Cited by 82Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchMembrane Separation TechnologiesAdvanced oxidation water treatment

Enhanced treatment of perfluoroalkyl acids in groundwater by membrane separation and electrochemical oxidation

Open access
Soriano, Alvaro, Schaefer, Charles, Urtiaga, Ane·2020·Chemical Engineering Journal Advances

Abstract

This work explores the treatment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in groundwater by coupling membrane separation and electrochemical oxidation (ELOX). A process system engineering approach based on modelling and empirical data was followed. Two nanofiltration (NF90) and reverse osmosis (BW30) membranes were characterized for treating an electrolyte (NaCl and CaSO4) mixture of perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs) containing PFOA, PFHpA, PFHxA, PFPeA and PFBA with initial concentrations of 10 µg L−1 each. Membrane surface charge shielding and concentration polarization negatively influenced NF90 performance, and the BW30 membrane was selected. Electrochemical oxidation with boron doped diamond anodes treated the PFCAs mixture amended with PFOS and 6:2 FTSA, emulating previously pre-concentrated feed and non-preconcentrated feed conditions. Working at different current densities (J) between 20 and 350 A m−2, the removal of PFOA, PFOS and 6:2 FTSA followed first order apparent kinetics, although shorter chain PFCAs initially showed increasing trends because of their simultaneous electrogeneration and degradation. Overall, ΣPFAA electrolysis followed first order kinetics linearly correlated to J in the full range of testing. Unexpectedly, PFAAs electrolysis was faster for the low conductive non-preconcentrated feed, a result that was ascribed to the enhanced direct electron transfer mechanism resulting from the higher cell voltage. For 99.9% PFAAs removal, the total specific cost of treatment was minimized using a cascade of four RO stages and ELOX treatment of the concentrate, to reach ΣPFAA below the Health Advisory Levels recommended by the USEPA in drinking water (<70 ng L−1 sum of PFOA and PFOS).

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 · 10.1016/j.ceja.2020.100042

Cites

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?

  • Soriano et al. concluded, based on optimization modeling implementing empirical lab-scale data, that to remove 99.9% PFAAs and achieve ΣPFAAs below 70 ng/L, the total specific cost of treatment could be reduced utilizing a cascade of four RO pre-concentration stages and electrochemical oxidation treatment of the concentrate.

    “Based on an optimization modeling implementing empirical data obtained in the lab-scale study, it was concluded that to remove 99.9% PFAAs and achieve ΣPFAAs below 70 ng/L, the total specific cost of treatment could be reduced utilizing a cascade of four RO pre-concentration stages and electrochemical oxidation treatment of the concentrate [59].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 51 · Cited by 82

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. W.J. Backe, T.C. Day, J.A. Field, Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic fluorinated chemicals in aqueous film forming foam formulations and groundwater from U.S. military bases by nonaqueous large-volume injection HPLC-MS/MS, Environ. Sci. Technol. 47 (2013) 5226-5234, doi: 10.1021/es3034999 . · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Soriano, A., Schaefer, C., & Urtiaga, A.
Affiliations
  • CDM Smith (United States) (US)
  • Universidad de Cantabria (ES)
Corresponding author
Urtiaga, Ane
Venue
Chemical Engineering Journal Advances
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
4
Pages
100042
ISSN
2666-8211 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3093718484
Cited by
82
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Engineering Journal Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCrea (University of Cantabria) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2019-105827RB-I00)
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CTM2016-75509-R, SPAIN-FEDER 2014-2020)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Membrane Separation Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Advanced oxidation water treatment
Keywords
perfluoroalkyl acids, groundwater treatment, electrochemical oxidation, membrane separation, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, boron-doped diamond anode, perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOS, concentration polarization, direct electron transfer, first-order kinetics, treatment cost minimization, drinking water contamination

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