2022
DOI: 10.1002/rem.21714
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PFAS Experts Symposium 2: Statements on available in situ remediation technologies

Abstract: As a follow-up to the PFAS Experts Symposium 2 held on June 30 and July 1, 2021, the In situ Remediation Technologies Committee prepared a technical and regulatory review of in situ technologies that are potentially applicable to sites with per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. The technologies included in the review were limited to those that are deemed commercially available and potentially applicable to sites with soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination. While the sco… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, the A-IXR (IAS)-amended sand released up to 80% of previously retained amounts of long-chain PFAS, especially the PFCA. This observation addresses, or at least minimizes, the uncertainties raised by site practitioners, regulators, and PFAS-contaminated land experts and stakeholders regarding the potential applicability of anion-exchange resins for PFAS in situ sequestration . Given that this study focused on anionic PFAS with perfluoroalkyl chains, future investigations can focus on other PFAS that are also detected at AFFF sites, including precursors (such as the fluorotelomer sulfonates) and cationic/zwitterionic PFAS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In addition, the A-IXR (IAS)-amended sand released up to 80% of previously retained amounts of long-chain PFAS, especially the PFCA. This observation addresses, or at least minimizes, the uncertainties raised by site practitioners, regulators, and PFAS-contaminated land experts and stakeholders regarding the potential applicability of anion-exchange resins for PFAS in situ sequestration . Given that this study focused on anionic PFAS with perfluoroalkyl chains, future investigations can focus on other PFAS that are also detected at AFFF sites, including precursors (such as the fluorotelomer sulfonates) and cationic/zwitterionic PFAS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Each bulk adsorbent was weighed into stainless steel jars and wet ball milled in milli-Q (MQ) water using stainless steel balls (6 mm). The use of ball-milling was to achieve fine particle sizes to enhance the injectability of the adsorbent suspensions for in situ PFAS treatment applications . The adsorbent suspension was then transferred into glass containers and diluted with water to achieve stock concentrations of approximately 50 g/L.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Along with multitechnologies, there are also innovative technologies for the remediation of PFAS‐contaminated water and several of these commercially available and potential in situ remediation technologies were discussed in the PFAS Experts Symposium 2 hosted by the Remediation Journal in 2021 (Abrams et al, 2022). In addition to the PFAS Experts Symposium 2, several articles on innovative PFAS treatment technologies were published in Remediation .…”
Section: Technology Developments For Pfas Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Due to the physical and chemical properties of PFAS and the low regulatory guidelines for PFAS, the remediation of PFAS‐impacted groundwater is complex (National Ground Water Association, 2017; Simon et al, 2019). Numerous research programs are underway to develop groundwater treatment technologies for PFAS for ex situ and in situ applications; however, current proven options are limited mostly to sorption‐based technologies (Abrams et al, 2022; Darlington et al, 2018; Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council ITRC, In Situ Chemical Oxidation Team, 2018; Nzeribe et al, 2019; Ross et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%