xvEPA
EPA Document No.
815R24011
Best Available Technologies and Small System
Compliance Technologies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water
Standards and Risk Management Division
Washington, DC 20460
EPA Document Number: 815R24011
March 2024
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Disclaimer
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Contents
1.0 Introduction 2
1.1 PFAS Background 4
2.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for GAC 8
2.1 High Removal Efficiency 9
2.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential MCLs been
documented? 9
2.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment effectiveness and
reliability well-known? 11
2.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a drinking water
MCL? 11
2.1.4 Is additional research needed? 12
2.2 History of Full-Scale Operation 12
2.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at drinking water treatment
facilities? 12
2.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that fully characterize
residual waste streams and disposal options? 14
2.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent full-scale treatment,
including residuals generation and handling? 15
2.2.4 Is additional research needed? 15
2.3 General Geographic Applicability 15
2.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent? 15
2.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will limit treatment
effectiveness or reliability in some areas? 15
2.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals handling or water
resource use? 15
2.3.4 Is additional research needed? 15
2.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes 16
2.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment process on other
processes likely to be present at existing plants been evaluated? 16
2.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for integration into an
existing (or planned) treatment train? 16
2.4.3 Is additional research needed? 16
2.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance 16
2.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the distribution system or water
resource decisions? 16
ii
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre- or post-treatment
requirements raise new environmental quality concerns? 16
2.5.3 Is additional research needed? 16
2.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems 17
2.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large systems (including uses
for other treatment purposes)? 17
2.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information on design assumptions
to allow cost modeling? 17
2.6.3 Is additional research needed? 17
3.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for IX 18
3.1 High Removal Efficiency 19
3.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential MCLs been
documented? 19
3.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment effectiveness and
reliability well-known? 20
3.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a drinking water
MCL? 21
3.1.4 Is additional research needed? 21
3.2 History of Full-Scale Operation 21
3.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at drinking water treatment
facilities? 21
3.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that fully characterize
residual waste streams and disposal options? 22
3.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent full-scale treatment,
including residuals generation and handling? 22
3.2.4 Is additional research needed? 22
3.3 General Geographic Applicability 22
3.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent? 22
3.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will limit treatment
effectiveness or reliability in some areas? 22
3.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals handling or water
resource use? 23
3.3.4 Is additional research needed? 23
3.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes 23
3.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment process on other
processes likely to be present at existing plants been evaluated? 23
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for integration into an
existing (or planned) treatment train? 23
3.4.3 Is additional research needed? 23
3.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance 23
3.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the distribution system or water
resource decisions? 23
3.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre- or post-treatment
requirements raise new environmental quality concerns? 24
3.5.3 Is additional research needed? 24
3.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems 24
3.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large systems (including uses
for other treatment purposes)? 24
3.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information on design assumptions
to allow cost modeling? 24
3.6.3 Is additional research needed? 24
4.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for RO/NF 25
4.1 High Removal Efficiency 26
4.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential MCLs been
documented? 26
4.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment effectiveness and
reliability well-known? 28
4.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a drinking water
MCL? 28
4.1.4 Is additional research needed? 28
4.2 History of Full-Scale Operation 28
4.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at drinking water treatment
facilities? 28
4.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that fully characterize
residual waste streams and disposal options? 28
4.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent full-scale treatment,
including residuals generation and handling? 29
4.2.4 Is additional research needed? 29
4.3 General Geographic Applicability 29
4.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent? 29
4.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will limit treatment
effectiveness or reliability in some areas? 30
iv
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals handling or water
resource use? 30
4.3.4 Is additional research needed? 30
4.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes 30
4.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment process on other
processes likely to be present at existing plants been evaluated? 30
4.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for integration into an
existing (or planned) treatment train? 30
4.4.3 Is additional research needed? 30
4.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance 31
4.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the distribution system or water
resource decisions? 31
4.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre- or post-treatment
requirements raise new environmental quality concerns? 31
4.5.3 Is additional research needed? 31
4.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems 31
4.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large systems (including uses
for other treatment purposes)? 31
4.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information on design assumptions
to allow cost modeling? 31
4.6.3 Is additional research needed? 32
5.0 Summary of Best Available Technology Evaluation 33
6.0 Small System Compliance Technology Evaluation 35
6.1 SSCT Analysis Method 35
6.2 Results 37
6.3 Small System Affordability Analysis with Potential Additional Expenditure
Margins and when Accounting for Financial Assistance 39
7.0 References 41
v
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Figures
Figure 1. Chemical Structure of PFOA and PFOS 6
Figure 2. Conceptual Diagram of the GAC Treatment Process 9
Figure 3. Conceptual Diagram of the IX Treatment Process 18
Figure 4. Conceptual Diagram of the RO Treatment Process 25
Tables
Table 1. BAT Criteria for PFAS Technologies Evaluation 3
Table 2. PFAS with Treatability Data 5
Table 3. PFAS Classified by Functional Group and Chain Length 6
Table 4. Studies of GAC Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS 10
Table 5. Studies of GAC Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS 10
Table 6. Studies of GAC Treatment for Other PFAS 11
Table 7. Full-scale GAC Systems Removing PFAS from Drinking Water 12
Table 8. Studies of IX Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS 19
Table 9. Studies of IX Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS 19
Table 10. Studies of IX Treatment for Other PFAS 20
Table 11. Full-scale IX Systems Removing PFAS from Drinking Water 21
Table 12. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS 26
Table 13. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS 27
Table 14. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Other PFAS 27
Table 15. PFAS Removal Technologies Evaluated Against BAT Criteria 34
Table 16. Expenditure Margins for SSCT Affordability Analysis 35
Table 17. Design and Average Flow Estimates and Service Estimates for the 50th
Percentile or Median System 36
Table 18. Total Annual Cost per Household for Candidate Technologies 37
Table 19. Total Annual Cost per Household Assuming Hazardous Waste Disposal for
Spent GAC and Resin 38
Table 20. SSCT Affordability Analysis Results - Technologies that Meet Effectiveness and
Affordability Criteria 39
vi
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
BAT
best available technology
EBCT
empty bed contact time
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GAC
granular activated carbon
IX
ion exchange
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MHI
median household income
MGD
million gallons per day
mg/L
milligrams per liter
NF
nanofiltration
ng/L
nanograms per liter
NSF
NSF International, The Public Health and Safety Company
O&M
operating and maintenance
PFAS
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
POU
point-of-use
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RO
reverse osmosis
RSSCT
rapid small-scale column test
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SSCT
small system compliance technology
TOC
total organic carbon
WBS
Work Breakdown Structure
See also Table 2 for abbreviations for individual PFAS compounds.
1 Formerly National Sanitation Foundation
vii
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
1.0 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a regulation for certain per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This document
addresses treatment technologies that drinking water systems could use to meet the requirements
of the regulation. Specifically, it provides an evaluation of several technologies against
predefined criteria to determine whether they might be considered best available technologies
(BATs). In addition, it provides an evaluation of technologies for small systems against criteria
to determine whether they can be designated small system compliance technologies (SSCT).
The three technologies included in the BAT evaluation are: granular activated carbon (GAC),
PFAS-selective ion exchange (IX), and reverse osmosis (RO) or nanofiltration (NF). Table 1
provides a list of the six major criteria considered for the BAT evaluation, along with specific
evaluation questions. Sections 2.0 through 4.0 provide a discussion of the extent to which each
technology meets the BAT criteria. Section 5.0 provides a summary of the BAT evaluation
results. The detailed discussion is based primarily on literature search information and technical
analysis conducted during development of the document, Technologies and Costs for Removing
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances fi'om Drinking Water (USEPA, 2024a). That document
contains a more complete description of each technology and the state of science regarding their
use for PFAS treatment.
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires that EPA list technologies for small systems [Section
1412(b)(4)(E)(ii)]:
The Administrator shall include in the list any technology, treatment technique, or other
means that is affordable, as determined by the Administrator in consultation with the
States, for small public water systems serving -
(I) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300;
(II) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500; and
(III) a population of 500 or fewer but more than 25;
and that achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or treatment
technique, including packaged or modular systems and point-of-entry or point-of-use
treatment units (POU).
Section 6.0 of this document provides EPA's analysis to identify SSCTs for the rule.
Specifically, it evaluates the three technologies against the affordability and compliance
effectiveness criteria for SSCTs. It also presents preliminary results on the affordability of POU
devices. POU devices are not currently listed as a compliance option because the rule requires
treatment to concentrations below the current NSF International2/American National Standards
Institute (NSF/ANSI) certification standard for POU device removal of PFAS. However, POU
treatments are reasonably anticipated to become a compliance option for small systems in the
future if NSF/ANSI develop a new certification standard that mirrors or is more stringent than
the regulatory standard. As of the writing of this document, NSF/ANSI is considering lowering
its current standard to the regulatory standard. Based on efficacy of reverse osmosis technology,
RO POU devices can be reasonably anticipated to remove the majority of PFAS when they are
2 Formerly National Sanitation Foundation
2
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
properly designed and maintained. Other POU devices (e.g., activated carbon) may also meet
EPA PFAS regulatory limits. These devices would also need third-party testing and certification
against the regulatory limits.
EPA's affordability criterion uses an affordability threshold of 2.5 percent of the median
household income (MHI) of the median water system (as ranked by MHI) in each small system
size category (i.e., systems serving populations of (1) 25 - 500; (2) 501 - 3,300; and (3) 3,301 -
10,000 people). As long as the sum of baseline expenditures on water (i.e., current costs
excluding PFAS treatment costs) and the incremental expenditures associated with a particular
PFAS treatment technology do not exceed 2.5 percent of MHI, then that technology meets the
affordability criterion.
Table 1. BAT Criteria for PFAS Technologies Evaluation
CRITERION
1. High Removal Efficiency
1.1. Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential MCLs been documented?
1.2. Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment effectiveness and reliability well-known?
1.3. Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a drinking water MCL?
1.4. Is additional research needed?
2. History of Full-Scale Operation
2.1. Do existing studies include full-scale operations at drinking water treatment facilities?
2.2. Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that fully characterize residual waste streams and
disposal options?
2.3. Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent full-scale treatment, including residuals generation
and handling?
2.4. Is additional research needed?
3. General Geographic Applicability
3.1. What regions do the existing research studies represent?
3.2. Is it known that regional water quality variations will limit treatment effectiveness or reliability in some
areas?
3.3. Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals handling or water resource use?
3.4. Is additional research needed?
4. Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes
4.1. Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment process on other processes likely to be present at
existing plants been evaluated?
4.2. Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for integration into an existing (or planned) treatment
train?
4.3. Is additional research needed?
5. Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance
5.1. Will the treatment process adversely affect the distribution system or water resource decisions?
5.2. Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre- or post-treatment requirements raise new
environmental quality concerns?
5.3. Is additional research needed?
6. Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems
6.1. Is the technology currently used by medium and large systems (including uses for other treatment purposes)?
6.2. Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information on design assumptions to allow cost modeling?
6.3. Is additional research needed?
3
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
1.1 PFAS Background
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are abroad class of approximately 10,000 synthetic
chemicals (Rogers et al., 2021; Weaver, 2020; USEPA, 2021d). As a result of their water-
resistant, stain-resistant, and non-stick properties, they are incorporated in or used as coatings for
many products. Household and industrial PFAS applications include use in carpeting, clothing,
cookware, cosmetics, electronics, fire-fighting foam, glass, and packaging. The manufacture of
PFAS and PFAS-containing products, along with the use and disposal of these products, have
resulted in releases to air, soil, and water (ATSDR, 2021; Rogers et al., 2021; Weaver, 2020).
The same properties that make PFAS useful in industry and commerce also make them stable
and persistent in the environment (ATSDR, 2021).
Table 2 lists PFAS for which treatability data are available in the literature included in EPA's
Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c). The two most frequently
studied PFAS are PFOA, which refers to perfluorooctanoic acid or perfluorooctane carboxylate,
and PFOS, which refers to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid or perfluorooctane sulfonate.3 Figure 1
shows the chemical structure of these two PFAS. Both molecules incorporate a chain of fully
fluorinated (perfluorinated) carbon atoms but differ in the functional group attached at the end of
the chain. In PFOA, the terminal functional group is carboxylic acid (CO2H) or carboxylate
(CO2") in the anionic form. In PFOS, the terminal functional group is sulfonic acid (SO3H) or
sulfonate (SO3") in the anionic form.
Both PFOA and PFOS include a total of eight carbon atoms in their molecular chain. Other
perfluorinated PFAS incorporate the same terminal functional groups but have a different
number of carbon atoms in the chain. For example, PFHxA refers to a perfluorinated six-carbon
compound with a carboxylic acid or carboxylate functional group. PFHxS refers to a
perfluorinated six-carbon compound with a sulfonic acid or sulfonate functional group. In
general, degree of fluorination, functional group, and chain length provide a means of classifying
PFAS compounds, as shown in Table 3. Buck et al. (2011) and ITRC (2020) provide a more
detailed and nuanced categorization of PFAS, but for purposes of discussing treatment
technologies and costs this simplified categorization is useful.
