PFAS concentrations in soil versus soil porewater: Mass distributions and the impact of adsorption at air-water interfaces
Open accessAbstract
Determining the risk posed by PFAS leaching from soil to groundwater requires quantification of the magnitude and temporal/spatial variability of PFAS mass discharge from the vadose zone, which is governed in part by the concentrations of PFAS in soil porewater. Porewater concentrations are impacted and mediated by the properties of the PFAS and soil, multiple transport and fate processes, and site conditions. The objective of this research was to delineate the relationship between soil porewater concentrations and soil concentrations, based on a comprehensive model of PFAS mass distribution within a soil sample volume. Measured parameters representing solid-phase sorption and air-water interfacial adsorption are used to illustrate the impact of soil and PFAS properties on the distribution of representative PFAS between soil and soil porewater. Literature data reported for soil and soil porewater concentrations of several PFAS obtained from outdoor lysimeter experiments are used to test the distribution model. Soil-to-porewater concentration ratios predicted with the model compared very well to the measured concentration ratios. The nondimensional distribution coefficient that describes the distribution of PFAS mass amongst all domains within a soil sample was observed to be a function of PFAS molecular size. Numerical simulations conducted for a model fire-training source area were used to illustrate the ranges in magnitude of soil versus porewater concentrations for representative field conditions. The results of the measured and simulated data sets demonstrated the importance of air-water interfacial adsorption for the distribution of the longer-chain PFAS within soil samples. PFAS soil porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending upon soil concentrations, which in turn depend upon the nature of the site.
Verified 2026-10-06 · 3 references not checked yet
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingreasoning
For PFBA and PFOA, the ratio of total soil concentration to porewater concentration was below one across the full water saturation range.
“Ct/Cp is observed to be less than one for PFBA and PFOA over the entire range of water saturation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingown data
A similar pattern was seen for PFTDA.
“Similar results are observed for PFTDA (data not shown).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingown data
The distribution model's predicted soil-to-porewater concentration ratios matched measured ratios from outdoor lysimeter experiments closely.
“Soil-to-porewater concentration ratios predicted with the model compared very well to the measured concentration ratios.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Many PFAS of concern have low vapor pressures and are not present at measurable levels in the vapor phase.
- Rests on an assumption: Many sites are unlikely to contain NAPL in the vadose zone.
- Findingreasoning
For PFBA, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio declined as water saturation decreased.
“The Ct/Cp decreases with decreasing water saturation for PFBA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingnone given
The nondimensional distribution coefficient for PFAS mass among all domains in a soil sample was found to depend on PFAS molecular size.
“The nondimensional distribution coefficient that describes the distribution of PFAS mass amongst all domains within a soil sample was observed to be a function of PFAS molecular size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingreasoning
For PFTDA and PFOS, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio increased as water saturation decreased.
“Ct/Cp increases with decreasing water saturation for PFTDA and PFOS due to the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption as described above for PFOA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingown data
For PFOS, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio was lowest in sand because sand had smaller Kd and air-water interfacial area values.
“Conversely, the Ct/Cp values are smallest for the sand due to the smaller Kd and aaw values.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingown data
The gap between the paired PFOS curves with and without air-water interfacial adsorption grew as water saturation decreased.
“The divergence between the paired sets of curves progressively increases as water saturation decreases in all cases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingreasoning
For PFOA, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio rose as water saturation decreased.
“Conversely, the Ct/Cp increases with decreasing water saturation for PFOA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Findingreasoning
There is minimal change in Ct for PFOA and PFOS.
“Conversely, there is minimal change in Ct for PFOA and PFOS.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Cs/Cp values calculated from the reported concentration pairs range from 51 for PFOS, 6 for PFNA, to 1-2 for the shorter-chain PFAS.
“The values range from 51 for PFOS, 6 for PFNA, to values of 1–2 for the shorter-chain PFAS (PFOA, PFHpA, PFHxA, PFPeA, PFHxS, PFHxA).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Measured Rd values depend on PFAS size.
“The values are observed to be a function of PFAS size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The short-term simulations show that different magnitudes of change occur for soil and porewater concentrations for different PFAS.
“The short-term simulations (Figure 6) clearly show that different magnitudes of change occur for soil and porewater concentrations for the different PFAS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The Ct and Cp values for all three PFAS decrease over the post-operation period due to leaching.
“The Ct and Cp values for all three PFAS decrease over the post-operation period due to leaching.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The Ct/Cp changes in space and time for each PFAS.
“Inspection of Figure 5 shows that the Ct/Cp changes in space and time for each PFAS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The Ct/Cp goes to zero for PFOS in the bottom region of the domain.
“The Ct/Cp goes to zero for PFOS in the bottom region of the domain.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Increased water saturation due to wetting front infiltration destroys air-water interfacial area.
“Inspection of Figure 7 shows that the increased water saturation due to the wetting front infiltration destroys air-water interfacial area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The logarithm of Rd is a linear function of PFAS molar volume.
“log Rd is shown to be a linear function of PFAS molar volume.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The simulations presented in section 4.3 produced porewater concentrations ranging up to about 1 mg/L for a simulated release concentration of 100 mg/L.
“The simulations presented in section 4.3 produced porewater concentrations ranging up to ~1 mg/L for a simulated release concentration of 100 mg/L.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Predicted Ct/Cp values that include air-water interfacial adsorption match measured values very well for all PFAS except PFBS.
“The predicted values that incorporate air-water interfacial adsorption match very well to the measured values for all PFAS except PFBS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In the long-term simulations, porewater concentrations after 30 years range from about 5 μg/L for PFPeA to 18 μg/L for PFOA to 1300 μg/L for PFOS.
“The porewater concentrations after the 30 years of operation range from approximately 5 μg/L for PFPeA to 18 μg/L for PFOA to 1300 μg/L for PFOS.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The PFOS Ct/Cp decreases over time in the deeper interval, reflecting the increase in concentration as the solute front migrates into this interval.
“The PFOS Ct/Cp decreases over time in the deeper interval, reflecting the increase in concentration as the solute front migrates into this interval.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Air-water interfacial adsorption is predicted to have minimal impact on PFBS distribution for this soil.
“air-water interfacial adsorption is predicted to have minimal impact on PFBS distribution for this soil.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For PFOS, the contaminant plume migrates downward, with peaks of both Ct and Cp moving to successively greater depths over the 50-year post-operation period.
