Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances in the Finnish Defence Forces

Transcription

1 Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances in the Finnish Defence Forces Tiina Ryynänen Construction Establishment of Finnish Defence Administration European Conference of Defence and the Environment Helsinki, Finland

2 Presentation PFAS-compounds and possible sources in the military Screening study 2015 Material study 2016 Environment studies in Upinniemi Naval Base area 2016 Firefighting foam study 2017 Conclusions and follow up

3 PFAS compounds in the military Diverse group of synthetic chemicals with (extremely strong and stable) carbon-fluorine bonds Used in industries and consumer products worldwide for decades Persistent, resist degeneration, bioaccumulate in the environment Challenge for remediation Linked to several health effects Most concerns with longer chain PFAS ( C7 or more) Less information about shorter chained PFASs, PFOS substitutes Possible sources in the military Firefighting foams, treating metal surfaces, chrome plating, paints and waxes, hudraulic fluids in aviation, textiles.. PFOS PFOA

4 PFC screening study 2015 Focus of the study in 2015 was on sites where firefighting foams have been used continiously Airfield sites Firefighting practise areas Sampling also from: Storage areas Waste water treatment sites Military laundry facilities Landfill sites Municipal drinking water wells All branches of the Defence presented Army, Navy, Air Forces 36 samples Groundwater (18), surface water (6), waste water (5), soil (4), sediment (3) 14 perfluorinated compounds analyzed Purpose was to focus on those actions and areas where PFCs were suspected to be released into the environment due to usage of certain products, maintenance work and emissions Compound Abbreviation Composition LOD [µg/l] water samples LOD [mg/kg] soil and sediment samples Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA C 4 HF 7 O 2 0,002 0,001 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBuS C 4 HF 9 O 3 S 0,001 0,001 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA C 10 HF 19 O 2 0,001 0,005 Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid PFDS C 10 HF 21 O 3 S 0,001 0,005 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA C 12 HF 23 O 2 0,002 0,005 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA C 6 HF 11 O 2 0,001 0,001 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS C 6 HF 13 O 3 S 0,001 0,001 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA C 7 HF 13 O 2 0,001 0,001 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS C 7 HF 15 O 3 S 0,001 0,001 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA C 9 HF 17 O 2 0,001 0,001 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA C 8 HF 15 O 2 0,0005 0,001 Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid PFOS C 8 HF 17 O 3 S 0,0001 0,001 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA C 5 HF 9 O 2 0,001 0,001 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA C 11 HF 21 O 2 0,001 0,005

5 Results of the screening study PFC concentrations above LOD were detected from 18 samples ( 50 % of total amount of samples) PFOS and PFOA were found from 13 samples taken Other compounds frequently detected: PFBA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFBuS, PFPeA The highest concentrations (ground water) from a former practise area of Keuruu PFOS ng/l PFOA ng/l PFHxA ng/l PFHpS ng/l PFPeA ng/l Highest surface water concentration from Rissala s landfill site (close to an airfield site) PFC 84,9 ng/l Highest waste water concentration from Säkylä s laundry facilities PFC 726 ng/l Also highest amount of different compounds detected (11 different compounds) PFDA and PFDoA were not detected from other samples Concentrations from soil samples that were above LOD were detected from a former practise area of Kauhava PFC 140 µg/kg ja 291 µg/kg

6 Compared to health standards and environmental guidelines (Europe and United States) Guideline for ground water 23 ng/l (PFOS, The Netherlands) Guideline crossed in Keuruu practise area Guideline for surface water 0,65 ng/l (AA-EQS, EU) and 36 µg/l (MAC-EQS, EU) for PFOS All samples were below guideline MAC-EQS (PFOS) Several health standards and guidelines for drinking water PFOS 0,01-0,53 µg/l ja PFOA 0,04-10 µg/l (Europe and United States) No PFOS or PFOA concentrations from drinking water sites or municipal drinking water wells Guidelines for soil 6mg/kg (PFOS, USA) and 2,3 µg/kg (PFOS, The Netherlands) and 16 mg/kg (PFOA, USA) Concentrations from Kauhava practise area were clearly below guidelines given in USA but above more strict guidelines given in Netherlands Study consisted of single samples Concentrations may vary depending on the time of the year (not comparable to AA-EQS values) Ground water locations based on already existing ground water monitoring wells

7 Material study 2016 Different uniform types and equipment are used for protection against cold, wind, humidity, dirt, chemicals, fire, steam, ballistic strikes Based on yearly cycle and different using purposes Washing and maintenance of military textiles and equipment only allowed at the laundry facilities of Säkylä and Mikkeli In the screening study 2015, the highest amount of different PFCs (11) were detected from waste water of military laundry process Interest to a separate material study in samples chosen to the material study Based on the manufacturing materials and using purposes Focus was on materials where persistency to water and dirt brings value to the product Rainwear (two models), conscript uniforms (summertime outdoor, frost and snow), combat boots (two models), rubber boots, back bag, tent fabric and tent mattress, mittens, bed sheet, elbow/knee pads 17 PFASs analyzed 11 long chained compounds ( C7) and 6 short chained compounds Same analyzing package than in the screening study 2015, with addition of three fluorotelomer sulfonates: 4:2 FTS, 6:2 and 8:2 FTS No volatile PFASs were analyzed