3 Although different sources within the literature may use the names for the acid and anion forms of PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorinated PFAS interchangeably, they most frequently occur in the environment in their anion form (ITRC, 2020).
4
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Table 2. PFAS with Treatability Data
Abbreviation
Full Name
Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
Number
ADONA
Ammonium 4,8-dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoate
958445-44-8 or 919005-14-4 (as acid)
F-53B
FtS 4:2
A combination of 9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-
oxanone-1-sulfonic acid and 11-chloroeicosafluoro-
3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 4:2
756426-58-1 and 763051-92-9
(respectively)
414911-30-1
FtS 6:2
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 6:2
27619-97-2
FtS 8:2
Fluorotelomer sulfonate 8:2
39108-34-4
HFPO-DA*
Nafion BP2
N-EtFOSAA
Ammonium perfluoro-2-methyl-3 -oxahexanoate,
Perfluoro(2-methyl-3 -oxahexanoic) acid
Perfluoro-2-{[perfluoro-3-(perfluoroethoxy)-2-
propanyl]oxy}ethanesulfonic acid
2-(N-Ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonamido)acetate
62037-80-3 (as ammonium salt), 13252-
13-6 (as acid)
749836-20-2
2991-50-6
N-MeFOSAA
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamido)acetate
909405-48-7 or 2355-31-9 (as acid)
PFBA
Perfluorobutanoic acid
375-22-4
PFBS
Perfluorobutyl sulfonic acid
375-73-5
PFBSA
Perfluorobutylsulfonamide
30334-69-1
PFDA
Perfluorodecanoic acid
335-76-2
PFDoA
Perfluorododecanoic acid
307-55-1
PFDS
Perfluorodecyl sulfonic acid
335-77-3
PFECHS
Perfluoro-4-(perfluoroethyl)cyclohexylsulfonate
80988-54-1
PFHpA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid
375-85-9
PFHpS
Perfluoroheptyl sulfonic acid
375-92-8
PFHxA
Perfluorohexanoic acid
307-24-4
PFHxS
Perfluorohexyl sulfonic acid
355-46-4
PFHxSA
Perfluorohexanesulfonamide
41997-13-1
PFMOAA
PFMOBA
Difluoro(perfluoromethoxy)acetic acid, also known
as perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid
Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid
674-13-5
863090-89-5
PFMOPrA
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid
377-73-1
PFNA
Perfluorononanoic acid
375-95-1
PFNS
Perfluorononane sulfonic acid
68259-12-1
PF02HxA
Perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid
39492-88-1
PF030A
Perfluoro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid
39492-89-2
PF04DA
Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-butaoxadecanoic acid
39492-90-5
PFOA
Perfluorooctanoic acid
335-67-1
PFOS
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
1763-23-1
PFOSA
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide
754-91-6
PFPeA
Perfluoropentanoic acid
2706-90-3
PFPrS
Perfluoropropane sulfonate
110676-15-8
PFTriA
Perfluorotridecanoic acid
72629-94-8
PFUnA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid
2058-94-8
5
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
* HFPO-DA is used in a processing aid technology developed by DuPont to make fluoropolymers without using PFOA. The
chemicals associated with this process are commonly known as GenX Chemicals and the term is often used interchangeably for
HFPO-DA along with its ammonium salt.
Sources: USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c
PerfluorooctanoicAcid (PFOA)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid
(PFOS)
Figure 1. Chemical Structure of PFOA and PFOS
Sources: NCBI, 2021a; 2021b
Table 3. PFAS Classified by Functional Group and Chain Length
Number of
Carbons
Perfluorinated
Carboxylic
Acids/Carboxylates
Perfluorinated
Sulfonic
Acids/Sulfonates
Other
Perfluorinated
Polyfluorinated
3
PFPrS
PFMOAA
4
PFBA
PFBS
PFBS A
FtS 4:2, PF02HxA,
PFMOPrA
5
PFPeA
PFPeS
PF030A,
PFMOBA
6
PFHxA
PFHxS
HFPO-DA,
PFHxSA
FtS 6:2, PF04DA
7
PFHpA
PFHpS
ADONA, Nafion
BP2
8
PFOA
PFOS
PFOS A PFECHS
FtS 8:2, 9C1-
PF30NS
9
PFNA
PFNS
10
PFDA
PFDS
llCl-PF30UdS
11
PFUnA
PFUnS
N-MeFOSAA
6
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Number of
Carbons
Perfluorinated
Perfluorinated
Other
Perfluorinated
Carboxylic
Acids/Carboxylates
Sulfonic
Acids/Sulfonates
Polyfluorinated
12
PFDoA
PFDoS
N-EtFOSAA
13
PFTriA
PFTriS
Sources: ITRC, 2020; USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c
7
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for GAC
GAC is a porous adsorptive media with extremely high internal surface area. GAC is
manufactured from a variety of raw materials with porous structures including bituminous coal,
lignite coal, peat, wood, coconut shells, and others. Physical and/or chemical manufacturing
processes are applied to these raw materials to create and/or enlarge pores, resulting in a porous
structure with a large surface area per unit mass.
When water is treated with GAC, it passes through treatment columns or beds containing GAC.
The process separates dissolved contaminants from the water through adsorption to the surfaces
in the pores of the GAC. In the case of PFAS, the literature suggests that the primary
mechanisms of adsorption include both hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions (Ateia et al.,
2019). In addition to removing PFAS, GAC can remove contaminants including taste and odor
compounds, natural organic matter, volatile organic compounds, synthetic organic compounds,
disinfection byproduct precursors, and radon. Organic compounds with high molecular weights
are also readily adsorbable.
The contaminants are adsorbed by GAC until the carbon is no longer able to adsorb additional
molecules at the influent feed concentration. At this point, the result is reduced removal of the
contaminant, referred to as "breakthrough." Figure 2 is a conceptual diagram of the GAC
treatment process, from initial adsorption to breakthrough. Once the contaminant concentration
in the treated water reaches an unacceptable level, the carbon is considered "spent" and must be
replaced by virgin or reactivated GAC. The length of time between GAC replacement events is
known as "bed life" and is often quantified in "bed volumes," which are a measure of
throughput. Reactivation4 is a process that removes organic compounds from adsorption sites on
GAC so that it can be reused. Although different methods are available for GAC reactivation, the
process most commonly involves high temperature thermal treatment in a specialized facility
such as a multiple hearth furnace or rotary kiln (Matthis and Carr, 2018; USEPA, 2022b).
4 The terms "reactivation" and "regeneration" are sometimes used interchangeably in the drinking water industry. GAC vendors,
however, make a distinction between the two processes. The appropriate term for the process used on spent GAC containing
adsorbed PFAS is reactivation (Matthis and Carr, 2018).
8
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Initial adsorption
At breakthrough
Influent
water
Influent
water
IN
Treated
water
Treated
water
GAC
Spent GAC
PFAS
Figure 2. Conceptual Diagram of the GAC Treatment Process
2.1 High Removal Efficiency
2.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential
MCLs been documented?
Yes. EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
extensive data from the literature on PFAS removal by GAC. Results are available from studies
conducted in the laboratory, in the field at pilot scale, and in full-scale application, as shown in
Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6. The literature demonstrates PFAS removal efficiencies for many
PFAS compounds in the high 90 percent range and to levels below analytical detection limits.
For PFOA and PFOS, maximum removal efficiencies are greater than 99 percent, also to below
analytical detection limits5 and lower than the regulatory thresholds currently under
consideration.
5 The analytical detection limit is the lowest amount of a substance whose presence or absence can be determined; this is strictly
lower than the quantification limit which is the lowest concentration that can be determined with acceptable precision and
accuracy. These are also different than the minimum reporting limit which is a combination minimum quantification limits from
different EPA validated laboratories.
9
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Table 4. Studies of GAC Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number of
Bench Studies
Number of
Pilot
Studies
Number of
Full-scale
Studies
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFBA
4
8
5
5
99.5
Westreich et al. 2018
PFPeA
5
7
5
5
90
Appleman et al. 2013;
McCleaf et al. 2017; Park
et al. 2017; Lombardo et
al. 2018; Kempisty et al.
2019; Liu etal. 2019;
Park et al. 2020
PFHxA
6
12
6
6
99.5
Westreich et al. 2019
PFHpA
7
9
5
7
>99
Zeng et al 2020
PFOA
8
23
9
17
>99.8
Forrester and Bostardi
2019
PFNA
9
6
3
8
>99
Zeng et al 2020
PFDA
10
6
1
4
97
Appleman et al. 2013
PFUnA
11
1
0
1
90
McCleaf etal. 2017
PFDoA
12
3
0
0
90
McCleaf et al. 2017; Park
etal. 2017
PFTriA
13
1
0
0
90
McCleaf etal. 2017
Sources: USEPA, 2021a; 2021c
Table 5. Studies of GAC Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number of
Bench Studies
Number of
Pilot
Studies
Number of
Full-scale
Studies
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
Source for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFPrS
3
0
1
0
90
Liu et al. 2019
PFBS
4
13
7
8
99.5
Westreich et al. 2018
PFPeS
5
2
2
0
90
Liu et al. 2019
PFHxS
6
13
7
11
99.5
Westreich et al. 2018
PFHpS
7
2
4
1
>99
Belkouteb et al. 2020
PFOS
8
24
10
15
99.7
Woodard et al. 2017
PFNS
9
1
0
0
95.82
Wang et al. 2020
Sources: USEPA, 2021b; 2021c
10
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Table 6. Studies of GAC Treatment for Other PFAS
PFAS
Number
Number of
Number of
Number of
Maximum
Source for Maximum
of
Carbons
Pilot
Studies
Full-scale
Studies
Removal
Efficiency
Compound
Bench Studies
Removal Efficiency
PFMOAA
3
0
0
1
70
Hopkins et al. 2018
FtS 4:2
4
0
1
0
Not reported
PFBSA
4
1
0
0
56
Yan et al. 2020
PF02HxA
4
0
0
1
90
Hopkins et al. 2018
PF030A
5
0
0
1
90
Hopkins et al. 2018
FtS 6:2
6
1
3
0
88
Casey et al. 2018
HFPO-DA
6
1
1
1
93
Hopkins et al. 2018
PFHxSA
6
1
1
0
80
Rodowa et al. 2020
PF04DA
6
0
0
1
90
Hopkins et al. 2018
Nafion BP2
7
0
1
1
>99
Hopkins et al. 2018
FtS 8:2
8
1
3
0
88
Woodard et al. 2017
PFOSA
8
3
1
0
95
Kothawala et al. 2017
PFECHS
8
1
0
0
65
Yan et al. 2020
Source: USEPA, 2021c
2.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment
effectiveness and reliability well-known?
Yes. Natural organic matter, often measured as dissolved organic carbon or total organic carbon
(TOC), can interfere with GAC's capacity to adsorb PFAS (Appleman et al., 2013; Ateia et al.,
2019; Berretta et al., 2021; Gagliano et al., 2020; Kothawala et al., 2017). The significance of
this interference may depend on the specific type of natural organic matter present (Gagliano et
al., 2020; Kothawala et al., 2017). However, in general, it does not necessarily reduce the
maximum removal effectiveness of GAC. Instead, it shortens the time to breakthrough, meaning
more frequent GAC replacement can be required at higher TOC concentrations, all other factors
being equal. Therefore, it should be possible to reliably manage the impact of natural organic
matter through piloting, selection of design parameters, and operational monitoring.
2.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a
drinking water MCL?
Yes. Numerous full-scale drinking water facilities are using GAC to meet current state drinking
water requirements for PFAS (see Question 2.2.1, below). In general, GAC is an established,
reliable technology that has been used successfully to meet other MCLs.
11
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.1.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
2.2 History of Full-Scale Operation
2.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at
drinking water treatment facilities?
Yes. As indicated under Question 2.1.1, there are numerous studies of GAC performance for
PFAS removal at full-scale facilities. These effectiveness studies include results for GAC
facilities designed specifically to target PFAS, in addition to facilities originally designed for
other contaminants. In total, the literature identifies 34 full-scale GAC facilities removing PFAS
from drinking water, as listed in Table 7.
