ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Transformation of Chlorofluorocarbons Investigated via Stable Carbon Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
  • Editors Choice
Article

Transformation of Chlorofluorocarbons Investigated via Stable Carbon Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Elizabeth Phillips
    Elizabeth Phillips
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
  • Tetyana Gilevska
    Tetyana Gilevska
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
  • Axel Horst
    Axel Horst
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
    More by Axel Horst
  • Jesse Manna
    Jesse Manna
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
    More by Jesse Manna
  • Edward Seger
    Edward Seger
    The Chemours Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19899, United States
    More by Edward Seger
  • Edward J. Lutz
    Edward J. Lutz
    The Chemours Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19899, United States
  • Scott Norcross
    Scott Norcross
    AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
  • Scott A. Morgan
    Scott A. Morgan
    AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
  • Kathryn A. West
    Kathryn A. West
    AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
  • E. Erin Mack
    E. Erin Mack
    Corporate Remediation Group, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19805, United States
    More by E. Erin Mack
  • Sandra Dworatzek
    Sandra Dworatzek
    SiREM, Guelph, Ontario N1G 3Z2, Canada
  • Jennifer Webb
    Jennifer Webb
    SiREM, Guelph, Ontario N1G 3Z2, Canada
  • Barbara Sherwood Lollar*
    Barbara Sherwood Lollar
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
    *E-mail: [email protected]. Phone: (416) 978-0770. Fax: (416) 978-3938.
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 2, 870–878
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05746
Published December 2, 2019

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) is a valuable tool in contaminant remediation studies. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are ozone-depleting substances previously thought to be persistent in groundwater under most geochemical conditions but more recently have been found to (bio)transform in some laboratory experiments. To date, limited applications of CSIA to CFCs have been undertaken. Here, biotransformation-associated carbon isotope enrichment factors, εC,bulk for CFC-113 (εC,bulk = −8.5 ± 0.4‰) and CFC-11 (εC,bulk = −14.5 ± 1.9‰), were determined. δ13C signatures of pure-phase CFCs and hydrochlorofluorocarbons were measured to establish source signatures. These findings were applied to investigate potential in situ CFC transformation in groundwater at a field site, where carbon isotope fractionation of CFC-11 suggests naturally occurring biotransformation by indigenous microorganisms. The maximum extent of CFC-11 transformation is estimated to be up to 86% by an approximate calculation using the Rayleigh concept. CFC-113 δ13C values in contrast were not resolvably different from pure-phase sources measured to date, demonstrating that CSIA can aid in identifying which compounds may, or may not, be undergoing reactive processes at field sites. Science and public attention remains focused on CFCs, as unexplained source inputs to the atmosphere have been recently reported, and the potential for CFC biotransformation in surface and groundwaters remains unclear. This study proposes δ13C CSIA as a novel application to study the fate of CFCs in groundwater.

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society

Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are manmade aliphatic compounds fully saturated in chlorine or fluorine atoms. CFCs were historically used worldwide as aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foaming agents, solvents, and intermediates for the synthesis of fluorinated polymers. (1) In the mid-1970s, the critical role of CFCs in the destruction of ozone was discovered, whereby CFC photodissociation in the stratosphere released chlorine atoms that participated in a chain reaction with ozone. (2,3) CFCs contribute approximately 61% of total tropospheric chlorine from ozone-depleting substances (ODS). (4) In 1987, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer (5) was ratified by 197 countries, resulting in gradual elimination of production and consumption of ODS. However, recent work (6) highlights a slowdown in declining rates of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) atmospheric concentrations, suggesting a sustained increase in the net flux of CFC-11 to the atmosphere because of unreported production. (6) A detailed understanding of the sources and sinks of CFCs is required to constrain estimates of fluxes to investigate the extent and potential causes for this increase. As a result of widespread atmospheric CFC contamination and dissolution in groundwater according to Henry’s Law, (7) CFCs are prevalent in groundwater at background concentrations at equilibrium with modern air. (1) These background groundwater concentrations are on the order of 690, 360, and 130 pg L–1 for CFC-11, dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), and 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), respectively. (7) Squillace et al. (8) analyzed volatile organic contaminants (VOCs) in groundwater with no known point sources of contamination using United States Geological Survey (USGS) data, and a reporting level of 0.2 μg L–1. CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 were detected in 3.1, 2.8, and 1.3% of ambient groundwater from wells in urban areas across the United States, respectively. (8) Additionally, CFCs persist as common groundwater contaminants throughout North America as a legacy of production, spills, and improper disposal, (1) underscoring the importance of point source contamination.
Until recently, CFCs were thought to be chemically and biologically inert and in fact are used to date groundwater based on that assumption. (9) More recently, anaerobic biotransformation of CFC-11, (10−13) CFC-12, (10,11,13) and CFC-113 (11,13−15) to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) via reductive dechlorination has been observed in various anaerobic environments. Although anaerobic microbial breakdown in reducing environments is now acknowledged by practitioners using CFCs to date groundwater, (7) the potential and implications for dating have not yet been fully evaluated as the prevalence and extent of biotransformation of CFCs in groundwaters is still under-investigated. Horneman et al. (16) showed that CFC degradation occurs over a range of redox conditions, further suggesting an underestimation of the importance of microbial biotransformation in this field. Anaerobic reactions can occur via different types of reductive dechlorination, including reductive α-elimination, reductive β-elimination, and hydrogenolysis. The main anaerobic biotransformation pathway of CFCs is hydrogenolysis, whereby a chlorine atom is replaced by a hydrogen atom. Further hydrogenolysis of HCFCs is often observed. (10,11,15) CFC-113 can also degrade biotically via simultaneous reductive β-elimination and hydrogenolysis. (11) In aerobic environments, co-oxidation has been reported only for chlorotrifluoroethene (CFC-1113) and 1,1-dichloro-difluoroethene (CFC-1112a). (17) Aerobic co-oxidation of CFC-113 and CFC-11 has also been suggested. (18)
Abiotic dechlorination of CFC-113 and CFC-11 by zero valent iron (ZVI) and zinc also occur via hydrogenolysis and reductive β-elimination (CFC-113 only). (15,19,20) The results from a column study (20) suggest reductive α-elimination as a possible minor pathway for CFC-11. (20) Furthermore, abiotic defluorination of CFCs catalyzed by corrinoids has been demonstrated with titanium(III) citrate, a strong reductant, as an electron donor. (21) Although CFCs have been shown to degrade abiotically, (15,19−22) these experiments were conducted with a very strong reductant or saturated metal content (>200 000 mg L–1) that is unlikely to occur in natural environments. For comparison, the maximum iron and zinc concentrations at the field site in this study are 155 and 0.024 mg L–1, respectively. Because in situ abiotic CFC transformation has yet to be demonstrated in natural environments, biotransformation via dechlorination is the main mechanism generally considered for natural CFC transformation processes. (7) In situ biotransformation is a desirable strategy for contaminant transformation as it is generally less intrusive and can be more cost- and time-effective than other strategies. (23,24)
In contrast to CFCs, transformation of HCFCs, products of CFC dechlorination, can occur in aerobic environments as well as anaerobic abiotic and biotic transformation. (1) Complete mineralization of HCFCs involving bacterial defluorination in aerobic conditions has also been reported. (25,26) Additionally, the presence of hydrogen makes HCFCs susceptible to tropospheric oxidation to nonvolatile products in the lower atmosphere, a major sink for HCFCs. (27)
The identification of contaminant transformation at field sites is complicated by the fact that contaminant concentrations can decrease because of physical nondegradative processes and reactive processes that break bonds. While daughter products can provide a line of evidence for transformation at field sites, this approach is complicated when reaction products are present at field sites both as original (primary) contaminants and as daughter products (secondary contaminants). In a study by Lesage et al., (14) both CFC-113 and 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a), the product of CFC-113 hydrogenolysis, were present at a site. This study could not discern whether HCFC-123a was an impurity in the original contaminant source or a product of CFC-113 hydrogenolysis using concentration analysis. (14) In many cases, if daughter products are below the detection limit, or their record of release as primary contaminants makes their presence alone not a definitive line of evidence for transformation, additional lines of evidence are required. Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) is a tool to identify and quantitatively estimate the extent of transformation (EoT) in the field for a wide variety of VOCs (28) and to provide insight into transformation mechanisms of organic compounds. (29−32) An extensive overview of the principles and applications of CSIA is given in the EPA Best Practice Guide. (28) Briefly, because of differences in activation energy, molecules containing exclusively light isotopes of an element (e.g., 12C) react at a slightly faster rate than molecules containing a heavy atom in a reactive position or its vicinity (e.g., 13C). The magnitude of isotope fractionation involved (expressed as an isotope enrichment factor, ε) is often a constant and reproducible parameter for many contaminants investigated to date (for a given mechanism or pathway). (28) A caveat to this is that additional complications in mechanistic interpretations can arise if the transformation step is not rate-limiting in the overall reaction, which is known as a “masking effect” and is reviewed elsewhere. (33) Notwithstanding, in many cases, the amount of residual contaminant can be related to the stable isotope ratio of a compound (R) by the Rayleigh model
(1)
where Ro is the initial isotopic ratio and f is the fraction of the original contaminant remaining. To date in hundreds of papers, CSIA has been successfully applied to various priority pollutants, including chlorinated alkanes, chlorinated alkenes, BTEX, alkanes, and MTBE to identify and quantify transformation in the field, differentiate between contaminant sources, and/or to quantify transformation rates. (28) Recent literature has emphasized the role of the multi-element isotope analysis (typically C–Cl, or C–H) in delineating mechanisms of chlorohydrocarbon degradation in subsurface environments. (34) To date, this has been done most successfully for cholorohydrocarbons such as chlorinated alkanes and alkenes (35,36) and once methods and fractionation factors have been established for chlorine or hydrogen for CFCs, such studies will provide the interpretation frameworks to extend such investigations to CFCs. The main focus of this initial study was to determine for the first time the carbon isotope effects occurring during biotransformation of two major CFC contaminants and to investigate the implications for field studies, while the study of the detailed reaction mechanisms remains for future work.
The application of CSIA to investigate transformation of CFCs, however, in laboratory experiments and in the field has been hindered by the incompatibility of CFCs with traditional preconcentration methods such as purge-and-trap and solid phase microextraction combined with low environmental CFC concentrations. A major step forward was the development of a method for extracting and preconcentrating CFCs from water that does not cause an isotope effect, as has been recently demonstrated by Horst et al. (37) for carbon CSIA of CFC-11 and CFC-113 for aqueous concentrations down to 190 and 270 μg L–1, respectively. While this work opened the field to carbon isotope analysis of CFCs at concentrations in the range typically found at contaminated field sites, to date the corresponding techniques to apply CSIA for other elements (e.g., H, Cl) have yet to be demonstrated in the literature. To date, only one laboratory study has used carbon CSIA to investigate the abiotic transformation of CFC-11 and CFC-113 at aqueous concentrations >30 mg L–1 with ZVI and reported carbon εbulk = −17.8 ± 4.8‰ and εbulk = −5.0 ± 0.3‰, respectively. (19)
The current study applies CSIA to (1) establish ranges of isotopic compositions of pure-phase CFC material to distinguish between different sources, (2) determine the first carbon biotransformation-associated εC for two CFC compounds, CFC-113 and CFC-11, by a mixed microbial culture derived from a contaminated field site, and (3) apply these calculated εC’s to a CFC-113 and CFC-11 contaminated field site to investigate and estimate the EoT.

Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Microcosm Setup

For CFC-113 experiments, triplicate 240 mL glass bottles were prepared in an anaerobic glovebox (Labconco) with a CO2/H2/N2 atmosphere (10%/10%/80%). The triplicate bottles were then filled with 240 mL of an enriched anaerobic microbial culture, SC01, in a defined mineral medium with a composition as described in Edwards and Grbić-Galić. (38) SC01 is an enriched microbial culture derived from sediment and groundwater from a TCE- and CFC-113-contaminated site that is maintained and marketed by SiREM as part of its KB-1 Plus line of bioaugmentation cultures. Microorganisms from this site can completely degrade CFC-113 in increasing concentrations up to 8 mg L–1. Prior to this work, this culture was not fed with CFC-11. Two abiotic controls containing 240 mL of mineral medium and two sterile controls containing 240 mL of the autoclaved culture were prepared to ensure that the isotopic compositions were not affected by experimental design or sampling procedure. Subsequently, 18.5 mL of culture or medium was removed to create 18.5 mL of headspace. Each bottle was amended with high performance liquid chromatography grade methanol, ethanol, and lactate (2.6, 3.7, and 12 μL, respectively) and 1.4 μL of CFC-113, characterized using offline preparation and dual inlet measurement (δ13C = −29.93 ± 0.06‰ based on Vienna Pee-Dee-Belemnite, V-PDB), to produce a 5 mg L–1 aqueous concentration. Bottles were then capped with Mininert valves. Triplicate bottles were stored on their side on an orbital shaker in the anaerobic chamber for 3 h to achieve equilibrium between the aqueous and gaseous phases, as determined in laboratory protocol tests, before analysis.
For CFC-11 experiments, triplicate sets of 6–7 30 mL anaerobic vials (Chemglass Life Sciences) were prepared anaerobically. Each vial was filled with 20 mL of SC01 culture in defined mineral medium. (38) Each set of vials was treated as a single replicate (“sample bottle”). Ten abiotic control vials containing 20 mL of mineral medium and ten sterile controls containing autoclaved culture were prepared. A 160 mL stock solution containing 39.5 μL of methanol, 43.0 μL of ethanol, 41.3 μL of lactate, and 17.2 μL of isotopically characterized CFC-11 (δ13C = −33.36 ± 0.04‰ based on V-PDB and offline preparation and dual inlet measurements as above) in mineral medium was prepared in a 160 mL glass serum bottle (Wheaton) without headspace, sealed with a blue butyl stopper (Bellco Glass, Inc.), and placed in the anaerobic chamber overnight to produce an aqueous CFC-11 concentration of 160 mg L–1 with methanol, ethanol, and lactate at 10× the electron donor demand. Each vial was amended with 1 mL of stock solution to reach a final CFC-11 aqueous concentration of 3 mg L–1. Aqueous phase and headspace concentrations of CFC-113 and CFC-11 were calculated using Henry’s Law and dimensionless constants 12.8 and 3.6, respectively. (39)

Field Study

The study area is located in New Jersey, USA and covers approximately 0.2 km2. CFC-113 and CFC-11 are present dissolved in groundwater and as dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), resulting from past manufacturing and storage operations at the site beginning in 1930. Groundwater samples containing CFC-113 and CFC-11 were collected following the standard 40 mL volatile organic analyses vial method, (40) which is the standard protocol for groundwater sample collection. A schematic of the field site location is given in the Supporting Information Figure S1. Additional site detail including co-contaminant distributions (41) and hydrogeology (42) are included in previous publications. This site provided an opportunity to investigate the CFC source and fate as multiple CFC and HCFC compounds are present in groundwater at 0.25–65 mg L–1 concentrations. At the field site, there is a legacy source DNAPL and groundwater plume of fluoroproducts in the area where CFCs were previously produced and stored (Figure S1). However, accidental smaller releases may have occurred over the history of operations.
There are three main hydrogeological formations sampled in this study. Units B (<6 m thickness), C (<5 m thickness), and D (<6 m thickness), are predominantly sandy (quartz) gravel with some clayey silt. The hydraulic conductivity of B, C, and D units are all ≥10–3 to 10–5 cm/s. (42) Throughout the site a thin lower permeability lens with higher clay content (B/C ≈ 0.5–1.5 m thick) separates units B and C. At only one location (well D13-CMT), an additional thin lower permeability clayey lens (C/D) C (<2 m thick) separates units C and D. Elsewhere units C and D are in direct contact. The results of hydraulic head tests show that the entire vertical sequence is hydraulically connected as even the less permeable, more clay-rich layers are leaky. See the Results section and ref (42) for full details. The average water table depth is 1.8 m.
Figure S1 shows the horizontal location of the wells. Lateral hydraulic flow under natural conditions was historically westward. As a standard hydrogeologic containment practice at contaminated sites, pumping in the northeast corner of the site now predominantly controls the lateral direction of groundwater flow toward the northeast. Groundwater samples were taken in the autumn of 2015 from well nests with wells in the B, C, and D units (screen lengths between 1.5 and 3 m) and from one continuous multichannel tube (CMT) 7-port well (0.6 m screen lengths), D13-CMT. The pH at the site is slightly acidic (ranging from 4.7 to 6.5) and redox conditions range from oxidizing in upper layers to slightly reducing, with measured redox potential ranging from −32.4 to 139 mV.

