PFAS Contaminant Trends and Facilities Management

2017 Joint Engineer Training Conference & Expo
Hosted by the Society of American Military Engineers @SAME_HQ | #SAMEJETC
Welcome to PFAS Contaminant Trends and
Facility Management Considerations (Part 1)
Moderator: Melanie Kito, P.E., Lead Remedial Technical Manager
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest
Speaker: Michael H. Flinn, PhD, PMP
Cherokee Nation Technology Solutions

SAFETY FIRST!
Please take note of the exits in
case of an emergency.

Thank You to Our Sponsors!
SILENCE PLEASE!
Please silence your mobile phones.

CREDITS & PRESENTATIONS
Earn 1 PDH/ AIA credit for attending this session.
Where are the forms ? www.same.org/jetc
Presentations? www.same.org/jetc

Q&A & FEEDBACK
Please walk up to the mic for questions.
Questions will be addressed during the allotted time.
Rate our session in the JETC App.

Introduction
• The purpose of this presentation is to provide information developed from an
evaluation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
empirical data collected during site inspections during 2014 and 2015 at 17 fire
training areas on 13 closed or realigned Air Force installations
• PFOS-based aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) last used at the locations in 1992
• The goal is to provide preliminary findings related to trends in PFOS/PFOA
behavior in soil and groundwater to promote discussion for improving contaminant
site characterization and mitigation
• Data were collected for site characterization, not for a controlled study
• Collected datasets were filtered to selectively remove some qualified data to obtain
the most consistent and highest quality data as necessary for the evaluation

PFOS/PFOA Characteristics
Characteristic Perfluorooctane Sulfonate
(PFOS)
Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA)
Trichloroethene
(TCE)
Formula C8F17O3S- ** C8HF15O2
^^ C2HCl3
#
Molecular Weight 499.12 g/mol** (anion) 414.07 g/mol^^ 131.39 g/mol#
Density 1.25 g/cm3* (acid) 1.79 g/cm3 @ 20° C^^ 1.46 g/cm3 @ 20° C#
Water solubility 519 mg/l @ 20° C~ (salt)
680 mg/l @ 25° C~ (salt)
3,400 mg/l @ 20° C`
9,500 mg/l @25° C`
1,280 mg/l @ 25° C#
Octanol-Water Partitioning
Coefficient (log Kow)
4.49 (est.)^ (acid) 4.81 (est.)^^ 2.61#
Organic Carbon Partitioning
Coefficient (log Koc)
2.57- (salt) 2.06- 2.42=
Vapor Pressure
2.5 X 10-6 mm Hg @ 20° C! (salt)
2.0 X 10-3 mm Hg @ 25° C^ (acid)
1.7 X 10-2 mm Hg @ 20° C!
3.2 X10-2 mm Hg @ 25° C^^ 69 mm Hg @ 25° C#
** https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/3736298#section=Top
• www.chemicalland21.com
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid (Secondary Source)
^^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/9554#section (Secondary Source)
~ Environmental Risk Evaluation Report Pg. 3, Environment Agency, UK 2004
` Environmental fate and effects of poly and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), CONCAWE Pg.
91, Brussels, Belgium 2016
# https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/trichloroethylene (Secondary Source)
- Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and their salts;
The EFSA Journal,
= EPA Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, J. Russell Boulding, ed. Ann Arbor
Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI. Pg. 88, 1996
! Emerging Contaminants Fact Sheet – PFOS and PFOA, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, March 2014

Installation Location Map

Data Available for Analysis
• Depth to Water
• Well Screen Interval
• Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity unit – NTU)
• pH
• Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/l)
• Temperature (C°)
• Groundwater sample source (existing well, geoprobe, new well, temporary well,
undeveloped grab)
• Soil sample depth
• Soil type (grouped into clay, silt, sand, gravel)
• Concentration of PFOS and PFOA in groundwater (µg/l) and soil (mg/kg – converted to
µg/kg)
• Data qualifiers