Table 7. Full-scale GAC Systems Removing PFAS from Drinking Water
Location
Moose Creek, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, Alaska
Gustavus, Alaska
Airline/Lambert Water Treatment Campus,
Marana, Pima County, Arizona
Picture Rocks Water Treatment Campus,
Marana, Pima County, Arizona
Municipal Services Commission of the
City of New Castle, New Castle, Delaware
Emerald Coast Utilities Authority,
Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida
Kennebunk, Kennebunkport & Wells
Water District, Kennebunk, Maine
Mary Dunn Water Supply Wells, Hyannis
& Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts
City of Westfield Department of Public
Works, Westfield, Massachusetts
Plainfield Township, Kent County,
Michigan
Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant, Ann
Arbor, Michigan
Oakdale Public Works, Oakdale,
Minnesota
Flow
rate
(MGD)
2.2
Not
reported
Not
reported
Not
reported
0.50
1.44
2.90
1.44
Not
reported
50
3.6
Groundwater Year of
or Surface Startup
Water
Sources
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
2016
2018-
2019
Not
reported
Not
reported
Alaska Community Action on
Toxics 2019; Forrester 2019
Alaska Community Action on
Toxics 2019
Marana Water 2019
Marana Water 2019
2015 Mordock 2016; Forrester 2019
2017 Robinson 2018; Forrester
2019
2020 Berretta et al. 2021; Business
Wire 2018
2015 Gallagher 2017; Forrester
2019
2018 Westfield 2019
Groundwater 2018 Biolchini 2018
Surface Water 2018 Stanton 2019; Page 2020
Groundwater 2006 MDH 2010; ATSDR 2008
12
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Location
Flow
rate
(MGD)
Groundwater
or Surface
Water
Year of
Startup
Sources
Merrimack Village District Water Works,
Merrimack, Hillsborough County, New
Hampshire
Not
reported
Groundwater
2020
Cronin 2020
Pease International Tradeport Drinking
Water System, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire
0.72
Groundwater
2019
City of Portsmouth 2020;
Forrester 2019
Town of Petersburgh Water District,
Petersburgh/Rensselaer County, New York
0.07
Not reported
2017
Forrester 2019; NYS DEC
2020a
Hampton Bays Water District, Suffolk
County, New York
9
Groundwater
2018
Gordon 2018
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio
2.74
Groundwater
2017
Barber 2017; Forrester 2019
Horsham Water and Sewer Authority,
Horsham, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
1.44
Groundwater
2017
Boodoo et al. 2019;
Montgomery News 2017;
Forrester 2019
Village of Hoosick Falls, New York
1.01
Groundwater
Not
reported
Forrester 2019; NYS DEC
2021
City of El Campo Water Department, El
Campo, Texas
Not
reported
Groundwater
2017
Sullivan 2018
Issaquah, Washington
4.32
Groundwater
2016
Issaquah 2020; Mende 2019;
Kwan and York 2017
Airway Heights Water System, City of
Airway Heights, Washington
Not
reported
Groundwater
2018
ATSDR 2020
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
Not
reported
Groundwater
Not
reported
Sullivan 2018
Little Hocking Water Association, Little
Hocking, Ohio
Not
reported
Groundwater
2007
Cummings et al 2015
Former Naval Air Station, Brunswick,
Maine
Not
reported
Not reported
2011
Danko 2018
Washington Lake Filtration Plant,
Newburgh, New York
8.86
Groundwater
2017
Forrester 2019; NYS DEC
2020b
Liberty Utilities, Litchfield Park, Arizona
1.58
Groundwater
2017
ADEQ 2021; Forrester 2019
Passaic Valley Water Commission,
Garfield, New Jersey
0.5
Groundwater
Not
reported
Forrester 2019; Sobko 2021
Aqua Pennsylvania, Chalfont Borough,
Pennsylvania
0.58
Groundwater
Not
reported
Forrester 2019; Chalfont
Borough 2021
Montclair Water Bureau, Montclair, New
Jersey
0.72
Groundwater
Not
reported
Forrester 2019; PFAS Project
Lab 2021
Warrington Township Water and Sewer
Department, Warrington, Pennsylvania
0.58
Groundwater
Not
reported
Forrester 2019; Warrington
Township 2017
13
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Location
Flow Groundwater Year of
rate or Surface Startup
(MGD) Water
Sources
Rome Water and Sewer Division Rome,
Georgia
9 Groundwater Not Forrester 2019; City of Rome
reported 2019
Sweeny Water Treatment Plant, Cape Fear
Public Utilities Authority, North Carolina
44 Surface Water 2022 Vandenneyden and Hagerty
2020
Parkersburg Utility Board, Parkersburg,
West Virginia
Not Not reported
reported
reported
Not USEPA 2009
MGD = million gallons per day
2.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that
fully characterize residual waste streams and disposal
options?
The most likely management option for spent GAC containing adsorbed PFAS is reactivation.
There are a number GAC vendor-operated reactivation facilities available, including some that
hold Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permits to treat spent GAC that is
classified as hazardous waste (USEPA, 2020; Matthis and Carr, 2021). Matthis and Carr (2021)
report results from leaching tests on GAC used to remove PFAS from drinking water at full-scale
after reactivation, also in a full-scale facility. They found that 15 of the 16 PFAS compounds
analyzed were below analytical limits in the leachate. PFBA was present, but only at 1.9 parts
per trillion. These results suggest that reactivated GAC should be suitable for reuse.
The full-scale study in Mathis and Carr (2021), however, did not fully address the fate of PFAS
in the GAC reactivation process. There are a limited number of smaller scale studies that
examine whether PFAS compounds are transformed, volatilized, or destroyed/defluorinated
during the process (e.g., Watanabe et al., 2016; Watanabe et al., 2018; Xiao, 2020). These studies
suggest that the fate of PFAS in GAC reactivation depends on factors including PFAS chain
length, reactivation temperature, and combustion atmosphere (Baghirzade et al., 2021).
DiStefano et al., (2022) showed >99.99 percent destruction of PFAS at a full-scale commercial
reactivation facility with a large percentage of the PFAS destruction occurring in the furnace.
The fluoride mass balance was reported to be 61.4 percent. In the future, additional full-scale
research might be needed to better understand and manage PFAS air emissions from GAC
reactivation facilities. The results of this research might necessitate changes to spent GAC
management practices. Approximately 10-30 percent of GAC may be lost during the reactivation
process and new GAC must be added to replace the lost GAC. There are also circumstances
when reactivating spent GAC may not make economic sense. In these circumstances, GAC may
be disposed of after use, such as in a landfill, and then replaced with completely new GAC.
Future RCRA hazardous waste regulations could also limit the available management options.
14
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent
full-scale treatment, including residuals generation and
handling?
For PFAS removal, there is no consensus in the literature regarding methods to scale up GAC
from bench-scale tests, specifically rapid small-scale column tests (RSSCTs), to full-scale
(Hopkins, 2021; Kempisty et al., 2019; Meng et al., 2021; Redding et al., 2019). However, as a
mature and established technology, the scale-up of GAC from pilot- to full-scale is well
understood and has been implemented at full-scale facilities treating PFAS (e.g., Vandermeyden
and Hagerty, 2019).
2.2.4 Is additional research needed?
In general, additional research is not required. However, in the future, additional full-scale
research might be needed to better understand and manage PFAS air emissions from GAC
reactivation facilities.
2.3 General Geographic Applicability
2.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent?
EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
effectiveness data for PFAS removal by GAC in waters from 12 geographically dispersed U.S.
states (Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia), as well as from countries
overseas. The full-scale facilities listed under Question 2.2.1 are distributed across the U.S. from
Alaska to Florida and Maine to Arizona.
2.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will
limit treatment effectiveness or reliability in some areas?
No. Although there may be regional variations in natural organic matter, these variations are
likely to be less significant than variation among individual water sources within a region.
Furthermore, as discussed under Question 2.1.2, it should be possible to reliably manage the
impact of water quality variations through piloting, design parameter selection, and operational
monitoring.
2.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals
handling or water resource use?
Under current state regulations, there no known regional barriers with respect to spent GAC
reactivation or disposal.
2.3.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
15
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes
2.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment
process on other processes likely to be present at existing
plants been evaluated?
Yes. GAC can have a beneficial effect by removing natural organic matter (see Question 2.1.2)
and trace contaminants other than PFAS (e.g., volatile organic compounds) from treated water.
Removal of natural organic matter (as measured by total organic carbon) results in meaningful
co-benefits, including reducing disinfection byproduct formation. In general, GAC does not have
significant negative effects on other treatment processes.
2.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for
integration into an existing (or planned) treatment train?
No. In general, GAC integrates easily with traditional treatment trains.
2.4.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
2.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance
2.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the
distribution system or water resource decisions?
No. Although there can in some cases be temporary water chemistry changes immediately
following GAC changeout, these effects are readily managed by diverting the first few bed
volumes of treated water to waste. In general, GAC does not have adverse distribution system or
water resource effects.
2.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre-
or post-treatment requirements raise new environmental
quality concerns?
Possibly. As discussed under Question 2.2.2, uncertainty exists about the fate of PFAS in GAC
reactivation. For example, unregulated air emissions from reactivation may result in secondary
environmental impacts.
2.5.3 Is additional research needed?
Additional research might be needed to better understand and manage PFAS emissions from
GAC reactivation facilities.
16
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
2.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems
2.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large
systems (including uses for other treatment purposes)?
Yes. The 34 full-scale PFAS GAC systems identified in the literature include medium and large
systems: 16 are larger than 1 million gallons per day (MGD) and two are larger than 10 MGD,
with the largest being 50 MGD.
2.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information
on design assumptions to allow cost modeling?
Detailed data are available from the treatment studies for all the relevant design parameters,
including:
Vessel configuration (i.e., number of vessels in series)
Empty bed contact time (EBCT)
GAC bed life
Loading rate
Residuals management options.
2.6.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
17
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for IX
IX is a physical/chemical separation process in which ions such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in the feed water are exchanged for an ion (typically chloride) on a resin
generally made of synthetic beads or gel. In application, feed water passes through a bed of resin
in a vessel or column. For PFAS compounds, vendors generally recommend using PFAS-
selective resins (Boodoo, 2018a; Boodoo et al., 2019; Lombardo et al., 2018; Woodard et al.,
2017).
The IX process continues until the resin does not have sufficient exchange sites available for the
target PFAS compounds. At this point, the result is reduced removal of the contaminant, referred
to as "breakthrough." Figure 3 is a conceptual diagram of the IX treatment process, from initial
adsorption to breakthrough. Once the contaminant concentration in the treated water reaches an
unacceptable level, the resin is considered "spent." In IX processes removing more traditional
contaminants (e.g., nitrate), the capacity of the spent resin is often restored by rinsing the media
with a concentrated chloride solution. However, conventional regeneration solutions are not
effective for restoring the capacity of PFAS-selective resins (Liu and Sun, 2021). Regeneration
of selective resins may be possible using organic solvents (Boodoo, 2018a; Zaggia et al., 2016)
or proprietary methods (Woodard et al., 2017). These alternative regeneration practices are
generally practical or cost-effective only with very high influent concentrations, such as in
remediation settings. Therefore, in drinking water applications using PFAS-selective resin,
vendors recommend a single-use approach where the spent resin is disposed and replaced with
fresh resin (Boodoo, 2018a; Lombardo et al., 2018). The length of time between resin
replacement events is known as "bed life" and is often quantified in "bed volumes," which are a
measure of throughput.
Initially
At breakthrough
Influent
water
Resin
Spent Resin PFAS Chloride
Figure 3. Conceptual Diagram of the IX Treatment Process
18
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.1 High Removal Efficiency
3.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential
MCLs been documented?
Yes. EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
extensive data from the literature on PFAS removal by IX. Results are available from studies
conducted in the laboratory, in the field at pilot scale, and in full-scale application, as shown in
Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9. The literature demonstrates PFAS removal efficiencies for many
PFAS compounds in the high 90 percent range and to levels below analytical detection limits.
For PFOA and PFOS, maximum removal efficiencies are greater than 99 percent, also to below
analytical detection limits and lower than the regulatory thresholds currently under consideration.
Table 8. Studies of IX Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number of
Bench Studies
Number of
Pilot
Studies
Number of
Full-scale
Studies
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFBA
4
11
5
2
99.3
Dixit et al. 2020; Dixit et
al. 2021
PFPeA
5
7
3
2
95.5
Schaefer et al. 2019
PFHxA
6
11
4
3
>97
Liu 2017
PFHpA
7
9
6
4
>99
Zeng et al. 2020
PFOA
8
15
7
4
99.3
Dixit et al. 2019; Dixit et
al. 2020; Dixit et al. 2021
PFNA
9
6
3
2
>99
Zeng et al. 2020;
Kumarasamy et al. 2020
PFDA
10
7
0
0
>99
Kumarasamy et al. 2020
PFUnA
11
1
0
0
90
McCleaf et al. 2017
PFDoA
12
2
0
0
99.3
Dixit et al. 2021
PFTriA
13
1
0
0
90
McCleaf etal. 2017
Sources: USEPA, 2021a; 2021c
Table 9. Studies of IX Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number of
Bench Studies
Number of
Pilot
Studies
Number of
Full-scale
Studies
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFBS
4
12
8
4
99.3
Dixit et al. 2020; Dixit et
al. 2021
PFPeS
5
2
0
0
74
Yan et al. 2020
19
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
PFAS
Number of
Number
Compound Bench Studies
Carbons
Number of Number of Maximum
Pilot Full-scale Removal
Studies
PFHxS
PFHpS
PFOS
PFNS
11
2
16
1
Studies
7
Efficiency
>99
93
99.7
54.9
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
Zeng et al. 2020; Boodoo
2018a; Arevalo et al.
2014; Kumarasamy et al.