“The downward migration of the contaminant plume is clearly observed for PFOS, with the peaks of both Ct and Cp migrating to successively greater depths over the 50-year post-operation period.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Significant changes in total soil concentrations are observed for PFPeA during the simulated 10-day storm event.
“Significant changes in total soil concentrations are observed for PFPeA during the simulated 10-day storm event.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Both PFPeA and PFOA migrated to the bottom of the simulated vadose zone within the 30-year operation period.
“Both PFPeA and PFOA have migrated to the bottom of the simulated vadose zone within the 30 year operation period.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
For PFPeA and PFOA, porewater concentrations are several orders of magnitude below the concentrations at which air-water interfacial adsorption becomes essentially linear.
“For PFPeA and PFOA, the porewater concentrations are several orders of magnitude below the concentrations at which air-water interfacial adsorption becomes essentially linear.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Measured Rd values span more than three orders of magnitude, from 1 for PFBA to 1777 for PFTDA.
“The measured Rd values range by more than three orders of magnitude, from 1 for PFBA to 1777 for PFTDA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The PFOS front migrated to only a 250-cm depth in the 30-year timeframe.
“the PFOS front has migrated to only a 250-cm depth in this timeframe”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The nondimensional distribution coefficient that describes the distribution of PFAS mass among all domains within a soil sample was observed to be a function of PFAS molecular size.
“The nondimensional distribution coefficient that describes the distribution of PFAS mass among all domains within a soil sample was observed to be a function of PFAS molecular size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Soil-to-porewater concentration ratios predicted with the model compared very well to the measured concentration ratios.
“Soil-to-porewater concentration ratios predicted with the model compared very well to the measured concentration ratios.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Sorption to colloidal material in porewater has relatively little effect at moderate to low colloid concentrations and for smaller sorption coefficients.
“Inspection of equation 2 shows that the impact of retention by sorption to colloidal material in porewater will be relatively insignificant for moderate to low concentrations of colloids and for smaller sorption coefficients.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The concentration range over which fluid-fluid interfacial adsorption can be treated as linear depends on the specific PFAS and the porewater solution's properties.
“The specific concentrations at which fluid-fluid interfacial adsorption may be treated as linear depends upon the particular PFAS and properties of the porewater solution (Brusseau, 2019a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau, 2019a
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Adsorption at air-water interfaces plays a major role in how longer-chain PFAS are distributed inside soil samples.
“The results of the measured and simulated data sets demonstrated the importance of air-water interfacial adsorption for the distribution of the longer-chain PFAS within soil samples.”
- Also stated in: § The Ct versus Cp relationship as a function of PFAS, soil properties, and water saturation · plain
“These results highlight the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption on the distribution of longer-chain PFAS within soil samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Many PFAS of concern have low vapor pressures and are not present at measurable levels in the vapor phase.
- Rests on an assumption: Many sites are unlikely to contain NAPL in the vadose zone.
- Also stated in: § The Ct versus Cp relationship as a function of PFAS, soil properties, and water saturation · plain
- Premisecitation
PFAS levels in soils are usually much greater than those in groundwater beneath them, often by orders of magnitude.
“In addition, the concentrations of PFAS in soils are typically significantly higher than those in underlying groundwater, often by orders of magnitude (Anderson et al., 2019; Brusseau et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationown data
Under some conditions, retention at air-water interfaces will substantially affect porewater concentrations.
“This retention process will significantly influence porewater concentrations under certain conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Premisecitation
At lower concentrations, adsorption at fluid-fluid interfaces can be modeled as linear.
“Fluid-fluid interfacial adsorption may be treated as linear at lower concentrations (e.g., Brusseau et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Soil organic carbon generally governs sorption of PFCAs and PFOS in soils and sediments with organic-carbon contents of 1% or more.
“Prior research has indicated that soil organic carbon generally controls sorption of PFCAs and PFOS for soils and sediments with organic-carbon contents in this range and higher (e.g., Higgins and Luthy, 2006; Milinovic et al., 2015; Brusseau et al., 2019b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Soils serve as a main reservoir of PFAS at many sites.
“These observations demonstrate that soils are a primary reservoir of PFAS at numerous sites.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
In the outdoor lysimeter study, measured soil concentrations ranged from about 0.3 to about 8000 μg/kg.
“The measured soil concentrations (Cs) range from ~0.3 to ~8000 μg/kg.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Felizeter et al. (2021) source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Reported Freundlich N values for PFCA sorption by soils and sediments usually fall between 0.7 and 1, indicating moderate nonlinearity.
“Freundlich N values reported for sorption of PFCAs by soils and sediments are typically in the range of 0.7–1 (see recent compilation reported in Van Glubt et al., 2021), thereby exhibiting relatively moderate nonlinearity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Van Glubt et al., 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
In the outdoor lysimeter study, measured porewater concentrations ranged from 0.1 to about 4000 μg/L depending on the individual PFAS.
“The measured porewater concentrations range from 0.1 to ~4000 μg/L depending upon the individual PFAS (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Felizeter et al. (2021) source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
PFAS concentrations in soil porewater are expected to span from nanograms per liter to milligrams per liter, depending on soil concentrations and site characteristics.
“PFAS soil porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending upon soil concentrations, which in turn depend upon the nature of the site.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Many PFAS of concern have low vapor pressures and are not present at measurable levels in the vapor phase.
- Rests on an assumption: Many sites are unlikely to contain NAPL in the vadose zone.
- Interpretationreasoning
This increase results from the temporal decrease in porewater concentrations and the resulting increase in the magnitude of sorption and/or air-water interfacial adsorption.
“This results from the temporal decrease in porewater concentrations and the resultant increase in the magnitude of sorption and/or air-water interfacial adsorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Porewater concentrations ranging up to tens of mg/L were obtained for PFOS, for a simulated release concentration of 1,000 mg/L.
“Porewater concentrations ranging up to 10’s of mg/L were obtained for PFOS, for a simulated release concentration of 1,000 mg/L.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Guo et al. (2020) source
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Specific air-water interfacial area increases as volumetric water content decreases.
“It is well established that aaw increases with decreasing θw (e.g., Kim et al., 1997; Anwar et al., 2000; Peng and Brusseau, 2005; Brusseau and Guo, 2021; El Ouni et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationown data
The limited migration of PFOS is due to its significantly greater retention.
“due to its significantly greater retention.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For a given soil and PFAS, Rd depends on water content both directly through the water-content terms and indirectly through the effect of water content on specific air-water interfacial area.
