Heading to #acsdenver? Check out one of the highlights of the ACS Division of Environmental Chemistry program: Symposium featuring Novel Solutions to Water Pollution organized by my friend, S. AhujaNovel Solutions to Water Pollution
242nd ACS National Meeting and Exposition
Denver, CO
August 28-September 1, 2011
Sponsored by the ACS Division of Environmental Chemistry
• Monitoring potential water contaminants
• Degradation studies of various pollutants
• Green chemistry alternatives for disinfection of water
• Elimination of contaminants
Symposium Organizers:
Satinder (Sut) Ahuja
Ahuja Consulting
Kiril Hristovski
Environmental Technology
College of Technology and Innovation
Arizona State University
Nora Savage
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Divisions | Return to: Divisions -> Sessions |
| | |
| ENVR | Dionysios Dionysiou | Wednesday, August 31, 2011 |
| Oral | |||
| Novel Solutions to Water Pollution - PM Session | |||
| Location: | Sheraton Denver | ||
| Room: | Vail | ||
| Organizers: | Satinder Ahuja, Kirill Hristovski, Nora Savage | ||
| Presiders: | Satinder Ahuja | ||
| Duration: | 1:30 pm - 5:30 pm | ||
| Pres Time | Pub # | Presentation Title | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:30 pm | Introductory Remarks | ||
| 1:35 pm | 285 | Green chemistry solutions to water contamination Satinder Ahuja PhD | |
| 1:55 pm | 286 | Natural treatment of groundwater in Southern California Assistant Professor Monica Palomo PhD, Professor and chair Alok Bhandari PhD | |
| 2:15 pm | 287 | Comparative removal in wetland microcosms of trace organics and engineered nanomaterials from simulated wastewater Ms. Fariya Sharif, Prof. Paul Westerhoff PhD, PE | |
| 2:35 pm | 288 | Polycation-tethered micelles as immobilized detergents Paul L Dubin, Ebru Kizilay | |
| 2:55 pm | 289 | Full scale hybrid sequencing batch/membrane bioreactor for distributed water reclamation and reuse of domestic wastewater Jochen Henkel, Dave Vuono, Assistant Professor Tzahi Cath, Associate Professor Jörg Drewes | |
| 3:15 pm | Intermission | ||
| 3:30 pm | 290 | Removing chemical contaminants from water: Kinetics of AOP radical reactions Professor Stephen P Mezyk | |
| 3:50 pm | 291 | Advanced oxidation using radiolysis to understand the remediation of organic contaminant mixtures in secondary treated wastewater Julie Peller PhD, Stephen Mezyk PhD | |
| 4:10 pm | 292 | Long-term trace organic pollutant biodegradation and adsorption in drinking water biological activated carbon filters Research Assistant Thomas L Zearley, Professor R Scott Summers | |
| 4:30 pm | 293 | Multiple contaminant removal using Fe-impregnated granular activated carbons Paul Sylvester PhD, Kiril Hristovski PhD, Jerome Bozon | |
| 4:50 pm | 294 | Ferrate: Green chemistry disinfectant and oxidant in water treatment Professor Virender K Sharma | |
| 5:10 pm | 295 | Perchlorate-selective resins from hyperbranched macromolecules Dennis P Chen, C.J. Yu, Yanjian Wan, Jinn Chang, Mamadou S Diallo | |
| ENVR | Dionysios Dionysiou | Wednesday, August 31, 2011 |
| Poster | |||
| Novel Solutions to Water Pollution - EVE Session | |||
| Location: | Colorado Convention Center | ||
| Room: | Hall D | ||
| Organizers: | Satinder Ahuja, Kirill Hristovski, Nora Savage | ||
| Duration: | 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm | ||
| Pub # | Presentation Title | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 395 | Investigation of adsorption of Nonylphenol on carbon nanotube Professor Ching Yuan PhD, Graduate Student Yung-Dun Dai, Assistant Professor Chung-Hsuang Hung PhD | ||
| 396 | Removal of heavy metal ions from aqueous solution by using calcium carbonate Prof. Dr. Mualla Oner, Dr. Ozlem Dogan, Serhan Galip | ||
| 397 | Fate of hexavalent chromium in the aqueous environment: The role of fulvic acid and iron Dr. Tsanangurayi Tongesayi PhD, Aracelis Lantigua | ||
| 398 | Novel method for the treatment of arsenic in drinking water Dr. Tsanangurayi Tongesayi PhD, Clara Abbey, Muhammad Ali | ||