2020
Yan et al. 2020
Woodard et al. 2017
Wang et al. 2020
Sources: USEPA, 2021b; 2021c
Table 10. Studies of IX Treatment for Other PFAS
PFAS
Compound
PFBSA
PFMOPrA
PFMOBA
FtS 6:2
HFPO-DA
PFHxSA
FtS 8:2
PFOSA
PFECHS
Number
of
Carbons
4
4
5
6
6
Number of
Bench Studies
1
1
1
2
4
1
2
3
1
Number of
Pilot
Studies
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
Number of
Full-scale
Studies
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Maximum
Removal
Efficiency
98
99.3
99.3
99.3
99.3
99
99.3
98
97
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
Yan et al. 2020
Dixit et al. 2021
Dixit et al. 2021
Dixit et al. 2021
Dixit et al. 2020; Dixit et
al. 2021
Yan et al. 2020
Dixit et al. 2021
Yan et al. 2020
Yan et al. 2020
Source: USEPA, 2021c
3.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment
effectiveness and reliability well-known?
Yes. PFAS-selective resins are designed to have higher affinity for PFAS than other anions, such
as nitrate, sulfate, bicarbonate, and chloride. However, these anions can be present in drinking
water at concentrations many orders of magnitude higher than PFAS. Therefore, they can
compete with PFAS for available exchange sites on the resin (Ateia et al., 2019; Berretta et al.,
2021; Boodoo, 2021). Data are not available to precisely quantify the effect of competing anions
under a wide range of water quality conditions. However, in general, competition does not
necessarily reduce the maximum removal effectiveness of the resin for PFAS. Instead, it shortens
the time to breakthrough, meaning more frequent resin replacement may be required in the
20
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
presence of competing anions, all other factors being equal. Therefore, it should be possible to
reliably manage the impact of competition through piloting, selection of design parameters, and
operational monitoring.
3.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a
drinking water MCL?
Yes. Several full-scale drinking water facilities are using IX to meet current state drinking water
requirements for PFAS (see Question 2.2.1, below). In general, IX is an established, reliable
technology that has been used successfully to meet other MCLs.
3.1.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not needed.
3.2 History of Full-Scale Operation
3.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at
drinking water treatment facilities?
Yes. The first full-scale system treating drinking water using PFAS-selective IX commenced
operation in 2017 (WWSD, 2018). Since that time, several additional full-scale facilities have
begun using the technology, as listed in Table 11. The effectiveness studies enumerated under
Question 3.1.1 include results for some of these facilities.
Table 11. Full-scale IX Systems Removing PFAS from Drinking Water
Flow rate
(MGD)
Groundwater
Year of
Startup
Location
or Surface
Water
Sources
Pease International Tradeport Drinking
Water System, Portsmouth, New
Hampshire
Not
reported
Groundwater
2019
City of Portsmouth
2020
Horsham Water and Sewer Authority,
Horsham, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
0.14
Groundwater
2021
Boodoo 2018a;
Boodoo et al. 2019;
HWSA 2021
Security Water and Sanitation Districts,
Security, Colorado
9
Groundwater
2019
Jent 2020
Stratmoor Hills Water District, Stratmoor
1
Groundwater
Not
Berretta et al. 2021
Hills, El Paso County, Colorado
reported
City of Stuart, Florida
4
Groundwater
2018
Aqueous Vets 2019
Warminster Municipal Authority,
Warminster, Pennsylvania
Not
reported
Not reported
Not
reported
Boodoo 2018a;
Boodoo 2018b
Widefield Water and Sanitation District,
Not
Groundwater
2017
WWSD 2018
Widefield, Colorado
reported
MGD = million gallons per day
21
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that
fully characterize residual waste streams and disposal
options?
There are no known full-scale studies of spent resin from IX facilities specifically for the
removal of PFAS. In general, however, the characteristics and quantities of spent resin are
predictable. This waste stream contains the PFAS compounds and other anions removed from the
treated water. The generation rate is a function of bed volume and replacement frequency.
Under current regulations, spent resin is typically incinerated (Boodoo, 2018b). The literature is
inconclusive regarding the fate of PFAS during incineration in general (USEPA, 2020) and there
are no studies specific to incineration of IX resin. Additional full-scale research might be needed
to better understand and manage PFAS air emissions from incineration facilities. The results of
this research might necessitate changes to spent resin management practices. Similar to GAC, IX
resins may also be landfilled. Future RCRA hazardous waste regulations could also limit the
available management options.
3.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent
full-scale treatment, including residuals generation and
handling?
The use of RSSCTs to predict IX performance for PFAS removal is a recent development (Najm
et al., 2021; Schaefer et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2020), so there are no validated methods to scale
up from these bench-scale results. However, as a mature and established technology, the scale-up
of IX from pilot- to full-scale is well understood and has been implemented at full-scale facilities
treating PFAS (e.g., WWSD, 2018).
3.2.4 Is additional research needed?
In general, additional research is not required. However, additional full-scale research might be
needed to better understand and manage PFAS air emissions from incineration facilities.
3.3 General Geographic Applicability
3.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent?
EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
effectiveness data for PFAS removal by IX in waters from four geographically dispersed U.S.
states (Alabama, Colorado, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania). The full-scale facilities listed under
Question 3.2.1 are located in Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
3.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will
limit treatment effectiveness or reliability in some areas?
No. Although there may be regional variations in competing anions, these variations are likely to
be less significant than variation among individual water sources within a region. Furthermore,
as discussed under Question 3.1.2, it should be possible to reliably manage the impact of water
quality variations through piloting, selection of design parameters, and operational monitoring.
22
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals
handling or water resource use?
Under current state regulations, there no known regional barriers with respect to spent resin
disposal.
3.3.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
3.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes
3.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment
process on other processes likely to be present at existing
plants been evaluated?
Yes. In general, IX can have an adverse effect on treated water chemistry by increasing
corrosivity. One vendor suggests this issue may be limited in the case of PFAS-selective resin
(Boodoo, 2018b, see Question 3.5.1). In cases where this impact does occur, it can be managed
through post-treatment corrosion control or alterations to existing corrosion control. The
technology can also have a beneficial effect by removing other undesirable anions from the
treated water (e.g., nitrate, sulfate), even when using PFAS-selective resin (see Question 3.1.2).
3.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for
integration into an existing (or planned) treatment train?
Possibly. The treated water chemistry changes resulting from IX might require post-treatment
corrosion control or alterations to existing corrosion control.
3.4.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
3.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance
3.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the
distribution system or water resource decisions?
In general, IX treatment can increase treated water corrosivity because of chloride ion addition
and/or carbonate along with bicarbonate removal. For example, Berlien (2003) reported
increased corrosivity with a full-scale application of IX for perchlorate treatment. One vendor of
PFAS-selected resin reports that this effect is limited to the first 200 bed volumes of treatment
for their product. During this initial period, pH in treated water will decrease by 1 to 1.5 units;
then the alkalinity and pH of the treated water returns to normal (Boodoo, 2018b). In cases where
increased corrosivity occurs, distribution system effects can be managed by adjusting corrosion
control programs.
23
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
3.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre-
or post-treatment requirements raise new environmental
quality concerns?
Possibly. As discussed under Question 3.2.2, uncertainty exists about the fate of PFAS during the
incineration of spent resin. For example, unregulated air emissions from reactivation may result
in secondary environmental impacts. In addition, the corrosivity impacts discussed above under
Question 3.5.1, if not adequately managed through post-treatment, could create new
environmental quality concerns in the distribution system.
3.5.3 Is additional research needed?
Additional research might be needed to better understand and manage address PFAS air
emissions from incineration facilities.
3.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems
3.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large
systems (including uses for other treatment purposes)?
Yes. The full-scale PFAS IX facilities identified in the literature include two medium systems
(larger than 1 MGD). There are many medium and large systems that use selective IX for other
contaminants (e.g., perchlorate).
3.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information
on design assumptions to allow cost modeling?
Detailed data are available from the treatment studies for all the relevant design parameters,
including:
Vessel configuration (i.e., number of vessels in series)
EBCT
Resin bed life
Loading rate
Residuals management options.
3.6.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
24
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.0 Best Available Technology Evaluation for
RO/NF
RO and NF are membrane separation processes that physically remove contaminants from
drinking water. These processes separate solutes such as PFAS compounds from solution by
forcing the solvent to flow through a membrane at a pressure greater than the normal osmotic
pressure. In drinking water treatment, these membranes are most often used in a spiral-wound
configuration that consists of several membrane envelopes, layered with feed spacers and rolled
together in around a central collection tube.
The membrane is semi-permeable, transporting different molecular species at different rates. The
application of pressure splits the influent water passing over the membrane into two streams:
Treated water or "permeate" that passes through the membrane layers along with solutes of
lower molecular weight into the central collection tube
Water containing higher molecular weight solutes that remains outside the membrane layers,
called "reject," "concentrate," or "brine."
"Recovery rate" and "rejection rate" are the percentages of influent water that are recovered as
permeate and lost as reject, respectively.6 Figure 4 is a conceptual diagram of this process as
applied to water containing PFAS. Specific membranes differ in terms of the size of dissolved
contaminants they can remove. Membranes that remove smaller contaminants require higher
feed pressure. Feed pressures for NF membranes are typically in the range of 50 to 150 pounds
per square inch (psi). Feed pressures for RO membranes are in the range of 125 to 300 psi in low
pressure applications (such as PFAS removal) but can be as high as 1,200 psi in applications
such as seawater desalination (USEPA, 2022c). As discussed under Question 4.1.1, both RO and
NF membranes have the capacity to remove PFAS.
Figure 4. Conceptual Diagram of the RO Treatment Process
0 Note that recovery and rejection rates are not directly related to removal efficiency, which is the percentage of influent PFAS
removed from the treated water.
25
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.1 High Removal Efficiency
4.1.1 Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential
MCLs been documented?
Yes. EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
extensive data from the literature on PFAS removal by RO and NF. Results are available from
studies conducted in the laboratory, in the field at pilot scale, and in full-scale application, as
shown in Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12. The literature demonstrates PFAS removal
efficiencies for many PFAS compounds in the high 90 percent range and to levels below
analytical detection limits. For PFOA and PFOS, maximum removal efficiencies are greater than
99 percent, also to below analytical detection limits and lower than the regulatory thresholds
currently under consideration.
Table 12. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Carboxylate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number
of Bench
Studies
Number
of Pilot
Studies
Number
of Full-
scale
Studies
Maximum
NF
Removal
Efficiency
Maximum
RO
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFBA
4
2
1
2
99
99.9
Lipp et al. 2010
PFPeA
5
2
3
2
>99
>99
Horst et al. 2018; Liu et
al. 2021; Dickenson and
Higgins 2016
PFHxA
6
3
4
4
>98
99.2
Liu et al. 2021
PFHpA
7
1
2
3
99
>99
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; Liu et al. 2021
PFOA
8
4
4
5
99.9
99.9
Boonya-Atichart et al.
2016; Lipp et al. 2010
PFNA
9
2
1
4
99
>98
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; Dickenson and
Higgins 2016; Appleman
etal. 2014
PFDA
10
2
0
4
99
>99
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; Dickenson and
Higgins 2016; Appleman
etal. 2014
PFUnA
11
1
0
2
99
>77
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; Dickenson and
Higgins 2016; Appleman
etal. 2014
PFDoA
12
0
0
2
>87
Dickenson and Higgins
2016; Appleman et al.
2014
- = no data; NF = nanofiltration; RO = reverse osmosis
Sources: USEPA, 2021a; 2021c
26
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Table 13. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Sulfonate PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number
of Bench
Studies
Number
of Pilot
Studies
Number
of Full-
scale
Studies
Maximum
NF
Removal
Efficiency
Maximum
RO
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFPrS
3
0
1
0
>98
>99
Liu et al. 2021
PFBS
4
3
4
3
99.8
99.8
Lipp et al. 2010
PFPeS
5
0
1
0
>98
>99
Liu et al. 2021
PFHxS
6
2
4
4
>99
>99
Appleman et al. 2013;
Thompson et al. 2011;
Liu et al. 2021
PFHpS
7
0
1
0
>98
>99
Liu et al. 2021
PFOS
8
6
4
5
>99.9
99.9
Lipp et al. 2010; 2163
PFDS
10
1
0
0
99
-
Steinle-Darling et al. 2008
- = no data; NF = nanofiltration; RO = reverse osmosis
Sources: USEPA, 2021b; 2021c
Table 14. Studies of RO/NF Treatment for Other PFAS
PFAS
Compound
Number
of
Carbons
Number
of Bench
Studies
Number
of Pilot
Studies
Number
of Full-
scale
Studies
Maximum
NF
Removal
Efficiency
Maximum
RO
Removal
Efficiency
Source(s) for Maximum
Removal Efficiency
PFMOAA
3
0
1
0
-
>98.5
CDM Smith 2018
PF02HxA
4
0
1
0
-
>80.8
CDM Smith 2018
PF030A
5
0
1
0
-
>67.2
CDM Smith 2018
FtS 6:2
6
1
2
1
99.5
>65.5
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; CDM Smith 2018
HFPO-DA
6
0
1
0
-
>64.2
CDM Smith 2018
PFOSA
8
2
0
1
98.5
>13
Steinle-Darling et al.