“Finally, it is observed that Rd is a function water content for a given soil and PFAS, both directly through the θw terms and indirectly through the dependence of aaw on water content.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Premisecitation
The highest PFAS soil concentrations were reported for PFOS, about 300 μg/kg for the selected section.
“The highest PFAS soil concentrations were reported for PFOS, which was ~300 μg/kg for the selected section.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Concentrations of 1.8, 1.5, and 1.2 μg/kg were reported for PFNA, PFOA, and PFHxS, respectively, for the same section.
“In comparison, concentrations of 1.8, 1.5, and 1.2 μg/kg were reported for PFNA, PFOA, and PFHxS, respectively, for the same section.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
Concentrations of 0.3, 1, and 1.1 μg/L were reported for PFNA, PFOA, and PFHxS, respectively.
“Concentrations of 0.3, 1, and 1.1 μg/L were reported for PFNA, PFOA, and PFHxS, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The variation in Ct/Cp among PFAS is caused primarily by differences in the relative magnitudes of retention due to solid-phase sorption and air-water interfacial adsorption.
“Consistent with Equation 8, the variation is caused primarily by the differences in the relative magnitudes of retention due to solid-phase sorption and air-water interfacial adsorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The simulated porewater concentrations are consistent with porewater concentrations reported at AFFF-impacted sites.
“These are consistent with porewater concentrations reported at AFFF-impacted sites (Davis et al. 2021; Quinnan et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Davis et al. 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Quinnan et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Air-water interfacial adsorption is important for the longer-chain PFAS.
“The importance of air-water interfacial adsorption for the longer-chain PFAS is illustrated by the significant differences in the predicted values for the two cases with and without air-water interfacial adsorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premiseown data
The highest PFAS concentrations in soil porewater were reported for PFOS, 6 μg/L for the selected lysimeter.
“The highest PFAS concentrations in soil porewater were also reported for PFOS, 6 μg/L for the selected lysimeter.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Measured Cs values will not be fully representative of Ct when porewater loss occurs for conditions with smaller Rd values.
“However, measured Cs values will not be fully representative of Ct when porewater loss occurs for conditions with smaller Rd values.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The changes observed for Cp and Ct/Cp are caused by changes in local water saturation during the infiltration/redistribution event and subsequent changes in air-water interfacial area caused by transient water-content conditions.
“The changes observed for Cp and Ct/Cp are caused by changes in the local water saturation during the infiltration/redistribution event and the subsequent changes in air-water interfacial area caused by these transient water-content conditions (Figure 7).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Smaller changes are observed for PFPeA because air-water interfacial adsorption provides a much smaller contribution to total retention.
“Smaller changes are observed for PFPeA because air-water interfacial adsorption provides a much smaller contribution to total retention.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Large changes in Cp and Ct/Cp are observed for PFOA and PFOS because air-water interfacial adsorption provides a significant contribution to total retention.
“Large changes in Cp and Ct/Cp are observed for PFOA and PFOS because air-water interfacial adsorption provides a significant contribution to total retention.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The distribution model can be used to examine the anticipated range of PFAS concentrations in porewater based on measured soil concentrations.
“The distribution model presented herein can be used to examine the anticipated range of concentrations of PFAS in porewater, based on measured soil concentrations.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The disparity reflects greater leaching affecting PFPeA due to its significantly lower retention compared with PFOA and especially PFOS.
“This disparity reflects a greater amount of leaching affecting PFPeA due to its significantly lower retention in comparison to PFOA and especially PFOS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The difference in measured soil-to-porewater concentration ratios between short-chain and long-chain PFAS is caused by different magnitudes of retention under the experimental conditions.
“This again is due to the different magnitudes of retention experienced by the short-chain versus long-chain PFAS under the extant conditions of the experiment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This occurs where the total and porewater concentrations are zero because the plume has not yet entered that depth interval.
“This occurs where the total and porewater concentrations are zero because the plume has not yet entered that depth interval.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
The variability in measured values is related in part to variability in water contents of the individual treatments, which ranged from 0.20 to 0.27, and to inherent experimental uncertainty.
“This is related in part to variability in the water contents of the individual treatments, which ranged from 0.20 to 0.27, and inherent experimental uncertainty.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
1/Rd represents the fraction of PFAS mass present in porewater.
“From equations 4 and 8, 1/Rd represents the fraction of PFAS mass present in porewater.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
If a soil sample is collected in a manner that retains all PFAS mass, then Cs would be equivalent to Ct.
“If the soil sample is collected in a manner that retains all PFAS mass, then Cs would be equivalent to Ct.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The associated porewater concentrations for these sites can be anticipated to be in the range of μg/L to mg/L depending upon the specific PFAS and the soil properties and conditions.
“Hence, the associated porewater concentrations for these sites can be anticipated to be in the range of μg/L to mg/L depending upon the specific PFAS and the soil properties and conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For PFAS with low vapor pressures, the primary potential source of mass loss may be anticipated to occur via partial drainage of porewater during sample collection and processing.
“Generally, for PFAS with low vapor-pressures, the primary potential source of mass loss may be anticipated to occur via partial drainage of porewater during sample collection and processing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
PFAS adsorbed at air-water interfaces are subsequently released to the porewater, causing an increase in porewater concentration.
“As a result, the PFAS adsorbed at the air-water interfaces are subsequently released to the porewater, causing an increase in the porewater concentration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Loss of some portion of porewater during sample collection and processing will not significantly influence the representativeness of soil concentrations for samples with relatively large Rd values.
“Hence, it is observed that the loss of some portion of porewater during sample collection and processing will not significantly influence the representativeness of the soil concentrations for samples for which Rd values are relatively large.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For Rd >20, the mass present in porewater represents less than 5% of the total mass.
“For Rd >20, the mass present in porewater represents <5% of the total mass.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The distribution model gives a reasonable representation of PFAS mass distribution within the soil samples.
“The excellent predictions of the measured data indicate that the model provides a reasonable representation of PFAS mass distribution within the soil samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The ratio of total soil concentration to porewater concentration depends on PFAS molecular size, soil properties, and water content.
“As a result of these functionalities for Rd, the ratio between Ct and Cp is a function of PFAS molecular size, soil properties, and water content.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
- Interpretationreasoning
The change in Ct/Cp for PFPeA and PFOA is primarily due to nonlinearity of solid-phase sorption.
“Thus, the change in Ct/Cp is primarily due to nonlinearity of solid-phase sorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Soil concentrations up to hundreds of mg/kg have been reported for AFFF-impacted sites.
