Cited by 10Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFluoride Effects and Removal

Understanding PFAS Behavior: Analysing Contamination Patterns in Surface Water and Sediment of the Apies River, South Africa

Open access
Okwuosa, R., Nomngongo, P. N., Petrik, L., Olatunji, O. S., Okonkwo, O. J.·2025·Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent environmental contaminants widely detected in water and sediment worldwide. Despite growing concerns about their ecological and health risks, their distribution in African aquatic environments remains understudied. This study addresses the knowledge gap in PFAS contamination by analysing the spatial and temporal distribution of 18 PFAS in Apies River water and sediment in Pretoria, South Africa. Surface water and sediment samples were collected upstream and downstream of the Apies River during dry seasons. The analysis of PFAS concentrations was conducted using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Statistical analysis, including paired t-tests, non-metric multidimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis, were applied to determine spatial and temporal trends. The study revealed significant spatial variations in PFAS contamination, with upstream locations consistently exhibiting higher concentrations than downstream. In surface water samples, L_PFBS, 4:2 FTS, 6:2 FTS, and L_PFHpS showed statistically significant differences ( p < 0.05) between sites. Perfluorocarboxylic acids were the dominant PFAS class in surface water (50.47–57.15%), whereas perfluorosulfonic acids were more prevalent in sediments. Upstream sediment had higher L_PFHpS (43.00 ng/g), L_PFDS (38.89 ng/g), and L_PFHxS (23.91 ng/g) than downstream (31.96, 27.84, and 18.02 ng/g, respectively). The findings reveal contamination sources and partitioning between surface water and sediments, aiding in water quality management and pollution mitigation strategies.

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 · 10.1007/s00128-025-04033-w

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Recent studies on PFAS distribution across water-sediment compartments have mainly focused on either specific pollution sources or large watersheds, with limited attention to diffuse urban sources.

    “Despite recent studies that have advanced the understanding of PFAS distribution across watersediment compartments in various settings, including in harbours [23], large river deltas [24], and urban waterways [25], these studies have mainly focused on either specific pollution sources or large watersheds, with limited attention to diffuse urban sources.”

    From Land use and seasonal controls on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) distribution and partitioning from diffuse sources in subtropical urban waterways (2026) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Materials and Methods (Sampling; page unavailable) identify the Apies River as flowing through Pretoria, and the Results and Discussion (Identifying PFAS Sources in Water and Sediment Samples; page unavailable) examine PFAS in both compartments. This supports citing the paper as an urban-waterway study. It does not establish that recent studies generally give limited attention to diffuse urban sources; the paper itself identifies urban runoff as a downstream influence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Okwuosa, R., Nomngongo, P. N., Petrik, L., Olatunji, O. S., & Okonkwo, O. J.
Affiliations
  • Tshwane University of Technology (ZA)
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
  • University of the Western Cape (ZA)
  • University of KwaZulu-Natal (ZA)
Corresponding author
Okwuosa, R.
Venue
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Published
2025-03-27
Volume
114
Issue
4
Pages
54-54
ISSN
  • 0007-4861 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0800
OpenAlex
W4408921991
Cited by
10
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 2
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Johannesburg
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
Keywords
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS contamination, surface water, river sediments, spatiotemporal variation, perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonic acid, PFHxS, PFHpS, PFBS, sediment-water partitioning, pollution sources, water quality management
MeSH terms
Environmental Monitoring, Fluorocarbons, South Africa, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Geologic Sediments, Rivers, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

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