2008; Dickenson and
Higgins 2016
N-
MeFOSAA
11
0
0
2
-
>84
Dickenson and Higgins
2016
N-EtFOSAA
12
0
0
2
-
>58
Dickenson and Higgins
2016
- = no data; NF = nanofiltration; RO = reverse osmosis
Source: USEPA, 2021c
27
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.1.2 Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment
effectiveness and reliability well-known?
Yes. In general, water quality affects the design (e.g., concentrate volume, cleaning frequency,
antiscalant selection) of RO and NF systems, but not removal efficiency. The literature
specifically for PFAS removal by membranes supports this conclusion. For example, Appleman
et al. (2013) found that the effectiveness of NF for PFAS removal was not impaired by the
presence of humic acid. Similarly, Steinle-Darling and Reinhard (2008) found that ionic strength
did not have a significant effect on removal performance. Although these authors noted a
significant effect from pH, this effect was observed at pH 2.8, substantially lower than typical
drinking water influent. Boonya-Atichart et al. (2016) found no significant effect within a more
typical range of pH (5.5 to 10). Although they observed a slight decrease in effectiveness with
increasing total dissolved solids, this effect was not significant.
4.1.3 Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a
drinking water MCL?
Yes. In general, RO and NF are established, reliable technology that has been used successfully
to meet other MCLs. As discussed under Question 4.2.1, full-scale plants recently began
operation using low-pressure RO designed to meet state drinking water requirements for PFAS.
4.1.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not needed.
4.2 History of Full-Scale Operation
4.2.1 Do existing studies include full-scale operations at
drinking water treatment facilities?
Yes. Two drinking water systems, in North Carolina (Dowbiggin et al., 2021) and Alabama
(Wetzel, 2021; WHNT News, 2019), recently constructed full-scale treatment plants using low-
pressure RO. These are the first two treatment plants utilizing membrane technology specifically
targeted at PFAS removal from drinking water. Although performance data are not yet available
from these facilities, the effectiveness studies enumerated under Question 4.1.1 include results
from full-scale facilities using membrane separation to treat other contaminants.
4.2.2 Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that
fully characterize residual waste streams and disposal
options?
There are no full-scale studies of residuals from RO or NF facilities specifically for the removal
of PFAS. In general, however, the characteristics of membrane concentrates are predictable and
handling and treatment options are well understood. This waste stream contains the PFAS
compounds and other dissolved solids removed from the treated water. The two full-scale
facilities identified under Question 4.2.1 are designed for recovery rates of 85 to 92 percent
(Dowbiggin et al., 2021; Wetzel, 2021; WHNT News, 2019), which means that concentrate
28
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
flows at these facilities would account for 8 to 15 percent of influent (i.e., 100 percent minus the
recovery rate). Assuming these facilities achieve 95 percent removal efficiency, PFAS
concentrations in this waste stream would be approximately 6 to 12 times the concentration in
influent water.7
For disposal of membrane concentrate, most systems use surface water discharge or discharge to
sanitary sewer. Deep well injection is common in Florida. A small percentage of systems use
land application, evaporation ponds, or recycling (Mickley, 2018). The large volume of residuals
is a well-known obstacle to adoption of membrane separation technology, in general. In the case
of PFAS removal, the high PFAS concentration in the residuals might limit the disposal options
or require additional treatment prior to disposal, depending on state and local discharge
regulations. Concentrate treatment is not common in other applications (Mickley, 2018). Studies
specific to treatment of concentrate containing PFAS currently are limited to lab- or pilot-scale
(Tow et al., 2021). The Alabama facility identified under Question 4.2.1 initially planned to treat
membrane concentrate through its existing granular activated carbon (GAC) filters prior to
discharge (WHNT News, 2019). More recent reports (Wetzel, 2021) do not address concentrate
treatment at this facility. The North Carolina facility includes the construction of a discharge
pipeline to a point "several miles" away, downstream of any drinking water intakes (Dowbiggin
et al., 2021).
4.2.3 Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent
full-scole treatment, including residuals generation and
handling?
Yes. As a mature and established technology, the scale-up of RO, in general, from bench- to
pilot- to full-scale is well understood and has been implemented at full-scale facilities treating
PFAS (e.g., Dowbiggin et al., 2021).
4.2.4 Is additional research needed?
In general, additional research is not required. In cases where regional or system-specific
conditions associated with PFAS-bearing residuals management present a significant barrier,
however, additional research on residuals treatment prior to disposal would be useful.
4.3 General Geographic Applicability
4.3.1 What regions do the existing research studies represent?
EPA's Drinking Water Treatability Database (USEPA, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c) includes
effectiveness data for PFAS removal by membrane separation in waters from three
geographically dispersed U.S. states (California, Illinois, and North Carolina), as well as from
countries overseas. The full-scale facilities listed under Question 4.2.1 are located in Alabama
and North Carolina.
7 The concentration in the reject stream can be calculated as the concentration in influent times the removal efficiency, divided by
the rejection rate. In this example, 0.95 / 0.15 = 6.33 and 0.95 / 0.08 = 11.88.
29
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.3.2 Is it known that regional water quality variations will
limit treatment effectiveness or reliability in some areas?
No. There are no data indicating that regional water quality variations will limit effectiveness or
reliability. As discussed under Question 4.1.2 water quality affects the design (e.g., concentrate
volume, cleaning frequency, antiscalant selection, temperature) of a RO and NF systems, but not
their effectiveness or reliability.
4.3.3 Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals
handling or water resource use?
The large volume of reject water "lost" from membrane separation can be an issue in regions
where water scarcity is a concern. The Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (1999) pointed
out that a water rejection rate of 20 to 25 percent can present a problem where water is scarce,
such as in the western states. The availability of discharge options for residuals is also a region-
and system-specific issue, depending on location, climate, and state and local regulations. The
technology is more likely to be feasible when ocean or estuarine discharge is an option.
4.3.4 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
4.4 Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes
4.4.1 Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment
process on other processes likely to be present at existing
plants been evaluated?
Yes. Adverse effects are unlikely. Membrane separation might have some effect on treated water
chemistry (see Question 4.5.1), which might alter corrosion control or blending requirements.
Generally, however, these effluent chemistry changes should not require significant adjustments
to downstream treatment processes. Regarding beneficial effects, RO and NF membranes can
remove a wide range of contaminants, including inorganic ions, total dissolved solids, nitrate,
radionuclides, some disinfection byproduct precursors, and synthetic organic chemicals. Since
membrane permeate has a reduced chlorine demand, its finished water requires a low dose of
disinfectant.
4.4.2 Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for
integration into an existing (or planned) treatment train?
Possibly. Post-treatment can be required to control corrosion impacts (Lipp et al., 2010),
particularly in instances where blending is not possible (see Question 4.5.1).
4.4.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
30
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
4.5 Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance
4.5.1 Will the treatment process adversely affect the
distribution system or water resource decisions?
Yes, if not properly managed. The permeate from RO and, in some cases, NF can be corrosive.
The extent of this impact is site-specific (Bergman et al., 2012). In other drinking water
treatment applications, the permeate is often blended with untreated water to produce a less
corrosive finished water (Mickley, 2018). If the source water has a sufficiently low concentration
of PFAS and other contaminants, blending may reduce post-treatment requirements. Thus,
distribution system effects can be managed by adjusting corrosion control programs or blending
practices.
As discussed under Question 4.3.3, the large volume of membrane concentrate might have an
impact on water resource decisions in regions where water scarcity is a concern.
4.5.2 Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre-
or post-treatment requirements raise new environmental
quality concerns?
Yes. The disposal of large membrane concentrate volumes, containing high PFAS
concentrations, could create an environmental quality concern. As discussed under Question
4.3.3, discharge concerns are region- and system-specific. In addition, the corrosivity impacts
discussed above under Question 4.5.1, if not adequately managed through post-treatment, could
create new environmental quality concerns.
4.5.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
4.6 Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems
4.6.1 Is the technology currently used by medium and large
systems (including uses for other treatment purposes)?
Yes. Both full-scale PFAS RO facilities identified in the literature are large (10 and 48 MGD).
There are many medium and large systems that use RO or NF for other contaminants.
4.6.2 Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information
on design assumptions to allow cost modeling?
Detailed data are available from the treatment studies for the following design parameters:
Membrane type
Flux rate
Recovery rate
Residuals management options.
31
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Assumptions about pretreatment requirements and cleaning procedures, in general, are
determined based on major water quality parameters, such as hardness parameters, chloride,
sulfate, silica, pH, silt density index, and total dissolved solids. They typically are not affected by
trace contaminant influent concentrations or removal requirements. There is nothing unique
about PFAS removal by membrane separation that suggests a different relationship between the
major water quality parameters and typical pretreatment and cleaning requirements.
4.6.3 Is additional research needed?
No. Additional research is not required.
32
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
5.0 Summary of Best Available Technology
Evaluation
Table 15 provides a summary of the evaluation results for the three technologies against each of
the criteria. Based on this evaluation, the overall conclusions are:
GAC is a potential BAT. It has been shown to achieve high removal efficiency for PFAS. It
is a mature and established technology in general and has been used for full-scale treatment
of PFAS at many facilities. Changes in air quality regulations might necessitate changes to
spent GAC management practices. Research on the fate of PFAS during GAC reactivation
would provide additional clarity on the significance of this issue. Future RCRA hazardous
waste regulations could also limit the available management options.
IX is a potential BAT. PFAS-selective resin has been shown to achieve high removal
efficiency for PFAS. IX is a mature and established technology in general and PFAS-
selective resin has been used for full-scale treatment at several facilities. Changes in air
quality regulations might necessitate changes to typical spent resin management practices.
Research on the fate of PFAS during spent resin incineration would provide additional clarity
on the significance of this issue. Future RCRA hazardous waste regulations could also limit
the available management options.
Membrane separation using RO or NF is a potential BAT. It has been shown to achieve high
removal efficiency for PFAS, including at full-scale facilities designed for other
contaminants. Two drinking water systems recently constructed full-scale treatment plants
specifically targeting PFAS using low-pressure RO. Large volumes of residual concentrate,
however, will likely restrict the technology's applicability on a system-specific basis.
Additional research on treatment of PFAS-bearing membrane concentration could help
mitigate this issue in some cases.
33
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Table 15. PFAS Removal Technologies Evaluated Against BAT Criteria
Criterion
GAC
IX
RO/NF
1. High Removal Efficiency
1.1. Have high removal efficiencies that achieve potential MCLs
Yes
Yes
Yes
been documented?
1.2. Are the effects of water quality parameters on treatment
Yes
Yes
Yes
effectiveness and reliability well-known?
1.3. Is the technology reliable enough to continuously meet a
Yes
Yes
Yes
drinking water MCL?
1.4. Is additional research needed?
No
No
No
2. History of Full-Scale Operation
2.1. Do existing studies include full-scale operations at drinking
Yes
Yes
Yes
water treatment facilities?
2.2. Are there studies of full-scale treatment of residuals that
Yes (given
Yes (for
Yes (for
fully characterize residual waste streams and disposal options?
current
other
other
regulations)
treatment
treatment
purposes)
purposes)
2.3. Can the bench or pilot studies be scaled up to represent full-
Yes
Yes
Yes
scale treatment, including residuals generation and handling?
2.4. Is additional research needed?
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
3. General Geographic Applicability
3.1. What regions do the existing research studies represent?
Nationwide
Nationwide
Nationwide
3.2. Is it known that regional water quality variations will limit
No
No
No
treatment effectiveness or reliability in some areas?
3.3. Are there any regional issues with respect to residuals
Not currently
Not currently
Yes
handling or water resource use?
3.4. Is additional research needed?
No
No
No
4. Compatibility with Other Treatment Processes
4.1. Have the effects (adverse or beneficial) of the treatment
Yes
Yes
Yes
process on other processes likely to be present at existing plants
been evaluated?
4.2. Will additional pre- or post-treatment be required for
No
Possibly
Possibly
integration into an existing (or planned) treatment train?
4.3. Is additional research needed?
No
No
No
5. Ability to Bring All of the Water System into Compliance
5.1. Will the treatment process adversely affect the distribution
No
Possibly
Possibly
system or water resource decisions?
5.2. Might the treatment process, residuals handling, or pre- or
Possibly
Possibly
Yes
post-treatment requirements raise new environmental quality
concerns?
5.3. Is additional research needed?
Maybe
Maybe
No
6. Reasonable Cost Basis for Large and Medium Systems
6.1. Is the technology currently used by medium and large
Yes
Yes
Yes
systems (including uses for other treatment purposes)?
6.2. Do the treatment studies provide sufficient information on
Yes
Yes
Yes
design assumptions to allow cost modeling?
6.3. Is additional research needed? No No No
34
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
6.0 Small System Compliance Technology
Evaluation
6.1 SSCT Analysis Method
A technology must be both effective and affordable to be designated as an SSCT. Technologies
that meet the effectiveness criterion include those designated as BATs for the rule: GAC, PFAS-
selective IX, and RO. This section also presents preliminary affordability results for POU RO.
