thrax
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 25-3-2024
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
PFAS Degredation
There is a lot of research into how PFAS could be scalably removed from municipal water supplies, but the rejected PFAS will still need to be
destroyed.
I am not a fluoride chemist, so I’m not up to date with the most cutting-edge research in the area. Still, to me, it seems that the degradation
processes for PFAS are bespoke for each compound.
I’ve heard about pyrolysis, but that still doesn’t degrade them to elemental fluorine/HF. Is there a reason the breakdown products aren’t
electrochemically destroyed in an arc furnace, as demonstrated in this paper:
https://www.aappsdpp.org/DPP2021/A/5090.pdf?
Is recovering fluorine compounds so profitable that it makes more sense to attempt bespoke recovery methods instead of just converting them to HF and
mineralizing them with metals?
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3779
Registered: 8-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
I can not at the moment think of any environmentally friendly route that would not require lots of very short wavelength u.v. light.
In my last place of employment we repaired the electronics for uv water treatment plants.
Just to kill bacteria on a municipal water scale requires a lot of large uv units per installation,,
to cleave PFAS at this scale would, I imagine, require large capital and running costs,
are we willing to pay for this service?
_____________________
Maybe because I am not educated enough in this topic but
clearly we need to minimise production of PFAS
but I am wondering what is the biological threat from inert/forever molecules?
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
Keras
International Hazard
Posts: 1013
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Offline
|
|
Not so inert, unfortunately. TFA, trifluoroacetic acid, which seems to be the endpoint of biological ‘degradation’ is extremely acidic and has
been classified as potential endocrine disruptor and/or carcinogenic. What I’m wondering is why it can’t be neutralised with a proper base, and
after that eliminated as a salt.
[Edited on 11-2-2025 by Keras]
|
|
|
chempyre235
Hazard to Self
Posts: 57
Registered: 21-10-2024
Location: Between Niobium and Technetium
Member Is Offline
|
|
Can PFAS be cleaved with ozone or hydroxyl radicals (i.e. Fenton's reagent or analogues)? I know perchlorinated compounds are eliminated from affluent
mixtures in this manner, but PFAS compounds have higher stability than these.
|
|
|
thrax
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 25-3-2024
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Sulaiman  | I can not at the moment think of any environmentally friendly route that would not require lots of very short wavelength u.v. light.
In my last place of employment we repaired the electronics for uv water treatment plants.
Just to kill bacteria on a municipal water scale requires a lot of large uv units per installation,,
to cleave PFAS at this scale would, I imagine, require large capital and running costs,
are we willing to pay for this service?
_____________________
Maybe because I am not educated enough in this topic but
clearly we need to minimise production of PFAS
but I am wondering what is the biological threat from inert/forever molecules? |
I agree it might be cost-prohibitive, but I was mostly thinking about why we are focusing on highly specialized methods instead of "dumb" methods like
UVing the crap out of it or zapping it with plasma from a high current DC ARC welder. I can't imagine a steel vat with a UV lamp or graphite anode
would be more expensive than complicated reactors with specialized chemicals.
As for the biological threats from PFASs, I mentioned I'm not a fluoride chemist, but as a biochemist, I can speak about the biological effects a bit.
PFASs tend to bio-accumulate since they are generally more soluble in nonpolar environments than aqueous ones, and no biological processes selectively
remove PFASs [1]. To reduce tissue PFAS concentration, you kinda just need to dilute it out of an organism by feeding it a noncontaminated diet for an
extended period.
PFAS are also hard to detect in an organism because they are unreactive and usually in extremely low concentration, so unless someone is using
specialized tests, it's hard to measure how contaminated your diet is.
As for the direct biological effects, we don't know the whole scope of problems they cause. Still, there is strong evidence that PFASs interfere with
fatty acid metabolic pathways [3,4] and disrupt cell membrane homeostasis [2].
Both fatty acid metabolism and cell membrane homeostasis are highly regulated processes that are done in every cell, so you can probably guess that
broad disruptions to them can cause many unknown downstream effects.
