Cited by 57Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterialsGroundwater flow and contamination studies

Comparing PFAS to other groundwater contaminants: Implications for remediation

Open access
Newell, Charles J., Adamson, David T., Kulkarni, Poonam R., Nzeribe, Blossom N., Stroo, Hans·2020·Remediation Journal

Abstract

Abstract Established groundwater contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and hydrocarbons have impacted groundwater at hundreds of thousands of sites around the United States and have been responsible for multibillion dollar remediation expenditures. An important question is whether groundwater remediation for the emerging contaminant class comprised of per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will be a smaller, similar, or a larger‐scale problem than the established groundwater contaminants. A two‐pronged approach was used to evaluate this question in this paper. First, nine quantitative scale‐of‐remediation metrics were used to compare PFAS to four established contaminants: chlorinated solvents, benzene, 1,4‐dioxane, and methyl tert‐butyl ether. These metrics reflected the prevalence of the contaminants in the U.S., attenuation potential, remediation difficulty, and research intensity. Second, several key challenges identified with PFAS remediation were evaluated to see similar situations (qualitative analogs) that have been addressed by the remediation field in the past. The results of the analysis show that four out of nine of the evaluated quantitative metrics (production, number of potential sites, detection frequency, required destruction/removal efficiency) indicate that the scale of PFAS groundwater remediation may be smaller compared to the current scale of remediation for conventional groundwater contaminants. One attenuation metric, median plume length, suggests that overall PFAS remediation could pose a greater challenge compared to hydrocarbon sites, but only slightly larger than chlorinated volatile organic compounds sites. The second attenuation metric, hydrophobic sorption, was not definitive regarding the potential scale of PFAS remediation. The final three metrics (regulatory criteria, in‐situ remediation capability, and research intensity) all indicate that PFAS remediation might end up being a larger scale problem than the established contaminants. An assessment of the evolution of groundwater remediation capabilities for established contaminants identified five qualitative analogs for key PFAS groundwater remediation issues: (a) low‐level detection analytical capabilities; (b) methods to assess the risk of complex chemical mixtures; (c) nonaqueous phase dissolution as an analog for partitioning, precursors, and back diffusion at PFAS sites; (d) predictions of long plume lengths for emerging contaminants; and (e) monitored natural attenuation protocols for other non‐degrading groundwater contaminants. Overall the evaluation of these five analogs provided some comfort that, while remediating the potential universe of PFAS sites will be extremely challenging, the groundwater community has relevant past experience that may prove useful. The quantitative metrics and the qualitative analogs suggest a different combination of remediation approaches may be needed to deal with PFAS sites and may include source control, natural attenuation, in‐situ sequestration, containment, and point‐of‐use treatment. However, as with many chlorinated solvent sites, while complete restoration of PFAS sites may be uncommon, it should be possible to prevent excessive exposure of PFAS to human and ecological receptors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rem.21645

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Adamson, D. T., Mahendra, S., Walker Jr, K. L., Rauch, S. R.,Sengupta, S., & Newell, C. J. (2014). A multisite survey to identify the scale of the 1, 4-dioxane problem at contaminated groundwater sites. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 1(5), 254-258.
  2. Bradley, P. M. (2003). History and ecology of chloroethene biodegradation: A review. Bioremediation journal, 7, 81-109.
  3. Butt, C. M., Muir, D. C. G., & Mabury, S. A. (2014). Biotransformation pathways of fluorotelomer-based polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33, 243-267.
  4. Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L. M., & Pennell, K. D. (2019). Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the air-water interface. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 6, 487-491.
  5. Environmental Business Journal (2019). EBJ's Working Model on Number of Sites with PFAS Contamination and Remediation Costs. Environmental Business Journal, XXXII. 5/6, 16.
  6. Farhat, S. K., McHugh, T. M., & De Blanc, P. C. (2019). LNAPL Remediation Technologies. In Enviro Wiki (Vol. 2020). Retrieved from https://www. enviro.wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page:SERD/ESTCP
  7. Hadley, P., & Newell, C. (2012). Groundwater Remediation, the Next 30 Years. Ground Water, 55(5), 669-678.
  8. Kamath, R., Connor, J. A., McHugh, T. E., Nemir, A., Le, M. P., & Ryan, A. J. (2012). Use of long-term monitoring data to evaluate benzene, MTBE, and TBA plume behavior in groundwater at retail gasoline sites. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 138(4), 458-469.
  9. McGuire, T., Newell, C., Osorio, X., Walker, K., & Keat, A. (2020). Allocating remedial costs at a superfund site using risk magnitude, geographic information systems, and Monte Carlo analysis. Environmental Forensics, 21(2), 223-235.
  10. Newell, C. J., Hopkins, L. P., & Bedient, P. B. (1990). A hydrogeologic database for groundwater modeling. Ground Water, 28(5), 703-714.
  11. Pankow, J., & Cherry, J. (1996). Dense chlorinated solvents and other DNAPLs in groundwater: history, behavior, and remediation. Waterloo, Ontario: Waterloo Press.
  12. Sale, T., Parker, B., Newell, C. J., Devlin, J. F., Adamson, D. T., Chapman, S., & Saller, K. (2013). Management of contaminants stored in low permeability zones, A state-of-the-science review. (Vol. ER-1740), Alexandria, VA: Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.
  13. Simon, J. A., Abrams, S., Bradburne, T., Bryant, D., Burns, M., Cassidy, D., … Wice, R. (2019). PFAS Experts Symposium: Statements on regulatory policy, chemistry and analytics, toxicology, transport/fate, and remediation for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination issues. Remediation Journal, 29, 31-48.
  14. Verma, D. K., & Tombe, K. d (2002). Benzene in gasoline and crude oil: Occupational and environmental implications. AIHA Journal, 63, 225-230.
  15. Wiedemeier, T. H., Rifai, H. S., Newell, C. J., & Wilson, J. W. (1999). Natural attenuation of fuels and chlorinated solvents. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newell, C. J., Adamson, D. T., Kulkarni, P. R., Nzeribe, B. N., & Stroo, H.
Affiliations
  • GSI Environmental (United States) (US)
  • Stroo Consulting Ashland Oregon
Corresponding author
Newell, Charles J.
Venue
Remediation Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
7-26
ISSN
  • 1051-5658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6831
OpenAlex
W3034762036
Cited by
57
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Remediation Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
GSI Environmental
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
Keywords
PFAS, groundwater contamination, groundwater remediation, chlorinated solvents, benzene, 1,4-dioxane, methyl tert-butyl ether, emerging contaminants, attenuation, monitored natural attenuation, remediation costs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review