Meta-Analysis of PFAS in New Hampshire Groundwater AUTHORS: Elijah Sorensen Emma Thibodeau Cassidy Yates, PM PROJECT ADVISOR: James Malley PROJECT SPONSOR: Harrison Roakes, Sandborn, Head & Associates, Inc. View presentation Meta-Analysis of PFAS in New Hampshire Groundwater This project was set forth in conjunction with Sanborn Head & Associates, Results Introduction as well as in cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) to further expand on the knowledge of Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in its occurrence, fate, and transportation in groundwater. Thanks to the NHDES, over 120,000 PFAS measurements could be utilized to perform a meta-analysis to Project Scope & Objectives find statistical significance among PFAS in New Hampshire's groundwater. A Discussion meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical Methods References & Acknowledgements analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies used to test the pooled data for statistical significance. In other words, the goal of this project is to understand the distribution of PFAS data on a large scale, find statistical significance in differences between short and long chain PFAS, and to find trends among New Hampshire regulated PFAS. Cassidy Yates (PM), Emma Thibodeau, Eli Sorensen Faculty Advisor: Dr. Jim Malley Project Sponsor: Harrison Roakes Environmental Engineering Capstone Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals with thousands of types used worldwide. These compounds have been found in aqueous film firefighting foam, water resistant fabrics, food packaging, nonstick cookware, and many other products. Potential health effects include hepatic, cardiovascular, endocrine, immune, reproductive, and developmental [1]. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) proposed regulations for PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS, shown in Table 1. Strong fluorine bonds, create hydrophobic and lipophobic surfactant properties and allow these compounds to be thermally and chemically stable [2]. Figure 1 shows the structures of the fluorine chains and attached acids. Figure 1: Four PFAS Structures • Conduct a meta-analysis, or analysis across multiple sites and studies, using statistical approaches to find correlations within the data set • Assess the variables that could cause correlations such as physical and chemical properties • Reviewed literature on PFAS fate and transport, chemistry, and regulations • Worked with NHDES to obtain data • Tidied data into a useable form • Numbers randomly generated for values below 5 ppt • Applied a logarithmic transformation on data • Interpreted findings • Calculated summary statistics • Visualized data with scatterplots Table 1: Percentiles in units of parts per trillion (ppt) and percent detections for nine PFAS analytes. Analytes with proposed regulations in NH are shown in blue. PFOS PFOA PFNA PFHxS PFHxA PFBS PFHpA PFPeA PFBA Maximum 11,000 8,200 4,700 7,419 5,170 2,508 1,940 4,730 1,200 Concentration 14.78 29.28 6.54 18.15 24.55 16 75th Percentile 30.36 63.98 <5 Concentration Median 5.47 13.45 <5 <5 6.60 <5 <5 5.58 6.17 Concentration <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Minimum Concentration 52% 66% 21% 39% 54% 32% 48% 53% 56% Percent detections > 5 ppt NH Proposed 15 12 11 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MCL and AGQS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL), Ambient Groundwater Quality Standards (AGQS) Figure 2: Scatterplot of log transformed PFHxA vs log transformed PFPeA Figure Key: Data below 5 ppt True detect data One detect analyte, one analyte below 5 ppt Figure 3: Scatterplot of log transformed PFOA vs log transformed PFOS • Median values in Table 1 are low compared to proposed AGQS regulations, some even under the detection threshold of 5 ppt • Maximum values are orders of magnitude higher and likely sampled from source areas • Figure 2 is the most visually correlated, both PFHxA and PFPeA are longer chain compounds with similar fate and transport • Figure 4 shows PFOS to be better correlated with PFHxS than with PFOA as in Figure 3 • Assessing PFAS data through meta-analyses can yield big picture observations Figure 4: Scatterplot of log transformed PFOS vs log transformed PFHxS [1] The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2018). Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. [2] Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC). (November 2017). Naming Conventions and Physical and Chemical Properties of Perand Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Thank you to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services for providing data, Dr. Ernst Linder for statistical consulting, and Dr. Jim Malley and Harrison Roakes for support and guidance. NHDOT 3D Bridge Puzzle AUTHORS: Nicholas Bouchard Evan Gwynne Davies Brenna Heinley Edward Mahoney CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING -INVESTIGATION & ASSESSMENT FACULTY ADVISOR: Robert Henry PROJECT SPONSOR: Bill Saffian, NHDOT View presentation Team 4 spent their Senior Capstone Project converting 2D AutoCAD files of a Bridge Puzzle, provided by the NHDOT, into a 3D model to be used as part of an educational package for students and professionals alike. The goal is for individuals to better their understanding of the components of a typical bridge. The original deliverable included a 3D printed model of the bridge however, due to circumstance an exploded virtual representation of the bridge was created. Prior to social distancing the north abutment and some of the bridge deck was 3D printed and assembled to create a half model of the bridge. 17 • 2020 UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH CONFERENCE NHDOT 3D Bridge Puzzle Evan Gwynne-Davies, Edward Mahoney, Brenna Heinley, Nicholas Bouchard Sponsor, Bill Saffian - NHDOT Faculty Advisor, Dr. Robert Henry – UNH CEE Dept. Process • 2D AutoCAD drawings of a typical NHDOT bridge • Develop 3D Revit model of the bridge • Identify individual bridge components • Produce 3D Printable files • Scale to the footprint of the 3D printer • Printing the 3D bridge components Purpose • Educational Outreach - NHDOT will use this modeled 3D printed bridge puzzle to help students and adults understand different bridge aspects • Software - Gaining experience with Revit and Procore • 3D Printing - Familiarizing with 3D printing process • Structural Education – Develop an understanding of various bridge components Challenges • Social distancing • Understanding bridge terminology • Familiarizing with software (Procore and Revit) • Familiarizing with 3D printing process (orientation, scaling, tolerances, etc.) Results • 3D Printed Half Model consisting of bridge north abutment, footing, wingwall, pieces of bridge deck, and pier • Revit model of entire bridge • Virtual presentation showing exploded view of whole model and individual components created in SketchUp