Analytical Methods

Detailed analytical methods are presented in the Supporting Information. Briefly, δ13C of pure-phase CFCs were determined using offline preparation and dual inlet measurement. For biotransformation experiments, CFC-113 and CFC-11 concentrations were quantified using a Varian 3400 gas chromatograph (GC) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID). Four-point CFC-113 and CFC-11 standard curves were injected daily. Reproducibility of daily standard measurements was used to quantify uncertainty, which was less than or equal to the typical uncertainty of GC/FID, ±5%. Field sample concentrations were measured commercially using GC/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). (43) Carbon isotope analyses were performed on a Finnigan MAT 252 isotope-ratio mass spectrometer interfaced with a Hewlett-Packard 6890 GC and a combustion oven. Samples were introduced either using headspace analysis (44) or the cryo-refocusing method of Horst et al. (37) Isotopically characterized CFC-113 and CFC-11 standards (described above) were injected daily. Total uncertainty of δ13C measurements incorporating both accuracy and reproducibility is ±0.5‰. (37,45)

Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Pure-Phase δ13C Signatures

δ13C signatures for the aliquots of pure compounds measured in this study are presented in Table 1 and where applicable, compared to other studies that characterized some pure-phase CFCs. Measured δ13C for CFC-11, CFC-113, dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114), and HCFC-123a are fairly similar, within 3.4‰ of each other. δ13C ranges for these compounds (−29.93 to −33.36‰) are comparable to petroleum feedstocks, which typically vary from approximately −22 to −32‰ (46) and are the feedstock material for CFC production. (47) In contrast, CFC-12 (−45.27 ± 0.04‰) and chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22, −49.51 ± 0.07) measured here and HCFC-21 (−50.1 ± 0.5‰) measured in a previous study have δ13C signatures much more depleted in 13C than the range for CFC-11, CFC-113, CFC-114, and HCFC-123a. The depleted signatures of CFC-12, HCFC-22, and HCFC-21 may result from different manufacturing processes (47) or different feedstock materials. This depletion was also reported by Ertl (48) and Archbold et al. (49) for CFC-12 and HCFC-22. Overall, measured CFC and HCFC δ13C signatures in this study are within ranges of previously reported δ13C signatures for pure-phase samples of each compound, but Table 1 significantly expands the database on baseline δ13C signatures for CFCs. These ranges are not dissimilar to those reported for a pure-phase material of other priority hydrocarbon pollutants, but the measured ranges for CFC-12, HCFC-22, and HCFC-21 here and in previous studies are among the δ13C signatures most depleted in 13C reported to date for pure-phase hydrocarbons.
Table 1. Source δ13C for Pure-Phase CFC and HCFC Compounds Measured in This Study Compared to Values Reported in the Literaturea
   δ13C (‰) ± 1σ (n = 3)published pure-phase values, δ13C (‰)
compound nameshort namechemical formula(this study)Horst et al. (37)Ertl (48)Thompson et al. (50)Archbold et al. (49)Archbold et al. (19)
trichlorofluoromethaneCFC-11CCl3F–33.36 ± 0.04–33.34 ± 0.08–35 to −25-–26.2 ± 0.6–39.8 ± 1.0‰
    –28.93 ± 0.05    
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethaneCFC-113C2Cl3F3–29.93 ± 0.06–28.07 ± 0.07-–31.3 ± 0.5–26.5 ± 0.8–30.4 ± 0.5‰
1,2-dichlorotetra-fluoroethaneCFC-114C2Cl2F4–32.57 ± 0.01-----
1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethaneHCFC-123aC2HCl2F3–31.67 ± 0.07-----
dichlorodifluoromethaneCFC-12CCl2F2–45.27 ± 0.04-–45 to −33-–46.8 ± 0.2-
chlorodifluoromethaneHCFC-22CHClF2–49.51 ± 0.07–49.71 ± 0.13–48 to −45---
dichlorofluoromethaneHCFC-21CHCl2F-–50.1 ± 0.5----
a

The σ represents external reproducibility for n individually prepared combustion tube samples (n = 3). Internal precision for dual inlet measurements is typically better than 0.04‰. A dash (-) indicates that a δ13C value has not been reported for a given compound.

Isotopic signatures of daughter products may also be considered during isotope data interpretation for evidence of contaminant transformation, as enrichment of 13C in the remaining pool of parent compounds as they undergo transformation is typically accompanied by the formation of daughter products more depleted in 13C relative to parent compounds. (28) It is important to note that without an investigation of pure-phase δ13C signatures reported in Table 1, the highly depleted source δ13C signatures of HCFC-22 (in this study and previous studies (37,48)) and of HCFC-21 (published in one previous study (37)) measured in the field may be misinterpreted as evidence for reductive dechlorination of CFC-12 and CFC-11, respectively. This emphasizes the importance of a database of pure-phase δ13C signatures when using carbon isotope data for the interpretation of transformation.

Laboratory Experiment-Derived ε Values

No significant variation in contaminant concentrations or δ13C was observed in the abiotic and sterile controls throughout CFC-113 and CFC-11 biotransformation experiments (Figures S2–S5). For CFC-113, biotransformation of ∼85% of original contaminant concentrations occurred in all replicate bottles after 40 h. For CFC-11, biotransformation of ∼65% of original contaminant concentrations occurred in all replicate bottles after 76 days. The faster rate of CFC-113 degradation in this study is likely due to the culture history, as discussed in the Materials and Methods. Anaerobic CFC-113 and CFC-11 biotransformation produced significant isotopic fractionation, with enrichment in 13C (Δδ13C) of up to 14.8 ± 0.7‰ with 20 ± 7% of the original contaminant remaining and 15.3 ± 0.7‰ with 32 ± 7% of the original contaminant remaining, respectively. These substantial carbon isotope effects for CFC-113 and CFC-11 demonstrate that CSIA may be used as a tool for evaluation of these compounds.
Equation 2 was used to calculate εbulk values for biotransformation of CFC-113 and CFC-11 from the data in Figure 1,
(2)
where δ13Ct is the carbon isotopic composition at time t, δ13Co is the initial carbon isotopic composition, and f is the fraction of original contaminant remaining. εbulk values for each sample bottle were calculated by plotting 1000 × ln[(δ13Ct + 1000)/(δ13Co + 1000)] versus ln f and determining the slope of the linear regression (m), where m = εbulk after ref (28) (Figure 1A,B). Data points at later stages of the reaction progress (i.e., f < 0.20) were not included in the εbulk calculation as increasing uncertainty in f with decreasing concentration measurements can significantly impact the calculated εbulk as established in prior works. (51,52) To determine the effects of mass removal by repetitive sampling, εbulk was calculated (i) without correcting for mass removal, (ii) correcting for cumulative mass removal at each time point (referred to as “Henry + CSR”, (53)eq S1), and (iii) using the “stepwise” (SW) correction method from Buchner et al. (53) for volatile compounds (eqs S2 and S3). The three calculations did not result in a significant difference in εbulk for CFC-113 or CFC-11 for individual sample bottles or for combined εbulk values (Tables S1 and S2), indicating that the calculated εbulk are robust with respect to mass removal because of repetitive sampling. Although the calculated εbulk values are within uncertainty regardless of approach, the values calculated using the SW correction method were used for further calculation following most recent best practice recommendations of Buchner et al. (53)

Figure 1

Figure 1. Plot of 1000 × ln[(δ13Ct + 1000)/(δ13Co + 1000)/)] vs ln f for the biotransformation of CFC-113 (a) and CFC-11 (b) by SC01 for all three replicate bottles. The solid line represents a linear regression giving the isotope enrichment factor, εbulk. Error bars on the x- and y-axes represent propagated error of ±7 and ±0.7‰, respectively (eq S4).

Fit to the Rayleigh model was evaluated based on the correlation coefficients (R2 values) of linear plots. Data from CFC-113 and CFC-11 experiments showed excellent fit (i.e., R2 > 0.95) to the Rayleigh model (Figure 1), with R2 values of 0.99 and 0.97, respectively. Uncertainty of εbulk is reported as 95% confidence intervals. The εbulk for each replicate for the CFC-113 and CFC-11 experiments were within confidence intervals, and thus a combined value of εbulk was calculated by combining the data for all sample bottles and determining the slope of the linear regression. (54) Using the Rayleigh model, the calculated εbulk for CFC-113 and CFC-11 are −8.5 ± 0.4 and −14.5 ± 1.9‰, respectively. The smaller R2 values and larger confidence intervals for CFC-11 are likely due to the somewhat fewer data points for this experiment.
Position-specific ε (εreactive position) were calculated to correct for dilution of the isotope effect (32) by converting changes in the bulk isotopic signature (Δδ13C) to position-specific changes (Δδ13Cposition specific) using eq 3 and determining the slope of the linear regression using these corrected values in eq 2, following the standard practice outlined by Elsner et al (32)
(3)
n is the total number of carbon atoms in the molecule, x is the number of atoms in the reactive position, and Δδ13C is the change in the isotopic ratio from t = 0 to a given time, t. An apparent kinetic isotope effect (AKIE) was calculated to correct for intramolecular competition effects for atoms in equally reactive positions. (32)Equation 4 was used for the calculation of the AKIE value from εreactive position
(4)
where z is the number of atoms in equivalent reactive positions. Details of these calculations (n, x, z) are presented in Scheme S1 of the Supporting Information. The calculated εreactive position and AKIEC are presented in Table 2. Accumulation of daughter products (HCFCs) was not identified in the CFC-11 experiment, possibly due to low initial concentrations of CFC-11 required for the experiment and low volatility of HCFCs relative to CFCs or simultaneous HCFC degradation. Calculations of εreactive position and AKIEC for CFC-113 can be used to consider two potential reaction pathways, hydrogenolysis and reductive β-elimination (see Scheme S1, Table 2).
Table 2. Comparison of Calculated εbulk, εreactive position, and AKIEC for the Biotransformation of CFC-113 and CFC-11 Calculated with Eq 2, Eqs 2 and 3, and Eq 4, respectivelya
compoundεbulk (‰)hypothesized pathwayεreactive position (‰)AKIEC
CFC-113–8.5 ± 0.4hydrogenolysis–17.0 ± 0.7a1.017 ± 0.001a
  reductive β-elimination–8.5 ± 0.4b1.0086 ± 0.0004b
CFC-11–14.5 ± 1.9hydrogenolysisεbulk = εreactive position1.015 ± 0.002
a

For CFC-113, εreactive position and AKIEC are calculated for ahydrogenolysis and breductive β-elimination.

