/capping or excavation and off-site disposal or treatment. Containment/capping may be an acceptable solution for PFAS in some locations. However, containment/capping is not considered ideal given the history of releases from engineered landfills and restrictions on use of land containing capped soils. Innovative treatment approaches for PFAS include stabilization with amendments and thermal treatment.

Excavation and Disposal

Excavation and off-site disposal or treatment of PFAS-impacted soils is the only well-developed treatment technology option and may be acceptable for small quantities of soil, such as those generated during characterization activities (i.e., investigation derived waste, IDW). Disposal in non-hazardous landfills is allowable in most states. However, some landfill operators are choosing to restrict acceptance of PFAS-containing waste and soils as a protection against future liability. In addition, the US EPA and some states are considering or have designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances, which would reduce the number of facilities where disposal of PFAS-contaminated soil would be allowed[27]. Treatment of excavated soils is commonly performed using incineration or other high temperature thermal methods[2]. Recent negative publicity regarding incomplete combustion of PFAS in incinerators[28] has caused some states to ban PFAS incineration[29].

Stabilization

Figure 2. A portable infrared thermal treatment unit for PFAS-impacted soils[30].

Various amendments have been manufactured to sorb PFAS to reduce leaching from soil. Although this is a non-destructive approach, stabilization can reduce mass flux from a source area or allow soils to be placed in landfills with reduced potential for leaching. Amendments sorb PFAS through hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions and are applied to soil through in situ soil mixing or ex situ stabilization (Figure 1). Effectiveness of amendments varies depending on site conditions, PFAS types present, and mixing conditions[20]. Good results have been observed in bench and field scale tests with a variety of cationic clays (natural or chemically modified) and zeolites[31][32][33]. Bench-scale tests have shown that activated carbon sorbents reduce leachability of PFAS from soils[34][35][36]. A commercial product developed in Australia (RemBind™) combines the cation exchange binding capability of clays, the hydrophobic sorption and van der Waals attraction of organic material, and the electrostatic interactions of aluminum hydroxide to create a highly effective soil stabilizer. This material has been mixed into soil at 1 to 5% ratio by weight in ex situ applications and been demonstrated to reduce leachability by greater than 99 percent[37].

Thermal Treatment

Figure 3. A full scale PFAS-impacted soil washing plant in Australia[38].

Incineration: Incineration is a well-developed technology for organics destruction, including PFAS-impacted soils. Incineration is generally defined as high temperature (>1,100°C) thermal destruction of waste, and PFAS are thought to mineralize at high temperatures. Generally, incinerators treat off-gasses by thermal oxidation with temperatures as high as 1,400°C, and vaporized combustion products can be captured using condensation and wet scrubbing[20]. Some regulatory officials have expressed concern about possible PFAS emissions in off-gas from these incinerators, and the authors are not aware of any published evidence demonstrating complete mineralization of multiple PFAS in incinerators at the time of this posting. In general, incineration is designed to provide “5 nines of destruction” – destruction of 99.999% of the contaminants, although incinerators are not designed to specifically treat PFAS to this standard. In the absence of approved industry standard test methods, the US EPA is developing off-gas/stack testing procedures capable of detecting PFAS at the levels considered to be harmful[39].

Thermal Desorption: Thermal Desorption of PFAS from soil has been demonstrated at the field scale in Australia and the US (Alaska)[37] using a rotary kiln operating at temperatures in the range of 900°C or less with treatment times of 10-15 minutes[40]. At these temperatures, some PFAS are mineralized, releasing fluorine that must be captured in off-gas treatment systems. Some PFAS would not be destroyed at these temperatures and therefore must be captured in off-gas treatment systems. Several bench-scale tests have been performed that have narrowed down the optimal temperature for desorption to between 350°C and 400°C[41][30]. A US Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) field-scale demonstration was performed in Oregon, where thermal desorption was conducted at 400°C over several days, and the PFAS were captured on vapor-phase activated carbon and incinerated[41]. An in situ thermal desorption project has been funded under the US DoD’s Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to demonstrate that vadose zone soil can be heated to the requisite 350°C and held there for the appropriate length of time to desorb and capture PFAS from soil source areas[42].

Soil Washing

Soil washing has been applied to PFAS in a handful of pilot projects[43][44][45] and one full-scale implementation in Australia. This approach requires a large-scale engineered plant to handle the various liquid and solid waste streams generated. Soil washing is less suitable for clay-rich soils, where aggregation of the particulates occurs and is difficult to prevent or mitigate. Treatment of the liquid rinse water waste stream is required, which would then rely on conventional water treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon (GAC) or ion exchange. Additionally, in some cases flocculated sludge is generated, which would require treatment or disposal offsite. At present, the only full-scale soil washing demonstration is occurring in Australia, where a vendor has constructed and is operating a 10 million AUD$ treatment plant in anticipation of future treatment of soils generated from remedial actions at Australian Defense installations. Some Australian installations are stockpiling soils due to the lack of cost-effective soil treatment options. According to the vendor, this system generates no solid waste, instead feeding any solids back into the front end of the process for further removal of PFAS[38].