Groundwater Sample Summary
• PFOS
• PFOA
Source # NQ B J Q U UJ
Existing Well 136 94 1 11 1 27 2
Geoprobe 8 5 0 3 0 0 0
New Well 62 32 0 13 0 17 0
Temporary Well 7 7 0 0 0 0 0
Undeveloped
Grab
1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Samples 214 138 1 28 1 44 2
Source # NQ B J Q U UJ
Existing Well 136 89 0 32 0 15 0
Geoprobe 8 8 0 0 0 0 0
New Well 62 41 0 9 0 12 0
Temporary Well 7 6 0 0 0 1 0
Undeveloped
Grab
1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Total Samples 214 144 0 42 0 28 0
• Depth to water ranged from
2.7 – 258.5 feet BGS
• [PFOS] ranged from
nondetect (LOQ @ 0.03
µg/l) to 7,150 µg/l (AVG =
66.13 µg/l – NQ and J data)
• [PFOA] ranged from
nondetect (LOQ @ 0.03
µg/l) to 3,820 µg/l (AVG =
36.58 µg/l – NQ and J data)

Correlation of Groundwater PFOS/PFOA Concentration to Turbidity
• Very high turbidity appears to increase PFOS/PFOA concentrations
• Greater PFOS concentrations suggests a higher affinity for sediment than PFOA
PHA (0.07 ug/l)

Correlation of Groundwater PFOS/PFOA
Concentration to pH and Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
• PFOS/PFOA concentrations decrease with increasing pH and [DO] with [PFOA] trending higher
than [PFOS]
• Explained by transformation of PFOS to PFOA related to metabolism of fuel products, followed by
migration into more oxygenated area

Correlation of Groundwater PFOS/PFOA Concentration to Temperature
• Bimodal temperature groupings
• Decreasing PFOS/PFOA
concentration trend with
increasing temperature
 Increased diffusion/
advection?
 Increased biochemical
transformation (Q10 rule)?

Soil Sample Summary
• PFOS
• PFOA
Source # NQ J B Q U UJ
Clay 110 44 23 4 0 38 1
Gravel 29 14 4 0 0 11 0
Sand 407 119 49 4 0 217 18
Silt 85 25 13 4 2 41 0
Unk. or Fill 38 29 5 0 0 4 0
Total Samples 669 231 94 12 2 311 19
Source # NQ J B Q U UJ
Clay 110 49 16 0 0 44 1
Gravel 29 6 3 0 0 20 0
Sand 407 55 57 0 0 269 26
Silt 85 13 10 0 0 62 0
Unk. or Fill 38 8 6 0 0 22 2
Total Samples 669 131 92 0 0 417 29
• Samples ranged from 0 – 180 feet below
ground surface (BGS)
• [PFOS] ranged from nondetect (LOQ @
8.37 µg/kg) to 13,600 µg/kg (1 ft BGS -
soil type unknown) (AVG = 485.50 µg/kg
- NQ and J data)
• [PFOS] ranged from nondetect (LOQ @
17.38 µg/kg) to 1,450 µg/kg (sand) (AVG
= 72.80 µg/kg – NQ and J data)

Frequency of Detection by Soil Type (NQ/J Data)
• Unknown or Fill Soils were biased high
because of sample depth
− 27 @ 1 foot = 71%
− 5 @ 5 feet = 13%
− 2 @ 10 feet = 5%
− 2 @ 15 feet = 5%
− 1 @ 50 feet = 2.5%
− 1 @ 100 feet = 2.5%
• Highest PFOS concentration (13,600
ug/kg) was at 1 foot BGS
• Shallow sample depths and lack of soil
description or description as fill suggest
these were located within the remediated
former FTAs
• Deepest NQ detection at 50 ft BGS
• Similar PFOS/PFOA detection frequency
in clay

Depth of Contamination by Soil Type (NQ/J Data)
• Clay sample range (0-120 ft BGS)
- Deepest detection @ 35 ft BGS
• Gravel sample range (0-180 ft BGS)
• Sand sample range (1-180 ft BGS)
• Silt sample range (1-100 ft BGS)
• Data suggest that clays serves to retard
vertical migration of PFOS/PFOA
− PFOS/PFOA are large molecules whose
size may limit movement through clay
• Lower detection depths for gravel are
likely the result of rapid concentration
decrease below the quantification limit
due to greater water movement