The CFC-11 AKIEC in this study is within uncertainty of the abiotic AKIEC, where hydrogenolysis was the sole reported degradation pathway, (19) which is consistent with the results from previous biotransformation studies with HCFC-21 as the major daughter product. (10−12) For CFC-113, the AKIEC calculated for hydrogenolysis (Table 2; CFC-113 hypothesis a) is within uncertainty of the AKIEC of CFC-11, suggesting hydrogenolysis as a common biotransformation pathway for CFC-113 and CFC-11 by SC01. However, for the biotransformation of CFC-113, minor contribution of reductive β-elimination cannot be ruled out. (19) HCFC-123a (product via hydrogenolysis) was identified as a daughter product in preliminary CFC-113 experiments. However, like CFCs, HCFCs are controlled substances, making it difficult to obtain and store quantities of these compounds. HCFC-123a was not quantified in later experiments because of the lack of an HCFC-123a standard. Overall the AKIEC values for CFC-11 and CFC-113 transformation are consistent with the theoretical maximum kinetic isotope effect (KIE) for the cleavage of a C–Cl bond via reductive dechlorination, with a maximum value of ∼1.03 based on the semiclassical Streitwieser limit assuming 50% cleavage in the transition state. (32,55)

Field δ13C Measurements

The laboratory microcosm biotransformation experiments in this study provide estimates of CFC-113 and CFC-11 biotransformation-associated εbulk. As per the standard practice in the literature these results were integrated with field measurements of these contaminants to investigate potential in situ transformation at the contaminated site. Applying laboratory-derived εbulk at the field scale is an equivalent assumption to those in laboratory studies where microcosm data and rate estimates are applied to predict plume behavior at field sites. (28) Nonetheless, the standard practice in the literature is to apply these laboratory-derived εbulk estimates, and hence this approach as outlined in the EPA Best Practice Guidance provides a means to estimate the EoT. (28) An additional caveat is that the effects of physical processes in the field will lead to an overestimation of transformation and therefore an underestimation of εbulk derived from field data, but through following best practice guidance, (28) this approach has nonetheless become common and used in literature worldwide to explore the EoT.
δ13C results of field data measurements are shown in Figure 2. Horst et al. (56) demonstrated that the volatilization of CFCs dissolved in water does not produce an isotope effect outside of analytical uncertainty of CSIA. Carbon isotope effects produced from other physical processes such as sorption, diffusion, and dissolution are also typically small or insignificant relative to the analytical uncertainty of carbon CSIA, (28) which is 0.5‰ after Sherwood Lollar et al. (45) Therefore, significant variations in δ13C of CFCs dissolved in groundwater are not attributed to physical processes and are more likely representative of transformation or source variation.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Projected cross section showing measured concentrations and δ13C values of CFC-113 at D13-CMT, E14-M01, and D15-M01 (a), G12-M01 (b) and of CFC-11 at D13-CMT, E14-M01, and D15-M01 (c), and G12-M01 (d). Note the difference in the concentration scale for D13-CMT (CFC-113), E14-M01 (CFC-113), and D15-M01 (CFC-11). (B–D) Are permeable sand and gravel units with some silt. Throughout the site, a lower permeability layer with a higher clay content (B/C ≈ 1 m thick) separates units B and C. At only one location (well D13-CMT), an additional thin lower permeability clay lens (C/D) separates units C and D. The results of hydraulic head tests show that the entire vertical sequence is in hydraulic connection as even the less permeable more clay-rich layers are leaky. An approximate transect line for the projected cross section (A–A′) is shown in Figure S1. Depth is given as meters below ground surface (mbgs).

At each of the four locations, measured CFC-113 δ13C are consistent within all three units (Figure 2A,B). Mean δ13C values are −29.1 ± 0.4, −31.6 ± 0.2, and −30.6 ± 0.5‰ at D13-CMT, E14-M01, and D15-M01, respectively. Only two values were measured at G12-M01, however these values are within 0.5‰. In contrast, significant variation is observed in δ13C of CFC-113 at different well locations (Figure 2A,B). With the exception of one measurement (G12-M01C), all field CFC-113 δ13C values are within the range of the reported CFC-113 pure-phase δ13C signatures (Figure 3; Table S3). The differences in CFC-113 δ13C at each well location are below the criterion recommended for the positive identification of transformation (2‰) (28) and are within analytical uncertainty for δ13C measurement and thus are analytically unresolvable. (45) The uniformity in CFC-113 δ13C values at each well location and their similarity to pure-phase (nondegraded) CFC-113 δ13C signatures (Figure 3) suggest that the transformation of CFC-113 is not occurring at the field site because CFC-113 transformation is associated with significant isotope fractionation based on the results of this study (εC,bulk = −8.5 ± 0.4) and Archbold et al. (19)C,bulk = −5.0 ± 0.3). Differences between CFC-113 δ13C at different well locations may be due to different CFC-113 sources, potentially corresponding to different source zones from the previous manufacturing area and operations at this large and complex site.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Comparison of δ13C values from the current study as well as previously published studies for pure-phase CFC and HCFC compounds with the δ13C of the field samples measured in this study. The solid bars represent pure-phase δ13C measurements and the hatched bars represent field measurements.

In contrast, CFC-11 δ13C varies significantly between units and between well locations (Figure 2C,D; Table S3). As shown in Figure 3, CFC-11 δ13C values (hatched bars) overlap but fall well outside range reported to date for pure product (solid bars). The variation of measured CFC-11 δ13C values between well locations is also significant, from −46.9‰ at E14-M01B to −30.8‰ at D15M01B, which may reflect multiple original contaminant sources, as for CFC-113. Measured δ13C for well location D13-CMT increased with a depth from −31.7 to −24.9‰ (Figure 2C), as the concentration decreased from 12 to 0.25 mg L–1 (Table S3), a pattern consistent with transformation and isotopic enrichment of the remaining CFC-11. Increasing δ13C of CFC-11, corresponding to enrichment in 13C, and decreasing CFC-11 concentration with depth at D13-CMT and G12-M01 at this site provide evidence for in situ CFC-11 transformation. The interpretation of CFC-11 is complicated by the possibility of two controls on CFC-11 isotope signatures: transformation and source variation. Nonetheless, a preliminary assessment of transformation can be undertaken to estimate the maximum possible extent of CFC-11 transformation, that is, if transformation is the only cause of δ13C variation. Consistent with this approach, Hunkeler et al. (28) has recommended that when it is not feasible to measure the δ13C of the primary contaminant that was spilled at the site, δ13Csource can be estimated in a preliminary way based on the literature or based on the most negative value at the site. Values of f were calculated for each well location using eq 2 and the laboratory-derived εbulk for anaerobic biotransformation of CFC-11, −14.5 ± 1.9‰. The site has not been augmented with a ZVI permeable barrier or other metal treatment, and thus this transformation is likely biotic as discussed earlier. Most importantly, whether transformation is abiotic or biotic would not significantly affect calculations of f as εbulk for biotic (−14.5 ± 1.9‰) and abiotic transformation (−17.8 ± 4.8‰) are not statistically different. The most depleted δ13C value, which was consistently in the near surface and the stratigraphically highest hydrogeological unit and had the highest measured CFC-11 concentration, with the exception of E14-M01B, at each well location, was taken as δ13Co as recommended by Hunkeler et al. (28) The δ13C value in the stratigraphically lowest hydrogeological unit was taken as δ13Ct based on the inferred connectivity between units. The EoT was then calculated for each well location using eq 5. (28)
(5)
At D13-CMT, the maximum possible EoT between D13-CMT-Port3 (i.e., δ13Co) and D13-CMT-Port6 (δ13Ct), is between 62 and 52%. The range for EoT corresponds to the propagated uncertainty through eqs 2 and 5 (using eq S4). The same calculation for the other two well locations showing a significant difference in δ13C values yields a preliminary estimate of EoT between 77 and 86% (location E14-M01) and 52–62% (location G12-M01).
Depth profiles were only available for CFC-113 and CFC-11 at this site as the majority of the other compounds were below CSIA detection limits. Of those that could be measured, δ13C values for HCFC-21 (well E14-M01) and CFC-114 (well G12-M01) are enriched in 13C relative to measured pure-phase signatures (Figure 3; Table S3). This enrichment in 13C relative to available pure-phase δ13C data may be indicative of some transformation of these compounds at the field site. However, more pure-phase δ13C data is required for both compounds to differentiate between the source and degraded δ13C in the field before any reliable interpretation of these limited HCFC-21 and CFC-114 data points can be undertaken. Furthermore, the measured δ13C of one field sample of CFC-11 (E14-M01B, δ13C = −46.9 ± 0.5‰; Figure 3, Table S3) was much more depleted in 13C than the range of pure-phase CFC-11 signatures (Table 1, Figure 3), suggesting that pure-phase δ13C signatures of CFC-11 may not be fully constrained.