“For example, soil concentrations up to 100s of mg/kg have been reported for AFFF-impacted sites.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau et al. (2020) source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
The simulated soil concentrations are consistent with PFAS soil-concentration ranges observed at AFFF-impacted sites.
“These concentrations are consistent with PFAS soil-concentration ranges observed at AFFF-impacted sites (Brusseau et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The deviation between predicted and measured values for PFBS may be partly due to an inaccurate representation of solid-phase sorption (inaccurate Kd).
“Hence, the deviation may be due in part to an inaccurate representation of solid-phase sorption (inaccurate Kd).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Porewater concentrations are anticipated to be in the ng/L to lower μg/L range for such sites.
“Porewater concentrations are anticipated to be in the ng/L to lower μg/L range for such sites.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The results of the measured and simulated data sets demonstrated the importance of air-water interfacial adsorption for the distribution of the longer-chain PFAS within soil samples.
“The results of the measured and simulated data sets demonstrated the importance of air-water interfacial adsorption for the distribution of the longer-chain PFAS within soil samples.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
These results are consistent with the concentrations anticipated for sites with relatively high soil concentrations.
“These results are consistent with the concentrations anticipated for sites with relatively high soil concentrations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
PFAS porewater concentrations are anticipated to be significantly lower for secondary-source sites such as locations receiving land application of biosolids or treated wastewater.
“PFAS porewater concentrations are anticipated to be significantly lower for secondary-source sites such as locations receiving land application of biosolids or treated wastewater.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationnone given
For a given PFAS, the ratio is larger for soils with greater sorption capacities and larger air-water interfacial areas.
“And, for a given PFAS, it is larger for soils with greater sorption capacities and larger air-water interfacial areas.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
For a given soil and PFAS for which air-water interfacial adsorption is important, the ratio increases with decreasing water content due to the increase in air-water interfacial area.
“For a given soil and PFAS for which air-water interfacial adsorption is important, the ratio increases with decreasing water content due to the increase in air-water interfacial area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
For a given soil, the ratio of soil concentration to soil porewater concentration is greater for longer-chain PFAS.
“For a given soil, the ratio is greater for longer-chain PFAS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Porewater concentrations are anticipated to be lower still for sites for which no known PFAS sources are nearby.
“Porewater concentrations are anticipated to be lower still for sites for which no known PFAS sources are nearby.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
The median of maximum reported PFOS soil concentrations was 2.7 μg/kg for sites with no known nearby PFAS sources.
“For example, the median of maximum reported PFOS soil concentrations was 2.7 μg/kg for sites with no known nearby PFAS sources (Brusseau et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 18
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 11
May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningFor PFTDA and PFOS, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio exceeded one at all and nearly all water saturations, respectively.
“In contrast to PFBA and PFOA, the Ct/Cp values for PFTDA and PFOS are >1 for all and almost all water saturations, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor PFOS, the total-to-porewater concentration ratio was highest in Vinton soil at every water saturation because Vinton had the greatest air-water interfacial area.
“The Ct/Cp values are largest for the Vinton soil at any given water saturation because this medium has the largest magnitude of air-water interfacial area (Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataWater content changes minimally over time in the long-term simulations and does not measurably affect the observed results.
“The water content changes minimally over time for these long-term simulations (data not shown), and therefore does not measurably impact the observed results.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe Ct/Cp increases with time throughout the depth profile for PFPeA and PFOA, and for the upper approximately 120 cm for PFOS.
“The Ct/Cp increases with time throughout the depth profile for PFPeA and PFOA, and for the upper ~120 cm for PFOS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the long-term simulations, total soil concentrations after 30 years of site operation range from about 1 μg/kg for PFPeA to about 50 μg/kg for PFOA to about 25 mg/kg for PFOS.
“The total soil concentrations after the 30 years of site operation are observed to range from approximately 1 μg/kg for PFPeA to ~50 μg/kg for PFOA to ~25 mg/kg for PFOS (Figure 5).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe ratios are larger for longer-chain PFAS and smaller for shorter-chain PFAS, consistent with the analyses presented above.
“The ratios are observed to be larger for the longer-chain PFAS and smaller for the shorter-chain PFAS, which is consistent with the analyses presented above.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the measured data, the ratio of soil concentration to porewater concentration is below 1 for the shortest-chain PFAS and above 1 for the longer-chain PFAS.
“Inspection of Table 3 shows that the measured Cs/Cp values are <1 for the shortest-chain PFAS and >1 for the longer-chain PFAS, consistent with the results presented in Figure 1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe Ct/Cp varies significantly for PFOA and PFOS, up to 50% for PFOA and up to about 5 times for PFOS, and minimally for PFPeA.
“the Ct/Cp varies significantly for the former two, up to 50% for PFOA and up to ~5 times for PFOS, and minimally for PFPeA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningMeasured values for all PFAS show some variability.
“the measured values for all PFAS exhibit a degree of variability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe Ct/Cp values vary greatly among the three PFAS; the ratio for PFOS is almost 10 and 100 times those for PFOA and PFPeA, respectively.
“The Ct/Cp values vary greatly among the three PFAS—the ratio for PFOS is almost 10 and 100 times those for PFOA and PFPeA, respectively (Figure 5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe greatest changes in porewater concentrations are observed for PFOS and PFOA, whereas minimal changes are observed for PFPeA.
“the greatest changes in porewater concentrations are observed for PFOS and PFOA whereas minimal changes are observed for PFPeA.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisereasoningThe link between soil concentrations and soil porewater concentrations is more complicated for PFAS than for most other dissolved substances because PFAS accumulate at air-water interfaces and because interfacial area varies with water content and soil properties.
“This relationship is more complex for PFAS compared to most other types of solutes due to the adsorption of PFAS at air-water interfaces, and the dependence of air-water interfacial area on water content and soil properties.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationThe simulation code represented transient flow under variably saturated conditions, surfactant effects on flow, and both nonlinear and rate-limited sorption to solids and air-water interfaces.
“The mathematical model that was employed to conduct the numerical simulations accounts for transient variably saturated flow, surfactant-induced flow, nonlinear and rate-limited solid-phase sorption, and nonlinear and rate-limited air-water interfacial adsorption (Guo et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Guo et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPrior research has shown that both log Kd and log Kaw for PFAS are functions of molar volume.