POU RO is not currently a compliance option because the regulatory options under consideration
require treatment to concentrations below 70 ng/L total of PFOA and PFOS, the current
certification standard for POU devices. However, POU treatment is reasonably anticipated to
become a compliance option for small systems in the future should NSF/ANSI develop a new
certification standard that mirrors EPA's regulatory standard.
To evaluate affordability, EPA compared incremental costs per household for each technology
against an expenditure margin. Table 16 shows the expenditure margins for each system size
category. It also shows how EPA derived the expenditure margins, beginning with estimates of
MHI, which vary by system size category. The annual affordability threshold for household
expenditures on drinking water is 2.5 percent of MHI. EPA deducted estimates of baseline or
current water bills from the affordability threshold to obtain the expenditure margin estimates.
Table 16. Expenditure Margins for SSCT Affordability Analysis
System Size
(Population
Served)
Median Household
Income1
Affordability
Threshold2
Baseline Water
Cost3
Expenditure
Margin
A
B = 2.5% x A
C
D = B - C
25-500
$62,950
$1,574
$551
$1,022
501-3,300
$60,926
$1,523
$638
$885
3,301-10,000
$66,746
$1,669
$666
$1,002
Notes:
1 MHI based on U.S. Census 2010 American Community Survey 5-year estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) stated in 2010
dollars, adjusted to 2022 dollars using the CPI (for all items) for areas under 2.5 million persons.
2 Affordability threshold equals 2.5 percent of MHI.
3 Household water costs derived from 2006 Community Water System Survey (USEPA, 2009), based on residential revenue per
connection within each size category, adjusted to 2020 dollars based on the Consumer Price Index (for all items) for areas under
2.5 million persons.
The cost per household varies by technology and by system size category. EPA used the
following method to estimate per-household costs using EPA's work breakdown structure
(WBS) drinking water treatment cost models:
Estimate system-level daily design and average flow based on median population
Estimate entry point design and average flow by dividing system-level flow by the average
number of entry points8
8 Except for POU RO. The analysis here assumes POU devices must be installed at all households regardless of entry point.
Therefore, costs are estimated based on the total system-level flow.
35
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Estimate capital costs using a technology-specific WBS cost curve and design flow
Estimate O&M costs using a technology-specific WBS cost curve and average flow
Annualize capital costs at 7 percent over the expected useful life of the treatment process
Calculate total annual costs (annualized capital costs plus O&M costs)
Multiply total annual costs by the average number of entry points,9 conservatively assuming
systems must install treatment at all entry points (erring on the side of higher costs)
Divide total annual costs by the median number of households served
Assess affordability by comparing these values with the expenditure margins.
Table 17 shows median population served, number of households, number of entry points, and
resulting design and average flows used in these calculations. EPA generated costs assuming
systems must meet MCLs for PFOA and PFOS of 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L) each, with initial
influent concentrations of 70 ng/L and 264 ng/L, respectively. These influent concentrations
correspond to the 90th percentile for each contaminant, considering detected values only.
Table 17. Design and Average Flow Estimates and Service Estimates for the 50th Percentile
or Median System
System Size (Population Served)
rarameier
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
System Population1
A
110
1,140
5,476
System Households2
B = A/2.53
43
451
2,164
Groundwater
System Design Flow3 (MGD)
C
0.049
0.458
2.051
System Average Flow3 (MGD)
D
0.012
0.147
0.776
Entry Points4
E
1
2
2
Entry Point Design Flow (MGD)
F = C/E
0.049
0.229
1.025
Entry Point Average Flow (MGD)
G = D/E
0.012
0.074
0.388
Surface Water
System Design Flow3 (MGD)
H
0.050
0.459
2.026
System Average Flow3 (MGD)
I
0.015
0.156
0.748
Entry Points4
J
1
1
1
Entry Point Design Flow (MGD)
K = H/J
0.050
0.459
2.026
Entry Point Average Flow (MGD)
L = I/J
0.015
0.156
0.748
Notes:
1 Median system populations are from USEPA Safe Drinking Water Information System Federal (SDWIS/Fed) fourth quarter
2021 "frozen" dataset that contains information reported through January 14, 2022
2 Median system household estimates equal median populations divided by 2.53 persons per household, based on 2020 Census
data (Table AVG1. Average Number of People per Household, by Race and Hispanic Origin/1, Marital Status, Age, and
Education of Householder: 2020).
3 Flow estimates are based on regression equations that relate population and design or average flows, derived in USEPA (2000).
4 Entry point data from 2006 Community Water System Survey (USEPA, 2009), Table 13, values rounded to nearest whole
number.
9 Except for POU RO, as discussed in the previous footnote.
36
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
EPA generated costs for each system size category for 22 treatment technology scenarios. There
are eight scenarios for GAC comprising all combinations of two source waters (ground and
surface), two cost levels (low and high), and two bed life scenarios. The bed life scenarios reflect
results from linear equations derived as described in USEPA (2024a) and correspond to a range
of influent TOC from 0.5 mg/L and 2 mg/L (discussed further in Section 6.2). There are eight
scenarios for IX that are combinations of two source waters, two cost levels, and two bed life
scenarios. The bed life scenarios for IX also result from equations presented in USEPA (2024a).
For IX, they correspond to a range of total influent PFAS from 334 ng/L to approximately 7,000
ng/L (discussed further in Section 6.2). There are four scenarios for RO to account for two
source waters, and two cost levels. There are two scenarios for POU RO to account for two
source waters. Costs for POU RO do not vary by cost level input (high, mid, low). USEPA
(2024a) contains the cost curve parameters for all the treatment technology scenarios. There are
separate parameter sets for capital costs and O&M costs and for small, medium, and large entry
point sizes (corresponding to design flow ranges of less than 1 MGD, 1 MGD to less than 10
MGD, and greater than or equal to 10 MGD).
6.2 Results
Table 18 provides ranges of per-household costs for each technology and system size category.
The ranges indicate minimum and maximum costs across the scenarios noted in the previous
section.
Table 18. Total Annual Cost per Household for Candidate Technologies
System Size
GAC
IX
RO
POU1
(Population Served)
25-500
$607 to $1,241
$563 to $990
$4,332 to $5,224
$345 to $357
501-3,300
$203 to $484
$171 to$351
$721 to $1,324
$327 to $327
3,301-10,000
$178 to $417
$145 to $284
$388 to $544
Unavailable2
Notes:
1. POU is not currently a compliance option because the regulatory options under consideration require treatment to
concentrations below the current certification standard for POU devices. However, POU treatment is anticipated to become a
compliance option for small systems in the future should NSF/ANSI develop a new certification standard that mirrors (or is
demonstrated to treat to concentrations lower than) EPA's regulatory standard. The affordability conclusions presented here
should be considered preliminary estimates because they reflect the costs of devices certified under the current testing standard,
not a future standard.
2. For evaluating costs for the PFAS rulemaking, EPA's WBS model for POU treatment does not cover systems larger than 3,300
people (greater than 1 MGD design flow).
For each system size category, the per-household cost range for GAC is lower than the
corresponding expenditure margin in Table 16. The lower end of the cost range reflects a bed life
corresponding to an influent TOC of 0.5 mg/L, which is a typical detection limit for TOC. The
upper end of the range corresponds to an influent TOC of 2 mg/L, which is approximately the
median for surface water systems and the 85th percentile for groundwater systems.
Based on the linear equations from USEPA (2024a), TOC influent concentrations above 3.2
mg/L may sufficiently reduce GAC bed life such that regulated utilities may choose other
treatment options. The maximum influent TOC value of 3.2 mg/L used in this analysis should
not be regarded as a strict limit on the practicality or affordability of GAC. EPA is aware that
systems may use GAC with TOC influent concentrations above 3.2 mg/L. The bed life equations
37
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
are based on pooled data from a limited number of studies and reflect central tendency results
under varying water quality conditions. They should not be used in lieu of site-specific
engineering analyses or pilot studies to estimate bed life or treatment costs for specific individual
treatment systems. Individual systems might achieve longer GAC bed lives and lower treatment
costs at higher influent TOC concentrations, particularly if their influent concentrations of PFAS
are lower than the 90th percentile values used in this analysis.
For IX, the per-household cost range for each system size category also is lower than the
corresponding expenditure margin in Table 16. The lower end of the cost range reflects a bed life
corresponding to a total influent PFAS concentration of 334 ng/L, the sum of the initial influent
concentrations of PFOS and PFOA, assuming that no other PFAS compounds are present. The
upper end of the range assumes additional PFAS compounds are present such that total influent
PFAS is approximately 7,000 ng/L. Data are not available to estimate bed life for higher influent
concentrations using the linear equations from USEPA (2024a). IX costs are uncertain beyond
this value, but it should not be regarded as a strict limit on the feasibility or affordability of the
technology.
For RO, the results are mixed. The cost range is lower than the expenditure margin for the largest
size category but higher than the margin for the smallest size category. The upper bound of the
cost range is also higher than the margin for the middle size category. Therefore, RO meets the
SSCT criteria only for the largest system size category.
Table 18 includes preliminary results for POU RO. As discussed above, POU RO is not a
compliance option under current certification standards but is expected to become an option in
the future should NSF/ANSI develop a new certification standard that mirrors or is more
stringent than EPA's regulatory standard. The results for POU RO reflect the costs of devices
certified under the current testing standard, which might differ from the costs of devices certified
under a future standard. Therefore, the POU RO costs should be considered preliminary
estimates. Based on the preliminary estimates, POU RO would meet the affordability criteria for
the two smaller size categories. For evaluating costs for the PFAS rulemaking, EPA's WBS
model for POU treatment does not cover systems serving greater than 3,300 people (greater than
1 MGD design flow).
The results discussed above assume management of spent GAC and spent IX resin using current
typical management practices (reactivation for GAC and incineration for resin) and do not
acknowledge all possible management scenarios such as landfilling which may be more
appropriate for select entities. Future changes to regulations might result in classification of spent
GAC or spent IX resin as hazardous waste. Table 19 shows the resulting cost per household if
systems are required to dispose of these residuals as hazardous waste. Although costs increase in
this scenario, the increases are not significant enough to change the conclusions about
affordability.
Table 19. Total Annual Cost per Household Assuming Hazardous Waste Disposal for Spent
GAC and Resin
System Size (Population Served) GAC IX
38
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
$630 to $1,369
$211 to $520
$185 to $438
$586 to $1,027
$176 to $360
$148 to $289
Table 20 provides a summary of which technologies meet SSCT criteria for the three system size
categories. As discussed above, the affordability conclusions do not change under hazardous
waste regulations.
Table 20. SSCT Affordability Analysis Results - Technologies that Meet Effectiveness and
Affordability Criteria
System Size (Population Served)
GAC
Ion Exchange
RO
POU1
25-500
In some cases2
Yes
No
Yes
501-3,300
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3,301-10,000
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unavailable3
Notes:
1. POU is not currently a compliance option because the regulatory options under consideration require treatment to
concentrations below the current certification standard for POU devices. However, POU treatment is anticipated to become a
compliance option for small systems in the future should NSF/ANSI develop a new certification standard that mirrors (or is
demonstrated to treat to concentrations lower than) EPA's regulatory standard. The affordability conclusions presented here
should be considered preliminary estimates because they reflect the costs of devices certified under the current testing standard,
not a future standard.
2. Upper bound estimated annual household treatment costs exceed expenditure margin. Lower bound estimated annual
household treatment costs do not exceed the expenditure margin. This exceedance is primarily driven by capital costs and
attributable to the use of high-cost materials (e.g., stainless steel) in the upper bound estimates. Systems using low-cost
materials, but with source water characteristics otherwise set to the upper bound (e.g., influent PFAS at approximately 7,000
ng/L, influent TOC at 2 mg/L), would fall below the expenditure margin.
3. For evaluating costs for the PFAS rulemaking, EPA's WBS model for POU treatment does not cover systems larger than 3,300
people (greater than 1 MOD design flow.
6.3 Small System Affordability Analysis with Potential
Additional Expenditure Margins and when Accounting for
Financial Assistance
As part of EPA's consideration of potential additional annual expenditure margins to improve
the assessment of affordability impacts to low income and disadvantaged communities, EPA
considered two incremental cost analyses are conducted utilizing alternative potential
expenditure margins. The first expenditure margin threshold is based on 1.0 percent of annual
MHI based on a recommendation from EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC). The second expenditure margin threshold is set equal to 2.5 percent of the lowest
quintile of annual household income and is based on an AWWA 2021 expert panel report. These
expenditure margins are estimated for each of the small system size categories: 25 to 500, 501 to
3,300, and 3,301 to 10,000 people served. Additionally, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB)
and the NDWAC recommended to EPA that the national level affordability analysis should
include the impact of financial assistance if the financial support is generally available to all
39
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
systems (nationwide). EPA is also considering including this recommendation in the national
affordability calculations. For further discussion, please see section 9.13.2 of EPA's Economic
Analysis for the Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (EPA, 2024b).