Environmental Significance and Implications for Field Investigations

The results of this study demonstrate the potential for a novel application of CSIA to CFCs. Findings reported here lay the foundation for future applications of CSIA to CFC-contaminated field sites in providing baseline pure-phase δ13C signatures for comparison to measured field δ13C values and the first estimation of biotransformation-associated εbulk. The field δ13C measurements provide preliminary evidence for naturally occurring transformation of CFC-11 at this field site, which is likely biotic, indicating that in situ transformation may play a more significant role in the CFCs’ fate than has previously been recognized. The evidence for anaerobic dechlorination of CFC-11 to HCFC-21 at the field site suggests that in situ transformation may be a feasible strategy to provide the first step for complete degradation leading to full destruction of these compounds.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b05746.

  • Field site schematic, full analytical methods, control data, mass removal calculations, dechlorination mechanisms, error propagation, and tabulated field results (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Elizabeth Phillips - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, CanadaOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3412-5480
    • Tetyana Gilevska - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
    • Axel Horst - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, CanadaPresent Address: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, UFZ, Permoserstrasse 15, 04318, LeipzigOrcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3475-2425
    • Jesse Manna - Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada
    • Edward Seger - The Chemours Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19899, United States
    • Edward J. Lutz - The Chemours Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19899, United States
    • Scott Norcross - AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
    • Scott A. Morgan - AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
    • Kathryn A. West - AECOM, Deepwater, New Jersey 08023, United States
    • E. Erin Mack - Corporate Remediation Group, E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware 19805, United States
    • Sandra Dworatzek - SiREM, Guelph, Ontario N1G 3Z2, Canada
    • Jennifer Webb - SiREM, Guelph, Ontario N1G 3Z2, Canada
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Funding for this study was provided by NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Grant 497236. Additional funding was provided by the Canada Research Chair Program 104559, NSERC Discovery 453949, E.I. DuPont Canada Co. 492441, and DuPont Corporate Remediation Group (CRG) 501935.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 56 other publications.

  1. 1
    Höhener, P.; Werner, D.; Balsiger, C.; Pasteris, G. Worldwide Occurrence and Fate of Chlorofluorocarbons in Groundwater. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 33, 129,  DOI: 10.1080/10643380390814433
  2. 2
    Molina, M. J.; Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 1974, 249, 810812,  DOI: 10.1038/249810a0
  3. 3
    Rowland, F. S.; Molina, M. J. Chlorofluoromethanes in the Environment. Rev. Geophys. 1975, 13, 135,  DOI: 10.1029/rg013i001p00001
  4. 4
    Carpenter, L. J.; Reiman, S.; Burkholder, J. B.; Clerbaux, C.; Hall, B. D.; Hossaini, R.; Laube, J. C.; Yvon-Lewis, S. A. Update on Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs) and Other Gases of Interest to the Montreal Protocol: Geneva, 2014.
  5. 5
    United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer ; 1988.
  6. 6
    Montzka, S. A.; Dutton, G. S.; Yu, P.; Ray, E.; Portmann, R. W.; Daniel, J. S.; Kuijpers, L.; Hall, B. D.; Mondeel, D.; Siso, C.; Nance, J. D.; Rigby, M.; Manning, A. J.; Hu, L.; Moore, F.; Miller, B. R.; Elkins, J. W. An Unexpected and Persistent Increase in Global Emissions of Ozone-Depleting CFC-11. Nature 2018, 557, 413417,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2
  7. 7
    Chambers, L. A.; Gooddy, D. C.; Binley, A. M. Use and Application of CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and SF 6 as Environmental Tracers of Groundwater Residence Time : A Review. Geosci. Front. 2018, 10, 1643,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2018.02.017
  8. 8
    Squillace, P. J.; Moran, M. J.; Lapham, W. W.; Price, C. V.; Clawges, R. M.; Zogorski, J. S. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985–1995. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 41764187,  DOI: 10.1021/es990234m
  9. 9
    Plummer, L. N.; Busenberg, E. Chlorofluorocarbons: Tools for Dating and Tracing Young Groundwater. In Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology; Cook, P.Herczeg, A., Eds.; Kluwer: Boston, 1999; pp 441478.
  10. 10
    Scheutz, C.; Dote, Y.; Fredenslund, A. M.; Kjeldsen, P.; Kjeldsen, P. Attenuation of Fluorocarbons Released from Foam Insulation in Landfills. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 77147722,  DOI: 10.1021/es0707409
  11. 11
    Balsiger, C.; Holliger, C.; Höhener, P. Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons in Sewage Sludge and Aquifer Sediment Microcosms. Chemosphere 2005, 61, 361373,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.087
  12. 12
    Sonier, D. N.; Duran, N. L.; Smith, G. B. Dechlorination of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) by sulfate-reducing bacteria from an aquifer contaminated with halogenated aliphatic compounds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 45674572
  13. 13
    Denovan, B. A.; Strand, S. E. Biological Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbons in Anaerobic Environments. Chemosphere 1992, 24, 935940,  DOI: 10.1016/0045-6535(92)90012-g
  14. 14
    Lesage, S.; Jackson, R. E.; Priddle, M. W.; Riemann, P. G. Occurrence and fate of organic solvent residues in anoxic groundwater at the Gloucester landfill, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1990, 24, 559566,  DOI: 10.1021/es00074a016
  15. 15
    Lesage, S.; Brown, S.; Hosler, K. R. Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbon-113 under Anaerobic Conditions. Chemosphere 1992, 24, 12251243,  DOI: 10.1016/0045-6535(92)90049-w
  16. 16
    Horneman, A.; Stute, M.; Schlosser, P.; Smethie, W.; Santella, N.; Ho, D. T.; Mailloux, B.; Gorman, E.; Zheng, Y.; van Geen, A. Degradation rates of CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113 in anoxic shallow aquifers of Araihazar, Bangladesh. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2008, 97, 2741,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.12.001
  17. 17
    Field, J. A.; Sierra-Alvarez, R. Biodegradability of Chlorinated Solvents and Related Chlorinated Aliphatic Compounds. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2004, 3, 185254,  DOI: 10.1007/s11157-004-4733-8
  18. 18
    Weidhaas, J.; Dupont, R. R. Aerobic Biotransformation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine and N-Nitrodimethylamine in Methane and Benzene Amended Soil Columns. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2013, 150, 4553,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2013.04.004
  19. 19
    Archbold, M. E.; Elliot, T.; Kalin, R. M. Carbon Isotopic Fractionation of CFCs during Abiotic and Biotic Degradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 17641773,  DOI: 10.1021/es203386a
  20. 20
    Jeen, S.-W.; Lazar, S.; Gui, L.; Gillham, R. W. Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbons Using Granular Iron and Bimetallic Irons. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2014, 158, 5564,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.01.002
  21. 21
    Krone, U. E.; Thauer, R. K.; Hogenkamp, H. P. C.; Steinbach, K. Reductive formation of carbon monoxide from carbon tetrachloride and FREONS 11, 12, and 13 catalyzed by corrinoids. Biochemistry 1991, 30, 27132719,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00224a020
  22. 22
    Scheutz, C.; Winther, K.; Kjeldsen, P. Removal of Halogenated Organic Compounds in Landfill Gas by Top Covers Containing Zero-Valent Iron. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 25572563,  DOI: 10.1021/es991301f
  23. 23
    Committee on In Situ Bioremediation. The Current Practice of Bioremediation. In Situ Bioremediation: When Does it Work?; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1993; pp 4762.
  24. 24
    Malla, M. A.; Dubey, A.; Yadav, S.; Kumar, A.; Hashem, A.; Abd-Allah, E. F. Understanding and Designing the Strategies for the Microbe-Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants Using Omics Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 118,  DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01132
  25. 25
    Streger, S. H.; Condee, C. W.; Togna, A. P.; Deflaun, M. F. Degradation of Hydrohalocarbons and Brominated Compounds by Methane- and Propane-Oxidizing Bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 44774482,  DOI: 10.1021/es9907459
  26. 26
    DeFlaun, M. F.; Ensley, B. D.; Steffan, R. J. Biological Oxidation of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) by a Methanotrophic Bacterium. Biotechnology 1992, 10, 15761578,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1292-1576
  27. 27
    Key, B. D.; Howell, R. D.; Criddle, C. S. Fluorinated Organics in the Biosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 24452454,  DOI: 10.1021/es961007c
  28. 28
    Hunkeler, D.; Meckenstock, R. U.; Sherwood Lollar, B.; Schmidt, T. C.; Wilson, J. T. A Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Ground Water Contaminants Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA); USEPA Publ., 2008, EPA 600/R-(December); pp 182.
  29. 29
    Hirschorn, S. K.; Dinglasan, M. J.; Elsner, M.; Mancini, S. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Edwards, E. A.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Pathway Dependent Isotopic Fractionation during Aerobic Biodegradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 47754781,  DOI: 10.1021/es049920y
  30. 30
    Hirschorn, S. K.; Dinglasan-Panlilio, M. J.; Edwards, E. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Isotope analysis as a natural reaction probe to determine mechanisms of biodegradation of 1,2-dichloroethane. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 16511657,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01282.x
  31. 31
    Vanstone, N.; Elsner, M.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Mabury, S.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Potential for Identifying Abiotic Chloroalkane Degradation Mechanisms using Carbon Isotopic Fractionation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 126132,  DOI: 10.1021/es0711819
  32. 32
    Elsner, M.; Zwank, L.; Hunkeler, D.; Schwarzenbach, R. P. A New Concept Linking Observable Stable Isotope Fractionation to Transformation Pathways of Organic Pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 68966916,  DOI: 10.1021/es0504587
  33. 33
    Elsner, M. Stable Isotope Fractionation to Investigate Natural Transformation Mechanisms of Organic Contaminants: Principles, Prospects and Limitations. J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 20052031,  DOI: 10.1039/c0em00277a
  34. 34
    Elsner, M.; Hofstetter, T. B. Current Perspectives on the Mechanisms of Chlorohydrocarbon Degradation in Subsurface Environments : Insight from Kinetics, Product Formation, Probe Molecules, and Isotope Fractionation. ACS Symp. Ser. 2011, 1071, 407,  DOI: 10.1021/bk-2011-1071.ch019
  35. 35
    Hofstetter, T. B.; Bolotin, J.; Skarpeli-liati, M.; Wijker, R.; Kurt, Z.; Nishino, S. F.; Spain, J. C. Tracking transformation processes of organic micropollutants in aquatic environments using multi-element isotope fractionation analysis. Geochemistry 2011, 26, S334S336,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.068
  36. 36
    Elsner, M.; Jochmann, M. A.; Hofstetter, T. B.; Hunkeler, D.; Bernstein, A.; Schmidt, T. C.; Schimmelmann, A. Current Challenges in Compound-Specific Stable Isotope Analysis of Environmental Organic Contaminants. Anal Bioanal Chem 2012, 403, 24712491,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-5683-y
  37. 37
    Horst, A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Compound-Specific Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis of Chlorofluorocarbons in Groundwater. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 1049810504,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02701
  38. 38
    Edwards, E. A.; Grbić-Galić, D. Anaerobic degradation of toluene and o-xylene by a methanogenic consortium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994, 60, 313322
  39. 39
    Mackay, D.; Shiu, W. Y.; Ma, K. C.; Lee, S. C. Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons. Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals ; 2006; pp 11991205.
  40. 40
    Vail, J.; France, D.; Lewis, B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Ecosystem Support Division Standard Operating Procedure: Groundwater Sampling: Athens, Georgia, 2013.
  41. 41
    Capozzi, S. L.; Rodenburg, L. A.; Krumins, V.; Fennell, D. E.; Mack, E. E. Using Positive Matrix Factorization to Investigate Microbial Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Benzenes in Groundwater at a Historically Contaminated Site. Chemosphere 2018, 211, 515523,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.07.180
  42. 42
    Army Corps of Engineers. U. S. Feasibility Study: DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site: Philadelphia, 2012.
  43. 43
    US EPA. METHOD 8260B: Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods , 1996.
  44. 44
    Slater, G. F.; Dempster, H. S.; Sherwood Lollar, B.; Ahad, J. Headspace Analysis: A New Application for Isotopic Characterization of Dissolved Organic Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 190194,  DOI: 10.1021/es9803254
  45. 45
    Sherwood Lollar, B.; Hirschorn, S. K.; Chartrand, M. M. G.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G. An Approach for Assessing Total Instrumental Uncertainty in Compound-Specific Carbon Isotope Analysis: Implications for Environmental Remediation Studies. Anal. Chem. 2007, 79, 34693475,  DOI: 10.1021/ac062299v
  46. 46
    Fontes, J.; Fritz, P. Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry, 1st ed.; Elsevier: New York, 1980.
  47. 47
    Siegemund, G.; Schwertfeger, W.; Feiring, A.; Smart, B.; Behr, F.; Vogel, H.; McKusick, B.; Kirsch, P. Fluorine Compounds, Organic. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons, 2016; Vol. 15, pp 156.
  48. 48
    Etrl, S. J. Herkunftsbestimmung Organischer Shadstoffe Durch Untersuchung Des Natürlichen Isotopengehalts. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, 1997.
  49. 49
    Archbold, M. E.; Redeker, K. R.; Davis, S.; Elliot, T.; Kalin, R. M. A Method for Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of Methyl Halides and Chlorofluorocarbons at Pptv Concentrations. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2005, 19, 337342,  DOI: 10.1002/rcm.1791
  50. 50
    Thompson, A. E.; Anderson, R. S.; Rudolph, J.; Huang, L. Stable Isotope Signatures of Background Tropospheric Chloromethane and CFC-113. Biogeochemistry 2002, 60, 191211,  DOI: 10.1023/a:1019820208377
  51. 51
    Mundle, S. O. C.; Vandersteen, A. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Kluger, R.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Pressure-monitored headspace analysis combined with compound-specific isotope analysis to measure isotope fractionation in gas-producing reactions. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2013, 27, 17781784,  DOI: 10.1002/rcm.6625
  52. 52
    Bigeleisen, J.; Allen, T. L. Fractionation of the Carbon Isotopes in Decarboxylation Reactions. IV. The Relative Rates of Decomposition of 1-C12and 1-C13Trichloracetate Ions. J. Chem. Phys. 1951, 19, 760764,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1748348
  53. 53
    Buchner, D.; Jin, B.; Ebert, K.; Rolle, M.; Elsner, M.; Haderlein, S. B. Experimental Determination of Isotope Enrichment Factors - Bias from Mass Removal by Repetitive Sampling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 15271536,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03689
  54. 54
    Scott, K. M.; Lu, X.; Cavanaugh, C. M.; Liu, J. S. Optimal Methods for Estimating Kinetic Isotope Effects from Different Forms of the Rayleigh Distillation Equation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2004, 68, 433442,  DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7037(03)00459-9
  55. 55
    Huskey, W. P. Enzyme Mechanism from Isotope Effects; Cook, P. F., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, 1991.
  56. 56
    Horst, A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Vapor Pressure Isotope Effects in Halogenated Organic Compounds and Alcohols Dissolved in Water. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 1206612071,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02597