8 µg/m2 µg/m² Results of the material study samples out of 15 contained various amounts of PFASs Rubber boots, leather mittens, elbow/knee pads and a bed sheet free from PFAS (below LOD) PFOA was the most dominant compound Detected in 10 samples PFOS was detected in 3 samples 8:2 FTS was detected in three samples Outdoor uniform (4,8 µg/m), frost uniform (1,2 µg/m²) and back bag (0,4 µg/m²) Highest PFAS concentrations were detected from combat boots (2 different models) Model A, sum of PFAS compounds 2483 µg/m² Model B, sum of PFAS compounds 274 µg/m² 11 different PFASs detected in model A combat boot PFOS guideline 1 µg/m² for textiles and coated materials (EU) PFOS, combat boot model A (6,7 µg/m²) PFOA, combat boot model A (959,6 µg/m²) PFOA, combat boot model B (1,8 µg/m²) To be considered: Study was based on single analysis Concentrations relatively low Skin exposure minor route of exposure? No volatile PFAS included Sum of PFAS compounds in textiles Sum of PFAS in combat boots combat boot M05 model A combat boot M05 model B PFOA PFAS

9 Environment studies 2016 Upinniemi Naval Base area Additional environmental studies were performed in Upinniemi Naval base area in 2016 Possible environmental impacts ascribed to the use of firefighting foams Maritime Safety Training Centre was also included to the study Soil, sediment and water samples were taken mainly close to the harbor area and around the shoreline PFASs were detected from surface water and soil close to Maritime Safety Training Centre 0,35 µg/l and 0,64 µg/l surface water PFOS concentrations Other surface water PFAS concentrations were PFPeA 0,53 µg/l, PFHxA 0,43 µg/l, PFHxS 0,44 µg/l and 6:2 FTS 3,5 µg/l Soil concentrations of PFOS (3,7 27 µg/kg), PFUnDA (5-42 µg/kg), 6:2 FTS (3,2 µg/kg) and PFHxS (3,1 µg/kg) No PFAS concentrations were detected from sediment samples

10 Firefighting foam study 2017 Studies in Upinniemi area raised interest to a separate foam study Exact chemical composition of firefighting foam is usually classified information Chemical information is needed in order to further evaluate possible environmental contamination on sites where firefighting foams have been used Laboratory testing of foams currently in use/storage in Upinniemi Navy base was conducted 6 different foams were tested Samples were taken from the concentrate Commercial name Foam type Use in the Navy Afrosynt M-5 Synthetic foam Vessels and fire engines Fomtec Trainer Synthetic foam Meriturva Maritime Safety Training Centre Fomtec Arc 3x3 AFFF Support vessel Fomtec MB 5 Synthetic foam Meriturva Maritime Safety Training Centre (used only few times, currently not in use) Sthamex F-15 Synthetic foam Vessels and fire engines Protein Foam Concentrate Protein Foam Vessels and fire engines (not in use, an old foam in storage)

11 Results of the foam study Results revealed that all of the foams tested contain PFAS compounds With various concentrations Fluorotelomer sulfonates and PFASs with shorter carbon chain length were widely present Telomer based fluorosurfactants are common in new generation firefighting foams Although PFOS is restricted by legislation, it was still detected in almost every foam tested Remarkably high concentrations in two foam samples To be concidered about the results: Storage time of the foams tested was unknown Expiration time is relatively short Chemical composition may vary between different foam baches Modification of the chemical composition is possible (by the manufacturer) Study was preliminary and only few foam types tested High concentrations determined from older generation foams Afrosynt M-5 sample 1" Afrosynt M-5 sample 2" Fomtec MB5 Fomtec Arc 3x3 Fomtec Trainer 3 % Sthamex F-15 Protein Foam [µg/l] [µg/l] [µg/l] [µg/l] [µg/l] [µg/l] [µg/l] FTS 6:2 <1,00 <1,00 <1, <1, FTS 8:2 78, ,4 <1, PFBA <1,00 23,6 7,1 67,6 <1, PFBS <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFDA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 22,6 <1, PFDoDA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 9,39 <1,00 <1,00 92 PFDS <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFHpA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFHpS <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFHxA <1,00 <1,00 <1, <1, PFHxS <1,00 <1,00 34,1 8,2 13, PFNA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFOA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 66,3 <1, PFOS <1,00 <1, ,7 13, PFOSA <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1,00 <1, PFPeA 7,45 6,11 1, , PFUnDA 6,47 5,66 4,96 5,58 5, Total

12 Conclusions and follow up PFAS studies within the FDF will proceed as more information about PFASs is available Comprehensive study of the firefighting foams in 2017 Mapping of the foams currently in use and storage Laboratory analysis Army and Air Forces will also be included Environment monitoring and sampling will be continued Risk assessments of the fate and transport may be carried out in areas of concern Possible remediation methods have been surveyed

13 Thank you! Questions?