Contaminant Concentration by Soil Type (NQ/J Data)
• Highest average PFOS/PFOA concentrations found in silt and sand
• Silts – Possibly higher organic carbon concentration in silts
• Sand – Adherence of PFOS/PFOA to silica
 CONCAWE (2016) cites PFOS surface sorption tests by Johnson (2007) that found decreasing sorption for the following: Ottawa (high
silica) sand > high iron sand > kaolinite > goethite
 EPA Method 537 states that perfluorinated alkyl acids can “potentially adsorb to glass surfaces”
• Gravel – Smaller surface area per unit volume coupled with potentially greater water movement may reduce PFOS/PFOA
concentrations
• Clay – Electrochemical attraction and large PFOS/PFOA molecules prevent movement into clay matrix

Comparison of Groundwater and Soil Contaminant
Concentrations
• High concentrations of
PFOS/PFOA in groundwater
may exceed the sorptive
capacity of soils
• PFOS/PFOA concentrations
below maximum sorptive
capacity may be retained
 Potential for natural
attenuation or potential
secondary source?

Correlation of Groundwater and Soil PFOS/PFOA Concentration
• Correlation between soil and groundwater concentrations is poor for PFOA
 Greater PFOA solubility?

PFOS/PFOA Concentration vs. GW and Soil Depth
• [PFOA] trends higher than [PFOS] with increasing
groundwater depth
 PFOA more soluble than PFOS
• [PFOA] = 1.07 µg/l (NQ) at 250 feet
• [PFOS] = 0.11µg/l (NQ) at 250 feet 1 Concawe, Environmental fate and effects of poly and perfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). Report No. 8/16. Brussels, June 2016
• [PFOA] trends higher than [PFOS] with increasing
soil depth
 Consistent with higher water solubility
 PFOS binds more strongly than PFOA1

Comparison of Soil and Groundwater
PFOS/PFOA Results
• Soil
– All values of PFOS/PFOA detected deeper
than 50 feet BGS were qualified data
– Estimated values of PFOS/PFOA were
detected at 70 feet BGS at KI Sawyer AFB
• Sample FT007P-006 (sand)
• PFOS = 15.30 µg/kg (J)
• PFOA = 10.10 µg/kg (J)
– No PFOS/PFOA was detected below 70
feet BGS
• Water
– Nonqualified concentrations
of PFOS/PFOA were
detected in groundwater at
depths up to 250 feet BGS at
George AFB
• Sample GW-023 at
FTA020P
• PFOS = 0.11 µg/l
• PFOA = 1.07 µg/l

Comparison of
Quantitation Limits
• Much greater variability in soil
analyses
• Soil quantitation limit is @300 X
higher than water quantitation
limit for PFOS and @600 X
higher for PFOA
• How to account for the
undetected soil contaminants?
Contaminant
# of Soil
Nondetects
Avg. Soil LOQ
Concentration
(µg/kg)
Low Soil
LOQ
(µg/kg)
High Soil
LOQ
(µg/kg)
# of GW
Nondetects
Avg. GW LOQ
Concentration
(µg/l)
Low GW
LOQ
(µg/l)
High GW
LOQ
(µg/l)
PFOS 311 8.37 0.11 22.40 44 0.03 0.003 0.31
PFOA 417 17.38 0.07 27.00 28(27) 2.63(0.03) 0.004 73