“This is consistent with prior research demonstrating that both log Kd and Log Kaw for PFAS are functions of molar volume (Brusseau, 2019a, 2019b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau, 2019a, 2019b
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationOne of the first full-scale field applications of direct soil porewater sampling for PFAS was reported by Quinnan et al. (2021).
“One of the first full-scale field applications of direct soil porewater sampling for PFAS was reported by Quinnan et al. (2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBrusseau et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of measured PFAS soil concentrations and observed concentrations ranged over many orders of magnitude, depending in part on the type of site.
“Brusseau et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of measured PFAS soil concentrations and observed concentrations ranged over many orders of magnitude, depending in part on the type of site.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brusseau et al. (2020) source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningCs would be anticipated to be lower than Ct if some fraction of mass is lost during sample collection and processing.
“Conversely, Cs would be anticipated to be lower than Ct if some fraction of mass is lost during sample collection and processing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationBoth Kd and Kaw depend on the molecular size of PFAS.
“It has been demonstrated that both Kd and Kaw are functions of the molecular size of PFAS (e.g., Higgins and Luthy, 2006; Brusseau, 2019a, 2019b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Higgins and Luthy, 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Brusseau, 2019a, 2019b
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGuo et al. (2020) conducted long-term numerical simulations for a model fire-training source area for representative field conditions.
“Guo et al. (2020) conducted long-term numerical simulations for a model fire-training source area for representative field conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Guo et al. (2020) source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThis is observed only for PFOS because it has much greater retention than PFOA and PFPeA, and therefore the PFOS front has not yet migrated to the bottom of the interval.
“This is observed only for PFOS because it has much greater retention than PFOA and PFPeA, and therefore the PFOS front has not yet migrated to the bottom of the interval as noted above.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationThese dynamic changes of porewater concentration due to transient water infiltration are consistent with those reported in prior work.
“These dynamic changes of porewater concentration due to transient water infiltration are consistent with those reported in our prior work (Guo et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe porewater concentration for PFOS is much higher, and the changes in Ct/Cp are caused primarily by nonlinear air-water interfacial adsorption.
“Conversely, the porewater concentration for PFOS is much higher and the changes in Ct/Cp are caused primarily by nonlinear air-water interfacial adsorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenPFAS recovery during sample processing is a separate issue that can affect actual measured Cs values.
“The issue of PFAS recovery during sample processing is a separate issue that can of course affect actual Cs values measured.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationQuinnan et al. (2021) reported porewater concentrations for PFOS ranging up to 6 μg/L for an AFFF-impacted site.
“As noted in the preceding section, Quinnan et al. (2021) reported porewater concentrations for PFOS ranging up to 6 μg/L for an AFFF-impacted site.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Quinnan et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe changes in Ct/Cp are driven by spatial and temporal changes in concentration due to plume migration, and by accompanying changes in retention magnitudes related to nonlinearity of solid-phase sorption and/or air-water interfacial adsorption.
“The changes are driven by spatial and temporal changes in concentration due to the migration of the plume, and accompanying changes in the magnitudes of retention related to nonlinearity of solid-phase sorption and/or air-water interfacial adsorption.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningPFAS soil porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending on soil concentrations, which in turn depend on the nature of the site.
“PFAS soil porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending on soil concentrations, which in turn depend on the nature of the site.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDavis et al. (2021) reported a porewater concentration of about 16 mg/L for total PFAS for an AFFF-impacted site.
“Davis et al. (2021) reported a porewater concentration of ~16 mg/L for total PFAS for an AFFF-impacted site.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Davis et al. (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
The relationship between soil concentrations and soil porewater concentrations had not been examined before this study.
“This relationship between soil and soil porewater concentrations has not yet been investigated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many PFAS of concern have low vapor pressures and are not present at measurable levels in the vapor phase.
“For example, many PFAS of concern have low vapor pressures and are thus not measurably present in the vapor phase.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many sites are unlikely to contain NAPL in the vadose zone.
“In addition, many sites are unlikely to have NAPL present in the vadose zone.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Treating solid-phase sorption as linear has little effect on the results of the first and second components.
“This treatment has minimal impact on the results.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Porewater concentrations represent the mass that is directly subject to migration and mass discharge to groundwater.
“However, porewater concentrations represent the mass that is directly subject to migration and mass discharge to groundwater.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Porewater concentrations generally comprise what is readily bioavailable to plant roots and soil microorganisms.
“In addition, porewater concentrations generally comprise what is readily bioavailable to plant roots and soil microorganisms.”
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?
Results from theoretical models and laboratory experiments in prior work suggest that PFAS retention at the air-water interface in the vadose zone is likely to be a rate-limiting step mediating attenuation at AFFF-contaminated sites.
“Results from theoretical models and laboratory experiments in prior work suggest that PFAS retention at the air–water interface in the vadose zone is likely to be a rate-limiting step mediating attenuation at AFFF-contaminated sites.14,49”
From Centurial Persistence of Forever Chemicals at Military Fire Training Sites (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
Initial field and modeling studies reflect these anticipated porewater concentrations.
“The results of initial field and mathematical-modeling studies reflect these anticipated concentrations (Guo et al., 2020; Quinnan et al., 2021; Brusseau and Guo, 2022).”
From Global distributions, source-type dependencies, and concentration ranges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in groundwater (2022) · cites this paper as Brusseau and Guo, 2022
Porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending on soil concentrations and site nature.
“Porewater concentrations are anticipated to range from ng/L to mg/L depending upon soil concentrations, which in turn depend upon the nature of the sites.”
From Global distributions, source-type dependencies, and concentration ranges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in groundwater (2022) · cites this paper as Brusseau and Guo, 2022
Cites
Sorption of Perfluorinated Surfactants on Sediments
Higgins, C. P., & Luthy, R. G. (2006) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es061000n · Cited by 1,563 · cited 2× · see citing works
“It has been demonstrated that both K d and K aw are functions of the molecular size of PFAS (e.g., Higgins and Luthy, 2006; Brusseau, 2019a, 2019b).”