Conclusions

Several well-developed remedial technologies have been applied to address soil contaminated with PFAS. Unfortunately, none of the available techniques are ideal, with some reducing leachability but leaving the PFAS-impacted soil in place, while others result in destruction of the contaminants but require high energy inputs with associated high cost.

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 Dickenson, E. and Higgins, C., 2016. Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances, Report Number 4322. Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado. 123 pages. ISBN 978-1-60573-234-3
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document and Fact Sheets, PFAS-1. PFAS Team, Washington, DC. Website   Report.pdf
  3. ^ Kucharzyk, K.H., Darlington, R., Benotti, M., Deeb, R. and Hawley, E., 2017. Novel treatment technologies for PFAS compounds: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Management, 204(2), pp. 757-764. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.016   Manuscript available from: ResearchGate.
  4. ^ Merino, N., Qu, Y., Deeb, R.A., Hawley, E.L., Hoffmann, M.R., and Mahendra, S., 2016. Degradation and Removal Methods for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water. Environmental Engineering Science, 33(9), pp. 615-649. DOI: 10.1089/ees.2016.0233
  5. ^ Tang, C.Y., Fu, Q.S., Robertson, A.P., Criddle, C.S., and Leckie, J.O., 2006. Use of Reverse Osmosis Membranes to Remove Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) from Semiconductor Wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(23), pp. 7343-7349. DOI: 10.1021/es060831q
  6. ^ Flores, C., Ventura, F., Martin-Alonso, J., and Caixach, J., 2013. Occurrence of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) in NE Spanish surface waters and their removal in a drinking water treatment plant that combines conventional and advanced treatments in parallel lines. Science of the Total environment, 461, 618-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.026
  7. ^ Appleman, T.D., Higgins, C.P., Quiñones, O., Vanderford, B.J., Kolstad, C., Zeigler-Holady, J.C., and Dickenson, E.R., 2014. Treatment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in US full-scale water treatment systems. Water Research, 51, pp. 246-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.067
  8. ^ Steinle-Darling, E., and Reinhard, M., 2008. Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of Perfluorochemicals. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(14), pp. 5292-5297. DOI: 10.1021/es703207s   Free download from: Academia.
  9. ^ Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R., Bellona, C., and Higgins, C.P., 2013. Nanofiltration and granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 260, 740-746. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.033
  10. ^ Soriano, Á., Gorri, D., and Urtiaga, A., 2017. Efficient treatment of perfluorohexanoic acid by nanofiltration followed by electrochemical degradation of the NF concentrate. Water Research, 112, 147-156. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2017.01.043   Author’s Manuscript.
  11. ^ Zeng, C., Tanaka, S., Suzuki, Y., Yukioka, S., and Fujii, S., 2017. Rejection of Trace Level Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) in Pure Water by Loose Nanofiltration Membrane. Journal of Water and Environment Technology, 15(3), pp. 120-127. DOI: 10.2965/jwet.16-072   Free download from: J-STAGE
  12. ^ Wang, J., Wang, L., Xu, C., Zhi, R., Miao, R., Liang, T., Yue, X., Lv, Y. and Liu, T., 2018. Perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorobutane sulfonate removal from water by nanofiltration membrane: The roles of solute concentration, ionic strength, and macromolecular organic foulants. Chemical Engineering Journal, 332, pp. 787-797. DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2017.09.061
  13. ^ Le Roux, I., Krieg, H.M., Yeates, C.A. and Breytenbach, J.C., 2005. Use of chitosan as an antifouling agent in a membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane Science, 248(1-2), pp. 127-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.memsci.2004.10.005
  14. ^ Kissa, Erik, 2001. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents: Second Edition. Surfactant Science Series, Volume 97. Marcel Dekker, Inc., CRC Press, New York. 640 pages. ISBN 978-0824704728
  15. ^ Backe, W.J., Day, T.C., and Field, J.A., 2013. Zwitterionic, Cationic, and Anionic Fluorinated Chemicals in Aqueous Film Forming Foam Formulations and Groundwater from U.S. Military Bases by Nonaqueous Large-Volume Injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(10), pp. 5226-5234. DOI: 10.1021/es3034999
  16. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), EPA 822-R-16-004. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. Free download from US EPA   Report.pdf
  17. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), EPA 822-R-16-005. Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. Free download from US EPA    Report.pdf
  18. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Houtz2013
  19. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2020. Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) – User's Guide. Washington, DC. Website
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC), 2020. PFAS Water and Soil Values Table. PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: PFAS Fact Sheets. Free download.   2020 Water and Soil Tables (excel file)