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 16 publications.

  1. Cornelia Rasmussen, David Hoffman. Fingerprinting Organofluorine Molecules via Position-Specific Isotope Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (30) , 13426-13433. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c02250
  2. Shamsunnahar Suchana, Sofia Pimentel Araujo, Line Lomheim, E. Erin Mack, Jim C. Spain, Elizabeth Edwards, Elodie Passeport. Compound-Specific Carbon, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen Isotope Analysis to Characterize Aerobic Biodegradation of 2,3-Dichloroaniline by a Mixed Enrichment Culture. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (27) , 12042-12050. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c02173
  3. Hyojin Kim, Denitza D. Voutchkova, Anders Risbjerg Johnsen, Christian Nyrop Albers, Lærke Thorling, Birgitte Hansen. National Assessment of Long-Term Groundwater Response to Pesticide Regulation. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (20) , 14387-14396. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02261
  4. Yashar Tahmasbi, Mojtaba Saei Moghaddam, Mohammad Fani Kheshti. Prediction of the Viscosity of Saturated Liquid and Unsaturated Gaseous Chlorofluorocarbons as Well as Hydrocarbon Mixtures Using the Peng–Robinson Equation of State. Petroleum Chemistry 2024, 54 https://doi.org/10.1134/S0965544124070132
  5. Xiang Zhang, Lixin Yi, Ruotong Li. Identification of dense nonaqueous phase liquid sources in groundwater: a review of isotope technique. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 31 (40) , 52688-52706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34427-y
  6. Ruth Lorivi Moirana, Jonas Bayuo, Anita M. Rugaika. Mobility of Fluoride and Fluorocarbons in the Soil. 2024, 91-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7733-4_3
  7. Songsong Chen, Limin Ma, Guodong Yao, Yuncai Wang. Efficient atrazine removal in bioaugmentation constructed wetland: Insight from stable isotope fractionation analysis. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 2023, 185 , 105691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2023.105691
  8. Aparna Gunjal, Shruti Gupta, Julius Eyiuche Nweze, Justus Amuche Nweze. Metagenomics in bioremediation: Recent advances, challenges, and perspectives. 2023, 81-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-96113-4.00018-4
  9. Elizabeth Phillips, Bridget A. Bergquist, Michelle M.G. Chartrand, Weibin Chen, Elizabeth A. Edwards, Martin Elsner, Tetyana Gilevska, Sarah Hirschorn, Axel Horst, Georges Lacrampe-Couloume, Silvia A. Mancini, Jennifer McKelvie, Penny L. Morrill, Ann Sullivan Ojeda, Gregory F. Slater, Brent E. Sleep, Joan De Vera, Oliver Warr, Elodie Passeport. Compound specific isotope analysis in hydrogeology. Journal of Hydrology 2022, 615 , 128588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128588
  10. Trent A. Key, Skyler J. Sorsby, Yingnan Wang, Andrew S. Madison. Framework for field-scale application of molecular biological tools to support natural and enhanced bioremediation. Frontiers in Microbiology 2022, 13 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.958742
  11. Joan De Vera, Weibin Chen, Elizabeth Phillips, Tetyana Gilevska, Scott A. Morgan, Scott Norcross, Kathryn West, E. Erin Mack, Barbara Sherwood Lollar. Compound-specific isotope analysis (CSIA) evaluation of degradation of chlorinated benzenes (CBs) and benzene in a contaminated aquifer. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 2022, 250 , 104051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104051
  12. Sanchi Maithani, Abhijit Maity, Manik Pradhan. A perspective on the evolving role of stable isotope analysis and the emergence of cavity enhanced spectroscopy as a potent tool. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 2021, 36 (9) , 1813-1825. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1JA00175B
  13. Ting Wang, Taobo Huang, Huan Jiang, Ruoqi Ma. Electrochemical degradation of atrazine by BDD anode: Evidence from compound-specific stable isotope analysis and DFT simulations. Chemosphere 2021, 273 , 129754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129754
  14. Guoguang Wang, Na Jiang, Yu Liu, Xu Wang, Yuxin Liu, Dian Jiao, Haixia Wang. Competitive microbial degradation among PBDE congeners in anaerobic wetland sediments: Implication by multiple-line evidences including compound-specific stable isotope analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2021, 412 , 125233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.125233
  15. Max Thomas, Johannes C. Laube, Jan Kaiser, Samuel Allin, Patricia Martinerie, Robert Mulvaney, Anna Ridley, Thomas Röckmann, William T. Sturges, Emmanuel Witrant. Stratospheric carbon isotope fractionation and tropospheric histories of CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-113 isotopologues. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2021, 21 (9) , 6857-6873. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6857-2021
  16. Antoine Danchin. Isobiology: A Variational Principle for Exploring Synthetic Life. ChemBioChem 2020, 21 (13) , 1781-1792. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.202000060