| 399 | Oxidation of azo-dyes in wastewaters by electro-generated Fenton's reagent Prof. Dr Mohamed M Ghoneim Ph D, Prof. Dr Hanaa S El-Desoky Ph D | ||
| 400 | Efficient denitrification and mechanism study in an electrochemical-activated biofilm reactor Qian Xu, Yanqing Cong, Xiao yan Feng, Hua jun Feng, Dong sheng Shen | ||
| 401 | Fabrication of composite Fe2O3 nanotube arrays for contaminants degradation and hydrogen generation under visible light irradiation Zhe Li, Yanqing Cong, Qi Wang, Qian Xu | ||
| 402 | Low-temperature synthesis of water-dispersible anatase TiO2 with high photoactivity Jieying Jing, Jianyu Liang, Vicki L. Colvin, Wenying Li, William W. Yu | ||
| 403 | Application of nanoscale zerovalent iron to decentralized drinking water systems Chunjian Shi, Daniel E Pomeroy, Pei C Chiu | ||
| 404 | Arsenic occurrence in fluvial sediments: Challenges for planning sustainable water infrastructure in the Lluta river basin Paulina L Ríos BS, Paula A Guerra, Carlos A Bonilla PhD, Cristian R Escauriaza PhD, Gonzalo E Pizarro PhD, Pablo A Pasten PhD | ||
| ENVR | Dionysios Dionysiou | Thursday, September 01, 2011 |
| Oral | |||
| Novel Solutions to Water Pollution - AM Session | |||
| Novel Materials | |||
| Location: | Sheraton Denver | ||
| Room: | Vail | ||
| Organizers: | Satinder Ahuja, Kirill Hristovski, Nora Savage | ||
| Presiders: | Kirill Hristovski | ||
| Duration: | 8:00 am - 12:00 pm | ||
| Pres Time | Pub # | Presentation Title | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8:00 am | Introductory Remarks | ||
| 8:05 am | 450 | Evaluation of MnO2 bed filter for the removal of pharmaceutical compounds Mélissa Huguet, Hana Mestankova, Kristin Schirmer, Marie Deborde, Urs Von Gunten, Hervé Gallard | |
| 8:25 am | 451 | In situ dechlorination in soil using stabilized zerovalent iron nanoparticles: Effectiveness and limitations Ms. Man Zhang, Dr. Dongye Zhao | |
| 8:45 am | 452 | In situ immobilization of mercury in soil using stabilized iron sulfide nanoparticles Ms. Yanyan Gong, Dr. Yuanyuan Liu, Dr. Zhong Xiong, Dr. Dawn Kaback, Dr. Dongye Zhao | |
| 9:05 am | 453 | Arsenic detoxification for sustainable water treatment by biomimetic and bioinspired catalysts with vitamin B12 Koichiro Nakamura | |
| 9:25 am | 454 | Functionalized nanoparticles as removable membrane coatings Megan A Smith, David A Ladner PhD | |
| 9:45 am | Intermission | ||
| 9:55 am | 455 | Mitigating membrane fouling using reactive electrochemical membranes Dr. Brian P. Chaplin, Dr. Orchideh Azizi, Lauren Glose, Ke-Han FanChiang, Dr. Metin Duran | |
| 10:15 am | 456 | Titanium dioxide based hybrid ion exchange media for simultaneous removal of arsenic and nitrate Asst. Professor Kiril D. Hristovski Ph.D., Jennifer Elton, Professor Paul K. Westerhoff Ph.D. | |
| 10:35 am | 457 | Selective removal of phosphorus combined with its recovery as a solid-phase fertilizer Professor Sukalyan Sengupta PhD, Arka Pandit | |
| 10:55 am | 458 | WITHDRAWN | |
| 11:15 am | 459 | Cyclic electrowinning/precipitation (CEP) system for the removal of mixtures of heavy metals from aqueous solutions Pengpeng Grimshaw PhD, Prof. Joseph M. Calo PhD, PE, Prof. George Hradil PhD | |
| 11:35 am | 460 | Novel tailored activated carbon for hampering surface oligomerization of organic compounds PhD Graduate Student Liang Yan MS, Professor George Sorial PhD | |
| 11:55 am | Concluding Remarks | ||
Novel Solutions to Water Pollution at #acsdenver













Still I wouldn't use a PID if I had more than one solvent as it would be extremely difficult to differentiate between them especially if one was a chlorinated hydrocarbon and the other was a non chlorinated solvent. A PID would be useful if you are doing a general survey to determine presence of solvents in an area were you already know qualitatively what exists in the matrix. But then an FID or an FPD would do the same job why use a PID ? A more difficult question is why would you want to do such a survey at all? I have used TO-17 or T0-15 for surveys for years and in my opinion the results much more accurate results albeit you have to wait for the laboratory analysis.