BackgroundPFAS concentrations in soils: Background levels versus contaminated sites
Brusseau, M. L., Anderson, R. H., & Guo, B. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017 · Cited by 817 · cited 7× · see citing works
“These concentrations are consistent with PFAS soil-concentration ranges observed at AFFF-impacted sites (Brusseau et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationSepulvado, J. G., Blaine, A. C., Hundal, L. S., & Higgins, C. P. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es103903d · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Sorption behaviour of perfluoroalkyl substances in soils
Milinovic, J., Lacorte, S., Vidal, M., & Rigol, A. (2015) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.017 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Xiao, F., Simcik, M. F., Halbach, T. R., & Gulliver, J. S. (2015) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2014.09.052 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. L. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Self-citationFilipovic, M., Woldegiorgis, A., Norström, K., Bibi, M., Lindberg, M., & Österås, A.-H. (2015) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.005 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
PFAS in soil and groundwater following historical land application of biosolids
Johnson, G. R. (2022) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.118035 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Adsorption of PFOA at the air-water interface during transport in unsaturated porous media
Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M. L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., & Lin, X. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Self-citationWashington, J. W., Yoo, H., Ellington, J. J., Jenkins, T. M., & Libelo, E. L. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es1003846 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Høisæter, Å., Pfaff, A., & Breedveld, G. D. (2019) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2019.02.010 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Comprehensive retention model for PFAS transport in subsurface systems
Brusseau, M. L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K. C., & Holguin, F. O. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Self-citationSpatial Trends of Anionic, Zwitterionic, and Cationic PFASs at an AFFF-Impacted Site
Nickerson, A., Rodowa, A. E., Adamson, D. T., Field, J. A., Kulkarni, P. R., Kornuc, J. J., & Higgins, C. P. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c04473 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Weber, A. K., Barber, L. B., LeBlanc, D. R., Sunderland, E. M., & Vecitis, C. D. (2017) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b05573 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Guo, B., Zeng, J., & Brusseau, M. L. (2020) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2019wr026667 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Self-citationBehavior of perfluorinated compounds in soils during leaching experiments
Gellrich, V., Stahl, T., & Knepper, T. P. (2012) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.02.011 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Baduel, C., Mueller, J. F., Rotander, A., Corfield, J., & Gomez-Ramos, M.-J. (2017) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.06.096 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Dauchy, X., Boiteux, V., Colin, A., Hémard, J., Bach, C., Rosin, C., & Munoz, J.-F. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.10.003 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Davis, K. L., Aucoin, M. D., Larsen, B. S., Kaiser, M. A., & Hartten, A. S. (2007) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.11.049 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Kim, H., Rao, P. S. C., & Annable, M. D. (1997) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/97wr02227 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Hunter Anderson, R., Adamson, D. T., & Stroo, H. F. (2019) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. L. (2019) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2018.12.057 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Self-citationNonideal Transport and Extended Elution Tailing of PFOS in Soil
Brusseau, M. L., Khan, N., Wang, Y., Yan, N., Glubt, S. V., & Carroll, K. C. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b02343 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationIncidence of Pfas in soil following long-term application of class B biosolids
Pepper, I. L., Brusseau, M. L., Prevatt, F. J., & Escobar, B. A. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148449 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
A modified HYDRUS model for simulating PFAS transport in the vadose zone
Silva, J. A. K., Šimůnek, J., & McCray, J. E. (2020) · Water · doi:10.3390/w12102758 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Vierke, L., Möller, A., & Klitzke, S. (2014) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.11.011 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Subsurface transport potential of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs): Column experiments and modeling
Guelfo, J. L., Wunsch, A., McCray, J. E., Stults, J. F., & Higgins, C. P. (2020) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2020.103661 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. L. (2019) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113102 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Self-citationA method for determining air–water interfacial area in variably saturated porous media
Faisal Anwar, A. H. M., Bettahar, M., & Matsubayashi, U. (2000) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0169-7722(99)00103-5 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Impact of soil texture on air-water interfacial areas in unsaturated sandy porous media
Peng, S., & Brusseau, M. L. (2005) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2004wr003233 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citationColumn versus batch methods for measuring PFOS and PFOA sorption to geomedia
Van Glubt, S., Brusseau, M. L., Yan, N., Huang, D., Khan, N., & Carroll, K. C. (2021) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115917 · Cited by 87 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Measured values for K aw were taken from Brusseau and Van Glubt (2021).”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationBrusseau, M. L., & Van Glubt, S. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130829 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citationIdeal versus Nonideal Transport of PFAS in Unsaturated Porous Media
Brusseau, M. L., Guo, B., Huang, D., Yan, N., & Lyu, Y. (2021) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.117405 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Self-citationFate of a perfluoroalkyl acid mixture in an agricultural soil studied in lysimeters
McLachlan, M. S., Felizeter, S., Klein, M., Kotthoff, M., & De Voogt, P. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.012 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
A screening model for quantifying PFAS leaching in the vadose zone and mass discharge to groundwater
Guo, B., Zeng, J., Brusseau, M. L., & Zhang, Y. (2022) · Advances in Water Resources · doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.104102 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationZeng, J., Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2021) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127172 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Self-citationUptake of perfluorinated alkyl acids by crops: results from a field study
Felizeter, S., Jürling, H., Kotthoff, M., De Voogt, P., & McLachlan, M. S. (2021) · Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/d1em00166c · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Anderson, R. H. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c01543 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. (2020) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116778 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Self-citationQuinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., & Hasbrouck, K. (2021) · Remediation Journal · doi:10.1002/rem.21680 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Air-water interfacial areas relevant for transport of per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances
Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2021) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.117785 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationOuni, A. E., Guo, B., Zhong, H., & Brusseau, M. L. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128193 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Johnson, G. R., Brusseau, M. L., Carroll, K. C., Tick, G. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2022) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156602 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Self-citationCenturial Persistence of Forever Chemicals at Military Fire Training Sites
