4.8 Article

Natural Gas Residual Fluids: Sources, Endpoints, and Organic Chemical Composition after Centralized Waste Treatment in Pennsylvania

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 49, 期 14, 页码 8347-8355

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00471

关键词

-

资金

  1. Duke University
  2. NSF OISE [1243433]
  3. DAAD from the German Academic Exchange Service
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1542809] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Office Of The Director
  7. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering [1243433] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volumes of natural gas extraction-derived wastewaters have increased sharply over the past decade, but the ultimate fate of those waste streams is poorly characterized. Here, we sought to (a) quantify natural gas residual fluid sources and endpoints to bound the scope of potential waste stream impacts and (b) describe the organic pollutants discharged to surface waters following treatment, a route of likely ecological exposure. Our findings indicate that centralized waste treatment facilities (CWTF) received 9.5% (8.5 X 10(8) L) of natural gas residual fluids in 2013, with some facilities discharging all effluent to surface waters. In dry months, discharged water volumes were on the order of the receiving body flows for some plants, indicating that surface waters can become waste-dominated in summer. As disclosed organic compounds used in high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) vary greatly in physicochemical properties, we deployed a suite of analytical techniques to characterize CWTF effluents, covering 90.5% of disclosed compounds. Results revealed that, of nearly 1000 disclosed organic compounds used in HVHF, only petroleum distillates and alcohol polyethoxylates were present. Few analytes targeted by regulatory agencies (e.g., benzene or toluene) were observed, highlighting the need for expanded and improved monitoring efforts at CWTFs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据