US Department of Defense–Funded Research on Treatment of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance–Laden Materials

Coyle, Charles; Ghosh, Rajat; Leeson, Andrea; Thompson, Timothy A.

doi:10.1002/etc.4836

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Remediation costs for COCs with properties similar to that of PFAS have proven very significant. Existing ex-situ (and in-situ) groundwater treatment technologies for PFAS plumes could be more costly than conventional COCs because of the C─F bond and associated energy requirements to break that bond (Coyle et al 2021). Clearly, there are significant practical and economic incentives to use MNA as a remediation tool, where appropriate.…”

Section: Potential Benefits Of Mna For Pfas Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitored Natural Attenuation to Manage PFAS Impacts to Groundwater: Scientific Basis

Newell¹,

Adamson²,

Kulkarni³

et al. 2021

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This column reviews the general features of PHT3D Version 2, a reactive multicomponent transport model that couples the geochemical modeling software PHREEQC-2 (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999) with three-dimensional groundwater flow and transport simulators MODFLOW-2000 and MT3DMS (Zheng and Wang 1999). The original version of PHT3D was developed by Henning Prommer and Version 2 by Henning Prommer and Vincent Post (Prommer and Post 2010). More detailed information about PHT3D is available at the website http://www.pht3d.org.The review was conducted separately by two reviewers. This column is presented in two parts.

show abstract

Section: Potential Benefits Of Mna For Pfas Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitored Natural Attenuation to Manage PFAS Impacts to Groundwater: Scientific Basis

Newell¹,

Adamson²,

Kulkarni³

et al. 2021

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) have made a far‐reaching commitment to PFAS remediation, funding more than 70 fundamental (SERDP) and applied (ESTCP) PFAS research projects over the past decade (Coyle et al, 2021; https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Featured-Initiatives/Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl-Substances-PFASs) (Figure 2). In the most general sense, research is focused on three main categories: (1) nondestructive approaches that remove PFAS from water and other matrices; (2) destructive technologies that can break C–F and C–C bonds and detoxify PFAS; and (3) coupled systems that concentrate and then destroy PFAS.…”

Section: Current Pfas Remediation Research Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PFAS Experts Symposium 2: PFAS Remediation research – Evolution from past to present, current efforts, and potential futures

Newell

DiGuiseppi

Cassidy

et al. 2022

Remediation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the diverse chemistries of per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and their apparent recalcitrance to natural biological and abiotic transformation processes, remediation of this class of compounds in groundwater environments is much more challenging than that of other common contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, hydrocarbons, methyl tert‐butyl ether, and 1,4‐dioxane. Overall, the groundwater remediation community is faced with substantial challenges that will require both continued enhancement of existing technologies and development of new technologies and strategies to manage PFAS‐impacted sites. Fortunately, an extraordinary breadth and depth of ongoing research in PFAS remediation is funded through a variety of different agencies and organizations. This research can be organized into three main categories: (1) nondestructive approaches that remove PFAS from water and other matrices; (2) destructive technologies that break carbon–fluorine and carbon–carbon bonds to create nontoxic products; and (3) coupled systems that concentrate and then destroy PFAS. As with previous groundwater contaminants, an initial focus on ex situ PFAS treatment is now slowly evolving to include more in situ research. However, as of 2021, there are no practical groundwater remediation technologies that have been shown to destroy target PFAS (i.e., mineralize and/or create nontoxic products) in situ at full‐scale field application. While the historical goal of in situ treatment for most contaminants has been destruction, practitioners, facility owners, and regulators may need to alter their expectations and objectives for PFAS, at least in the short term, to management strategies that include treatment at receptor locations to avoid exposures and adsorption‐based attenuation strategies for some plumes. These approaches can be used as practical alternatives to PFAS destruction or to buy time until promising technologies become both commercially available and accepted by the industry. The success of any remedial effort typically depends upon meeting regulatory criteria, which in the case of PFAS, are currently in flux at the federal level and differ by orders of magnitude among state regulatory bodies. While this is understandable given the uncertainty and complexity of this issue, setting firm, consistent, and attainable regulatory standards is necessary to provide researchers and practitioners with necessary benchmarks for remediation technology development and commercialization.

show abstract

“…Demonstrating the effectiveness and sustainability of thermal destruction technologies is a high priority demonstration need (see Textbox 1). Research being undertaken by the Programs related to PFAS treatment is discussed in the companion article in this issue (Coyle et al 2020).…”

Section: Pfas Treatment Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies published in this issue cover in more detail research conducted by SERDP and ESTCP on the fate and transport of PFAS (Anderson et al 2020), and the treatment of PFAS in water, soils, and investigation‐derived wastes (Coyle et al 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and Managing Aqueous Film‐Forming Foam‐Derived Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment

Leeson

Thompson

Stroo

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has resulted in the widespread occurrence of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater, drinking water, soils, sediments, and receiving waters throughout the United States and other countries. We present the research and development efforts to date by the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) to measure PFAS in the environment, characterize AFFF-associated sources of PFAS, understand PFAS fate and behavior in the environment, assess the risk to ecological receptors, develop in situ and ex situ treatment technologies for groundwater, treat soils and investigation-derived wastes, and examine the ecotoxicity of PFAS-free fire suppression formulations.

show abstract

US Department of Defense–Funded Research on Treatment of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance–Laden Materials

Abstract: Focus articles are part of a regular series intended to sharpen understanding of current and emerging topics of interest to the scientific community.

Cited by 20 publications

References 7 publications

Monitored Natural Attenuation to Manage PFAS Impacts to Groundwater: Scientific Basis

Monitored Natural Attenuation to Manage PFAS Impacts to Groundwater: Scientific Basis

PFAS Experts Symposium 2: PFAS Remediation research – Evolution from past to present, current efforts, and potential futures

Identifying and Managing Aqueous Film‐Forming Foam‐Derived Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About