Accounting for Undetected PFCs In Soil
• Vadose Zone Models exist for estimating the impact of soil
contaminants to groundwater
– SESOIL (1981 – A.D. Little)
– Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (1996 – ADEQ)
– VLEACH (1997 – Dynamac/CH2M Hill)
– Others
• Data rarely collected at the site inspection phase
• Models rely on assumptions or default values (e.g.
homogenous soils)
• Estimate contaminant behavior in the vadose zone based
on chemical and soil properties
50 feet BGS
(GEORGE-FT019P-003)
?
0.09 µg/l
Total PFC
88.90 µg/kg
Total PFC
120 feet BGS
FTA019 MW FT05
 Organic carbon distribution
coefficient (KOC)
 Henry’s Law constant (KH)
 Vapor Pressure
 Water solubility
 Free air diffusion coefficient
 Contaminant half life
 Dry bulk soil density
 Effective porosity
 Soil organic carbon content
 Soil volumetric water content
 Temperature
• Current models were not developed to address PFOS/PFOA
– Certain PFOS/PFOA characteristics are not available, not known, or not applicable

Data Extrapolation (Example - Former George AFB)
• Assumptions are inherent in
contaminant location data
• Contaminant data curves can be
extrapolated to estimate
concentrations at depth
– Doing so can help provide a fuller
understanding of site conditions
• Example: George AFB FTA 19
– PFCs detected at 120 ft BGS in
downgradient monitor well FT05
– No nonqualified PFCs detections
deeper than 50 ft BGS in wells
GEORG-FT019P-001, 002, or
003
General GW
Flow Direction
0.03 µg/l PFOS and 0.06 PFOA
detected in groundwater at 120 ft BGS
88.90 µg/kg PFOA
detected in soil at
50 ft BGS

hosted by the Society of American Military Engineers @SAME_HQ | #SAMEJETCHosted by the Society of American Military Engineers @SAME_HQ | #SAMEJETC
Depth (x)
Modeled [PFOS] with
Depth (ug/kg)
Modeled [PFOA] with
Depth (ug/kg) Soil Type
0 7120.00 230.00 Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
10 2753.60 136.74
Inorganic silts and very fine sands;
silty or clayey fine sands or clayey
silts with high plasticity
15 1712.42 105.43
Poorly graded sands; gravelly
sands, little or no fines
20 1064.93 81.29
25 662.26 62.68
30 411.85 48.33
35 256.12 37.27
40 159.28 28.73
45 99.05 22.16
25.20 50 61.60 17.08
sands, little or no fines 63.70
55 38.31 13.17
60 23.82 10.16
65 14.82 7.83
70 9.21 6.04
75 5.73 4.66
85 2.22 2.77
90 1.38 2.13
95 0.86 1.65
100 0.53 1.27 Clayey sands; sand clay mixtures
105 0.33 0.98
110 0.21 0.75
115 0.13 0.58
FT05=0.03 120 0.08 0.45 Clayey sands; sand clay mixtures FT03=0.06
125 0.05 0.35
Data Extrapolation (NQ, J and U) GEORG-FT019P-003
Actual total PFOS
concentration in
GW at depth
Actual total PFOS
concentration in
soil at depth
Actual total
PFOA
concentration
in soil at depth
Actual total
PFOA
concentration
in GW at
depth
Actual Modeled
Soil PFOS
(ug/kg)
25.20 @
50 ft BGS
61.60 @
50 ft BGS
Soil PFOA
(ug/kg)
63.70 @
50 ft BGS
17.08 @
50 ft BGS
GW PFOS
(ug/l)
0.03 @
120 ft BGS
0.08 @
120 ft BGS
GW PFOA
(ug/l)
0.06@
120 ft BGS
0.45 @
120 ft BGS
Y=C0*EXP(-0.095x) Y=C0*EXP(-0.052x)

