Diagnostic Tools for Performance Evaluation of Innovative In-Situ Remediation Technologies at Chlorinated Solvent-Contaminated Sites

Abstract

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEPrescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From -To) 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER This Demonstration Report provides an evaluation of innovative diagnostic tools used first for site characterization to support remediation design, and second to evaluate the performance of in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO) using permanganate at the Watervliet Arsenal (WVA). An area of groundwater contamination was discovered in 1998 in the eastern portion of the WVA, adjacent to the site boundary and in front of former manufacturing Building 40. Groundwater contaminants include chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs), predominantly tetrachloroethene (PCE), and cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), with a lesser percentage of trichloroethene (TCE) and vinyl chloride. Year 2000Year compliant, e.g. 30-06-1998 xx-06-1998; xx-xx-1998. AUTHOR(S) PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)12 REPORT TYPE.State the type of report, such as final, technical, interim, memorandum, master's thesis, progress, quarterly, research, special, group study, etc. DATES COVERED.Indicate the time during which the work was performed and the report was written, e.g., Jun 1997 -Jun 1998; 1-10 Jun 1996; May -Nov 1998; Nov 1998. TITLE.Enter title and subtitle with volume number and part number, if applicable. On classified documents, enter the title classification in parentheses.5a. CONTRACT NUMBER. Enter all contract numbers as they appear in the report, e.g. F33615-86-C-5169. 5b. GRANT NUMBER.Enter all grant numbers as they appear in the report, e.g. AFOSR-82-1234. 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER.Enter all program element numbers as they appear in the report, e.g. 61101A.5d. PROJECT NUMBER. Enter all project numbers as they appear in the report, e.g. 1F665702D1257; ILIR.5e. TASK NUMBER. Enter all task numbers as they appear in the report, e.g....

A Multiple Lines of Evidence Approach to Demonstrate Effectiveness of PFAS Remediation Technologies

“…More information is provided in the SERDP project ER18‐1633 guidance document (Deeb et al. 2021) and associated checklists for evaluating PFAS remedial technologies.…”

“…PFAS readily adsorbs to the sides of sample bottles and other materials that may contact sample media, including laboratory filters and field tubing (Deeb et al. 2021). Conversely, desorption or release of PFAS from NAPL may occur due to changes in pH or other factors acting on the NAPL during the treatment process (McKenzie et al.…”

“…Additional information is available in SERDP project ER18‐1633 report (Deeb et al. 2021) and recent peer‐reviewed publications (e.g., Yadav et al. 2022).…”

“…This paper summarizes three lines of evidence developed under the Strategic Environment Research and Develop Program (SERDP) project ER18‐1633 (Deeb et al. 2021) to provide a science‐based context for selecting and evaluating PFAS treatment technologies. The lines of evidence are generalized to apply to both in‐situ and ex‐situ treatment technologies from bench‐scale to field‐scale.…”

The Need to Include a Fluorine Mass Balance in the Development of Effective Technologies for PFAS Destruction

“…The importance of transformation (by)product formation during the destructive treatment of PFAS has been recognized in the literature. 2,3 Nonetheless, studies describing destructive technologies may still report concentrations of only the parent compound or a small set of target PFAS and often confuse "transformation of target species" with "mineralization". In contrast to that of other organic micropollutants, the degradation of PFAS can be readily monitored by tracing the fluorine element.…”