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 2, 870–878
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05746
Published December 2, 2019

Copyright © 2019 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

4298

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Plot of 1000 × ln[(δ13Ct + 1000)/(δ13Co + 1000)/)] vs ln f for the biotransformation of CFC-113 (a) and CFC-11 (b) by SC01 for all three replicate bottles. The solid line represents a linear regression giving the isotope enrichment factor, εbulk. Error bars on the x- and y-axes represent propagated error of ±7 and ±0.7‰, respectively (eq S4).

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Projected cross section showing measured concentrations and δ13C values of CFC-113 at D13-CMT, E14-M01, and D15-M01 (a), G12-M01 (b) and of CFC-11 at D13-CMT, E14-M01, and D15-M01 (c), and G12-M01 (d). Note the difference in the concentration scale for D13-CMT (CFC-113), E14-M01 (CFC-113), and D15-M01 (CFC-11). (B–D) Are permeable sand and gravel units with some silt. Throughout the site, a lower permeability layer with a higher clay content (B/C ≈ 1 m thick) separates units B and C. At only one location (well D13-CMT), an additional thin lower permeability clay lens (C/D) separates units C and D. The results of hydraulic head tests show that the entire vertical sequence is in hydraulic connection as even the less permeable more clay-rich layers are leaky. An approximate transect line for the projected cross section (A–A′) is shown in Figure S1. Depth is given as meters below ground surface (mbgs).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Comparison of δ13C values from the current study as well as previously published studies for pure-phase CFC and HCFC compounds with the δ13C of the field samples measured in this study. The solid bars represent pure-phase δ13C measurements and the hatched bars represent field measurements.

  • References


    This article references 56 other publications.