Depth
(x)
Modeled
[PFOS] with
Depth (ug/kg)
Modeled [PFOA]
with Depth
(ug/kg) Soil Type
10 1885.28 18.33 Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures 23.60
25 511.24 4.41
30 330.91 2.74
35 214.18 1.71
40 138.63 1.06
Inorganic clay of low to medium
plasticity
45 89.73 0.66
19.50 50 58.08 0.41
55 37.59 0.26
60 24.33 0.16
65 15.75 0.10
75 6.60 0.04
85 2.76 0.01
90 1.79 0.01
95 1.16 0.01
105 0.49 0.00
110 0.31 0.00
115 0.20 0.00
FT05=0.03 120 0.13 0.00 Clayey sands; sand clay mixtures FT03=0.06
125 0.09 0.00
Actual total PFOS
concentration in
GW at depth
Actual total PFOS
concentration in
soil at depth
Actual total PFOA
concentration in
soil at depth
Actual total PFOA
concentration in
GW at depth
Actual Modeled
Soil PFOS
(ug/kg)
19.50 @
50 ft BGS
58.08 @
50 ft BGS
Soil PFOA
(ug/kg)
23.60 @
10 ft BGS*
18.33 @
10 ft BGS
GW PFOS
(ug/l)
0.03 @
120 ft BGS
0.13 @
120 ft BGS
GW PFOA
(ug/l)
0.06@
120 ft BGS
0.00 @
120 ft BGS
*PFOA was not detected below 10’

Actual total PFOS
concentration in
GW at depth
Actual total PFOS
concentration in
soil at depth
Actual total PFOA
concentration in
soil at depth
Actual total PFOA
concentration in
GW at depth
• PFOS increase likely represents lateral
migration from upgradient burn dish
area
• Infiltration from former O/W separator
may have led to greater removal of
more soluble PFOA
• Clay strata may be serving as a
confining layer
Initial [PFOA]
Depth
(x)
Modeled [PFOS]
with Depth
(ug/kg)
Modeled [PFOA]
with Depth (ug/kg) Soil Type
161.00 0 ND ND
10 57.62 49.72
15 111.09 15.35
sands, little or no fines 14.30
81.50 20 214.18 4.74
Inorganic clay of low to
medium plasticity
25 412.96 1.46
30 796.19 0.45
35 1535.08 0.14
45 5706.38 0.01
50 11002.08 0.00
55 21212.38 0.00
65 78852.95 0.00
70 152031.05 0.00
75 293120.78 0.00
85 1089620.50 0.00
90 2100823.62 0.00
95 4050455.99 0.00
100 7809410.38 0.00
105 15056796.23 0.00
110 29029990.94 0.00
115 55970763.05 0.00
FT05=0.03 120 107913444.50 0.00 Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures FT03=0.06

Summary
1. PFOA and PFAS are large molecules having high water solubility and low volatility
2. High turbidity may increase PFOS/PFOA concentrations (PFOS > PFOA)
3. Higher groundwater temperatures appears to decrease local PFOS/PFOA
concentrations likely due to greater biochemical activity
4. Relationship between PFOS/PFOA concentrations, pH, and DO suggests PFOS may
transform to PFOA, likely as a result of co-location with fuel contaminants
5. PFOA is more mobile than PFOS in both groundwater and soil (will go further and
deeper)
6. PFOS appears to be more likely to adsorb to soil media than PFOA
i. Sand > Silt > Clay > Gravel
7. Highest soil contaminant concentrations and greater depth found in sand and silt
i. PFOS has been shown to preferentially adsorb to sands
ii. Silt is more permeable than clay with higher carbon content than sand or gravel
8. Clays appear to retard vertical migration of both PFOS/PFOA
9. Contaminants will attenuate in soil, but will take longer and contaminant migration will be
greater before being reduced to below regulatory standard
10. A more precise soil analytical method is needed, with a much lower quantification
limit for PFOS/PFOA

Summary (concluded)
11. No PFOS/PFOA detected in soil below 70 ft BGS
11. Limit of quantification for PFOS in soil @300 X greater than groundwater limit of
quantification and 600 X greater for PFOA
12. Greater variability for soil analyses
13. Soil data graphs indicate that PFOS/PFOA concentrations generally decline exponentially
with depth
12. Pending improved analytical methods for soil, data can be modeled to estimate soil
contaminant concentrations at depth
i. Extrapolated data, used in conjunction with other lines of evidence (i.e., operating history,
geologic substrata, groundwater contaminant concentrations) provide a general
understanding of subsurface contaminant concentrations
ii. Modeled results may be useful in conceptual site model development
13. Quantified concentrations of PFOS/PFOA were detected in groundwater over 250 ft
BGS
i. Soil modeling supports that surface PFOS/PFOA are capable of migrating to that depth