Ruyle, B. J., Thackray, C. P., Butt, C. M., LeBlanc, D. R., Tokranov, A. K., Vecitis, C. D., & Sunderland, E. M. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c00675 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
A Critical Review on PFAS Removal from Water: Removal Mechanism and Future Challenges
Amen, R., Ibrahim, A., Shafqat, W., & Hassan, E. B. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su152316173 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Wallis, I., Hutson, J., Davis, G., Kookana, R., Rayner, J., & Prommer, H. (2022) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2022.119096 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Kookana, R. S., Navarro, D. A., Kabiri, S., & McLaughlin, M. J. (2022) · Soil Research · doi:10.1071/sr22183 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Underwood, T. R., Bourg, I. C., & Rosso, K. M. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2413216121 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Alam, M. S., Abbasi, A., & Chen, G. (2024) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123163 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Nakazawa, Y., Kosaka, K., Yoshida, N., Asami, M., & Matsui, Y. (2023) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2023.120559 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. L. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationWatershed scale PFAS fate and transport model for source identification and management implications
Rafiei, V., & Nejadhashemi, A. P. (2023) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2023.120073 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Guo, B., Saleem, H., & Brusseau, M. L. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08601 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationAnderson, R. H., Feild, J. B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., El-Sharnouby, O., & Krebs, R. K. (2022) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Zeng, J., & Guo, B. (2023) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2022gl102655 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Self-citationStults, J. F., Choi, Y. J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C. E., Nguyen, D. D., Knappe, D. R. U., Illangasekare, T. H., & Higgins, C. P. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c07316 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Lari, K. S., Davis, G. B., Kumar, A., Rayner, J. L., Kong, X., & Saar, M. O. (2024) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.3c09201 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Holly, M. A., Gunn, K. M., Keymer, D. P., & Sanford, J. R. (2024) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.3c00414 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Bigler, M. C., Brusseau, M. L., Guo, B., Jones, S. L., Pritchard, J. C., Higgins, C. P., & Hatton, J. W. (2024) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c01615 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citationSherman-Bertinetti, S. L., Kostelnik, E. G., Gruber, K. J., Balgooyen, S., & Remucal, C. K. (2024) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c02285 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Influence of chain length on field-measured distributions of PFAS in soil and soil porewater
Brusseau, M. L. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters · doi:10.1016/j.hazl.2023.100080 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Self-citationStults, J. F., Schaefer, C. E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D. N., Real, I., Hao, S., & Guelfo, J. L. (2024) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Enhanced PFAS adsorption with N-doped porous carbon beads from oil-sand asphaltene
Czech, B., Nasri‐Nasrabadi, B., Krzyszczak, A., Sadok, I., Hojamberdiev, M., Yadav, R., Shirvanimoghaddam, K., & Naebe, M. (2023) · Journal of Water Process Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.104058 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Umeh, A. C., Naidu, R., Olisa, E., Liu, Y., Qi, F., & Bekele, D. N. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132688 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Perfluoroalkyl chain-length-dependent environmental fate and treatment outcomes of PFAS in water
Lee, Y.-J., Moon, G., Cha, H., Lee, J., & Kwon, E. E. (2026) · npj Clean Water · doi:10.1038/s41545-026-00568-5 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Revising the EPA dilution-attenuation soil screening model for PFAS
Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2023) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters · doi:10.1016/j.hazl.2023.100077 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationSaha, B., Ateia, M., Fernando, S., Xu, J., DeSutter, T. M., & Iskander, S. M. (2024) · Environmental Science Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/d3em00538k · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Marzi, D., Valente, F., Luche, S., Caissutti, C., Sabia, A., Capitani, I., Capobianco, G., Serranti, S., Masi, A., Panozzo, A., et al. (2025) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178323 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Arshadi, M., Garza‐Rubalcava, U., Guedes, A., Cápiro, N. L., Pennell, K. D., Christ, J. A., & Abriola, L. M. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170566 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Vahedian, F., Silva, J. A., Šimůnek, J., & McCray, J. E. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177420 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Zeng, J., Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2024) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2024wr037707 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationZhang, W., & Guo, B. (2024) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2023wr035775 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Self-citationBigler, M. C., He, X., & Brusseau, M. L. (2024) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2024.121922 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationVapor-phase transport of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances: Processes, modeling, and implications
Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174644 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationAvailable and emerging liquid treatment technologies for PFASs
DiGuiseppi, B., Newell, C. J., Carey, G. R., Kulkarni, P. R., Xia, Z., Stults, J. T., Maher, T. L., Houtz, E. F., Mora, R., Wice, R., et al. (2024) · Remediation Journal · doi:10.1002/rem.21782 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Bierbaum, T., Klaas, N., Braun, J., Nürenberg, G., Lange, F. T., & Haslauer, C. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162588 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Liu, S., Zhan, Z., Zhang, X., Chen, X., Xu, J., Wang, Q., Zhang, M., & Liu, Y. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169782 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Menezes, O., Srivastava, K., Ferreira, B., Field, J. A., Root, R. A., Chorover, J., Abrell, L. M., & Sierra‐Álvarez, R. (2024) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.143887 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C. D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., & Wilkin, R. T. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c10246 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The in situ treatment of PFAS within porewater at the air–water interface of a PFAS source zone
McGregor, R. (2023) · Remediation Journal · doi:10.1002/rem.21759 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Divine, C. E., Hasbrouck, K., Guo, B., Brusseau, M. L., Zeng, J., Wright, J., Fortner, E., Chapman, S. W., Munn, J. D., Parker, B. L., et al. (2024) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12694 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationWhat do emerging PFAS tell us that the classic ones did not? Insights from in vitro assays
Cunha, M., Bortot, C., Santovito, G., Nardi, A., Soares, A. M. V. M., Gil, A. M., & Freitas, R. (2025) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.118490 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
PFAS release from the subsurface and capillary fringe during managed aquifer recharge
Das, T. K., Han, Z., Banerjee, S., Raoelison, O. D., Adeleye, A. S., & Mohanty, S. K. (2023) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2023.123166 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Xu, R., Wang, Q., Zha, F., Wu, J., Bokade, M. S., & Singh, D. N. (2025) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2025.114746 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Russell, R., Guo, B., Zeng, J., Brusseau, M. L., Schaefer, C. E., Shea, S., Higgins, C. P., & Ferré, T. P. A. (2025) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2025.124063 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationStults, J. F., Higgins, C. P., Illangasekare, T. H., & Singha, K. (2024) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104424 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Polyfluoroalkyl substances requiring a renewed focus on groundwater‐surface water interactions