    1. 1
      Höhener, P.; Werner, D.; Balsiger, C.; Pasteris, G. Worldwide Occurrence and Fate of Chlorofluorocarbons in Groundwater. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 33, 129,  DOI: 10.1080/10643380390814433
    2. 2
      Molina, M. J.; Rowland, F. S. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethanes: chlorine atom-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 1974, 249, 810812,  DOI: 10.1038/249810a0
    3. 3
      Rowland, F. S.; Molina, M. J. Chlorofluoromethanes in the Environment. Rev. Geophys. 1975, 13, 135,  DOI: 10.1029/rg013i001p00001
    4. 4
      Carpenter, L. J.; Reiman, S.; Burkholder, J. B.; Clerbaux, C.; Hall, B. D.; Hossaini, R.; Laube, J. C.; Yvon-Lewis, S. A. Update on Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs) and Other Gases of Interest to the Montreal Protocol: Geneva, 2014.
    5. 5
      United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer ; 1988.
    6. 6
      Montzka, S. A.; Dutton, G. S.; Yu, P.; Ray, E.; Portmann, R. W.; Daniel, J. S.; Kuijpers, L.; Hall, B. D.; Mondeel, D.; Siso, C.; Nance, J. D.; Rigby, M.; Manning, A. J.; Hu, L.; Moore, F.; Miller, B. R.; Elkins, J. W. An Unexpected and Persistent Increase in Global Emissions of Ozone-Depleting CFC-11. Nature 2018, 557, 413417,  DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2
    7. 7
      Chambers, L. A.; Gooddy, D. C.; Binley, A. M. Use and Application of CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113 and SF 6 as Environmental Tracers of Groundwater Residence Time : A Review. Geosci. Front. 2018, 10, 1643,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2018.02.017
    8. 8
      Squillace, P. J.; Moran, M. J.; Lapham, W. W.; Price, C. V.; Clawges, R. M.; Zogorski, J. S. Volatile Organic Compounds in Untreated Ambient Groundwater of the United States, 1985–1995. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 41764187,  DOI: 10.1021/es990234m
    9. 9
      Plummer, L. N.; Busenberg, E. Chlorofluorocarbons: Tools for Dating and Tracing Young Groundwater. In Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology; Cook, P.Herczeg, A., Eds.; Kluwer: Boston, 1999; pp 441478.
    10. 10
      Scheutz, C.; Dote, Y.; Fredenslund, A. M.; Kjeldsen, P.; Kjeldsen, P. Attenuation of Fluorocarbons Released from Foam Insulation in Landfills. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 77147722,  DOI: 10.1021/es0707409
    11. 11
      Balsiger, C.; Holliger, C.; Höhener, P. Reductive Dechlorination of Chlorofluorocarbons and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons in Sewage Sludge and Aquifer Sediment Microcosms. Chemosphere 2005, 61, 361373,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.02.087
    12. 12
      Sonier, D. N.; Duran, N. L.; Smith, G. B. Dechlorination of trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) by sulfate-reducing bacteria from an aquifer contaminated with halogenated aliphatic compounds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 45674572
    13. 13
      Denovan, B. A.; Strand, S. E. Biological Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbons in Anaerobic Environments. Chemosphere 1992, 24, 935940,  DOI: 10.1016/0045-6535(92)90012-g
    14. 14
      Lesage, S.; Jackson, R. E.; Priddle, M. W.; Riemann, P. G. Occurrence and fate of organic solvent residues in anoxic groundwater at the Gloucester landfill, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1990, 24, 559566,  DOI: 10.1021/es00074a016
    15. 15
      Lesage, S.; Brown, S.; Hosler, K. R. Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbon-113 under Anaerobic Conditions. Chemosphere 1992, 24, 12251243,  DOI: 10.1016/0045-6535(92)90049-w
    16. 16
      Horneman, A.; Stute, M.; Schlosser, P.; Smethie, W.; Santella, N.; Ho, D. T.; Mailloux, B.; Gorman, E.; Zheng, Y.; van Geen, A. Degradation rates of CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113 in anoxic shallow aquifers of Araihazar, Bangladesh. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2008, 97, 2741,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2007.12.001
    17. 17
      Field, J. A.; Sierra-Alvarez, R. Biodegradability of Chlorinated Solvents and Related Chlorinated Aliphatic Compounds. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2004, 3, 185254,  DOI: 10.1007/s11157-004-4733-8
    18. 18
      Weidhaas, J.; Dupont, R. R. Aerobic Biotransformation of N-Nitrosodimethylamine and N-Nitrodimethylamine in Methane and Benzene Amended Soil Columns. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2013, 150, 4553,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2013.04.004
    19. 19
      Archbold, M. E.; Elliot, T.; Kalin, R. M. Carbon Isotopic Fractionation of CFCs during Abiotic and Biotic Degradation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 17641773,  DOI: 10.1021/es203386a
    20. 20
      Jeen, S.-W.; Lazar, S.; Gui, L.; Gillham, R. W. Degradation of Chlorofluorocarbons Using Granular Iron and Bimetallic Irons. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2014, 158, 5564,  DOI: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.01.002
    21. 21
      Krone, U. E.; Thauer, R. K.; Hogenkamp, H. P. C.; Steinbach, K. Reductive formation of carbon monoxide from carbon tetrachloride and FREONS 11, 12, and 13 catalyzed by corrinoids. Biochemistry 1991, 30, 27132719,  DOI: 10.1021/bi00224a020
    22. 22
      Scheutz, C.; Winther, K.; Kjeldsen, P. Removal of Halogenated Organic Compounds in Landfill Gas by Top Covers Containing Zero-Valent Iron. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 25572563,  DOI: 10.1021/es991301f
    23. 23
      Committee on In Situ Bioremediation. The Current Practice of Bioremediation. In Situ Bioremediation: When Does it Work?; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 1993; pp 4762.
    24. 24
      Malla, M. A.; Dubey, A.; Yadav, S.; Kumar, A.; Hashem, A.; Abd-Allah, E. F. Understanding and Designing the Strategies for the Microbe-Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants Using Omics Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 118,  DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01132
    25. 25
      Streger, S. H.; Condee, C. W.; Togna, A. P.; Deflaun, M. F. Degradation of Hydrohalocarbons and Brominated Compounds by Methane- and Propane-Oxidizing Bacteria. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 44774482,  DOI: 10.1021/es9907459
    26. 26
      DeFlaun, M. F.; Ensley, B. D.; Steffan, R. J. Biological Oxidation of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) by a Methanotrophic Bacterium. Biotechnology 1992, 10, 15761578,  DOI: 10.1038/nbt1292-1576
    27. 27
      Key, B. D.; Howell, R. D.; Criddle, C. S. Fluorinated Organics in the Biosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 24452454,  DOI: 10.1021/es961007c
    28. 28
      Hunkeler, D.; Meckenstock, R. U.; Sherwood Lollar, B.; Schmidt, T. C.; Wilson, J. T. A Guide for Assessing Biodegradation and Source Identification of Organic Ground Water Contaminants Using Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA); USEPA Publ., 2008, EPA 600/R-(December); pp 182.
    29. 29
      Hirschorn, S. K.; Dinglasan, M. J.; Elsner, M.; Mancini, S. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Edwards, E. A.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Pathway Dependent Isotopic Fractionation during Aerobic Biodegradation of 1,2-Dichloroethane. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 47754781,  DOI: 10.1021/es049920y
    30. 30
      Hirschorn, S. K.; Dinglasan-Panlilio, M. J.; Edwards, E. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Isotope analysis as a natural reaction probe to determine mechanisms of biodegradation of 1,2-dichloroethane. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 16511657,  DOI: 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2007.01282.x
    31. 31
      Vanstone, N.; Elsner, M.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Mabury, S.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Potential for Identifying Abiotic Chloroalkane Degradation Mechanisms using Carbon Isotopic Fractionation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 126132,  DOI: 10.1021/es0711819
    32. 32
      Elsner, M.; Zwank, L.; Hunkeler, D.; Schwarzenbach, R. P. A New Concept Linking Observable Stable Isotope Fractionation to Transformation Pathways of Organic Pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 68966916,  DOI: 10.1021/es0504587
    33. 33
      Elsner, M. Stable Isotope Fractionation to Investigate Natural Transformation Mechanisms of Organic Contaminants: Principles, Prospects and Limitations. J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 20052031,  DOI: 10.1039/c0em00277a
    34. 34
      Elsner, M.; Hofstetter, T. B. Current Perspectives on the Mechanisms of Chlorohydrocarbon Degradation in Subsurface Environments : Insight from Kinetics, Product Formation, Probe Molecules, and Isotope Fractionation. ACS Symp. Ser. 2011, 1071, 407,  DOI: 10.1021/bk-2011-1071.ch019
    35. 35
      Hofstetter, T. B.; Bolotin, J.; Skarpeli-liati, M.; Wijker, R.; Kurt, Z.; Nishino, S. F.; Spain, J. C. Tracking transformation processes of organic micropollutants in aquatic environments using multi-element isotope fractionation analysis. Geochemistry 2011, 26, S334S336,  DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.03.068
    36. 36
      Elsner, M.; Jochmann, M. A.; Hofstetter, T. B.; Hunkeler, D.; Bernstein, A.; Schmidt, T. C.; Schimmelmann, A. Current Challenges in Compound-Specific Stable Isotope Analysis of Environmental Organic Contaminants. Anal Bioanal Chem 2012, 403, 24712491,  DOI: 10.1007/s00216-011-5683-y
    37. 37
      Horst, A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Compound-Specific Stable Carbon Isotope Analysis of Chlorofluorocarbons in Groundwater. Anal. Chem. 2015, 87, 1049810504,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b02701
    38. 38
      Edwards, E. A.; Grbić-Galić, D. Anaerobic degradation of toluene and o-xylene by a methanogenic consortium. Appl Environ Microbiol 1994, 60, 313322
    39. 39
      Mackay, D.; Shiu, W. Y.; Ma, K. C.; Lee, S. C. Halogenated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons. Handbook of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals ; 2006; pp 11991205.
    40. 40
      Vail, J.; France, D.; Lewis, B. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Ecosystem Support Division Standard Operating Procedure: Groundwater Sampling: Athens, Georgia, 2013.
    41. 41
      Capozzi, S. L.; Rodenburg, L. A.; Krumins, V.; Fennell, D. E.; Mack, E. E. Using Positive Matrix Factorization to Investigate Microbial Dehalogenation of Chlorinated Benzenes in Groundwater at a Historically Contaminated Site. Chemosphere 2018, 211, 515523,  DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.07.180
    42. 42
      Army Corps of Engineers. U. S. Feasibility Study: DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site: Philadelphia, 2012.
    43. 43
      US EPA. METHOD 8260B: Volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Part of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods , 1996.
    44. 44
      Slater, G. F.; Dempster, H. S.; Sherwood Lollar, B.; Ahad, J. Headspace Analysis: A New Application for Isotopic Characterization of Dissolved Organic Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1999, 33, 190194,  DOI: 10.1021/es9803254
    45. 45
      Sherwood Lollar, B.; Hirschorn, S. K.; Chartrand, M. M. G.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G. An Approach for Assessing Total Instrumental Uncertainty in Compound-Specific Carbon Isotope Analysis: Implications for Environmental Remediation Studies. Anal. Chem. 2007, 79, 34693475,  DOI: 10.1021/ac062299v
    46. 46
      Fontes, J.; Fritz, P. Handbook of Environmental Isotope Geochemistry, 1st ed.; Elsevier: New York, 1980.
    47. 47
      Siegemund, G.; Schwertfeger, W.; Feiring, A.; Smart, B.; Behr, F.; Vogel, H.; McKusick, B.; Kirsch, P. Fluorine Compounds, Organic. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; John Wiley & Sons, 2016; Vol. 15, pp 156.
    48. 48
      Etrl, S. J. Herkunftsbestimmung Organischer Shadstoffe Durch Untersuchung Des Natürlichen Isotopengehalts. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, 1997.
    49. 49
      Archbold, M. E.; Redeker, K. R.; Davis, S.; Elliot, T.; Kalin, R. M. A Method for Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of Methyl Halides and Chlorofluorocarbons at Pptv Concentrations. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2005, 19, 337342,  DOI: 10.1002/rcm.1791
    50. 50
      Thompson, A. E.; Anderson, R. S.; Rudolph, J.; Huang, L. Stable Isotope Signatures of Background Tropospheric Chloromethane and CFC-113. Biogeochemistry 2002, 60, 191211,  DOI: 10.1023/a:1019820208377
    51. 51
      Mundle, S. O. C.; Vandersteen, A. A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Kluger, R.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Pressure-monitored headspace analysis combined with compound-specific isotope analysis to measure isotope fractionation in gas-producing reactions. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2013, 27, 17781784,  DOI: 10.1002/rcm.6625
    52. 52
      Bigeleisen, J.; Allen, T. L. Fractionation of the Carbon Isotopes in Decarboxylation Reactions. IV. The Relative Rates of Decomposition of 1-C12and 1-C13Trichloracetate Ions. J. Chem. Phys. 1951, 19, 760764,  DOI: 10.1063/1.1748348
    53. 53
      Buchner, D.; Jin, B.; Ebert, K.; Rolle, M.; Elsner, M.; Haderlein, S. B. Experimental Determination of Isotope Enrichment Factors - Bias from Mass Removal by Repetitive Sampling. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 15271536,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03689
    54. 54
      Scott, K. M.; Lu, X.; Cavanaugh, C. M.; Liu, J. S. Optimal Methods for Estimating Kinetic Isotope Effects from Different Forms of the Rayleigh Distillation Equation. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 2004, 68, 433442,  DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7037(03)00459-9
    55. 55
      Huskey, W. P. Enzyme Mechanism from Isotope Effects; Cook, P. F., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, 1991.
    56. 56
      Horst, A.; Lacrampe-Couloume, G.; Sherwood Lollar, B. Vapor Pressure Isotope Effects in Halogenated Organic Compounds and Alcohols Dissolved in Water. Anal. Chem. 2016, 88, 1206612071,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02597
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.9b05746.

    • Field site schematic, full analytical methods, control data, mass removal calculations, dechlorination mechanisms, error propagation, and tabulated field results (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.