I would like to express my appreciation to
the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Base
Realignment and Closure Branch
(AFCEC/CIB) for allowing the use of the site
inspection data provided in this presentation.
Acknowledgements

References
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former Bergstrom Air Force Base Project No. BJHZ20147242”, draft dated
June 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former England Air Force Base Project No. GAMH20147242”, draft dated
July 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former George Air Force Base Project No. HUUA20147242”, draft dated
October 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former General Mitchell Air Reserve Station Project No. HTUX20147242”,
draft dated November 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former Grissom Air Force Base Project No. THWA20147242”, draft dated
October 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report, Former Fire Training Areas FT006P and FT007P Former K. I. Sawyer Air
Force Base Project No. LWRC20147242”, draft dated November 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former Lowry Air Force Base Project No. NTMU20147242”, draft dated
June 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former March Air Force Base Project No. PCZP20147242”, draft dated
November 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report, Former Fire Training Area FT011P Former Mather Air Force Base Project
No. PLXL20147242”, draft dated July 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former, Former Fire Training Area AOC313P McClellan Air Force Base
Project No. PRJY20147242”, draft dated August 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former Norton Air Force Base Project No. SCEY20147242”, draft dated
August 2015
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Response Site 8 Investigation Report Former Pease Air Force Base Project No. SZDT20147242”, draft dated April 2016
AMEC Foster Wheeler, “Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) Release Determination at Multiple BRAC Bases Site Investigation Report Former Plattsburgh Air Force Base Project No. THWA20147242”, draft
dated June 2015
Anderson, Richard “Introduction and Update on AFCEC’s Programmatic PFAS Response to Date” SAME Webinar Presentation, February 2017
Burdick, Jeff; Ross, Ian; McDonough, Jeff; “Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Treatment: State of the Practice and Mythbusting” SAME Webinar Presentation Arcadis October 20, 2016
CONCAWE, Environmental Fate and Effects of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report No. 8/16 . Brussels, Belgium. June 2016
EPA “Method 537. Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrophotometry (CL/MS/MS)”, EPA /600/R-
08/092. National Exposure Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. September 2009
EPA Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, J. Russell Boulding, ed. Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI. Pg, 88, 1986
EPA Fact Sheet “Emerging Contaminants – Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)”, March 2014
Environment Agency Environmental Risk Evaluation Report: Perfluorooctanesulphonate (PFOS). February 2004
European Food Safety Authority “Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOS) and their salts” The EFSA Journal vol. 653 pp 1-131. 2008
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Perfluorooctanesulfonic_acid
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nig.gov/compound/Pentadecfluorooctanoic_acid
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/trichloroethene
Geosyntec Consultants “ Development and Testing of an Analytical Method for Potential Real Time Measurement of Selected Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances” SAME Webinar Presentation, February 2017
Long, Cornell; Anderson, Janet; Whitton, Chip; “Perfluorinated Compounds” Air Force Civil Engineer Center Presentation

References
Naval Facilities Engineering Command “Navy Case Study: Occurrence of Two Emerging Contaminants (PFOA & PFOS) at Former NAS South Weymouth, MA” Presentation to the Federal Remediaiton
Technology Roundtable Fall Meeting Arlington, VA. November 14, 2013
Obal, Terry; Maxxam Laboratories, telephone conversation 5 May 2017
Parsons, J. et al “Biodegradation of Perfluorinated Compounds” Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology, February 2008
www.chemicalland21.com

Mike Flinn, Ph.D., PMP
Cherokee Nation Technology Solutions
michael.flinn@cn-bus.com
(210) 323-4114
Contact Information

PFAS Contaminant Trends and Facilities Management

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to PFAS Contaminant Trends and Facilities Management

Similar to PFAS Contaminant Trends and Facilities Management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PFAS Contaminant Trends and Facilities Management