DOE OSTI2024
The goal of the 2-year workplan was to see if electron beam (EB) could be used to break down a sub-set of the larger chemical family of per and polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS) in an energy efficient and economical manner when compared to conventional water treatment technologies. Year one (Y1) work focused on sample EB treatment work in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s (FNALs) Accelerator Applications Demonstration and Development (A2D2) EB accelerator. While there are reportedly thousands of types of PFAS, for the point of most of the work herein, a small subset was examined, typically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA). PFOA and PFOS are two of the most well studied PFAS and are studied for baseline evaluations and are considered most useful. The work from Y1 provided information about the optimal operating parameters and additives to use when treating PFOS and PFOA via EB. The data were then used to see where in a water treatment system an EB accelerator would be best suited to treat PFAS. A conventional water treatment technology, GAC, was then compared to e-beam treatment technology with respect to energy and costs for treatment. In year two (Y2), several conventional e-beam accelerator designs, and FNAL’s developmental compact SRF accelerator design, were evaluated for their suitability in PFAS treatment, from an energy efficiency and cost standpoint. Several EB parameters were evaluated and optimized for the removal of PFOA and PFOS from water at normal pressure and temperature, measured as total PFAS removal. Under the optimized test conditions both PFOA showed complete destruction to inorganic fluoride, and PFOS to inorganic fluoride and sulfate, with mass balance. The effect on PFAS removal relative to solution pH, total EB dose, EB dose rate, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), temperature, and initial PFAS concentration were evaluated. In general, PFOA was easier to destroy than PFOS. Degradation products, typically observed under less-than-optimal EB conditions, provided insight to degradation mechanisms. Products were identified to rule out possible deleterious biproduct formation. The water radiolysis radical reaction kinetics with PFOS and PFOA were not dependent on the initial concentration over 5-orders of magnitude from 2 μg/L to 20 mg/L. This is thought to be because there was an overabundance of the reactive water radiolysis radicals relative to PFAS molecules and largely attributed to aqueous electrons. The reaction rates appeared to be diffusion limited. Testing at higher concentrations (100-200 mg/L) showed a decrease in removal efficiency, suggesting alternative kinetics, possibly second order rates, at higher concentrations. In all, we successfully defined a set of optimal EB parameters to treat PFOA and PFOS at concentrations of 20 mg/L in water with destruction efficiencies near 100%. We further tested the optimized EB parameters with other types of PFAS, including shorter and longer fluorocarbon chain homologs of PFOA and PFOS, and PFAS with alternative functional groups such as sulfonamides. Based on our results EB can be optimized as an effective destructive technology for removing PFAS from water. The conditions optimized for PFOA and PFOS were less effective with ultra-short fluorocarbon compounds like TFMS, PFES, PFPS and PFBS, and likely require re-optimization of parameters to them. In all, it was determined that from a cost and energy efficiency standpoint, EB would be best applied to waste streams with relatively high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA and is not as cost effective as GAC treatment for removing low concentrations of PFAS from water. Higher concentrations of PFAS can be found in the wastewater of conventional treatment processes such as RO and IE and therefore EB may be used to supplement such treatment technologies. Some real-world IE regeneration wash water and RO reject water containing higher concentrations of PFAS and obtained from pilot scale industrial wastewater treatment system at a fluorochemical manufacturing facility, showed that EB could remove PFAS from such types of wastewaters. The IE regenerant wash water appeared to be the most efficient of the two types of wastewaters tested. However, some further optimization of the EB parameters for the specific PFAS types present in those wastewaters may be required. Also, the effects of co-present TOC and mineral salts should be considered during such optimization efforts. From the experimental Y1 results it was seen that the aqueous electron drives degradation of the PFAS. In a hypothetical water treatment skid using EB for PFAS destruction the parameters of the system should be optimized to promote aqueous electron production. Before EB treatment, the PFAS should be preconcentrated when possible, the pH should be raised to pH 10 or higher to enhance aqueous electron production, and the water should be nitrogen purged to remove dissolved oxygen to minimize aqueous electron scavenging. An excel spreadsheet was created that calculates optimal conditions based on inlet PFAS concentration and desired outlet concentration, by optimizing the accelerator power, dose rate, water treatment rate, pH and dissolved oxygen levels to reach the desired endpoint. Given this information on accelerator operating conditions five different EB accelerator systems were compared. One EB system was a continuous-wave, linear superconducting accelerator being designed at Fermilab. Three other EB systems (IMPELA at 5% and 25% duty factor and the ILU-14) were normal conducting pulsed linear accelerators. The fifth system was an IBA Rhodotron which is a normal conducting, circular, continuous-wave accelerator. The accelerator efficiency (% of the incoming power that is used in water treatment) was the dominating factor in accelerator choice. The radio frequency (RF) power supply and the accelerator design (superconducting versus warm technology) drive the accelerator efficiency. The IBA Rhodotron was seen to be the most energy efficient commercially available technology with a wall-plug (total) power efficiency of 43% at 400 kW. The Fermilab design, with a prototype for a different application currently being fabricated, was the most energy efficient at 55% when driven by a Klystron RF power supply and as high as 77% when powered by a magnetron. As the Fermilab design was the most energy efficient by approximately 10-30%, further design work was done on the accelerator and beam delivery system specific to the destruction of PFAS in water. The Fermilab design is unique from industrial accelerators in that is superconducting. Superconducting technology allows for the acceleration of electrons without losses. The accelerator must be cooled to below the point where it is superconducting and is operated around 4 degrees Kelvin. The bulk of the design work for the accelerator is on making the accelerator as energy efficient as possible so that it does not require liquid helium and can be cooled with conduction cooling via cryocoolers. Final design work resulted in an EB accelerator that would operate at minimally 200 kW and 10 MeV. Prototype construction would cost $\$ $7.8 million dollars when driven by a Klystron power supply. A second version of the same accelerator would cost $\$ $5.5 million dollars when driven by a magnetron that is still under development. The commercially available 300 kW IBA Rhodotron cost was estimated at approximately $\$ $9 million. While it is hard to directly compare, an operational GAC system used by 3M for groundwater treatment capital cost (2022 dollars) was estimated to cost $\$ $3.3 million. While the capital expense of the EB accelerator systems was higher than GAC, the accelerator EB treatment would result in destruction of the PFAS and not just sequestration of PFAS to form a new waste stream that requires further treatment or disposal. The operating cost to destroy the PFAS via 400 kw EB system was less than $\$ $1000/kg of PFAS destroyed when treating at a 20 mg/L PFAS concentration, compared to GAC with operating costs that calculated at $\$ $27,530 per kg of PFAS sequestered when treating 100 μg/L PFOA and PFOS combined concentration.
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