As I said in the beginning of this discussion if you must have immediate results I would use a portable GC-MS . Yes its heavier ,more expensive and difficult to use, but its also more accurate and the results coming from it definitely would stand up in court were as I sincerely doubt if results from a PID scanner would.
see http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/airtox.html#compendium for all the ambient methodology when you need to use a Mass spec otherwise http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/organic/org007/org007.html or
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/
Although we will never get one opinion in here ,maybe someone from NIOSH or OSHA is listening and could weigh in??
The main advantage of a PID is that it does respond to many compounds so one does not need a specific analyzer for every solvent that they use. The PID has a fast response (90% in 1 second) and can detect very low levels of VOC’s (ppb) so it can be used to find problem areas very quickly. Once an area is mapped, a charcoal tube sample is collected in the “hot” spots and returned to the laboratory for a detailed analysis of the chemicals in the area by various OSHA methods. In fact, the portable PID’s are used by OSHA to determine sampling locations during their surveys of industrial plants. With a PID to determine which problem areas to sample, one would have a more accurate assessment of the site.
I agree with you 100%.
The right tool in the right hand at the right time,
Thanks, this is the good kind of quality discussions we should have here.
Have a nice day
After living thirty years of Industrial Hygiene and Atmospheric Science you
must understand that I have heard many long tales of misuse of equipment
and then had to eat the dust myself. How many times have a heard people
trying to convince a Judge that they measured concentrations with whatever
handheld sensor and that a 3 second measurement was equivalent to a
measurement over 30 minute average period which was required by law???
This discussion started before I was born in 1955 with Leidel and Leidel
when people were trying to prove that you could simulate worker exposure by
setting up and number of sensors in a factory, measuring the time the
worker was in each area, integrating between time and exposure and hockus
pockus you get an exposure value which is supposed to represent reality.
Well in reality this method didn't work in 1955 and it doesn't work now
either.
Then again as you explained very clearly there are advantages to a
screening tool and it always comes down to the right tool in the right hand
at the right time.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss a real hot potato and for handling it
in a very professional way.
Hope that we will have many more such discussions here.
Best Regards
Gershon Schwartz
sentex weighed over 20 kg and gave me a slipped disc. Then there was the
Photovav gc pid which wasn't very stable in the field. Does anybody know if
there are any portable gc's available today? Seems to me like another great
idea on paper that never worked in the field?
Best regards
Let me check what I can find for your blog.
If you need a good field instrument or something accurate but portable, I'd recommend the Miran SapphIRe - it uses infrared spectroscopy and the XL model has a comprehensive library that calibrates the unit to 150 compounds for unknown identifications and can be customized for whatever you are looking for. (Here's the spec sheet)
It's a whopper to carry around but very helpful in instances where we needed to know the actual concentrations (or as nearly as we could get). The Miran is cheaper than a portable GC-MS (costs around $25K to buy), but with all these detectors, you can rent them from folks like Ashtead or Geotech for a reasonable fee... Lastly, as Gershon mentioned above, TO-15 or TO-17 canister sampling can be done, and if you are in a hurry, there are mobile labs that can do these analyses on-site (such as H&P Mobile Geochemistry and Con-Test) using Tedlar bags and/or Summa canisters.