40
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
7.0 References
Alaska Community Action on Toxics. DeFazio, D. and Tynan, T. 2019. Threats To Drinking
Water and Public Health in Alaska: The Scope of The PFAS Problem, Consequences Of
Regulatory Inaction, And Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.akaction.org/wp-
content/uploads/Report-Threats-to-Drinking-Water-and-Public-Health-in-Alaska-FINAL-web-
version-9-24-19. pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2008. Perfluorochemical
Contamination in Lake Elmo Final Release and Oakdale, Washington County, Minnesota.
Retrieved from
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PFCsLakeElmo/PFCs in Lake Elmo PHA 8-29-
2008 508.pdf
ATSDR. 2020. PFAS Exposure Assessment Airway Heights, Spokane County, WA. Retrieved
from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/docs/factsheet/Spokane-Factsheet-508.pdf
ATSDR. 2021. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
Appleman, T.D., Higgins, C.P., Quinones, Q., Vanderford, B.J., Kolstad, C., Zeigler-Holady,
J.C., and Dickenson, E.R.V. 2014. Treatment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in U.S. full-
scale water treatment systems. Water Research, 51(2014), 246-255.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2013.10.067
Appleman, T.D., Dickenson, E.R.V., Bellona, C., and Higgins, C.P. 2013. Nanofiltration and
granular activated carbon treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
260(2013), 740-746. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.ihazmat.2013.06.033
Aqueous Vets. 2019. The City of Stuart, Florida Installs 4 MGD Ion Exchange System to
Address PFAS Contamination. AVP-0016 Rev.2 9/19/2019. Retrieved from
http://www.aaueousvets.eom/uploads/9/8/8/7/98870448/avp-0016 pfas treatment system -
stuart fl - 09.19.19.pdf
Arevalo, E., Strynar, M., Lindstorm, A., McMillan, L., and Knappe, D. 2014. Removal of
Perfluorinated Compounds by Anion Exchange Resins: Identifying Effective Resin Regeneration
Strategies. AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition. Boston, MA.
Ateia, M., Maroli, A., Tharayil, N., and Karanfil, T. 2019. The overlooked short- and ultrashort-
chain poly- and perfluorinated substances: A review. Chemosphere, 220(2019), 866-882.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/i. chemosphere. 2018.12.186
Baghirzade, B.S., Zhang, Y., Reuther, J. F., Saleh, N. B., Venkatesan, A. K., and Apul, O. G.
2021. Thermal Regeneration of Spent Granular Activated Carbon Presents an Opportunity to
Break the Forever PFAS Cycle. Environmental Science & Technology, 2021, 55, 5608-5619.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08224
41
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Barber, B. 2017. Wright-Patt treating tainted water in contaminated drinking wells. Dayton
Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.davtondailvnews.com/news/local/wright-patt-treating-
tainted-water-contaminated-drinking-wells/WigOWMcSdQHNMYYE2bHCOK/
Belkouteb, N., Franke, V., McCleaf, P., Kohler, S., and Ahrens, L. 2020. Removal of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in a full-scale drinking water treatment plant: Long-term
performance of granular activated carbon (GAC) and influence of flow-rate. Water Research,
182(2020), 115913. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2020.115913
Bergman, R.A., Garcia-Aleman, J., Morgan, R. 2012. Membrane Processes. In Randtke, S.J. and
Horsely, M.B. (Eds.), Water Treatment Plant Design, Fifth Edition (pp. 15.01-15.62). McGraw
Hill.
Berlien, M. J. 2003. LaPuente Valley County Water District 's Experience with ISEP
Presentation of Carollo Engineers, Inc. and Association of California Water Agencies.
Berretta, C., Mallmann, T., Trewitz, K., and Kempisty, D.M. 2021. Removing PFAS from
Water: From Start to Finish. In Kempisty, D.M. and Racz, L. (Eds.), Forever Chemicals:
Environmental, Economic, and Social Equity Concerns with PFAS in the Environment (pp. 235-
253). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003Q24521
Biolchini, A. 2018. First PFAS filters in place at Plainfield Township water plant MLive.
Retrieved from https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-
rapids/2018/06/first pfas filters in place at.html
Boodoo, F. 2018a. Short & Long Chain PFAS Removal to Non-Detect Level with Single-Use
PFA694E Resin. Presentation by Purolite Corporation. Retrieved from
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF 18/20180906/108649/HHRG-115-IF18-20180906-
SD027.pdf
Boodoo, F. 2018b. Personal Communication (E-mail). July 12, 2018.
Boodoo, F. 2021. Personal Communication (E-mail). June 7, 2021.
Boodoo, F., Begg, T., Funk, T., Kessler, T., Shaw, E., and Pickel, M. 2019. "Polishing PFAS to
Non-Detect Levels Using PFAS-Selective Resin." Water Online, February 13. Retrieved from
https://www.wateronline.com/doc/polishing-pfas-to-non-detect-levels-using-pfas-selective-resin-
0001
Boonya-Atichart, A., Boontanon, S. K., and Boontanon, N. 2016. Removal of perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) in groundwater by nanofiltration membrane. Water Science and Technology, 74
(11), 2627-2633. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.434
Buck, R.C., Franklin, J., Berger, U., Conder, J.M., Cousins, I.T., de Voogt, P., Jensen, A.A.,
Kurunthachalam, K., Mabury, S.S., and van Leeuwen, S.P. 2011. Perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integr
Environ Assess Manag, 7(4), 513-541. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258
Business Wire. 2018. Kennebunkport and Wells Water District to Remove PFAS with Evoqtia's
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System. Business Wire. Retrieved from
42
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
https://www.businesswire.eom/news/home/20180521005092/en/Kennebunkport-Wells-Water-
District-Remove-PFAS-Evoqua%E2%80%99s
Casey, D., Goetz, B., Martin, B. 2018. Case Study: Moving Beyond Carbon for More Effective
PFAS Removal. AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Toronto, ON.
CDM Smith. 2018. Advanced Treatment Options for the Northwest Water Treatment Plant. Final
Report. Prepared for Brunswick County Public Utilities.
Chalfont Borough. 2021. Public Water Quality. Borough Services for Chalfont Borough.
Retrieved from https://www.chalfontborough.com/information/public-water-qualitv/
City of Issaquah. 2020. PFAS. Retrieved from https://www.issaquahwa.gov/1742/PFAS
City of Portsmouth - Department of Public Works. 2019. Portsmouth Water System PFAS
Update. Retrieved from https://www.citvofportsmouth.com/publicworks/water/portsmouth-
water-svstem-pfas-update
City of Rome. 2019. ROME WATER AND SEWER DIVISION - EPA UPDATE BRIEF (PFOA /
PFOS). Retrieved from https://www.romega.us/DocumentCenter/View/204/PFAS-Update-2019-
PDF
City of Westfield Department of Public Works Water Division. 2019. DRINKING WATER
HEALTH ADVISORY UPDATE: Westfield Public Drinking Water System. Retrieved from
https://westfielddevelopment.com/DocumentCenter/View/8884/Drinking-Water-Health-
AdvisoryQctober-2019
Cronin, M. 2020. Water filtration facility under construction to filter PFAS from Merrimack
water. WMUR9. Retrieved from https://www.wmur.com/article/water-filtration-facilitv-under-
construction-to-filter-pfas-from-merrimack-water/30616073#
Cummings, L., Matarazzo, A., Nelson, N, Sickels, F., and Storms, C. 2015. Recommendation on
Perfluorinated Compound Treatment Options for Drinking Water. New Jersey Drinking Water
Quality Institute Treatment Subcommittee. Retrieved from
https://www.ni.gov/dep/watersupplv/pdf/pfna-pfc-treatment.pdf
Danko, A. 2018. Treatment Technologies for PFAS Site Management. Retrieved from
https://frtr.gov/pdf/meetings/novl8/presentations/handouts/danko-handout.pdf
Dickenson, E.R.V. and Higgins, C. 2016. Treatment Mitigation Strategies for Poly- and
Perflaoroalkyl Substances. Web Report #4322. Water Research Foundation.
DiStefano, R., Feliciano, T., Mimna, R., Redding, A., and Matthis J. (2022) Thermal destruction
of PFAS during full-scale reactivation of PFAS-laden granular activated carbon, Remediation,
2022;32:231-238., https:/doi.org/10.1002/rem.21735.
Dixit, F., Barbeau, B., Mostafavi, S.G., and Mohseni, M. 2021. PFAS and DOM removal using
an organic scavenger and PF AS-specific resin: Trade-off between regeneration and faster
kinetics. Science of the Total Environment, 754(2021), 142107.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/i. scitotenv.2020.142107
43
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Dixit, F., Barbeau, B., Mostafavi, S.G., and Madjid, M. 2020. Removal of legacy PFAS and
other fluorotelomers: Optimized regeneration strategies in DOM-rich waters. Water Research,
183(2020), 116098. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2020.116098
Dixit, F., Barbeau, B. and Mohseni, M., 2019. Optimized regeneration strategies for ion
exchange resins during PFCs removal from natural waters.
Dowbiggin, B., Treadway, J., Nichols, J. and Walker G. 2021. Exploring Treatment Options for
PFAS Removal in Brunswick County, North Carolina. JournalAWWA, 113(4), 10-19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1705
Forrester, E. 2019. Calgon Carbon PFAS Experience. Calgon Carbon.
Forrester, E. and Bostardi, C. 2019. PFAS Removal: GAC & IX. Calgon Carbon Corporation.
Webinar. April 23, 2019.
Gagliano, E., Sgroi, M., Falciglia, P.P., Vagliasindi, F.G.A., and Roccaro, P. 2020. Removal of
poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from water by adsorption: Role of PFAS chain
length, effect of organic matter and challenges in adsorbent regeneration. Water Research,
171(2020), 115381. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2019.115381
Gallagher, A. 2017. NEWMOA Workshop: PFAS in the Northeast: State of Practice &
Regulatory Perspectives. Retrieved from
www.newmoa.org/events/docs/259 227/GallagherMA Mav2017 final.pdf
Gordon, V. 2018. Hampton Bays Water District Gets Green Light to Turn On Two Of Three
Wells. The Southampton Press. Retrieved from https://www.27east.com/southampton-
press/southampton-news/hampton-bavs-water-district-gets-green-light-to-turn-on-two-of-three-
wells-1568745/
Hopkins, Z.R. 2021. Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances - fi'om Scale-Up to Factors Affecting Performance. Doctoral Dissertation, North
Carolina State University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 29004569.
Hopkins, Z.R., Sun, M., DeWitt, J.C., and Knappe, D.R.U. 2018. Recently Detected Drinking
Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids. Journal AWWA,
110(7), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1073
Horsham Water and Sewer Authority (HWSA). 2021. PFAS Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.horshamwater-sewer.com/pfas-summary
Horst, J., McDonough, J., Ross, I., Dickson, M., Miles, J., Hurst, J., and Storch, P. 2018. Water
Treatment Technologies for PFAS: The Next Generation. Groundwater Monitoring &
Remediation, 38(2), 13-23. https://doi.Org/10.l 11 l/gwmr.12281
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2020. Naming Conventions and Physical and
Chemical Properties of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Retrieved from https://pfas-
1.itrcweb.org/fact sheets page/PFAS Fact Sheet Naming Conventions April2020.pdf
44
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Jent, H. 2020. Crews near completion on new ion-exchange treatment plant to purify water in
Security. The Gazette. Retrieved from https://gazette.com/news/crews-near-completion-on-new-
ion-exchange-treatment-plant-to-purifv-water-in-securitv/article 2bf7d0ce-0410-l leb-8776-
8306994433b3.html
Kempisty, D.M., Arevalo, E., Reinert, A., Edeback, V., Dickenson, E., Husted, C. Higgins, C.P.,
Summers, R.S., and Knappe, D.R.U. 2019. Adsorption of per and polyfluoroalkyl acids fi'om
ground and surface water by granular activated carbon. AWWA Water Quality Technology
Conference, Dallas, TX.
Kothawala, D.N., Kohler, S.J., Ostlund, A., Wiberg, K., and Ahrens, L. 2017. Influence of
dissolved organic matter concentration and composition on the removal efficiency of
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) during drinking water treatment. Water Research, 121(2017),
320-328. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2017.05.047
Kumarasamy, E., Manning, I. M., Collins, L. B., Coronell, O., and Leibfarth, F. A. 2020. Ionic
Fluorogels for Remediation of Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances from Water. ACS
Central Science, 2020(6), 487-492. https://doi.org/10.1021 /acscentsci.9b01224
Kwan, P., and York, B. 2017. City of Issaquah 's Treatment Response after Detecting
Perflaorinated Compounds. AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Portland, OR.
Lipp, P., Sacher, F., and Baldauf, G. 2010. Removal of organic micro-pollutants during drinking
water treatment by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Desalination and Water Treatment,
13(2010), 226-237. http://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.201Q.1063
Liu, C. 2017. Removal of Perflaorinated Compounds in Drinking Water Treatment: A Study of
Ion Exchange Resins and Magnetic Nanoparticles. Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Waterloo. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10012/12660
Liu, C.J., Strathmann, T.J. and Bellona, C. 2021. Rejection of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFASs) in aqueous film-forming foam by high-pressure membranes. Water
Research, 188(2021), 116546. https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2020.l 16546
Liu, C., Werner, D., and Bellona, C. 2019. Removal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFASs) from contaminated groundwater using granular activated carbon: a pilot-scale study
with breakthrough modeling. Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol, 2019(11).
https ://doi. org/10.103 9/c9ew00349e
Liu, Y.-L. and Sun, M. 2021. Ion exchange removal and resin regeneration to treat per- and
polyfluoroalkyl ether acids and other emerging PFAS in drinking water. Water Research,
207(2021), 117781. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117781
Lombardo, J., Berretta, C., Redding, A., Swanson, C., and Mallmann, T. 2018. Carbon and Resin
Solutions for PFAS Removal. Evoqua Water Technologies Webinar. March 6.
