AFFF formulations have been used by DoD since the 1970s to suppress fires, and there are hundreds of sites with associated PFAS contamination. DoD used AFFF mixtures containing significant quantities of PFOS and related perfluoroalkyl sulfonates such as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) until 2002, when production stopped. However the DoD continued (until only recently) to use PFOS-containing AFFF stocks. Although the DoD’s legacy use of AFFF included various fluorotelomer-based formulations, the vast majority of DoD’s environmental liability likely results from the use of PFOS-based AFFF. Additional research on PFAS is timely given USEPA’s recent drinking water health advisories for two common PFASs, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS as well as the numerous states that are beginning to promulgate drinking water standards.
Many of the PFASs found in AFFF formulations are highly soluble and migrate rapidly, while others are far less mobile. The more soluble PFASs are likely to become depleted through flushing from source zones over time. However, other PFAS compounds may be retained in the source zone, with varying degrees of potential for mass transfer into the aqueous phase, infiltration to groundwater (for vadose zone source areas), and/or groundwater migration, particularly after several years in the subsurface. PFOS and PFOA are relatively mobile, though their fates are complicated by the presence of potential precursors for these compounds in complex PFAS mixtures such as AFFF formulations.
Due to their chemical structure, PFASs are very stable in the environment and are relatively resistant to biodegradation, photo-oxidation, direct photolysis, and hydrolysis. The perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids and sulfonic acids have very low volatility due to their ionic nature and are relatively mobile in soil and leach into groundwater. Granular activated carbon (GAC) has been proposed for use or is being used at several sites to specifically remove PFOS and PFOA from contaminated water in ex situ processes; however, the cost-effectiveness of GAC systems remain questionable, specifically with regard to regeneration. Use of some types of technologies results in generation of ancillary waste streams (e.g., brines are generated during regeneration of ion exchange resins). Solutions are needed which include provisions for regeneration of spent media, and treatment and disposal of ancillary waste streams. Moreover, effective treatment options are needed that address a larger suite of PFASs commonly found at AFFF-impacted sites.