1. Brunn H, Arnold G, Körner W, Rippen G, Steinhäuser KG, Valentin I. PFAS: forever chemicals—persistent, bioaccumulative and mobile. Reviewing
the status and the need for their phase out and remediation of contaminated sites. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2023;35(1):20.
doi:10.1186/s12302-023-00721-8
2. Hu W yue, Jones PD, DeCoen W, et al. Alterations in cell membrane properties caused by perfluorinated compounds. Comparative Biochemistry and
Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology. 2003;135(1):77-88. doi:10.1016/S1532-0456(03)00043-7
3. Hyötyläinen T, Bodin J, Duberg D, Dirven H, Nygaard UC, Orešič M. Lipidomic Analyses Reveal Modulation of Lipid Metabolism by the PFAS
Perfluoroundecanoic Acid (PFUnDA) in Non-Obese Diabetic Mice. Front Genet. 2021;12. doi:10.3389/fgene.2021.721507
4. Rotander A, Ramos MJG, Mueller JF, Toms LM, Hyötyläinen T. Metabolic changes associated with PFAS exposure in firefighters: A pilot study.
Science of The Total Environment. 2024;953:176004. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176004
|
|
|
thrax
Harmless
Posts: 4
Registered: 25-3-2024
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Keras | Not so inert, unfortunately. TFA, trifluoroacetic acid, which seems to be the endpoint of biological ‘degradation’ is extremely acidic and has
been classified as potential endocrine disruptor and/or carcinogenic. What I’m wondering is why it can’t be neutralised with a proper base, and
after that eliminated as a salt.
[Edited on 11-2-2025 by Keras] |
Ya, all those highly halogenated carboxylic or sulfonic acids are always highly reactive. I'm pretty sure the reason you can't just base neutralize
them to deal with them is because the salts of the PFAS are still liquids, and their solubility doesn't change much.
|
|
|
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 4412
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-victorious.
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Keras | Not so inert, unfortunately. TFA, trifluoroacetic acid, which seems to be the endpoint of biological ‘degradation’ is extremely acidic and has
been classified as potential endocrine disruptor and/or carcinogenic. What I’m wondering is why it can’t be neutralised with a proper base, and
after that eliminated as a salt.
[Edited on 11-2-2025 by Keras] |
I'm pretty sure its carcinogenic and disruptive properties won't be changed upon neutralization.
Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
|
|
|
Keras
International Hazard
Posts: 1013
Registered: 20-8-2018
Location: (48, 2)
Member Is Offline
|
|
Possible, but maybe it is easier to filter it out using activated carbon when it is present as a salt than as the vanilla acid form???
|
|
|
chempyre235
Hazard to Self
Posts: 57
Registered: 21-10-2024
Location: Between Niobium and Technetium
Member Is Offline
|
|
It seems that PFAS compounds can be heat treated with lime at about 800°C.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352...
This should give mostly CaF2 and a mixture of CO and CO2 with some water.
[Edited on 2/11/2025 by chempyre235]
|
|
|
metalresearcher
National Hazard
Posts: 790
Registered: 7-9-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: Reactive
|
|
PFASes are indeed very bad in the environment. Maybe the CaO process might help, but the most rigorous way to get rid of really dangerous chemicals is
indeed the electric arc. The temperature is so high dat even simple and stable molecules like CF4 or even HF and H2O are dissociated.
DuPont manufactured Teflon and was using PFOA (C7F16COOH) which is very toxic and carcinogen. Read this article about a corporate lawyer who finally
worked against DuPont.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-b...
[Edited on 2025-2-11 by metalresearcher]
|
|
|
Sulaiman
International Hazard
Posts: 3779
Registered: 8-2-2015
Member Is Offline
|
|
an electric arc would consume electrodes quickly due to the products of decomposition
so
we need electrodes that are consumed by the 'neutralisation' of the products
eg consuming carbon could be a first step before further 'neutralisiation (eg CxHyFz)
there must be 'cleverer' compositions for consumable electrodes...
CAUTION : Hobby Chemist, not Professional or even Amateur
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