Marana Water. 2019. Updates: April May 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.maranaaz.gov/water-proiect-water
45
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
Matthis, J. and Carr, S. 2018. Reactivation of Spent Activated Carbon Used for PFAS
Adsorption. In Kempisty, D.M, Xing, Y., and Racz, L. (Eds.), Perfluoroalkyl Substances in the
Environment: Theory, Practice, and Innovation (pp. 303-323). Taylor & Francis.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429487125
McCleaf, P., Englund, S., Ostlund, A., Lindegren, K., Wiberg, K., and Ahrens, L. 2017. Removal
Efficiency of Multiple Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Drinking Water using
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) and Anion Exchange (AE) Column Tests. Water Research,
120: 77-87. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2017.04.057
Mende, B. 2019. Acting Fast to Remove PFAS. AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference,
Dallas, TX.
Meng, P., Hopkins, Z., Tang, T., Liu, C., Bellona, C., and Knappe, D.R.U. 2021. PFAS removal
by GAC: What are drivers for GAC use rate? AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference,
Tacoma, WA.
Mickley, M. 2018. Updated and Extended Survey of U.S. Municipal Desalination Plants.
Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 207. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). 2010. Oakdale and 3M Work Together to Remove
Perfluorochemicals. Waterline. Retrieved from
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/waterline/featurestories/oakdale.
html
Montgomery News. 2017. Horsham Township Council members inspect new water filter. The
Reporter. Retrieved from https://www.thereporteronline.com/news/times-chronicle-public-spirit/
Mordock, J. 2016. In Delaware, C8 contamination blamed on firefightingfoam. The News
Journal. Retrieved from https://www.delawareonline.com/storv/monev/2016/Q4/01/delaware-c8-
contamination-blamed-firefighting-foam/81538418/
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 2021a. PubChem Compound Summary
for CID 9554, Perfluorooctanoic acid. Retrieved from
https://pubchem.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/compound/9554#section=2D-Structure
NCBI. 2021b. PubChem Compound Summary for CID 74483, Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid.
Retrieved from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Perfluorooctanesulfonic-
acid#section=2D-Structure
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC). 2021. Hoosick Falls
Area Information for Communities Impacted by Per- and Poly-fluorinated Aklyl Substances
(PFAS). Retrieved from https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/108791.html
NYS DEC. 2020a. New burgh Information for Communities Impacted by Per- and
Polyflaoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Retrieved from
https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/108825.html
46
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
NYS DEC. 2020b. Peter sburgh Information for Communities Impacted by Perflaorinated
Compounds (PFCs). Retrieved from https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/108820.html
Najm, I., Gallagher, B., Vishwanath, N., Blute, N., Gorzalski, A., Feffer, A., and Richardson, S.
2021. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances removal with granular activated carbon and a
specialty adsorbent: A case study. AWWA Water Science, 3(5), el245.
https://doi.org/10.10Q2/aws2.1245
Page, S. 2020. Quantifying GAC Performance for PFAS Removal at a Surface Water Treatment
Plant. Retrieved from http s://cdn.ymaws. com/mi -water, site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/borchardt 2020 presentations/07 - borchardtconf-quantgacp.pdf
Park, M., Wu, S., Lopez, I.J., Chang, J.Y., Karanfil, T., and Snyder, S.A. 2020. Adsorption of
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater by granular activated carbons: Roles of
hydrophobicity of PFAS and carbon characteristics. Water Research, 170(2020), 115364.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2019.115364
Park, M., Wu, S., Lopez, I., and Snyder, S. 2017. Granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption
for perflaorinated alkylsubstances (PFASs) attenuation in groundwater. AWWA Water Quality
Technology Conference. Portland, OR.
PFAS Project Lab. 2021. Montclair, New Jersey. Retrieved from
https://pfasproiect.com/montclair-new-iersev/
Redding, A., Grieco, S., Roth, J., and Forrester, E. 2019. Validation of Rapid Small-Scale
Column Tests (RSSCTs) to Replicate Large Scale Systems for PFAS. AWWA Water Quality
Technology Conference, Dallas, TX.
Robinson, K. 2018. ECUA sues national manufacturers over contamination of Escambia water
wells. Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved from
https://www.pni.com/story/news/2018/06/26/ecua-sues-over-contaminated-water-
wells/731268002/
Rodowa, A. E., Knappe, D. R., Chiang, S. Y. D., Pohlmann, D., Varley, C., Bodour, A., and
Field, J. A. 2020. Pilot scale removal of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and precursors from
AFFF-impacted groundwater by granular activated carbon. Environmental Science: Water
Research & Technology, 2020(6), 1083. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9ew00936a
Rogers, R.D., Reh, C.M., and Breysse, P. 2021. Advancing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) research: an overview of ATSDR and NCEH activities and recommendations. J Expo Sci
Environ Epidemiol, 31(6), 961-971. https://doi.org/10.103 8/s413 70-021-00316-6
Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Ho, P., Im, J., and LeBlanc, A. 2019. Assessing Rapid Small-Scale
Column Tests for Treatment of Perfluoroalkyl Acids by Anion Exchange Resin. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res., 2019(58), 9701-9706. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.9b00858
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel. 1999. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review
Panel on EPA's Planned Proposal of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for
Arsenic. Retrieved from
47
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Report Drinking Water Regulation Aresnic 06-
04-1999.pdf
Sobko, K. 2021. Garfieldfaces $2M tab after contamination of water supply exceeds standards.
North Jersey. Retrieved from
https://www.northiersev.com/storv/news/bergen/garfield/2021/Q7/22/garfield-ni-water-
contamination-cleanup-chemicals/8046381002/
Stanton, R. 2019. Ann Arbor spending another $950K on PFAS filters for water plant. MLive.
Retrieved from https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2019/06/ann-arbor-spending-another-
950k-on-pfas-filters-for-water-plant.html
Steinle-Darling, E., and Reinhard, M. 2008. Nanofiltration for Trace Organic Contaminant
Removal: Structure, Solution, and Membrane Fouling Effects on the Rejection of
Perfluorochemicals. J. Environ. Sciences, 42, 5292-5297. https://doi.org/10.1021/es703207s
Sullivan, M. 2018. Addressing Perflaorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perflaorooctanoic Acid
(PFOA). U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from
https://denix.osd.mil/derp/home/documents/pfos-pfoa-briefing-to-the-hasc/
Thompson, J., Eaglesham, G., Reungoat, J., Poussade, Y., Bartkowf, M., Lawrence, M. and
Mueller, J.F. 2011. Removal of PFOS, PFOA and other perfluoroalkyl acids at water reclamation
plants in South East Queensland Australia. Chemosphere, 82(2011), 9-17.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/i. chemosphere.2010.10.040
Tow, E.W., Ersan, M.S., Kum, S., Lee, T., Speth, T.F., Owen, C. Bellona, C., Nadagouda, M.N.,
Mikelonis, A.M., Westerhoff, P., Mysore, C., Frenkel, V.S., DeSilva, V., Walker, S.W., Safulko,
A.K., and Ladner, D.A. 2021. Managing and treating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) in membrane concentrates. AWWA Water Science, 3(5), el233.
https://doi.org/10.10Q2/aws2.1233
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates (2006-2010).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Geometries and Characteristics of
Public Water Systems. EPA 815-R-00-24.
USEPA. 2009. 2006 Community Water System Survey. Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey
Methodology. EPA 815-R-09-002.
USEPA. 2020. Interim Guidance on the Destruction and Disposal of Perfluoroalkyl and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Materials Containing Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0527-0002.
USEPA. 2021a. Drinking Water Treatability Database: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.
Retrieved from https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/contaminant?id=11020
USEPA. 2021b. Drinking Water Treatability Database: Perflaorooctane Sulfonate. Retrieved
from https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/contaminant?id=10940
48
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
USEPA. 2021c. Drinking Water Treatability Database: Perfluorooctanoic Acid. Retrieved from
https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/contaminant7icN10520
USEPA. 202Id. CompTox Chemicals Dashboard: PFAS structures in DSSTox (update August
2021). Retrieved from https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical-lists/PFASSTRUCTv4
USEPA. 2022b. Drinking Water Treatability Database: Granular Activated Carbon. Retrieved
from https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/treatmentprocess?treatmentProcessId=2074826383
USEPA. 2022c. Drinking Water Treatability Database: Membrane Separation. Retrieved from
https://tdb.epa.gov/tdb/treatmentprocess?treatmentProcessId=-2103 528007
USEPA. 2024a. Technologies and Costs for Removing Per- and Polyflaoroalkyl Substances from
Drinking Water. 815R24012.
USEPA. 2024b .Economic Analysis for the Final Per- and Polyflaoroalkyl Substances National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation. 815R24001.
Vandermeyden, C. and Hagerty, V. 2020. Managing PFAS: A North Carolina Utility Story.
Journal AWWA, 112(10), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1590
Warrington Township. 2017. Water Contamination Information. Retrieved from
https://www.warringtontownship.org/departments/water-sewer/water-contamination-info/
Wang, R., Ching, C., Dichtel, W.R., and Helbling, D.E. 2020. Evaluating the Removal of Per-
and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances from Contaminated Groundwater with Different Adsorbents
Using a Suspect Screening Approach. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 2020(7),
954-960. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0cQ0736
Watanabe, N., Takata, M., Takemine, S., and Yamamoto, K. 2018. Thermal mineralization
behavior of PFOA, PFHxA, and PFOS during reactivation of granular activated carbon (GAC) in
nitrogen atmosphere. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 7200-7205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/sll356-015-5353-2
Watanabe, N., Takemine, S., Yamamoto, K., Haga, Y., and Takata, M. 2016. Residual organic
fluorinated compounds from thermal treatment of PFOA, PFHxA and PFOS adsorbed onto
granular activated carbon (GAC). Journal of Material Cycles & Waste Management, 18, 625-
630. https://doi.org/10.1007/slQ163-016-0532-x
Weaver, J. 2020. PFAS should be managed as a single class of chemicals, experts say.
Environmental Factor: Your Online Source for NIEHS News. Retrieved from:
https://factor.niehs.nih.gOv/2020/8/papers/pfas/index.htm
Westreich, P., Mimna, R., Brewer, J., and Forrester, F. 2018. The removal of short-chain and
long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids and sulfonates via granular activated carbons: A comparative
column study. Remediation, 29(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.10Q2/rem.21579
Wetzel, M. 2021. Reverse osmosis filtration facility near completion. The Moulton Advertiser.
Retrieved from https://www.moultonadvertiser.com/news/article dd221c!4-fabf-l leb-801f-
c3b7ff0b4dc4.html
49
-------
Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for PFAS in Drinking Water
815R24011 March 2024
WHNT News. 2019. WMEL water authority approves $30.5 million contract for Reverse
Osmosis treatment system. Nexstar Media Inc. Retrieved from https://whnt.com/news/wmel-
water-authoritv-approves-30-5-million-contract-for-reverse-osmosis-treatment-svstem/
Widefield Water and Sanitation District (WWSD). 2018. From Pilot to Full-Scale: A Case Study
for the Treatment of Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) with Ion Exchange. AWWA Water
Quality Technology Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Woodard, S., Berry, J., and Newman, B. 2017. Ion exchange resin for PFAS removal and pilot
test comparison to GAC. Remediation, 27, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.10Q2/rem.21515
Xiao, F., Sasi, P.C., Yao, B., Kubatova, A., Golovko, S.A., Golovko, M.Y., and Soli, D. 2020.
Thermal Stability and Decomposition of Perfluoroalkyl Substances on Spent Granular Activated
Carbon. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 2020, 7, 343-350.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0cQ0114
Yan, B., Munoz, G., Sauve, S., and Liu, J. 2020. Molecular mechanisms of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances on a modified clay: a combined experimental and molecular
simulation study. Water Research, 184(2020), 116166.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2020.116166
Zaggia, A., Conte, L., Falletti, L., Fant, M., and Chiorboli, A. 2016. Use of Strong Anion
Exchange Resins for the Removal of Perfluoroalkylated Substances from Contaminated Drinking
Water in Batch and Continuous Pilot Plants. Water Research, 91(2016), 137-146.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.watres.2015.12.039
Zeng, C., Atkinson, A., Sharma, N, Ashani, H., Hjelmstad, A., Venkatesh, K., and Westerhoff,
P. 2020. Removing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances from groundwaters using activated
carbon and ion exchange resin packed columns. AWWA Water Science, 2(1), el 172.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1172
50
------- |