  21. ^ Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC), 2020. 18 AAC 75, Oil and Other Hazardous Substances Pollution Control. Anchorage, AK. Free download.   Report.pdf
  22. ^ Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP), 2018. Maine Remedial Action Guidelines (RAGs) for Sites Contaminated with Hazardous Substances. Augusta, ME. Free download.   Report.pdf
  23. ^ Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), 2020. Cleanup Criteria Requirements for Response Activity (Formerly the Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria and Screening Levels). Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI. Website
  24. ^ Nebraska Department of Energy and Environment (NE DEE), 2018. Voluntary Cleanup Program Remedial Goals, Table A-1: Groundwater and Soil Remediation Goals. Lincoln, NE. Free download.   Report.pdf
  25. ^ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), 2020. Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals (PSRG) Table. Raleigh, NC. Free download.   Report.pdf
  26. ^ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2021. Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP), Tier 1 Protective Concentration Levels (PCL) Tables. Free Download.   2021 PCL Tables (excel file)
  27. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019. EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan: EPA 823R18004. Washington, DC. Website   Report.pdf   2020 Update
  28. ^ Cheryl Hogue, 2020. Incineration may spread, not break down PFAS. Chemical and Engineering News, American Chemical Society. Website   Report.pdf
  29. ^ New York State Senate, 2020. An ACT prohibiting the incineration of aqueous film-forming foam containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in certain cities. Website   Report.pdf
  30. ^ 30.0 30.1 DiGuiseppi, W., Richter, R., and Riggle, M., 2019. Low Temperature Desorption of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. The Military Engineer, 111(719), pp. 52-53. Society of American Military Engineers, Washington, DC. Open access article.   Report.pdf
  31. ^ Ochoa-Herrera, V., and Sierra-Alvarez, R., 2008. Removal of perfluorinated surfactants by sorption onto granular activated carbon, zeolites and sludge. Chemosphere, 72(10), pp. 1588-1593. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.04.029
  32. ^ Rattanaoudom, R., Visvanathan, C., and Boontanon, S.K., 2012. Removal of Concentrated PFOS and PFOA in Synthetic Industrial Wastewater by Powder Activated Carbon and Hydrotalcite. Journal of Water Sustainability, 2(4), pp. 245-248. Open access article.   Report.pdf
  33. ^ Ziltek, 2017. RemBind: Frequently Asked Questions. Free download   Report.pdf
  34. ^ Du, Z., Deng, S., Bei, Y., Huang, Q., Wang, B., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2014. Adsorption behavior and mechanism of perfluorinated compounds on various adsorbents – A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 274, pp. 443-454. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038
  35. ^ Yu, Q., Zhang, R., Deng, S., Huang, J. and Yu, G., 2009. Sorption of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate on activated carbons and resin: Kinetic and isotherm study. Water Research, 43(4), pp. 1150-1158. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.001
  36. ^ Szabo, J., Hall, J., Magnuson, M., Panguluri, S., and Meiners, G., 2017. Treatment of Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Wash Water Using Granular Activated Carbon and Mixed Media, EPA/600/R-17/175. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC. Website   Report.pdf
  37. ^ 37.0 37.1 Nolan, A., Anderson, P., McKay, D., Cartwright, L., and McLean, C., 2015. Treatment of PFCs in Soils, Sediments and Water, WC35. Program and Proceedings, CleanUp Conference 2015. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC Care), Melbourne, Australia. pp. 374-375. Free download   Report.pdf
  38. ^ 38.0 38.1 Grimison, C., Brookman, I., Hunt, J., and Lucas, J., 2020. Remediation of PFAS-related impacts – ongoing scrutiny and review, Ventia Submission to PFAS Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Australia. Free download.   Report.pdf
  39. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2018. PFAS Research and Development, Community Engagement in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Website   Report.pdf
  40. ^ Burke, Jill, 2019. Fairbanks incinerator shows promise for cleaning toxic soil. Channel 2-KTUU, October 8. Website
  41. ^ 41.0 41.1 Hatton, J., Dasu, K., Richter, R., Fitzpatrick, T., and Higgins, C., 2019. Field Demonstration of Infrared Thermal Treatment of PFAS-impacted Soils from Subsurface Investigations. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), Project ER18-1603, Alexandria, VA. Website   Report.pdf
  42. ^ Iery, R., 2020. In Situ Thermal Treatment of PFAS in the Vadose Zone. US Department of Defense, Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP), Project ER20-5250. Website
  43. ^ Torneman, N., 2012. Remedial Methods and Strategies for PFCs. Fourth Joint Nordic Meeting on Remediation of Contaminated Sites, NORDROCS 2012, Oslo, Norway. Free download.   Report.pdf
  44. ^ Toase, D., 2018. Application of enhanced soil washing techniques to PFAS contaminated source zones. Emerging Contaminants Summit 2018, Westminster, Colorado.
  45. ^ Grimison, C., Barthelme, S., Nolan, A., Cole, J., Morrell, C., 2018. Integrated Soil and Water System for Treatment of PFAS Impacted Source Areas, 18E138P. Australasian Land and Groundwater Association (ALGA), Sydney, Australia. Free download.   Report.pdf

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=14414"