1,4‐Dioxane Treatment Technologies

DiGuiseppi, William H.; Walecka-Hutchison, Claudia; Hatton, James W.

doi:10.1002/rem.21498

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, 1,4‐dioxane preferentially distributes to pore water, and unlike its common cocontaminants, is believed to be difficult to remove from the vadose zone by conventional soil vapor extraction (SVE). For example in DiGuiseppi et al ()'s review paper on 1,4 Dioxane Treatment Technologies the only mention of SVE is in reference to this project.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

1,4‐Dioxane Soil Remediation Using Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE): II. Modeling

Burris¹,

Johnson²,

Hinchee³

et al. 2018

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1,4‐Dioxane is a volatile organic compound that is fully miscible in water, allowing it to sequester in vadose zone pore water and serve as a long‐term source of groundwater contamination. Conventional soil vapor extraction (SVE) removes 1,4‐dioxane; however, substantial 1,4‐dioxane can remain even after other colocated chlorinated solvents have been remediated. A field demonstration of “enhanced SVE” (XSVE) with focused extraction and heated injection was conducted at former McClellan AFB, CA, achieving 94% reduction in soil concentrations. A screening‐level tool, HypeVent XSVE, was created to assist in system design and data reduction and to anticipate how operating factors affect XSVE performance (e.g., cleanup level, remediation time, etc.). It assumes well‐mixed conditions, and combines an energy balance, mass balances for water and contaminant, and a temperature‐dependent 1,4‐dioxane Henry's Law constant. User inputs include the target treatment zone size, initial 1,4‐dioxane and soil moisture concentrations, and ambient site and injection/extraction conditions (temperature, humidity). Projections based on inputs representative of demonstration site conditions adequately anticipated the observed macroscopic field results. Sensitivity analyses show that removal increases with increasing heated air injection temperature and relative humidity and decreasing initial soil moisture content.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

1,4‐Dioxane Soil Remediation Using Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE): II. Modeling

Burris¹,

Johnson²,

Hinchee³

et al. 2018

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CECs with similar structures were reported to have similar photodegradation performance an illustrated example is shown in the Supplementary S1. Structures such as halogens present in CECs result in a resonant stabilized structure [41]. Whereas chemical structures like electron-donating hydroxyl (-OH) and amino (-NH 2 ) functional groups affected the resonance stability of ring structures, resulting in different degradation performances [42].…”

Section: Category Of Contaminantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Contaminants: An Overview of Recent Trends for Their Treatment and Management Using Light-Driven Processes

Lee

Lim

Loh

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in water bodies is particularly challenging due to the difficulty in detection and their recalcitrant degradation by conventional means. In this review, CECs are characterized to give insights into the potential degradation performance of similar compounds. A two-pronged approach was then proposed for the overall management of CECs. Light-driven oxidation processes, namely photo/Fenton, photocatalysis, photolysis, UV/Ozone were discussed. Advances to overcome current limitations in these light-driven processes were proposed, focusing on recent trends and innovations. Light-based detection methodology was also discussed for the management of CECs. Lastly, a cost–benefit analysis on various light-based processes was conducted to access the suitability for CECs degradation. It was found that the UV/Ozone process might not be suitable due to the complication with pH adjustments and limited light wavelength. It was found that EEO values were in this sequence: UV only > UV/combination > photocatalyst > UV/O3 > UV/Fenton > solar/Fenton. The solar/Fenton process has the least computed EEO < 5 kWh m−3 and great potential for further development. Newer innovations such as solar/catalyst can also be explored with potentially lower EEO values.

show abstract

“…For more information on these technologies, DiGuiseppi et al. () follow Simon and provide more detail on the above technologies.…”

Section: Promising 14‐dioxane Treatment Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is work being performed to develop new technologies, including • Adsorptive media-ex situ treatment • Phytoremediation-in situ treatment • Bioremediation-ex situ and in situ treatment • AOP-ex situ treatment • In situ chemical oxidation-in situ treatment • Soil vapor extraction (SVE)/extreme SVE-in situ treatment • Thermal treatment-in situ treatment • Monitored natural attenuation-in situ treatment This paper focuses on the sustainable remediation considerations of the above technologies. For more information on these technologies, DiGuiseppi et al (2016) follow Simon and provide more detail on the above technologies.…”

Section: Promising 14-dioxane Treatment Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Remediation Considerations for Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane in Groundwater

Favara¹,

Tunks²,

Hatton³

et al. 2016

Remediation Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1,4‐Dioxane remediation is challenging due to its physiochemical properties and low target treatment levels. As such, applications of traditional remediation technologies have proven ineffective. There are a number of promising remediation technologies that could potentially be scaled for successful application to groundwater restoration. Sustainable remediation is an important consideration in the evaluation of remediation technologies. It is critically important to consider sustainability when new technologies are being applied or new contaminants are being treated with traditional technologies. There are a number of social, economic, and environmental drivers that should be considered when implementing 1,4‐dioxane treatment technologies. This includes evaluating sustainability externalities by considering the cradle‐to‐grave impacts of the chemicals, energy, processes, transportation, and materials used in groundwater treatment. It is not possible to rate technologies as more or less sustainable because each application is context specific. However, by including sustainability thinking into technology evaluations and implementation plans, decisions makers can be more informed and the results of remediation are likely to be more effective and beneficial. There are a number sustainable remediation frameworks, guidance documents, footprint assessment tools, life cycle assessment tools, and best management practices that can be utilized for these purposes. This paper includes an overview describing the importance of sustainability in technology selection, identifies sustainability impacts related to technologies that can be used to treat 1,4‐dioxane, provides an approximating approach to assess sustainability impacts, and summarizes potential sustainability impacts related to promising treatment technologies. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

1,4‐Dioxane Treatment Technologies

Abstract: The chlorinated solvent stabilizer 1,

Cited by 27 publications

References 31 publications

1,4‐Dioxane Soil Remediation Using Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE): II. Modeling

1,4‐Dioxane Soil Remediation Using Enhanced Soil Vapor Extraction (XSVE): II. Modeling

Emerging Contaminants: An Overview of Recent Trends for Their Treatment and Management Using Light-Driven Processes

Sustainable Remediation Considerations for Treatment of 1,4‐Dioxane in Groundwater

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About