Divine, C. E., Wadhawan, A., Pulikkal, V. F., Khambhammettu, P., & Erickson, J. (2023) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12569 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Mirghafari, R., Nikooee, E., Raoof, A., & Habibagahi, G. (2024) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.1002/vzj2.20352 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Field Measurement of PFAS Leaching at a Long-Term Land-Applied Biosolids Site
Klamerus, J., Khan, K., Hire, M., Lee, L., & Schaefer, C. E. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c08025 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Hubert, M., Bonnet, B., Hale, S. E., Sørmo, E., Cornelissen, G., Ahrens, L., & Arp, H. P. H. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.138662 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Consideration of Vadose Zone Moisture Dynamics in Remediation of PFAS‐Impacted Soils
Askarani, K. K., Cook, J. S., Connor, J. A., & Newell, C. J. (2024) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12646 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Stults, J. F., Schaefer, C. E., Macbeth, T. W., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D. S., & Guelfo, J. L. (2025) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Groffen, T., Schoutens, K., Zamora, J. D., Gourgue, O., Bervoets, L., & Temmerman, S. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139247 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Emerging Contaminants in Groundwater: Challenges, Management, and Policy Perspectives
Narimani, R., Murgulet, I., & Murgulet, D. (2025) · Advances in water security · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71758-1_9 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Mapping PFAS behavior via meta-analysis of soil dynamics, predictive modeling and policy integration
Srivastava, R. K., & Srivastava, S. (2025) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.180399 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Study on interaction, feedback, and response between perfluorinated compounds and soil environments
Song, J., Song, J., Zhang, R., Che, C., Yuan, Y., Tan, W., Xi, B., Hui, K., & Zhang, J. (2024) · Emerging contaminants · doi:10.1016/j.emcon.2024.100428 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Challenges and opportunities for porous media research to address PFAS groundwater contamination
Guo, B., & Brusseau, M. L. (2024) · InterPore Journal · doi:10.69631/ipj.v1i2nr35 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationZango, Z. U., Ibnaouf, K. H., Haruna, A., Lawal, M. A., Wadi, I. A., Ibrahem, M. A., Shittu, F. B., & Adamu, H. (2025) · Journal of Science Advanced Materials and Devices · doi:10.1016/j.jsamd.2025.101041 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Zhou, Y., Chang, Y., Zhang, D., & Li, W. (2025) · Water · doi:10.3390/w17223280 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Multi-compound PFAS transport in the unsaturated zone during infiltration cycles
Kolade, S. O., Ronen, A., Turkeltaub, T., Tsakiroglou, C. D., Klint, K. E., Das, P., & Dahan, O. (2025) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2025.124463 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Ceballos, I. M., Terro, H., Barbeau, B., McQuaid, N., Sauvé, S., & Dorner, S. M. (2025) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c00562 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Herok, M., Barchañska, H., & Partyka, M. (2026) · Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1080/10408347.2026.2685273 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Divine, C. E., Guo, B., Brusseau, M. L., Kinser, B., & Shepherd, C. (2025) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.12722 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationCarey, G. R., Adamson, D. T., Krebs, R. K., Rebeiro‐Tunstall, M., Mumford, K. G., Guo, B., Carey, G. R., Rooney, K., & Moga, S. (2026) · Remediation Journal · doi:10.1002/rem.70058 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationTorres, F., Šimůnek, J., Silva, J., Gharehveran, M. M., & Anderson, H. (2026) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.70048 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Divine, C. E., Erickson, J. C., Heinze, K., Turner, A., & Krebs, R. K. (2026) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.70051 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Colloid-facilitated release of PFAS from polluted-soil monoliths
Fries, E., Courtier‐Murias, D., Labadie, P., Bechet, B., Peyneau, P., Caurel, C., Dubois, Q., Pardon, P. R., Budzinski, H., & Michel, E. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142279 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cunha, M., Díaz, S., Soares, A. M. V. M., Nardi, A., Gil, A. M., & Freitas, R. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142852 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Wang, M., Liu, J., Zhang, L., He, Y., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, S. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3852505/v1 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Schaefer, C. E., Lavorgna, G. M., Lippincott, D. R., Hao, S., Pritchard, J. C., & Higgins, C. P. (2026) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2026.104848 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B. (2026) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2026.125386 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationKabiri, S., Bowles, K. C., & Navarro, D. A. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.141948 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Vertebrae™ Segmented Horizontal Wells for Monitoring PFAS Contaminant Mass Flux and Discharge
Hasbrouck, K., Divine, C. E., Wright, J., Parker, B. L., Munn, J. D., Chapman, S. W., & Robinson, L. I. (2026) · Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation · doi:10.1111/gwmr.70060 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Chen, Y., Cao, D., Qie, M., Li, X., Niu, H.-Y., Lv, J.-T., Shi, Y.-L., & Cai, Y.-Q. (2026) · Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c18639 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Gautam, R. K., Kleja, D. B., Enell, A., Montelius, M., Pettersson, M., Mottaghipisheh, J., & Ahrens, L. (2026) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2026.178670 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Lai, Y.-R., Basta, N. T., Xia, K., Wang, A., & Ippolito, J. A. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances · doi:10.1016/j.hazadv.2026.101458 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kolade, S. O., Klint, K. E., Tsakiroglou, C. D., Ronen, A., & Dahan, O. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.143328 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Stults, J. F., Schaefer, C. E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D. N., Hao, S., Real, I., & Guelfo, J. L. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4775907
Kabiri, S., Navarro, D. A., & Bowles, K. C. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5600292
A framework for determining site-specific soil screening levels for PFAS
Brusseau, M. L., Guo, B., Nadel, M., Ma, M., Quinnann, J., & Drennan, D. M. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials Organics · doi:10.1016/j.hazmo.2026.100011
Self-citationGonkowski, S., Menozzi, A., Petrini, A., Cocco, A., Cantelmi, M. C., Mikołajczyk, S., Makowska, K., & Merola, C. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-39984-5
Duncan, C. M., Ghezelsofla, F., Nyoni, H. H., Escobar, J., & Mina, O. (2026) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics14030245
Avelar, A. I., Ntarlagiannis, D., Schaefer, C. E., Hire, M., & Slater, L. D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6512532
A rank order of 26 North American fish species by propensity for PFAS bioaccumulation
Levanduski, E., Quail, R., Becker, J. C., Pochini, K. M., Richter, W., Bryk, D., Williams, K., & Razavi, N. R. (2026) · Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · doi:10.1093/inteam/vjag070
Fluorosurfactants in Aqueous Film Forming Foams
Shibata, Y. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Chemistry · doi:10.5985/jec.36.1
Cookson, E. S., Han, Z., Adeleye, A. S., & Detwiler, R. L. (2026) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c16013
Mikhail, I. E., Mai, Y., Lebanov, L., Lam, S. C., Durage, K. K., Firme, B., Askeland, M., Gooley, A. A., & Paull, B. (2026) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2026.467140
On per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) redistribution in soil driven by evaporation
Sedghi, M. M., & Zhan, H. (2026) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2026.105031
Zhou, C., Xu, R., Zha, F., Wang, Q., & Kang, B. (2026) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2026.105033
Kurniawan, S. B., Subramanian, S. V., Hasan, H. A., Ambarsari, H., Andriani, D., Gafur, N. A., Meidaliyantisyah, Amandita, F. Y., Suryati, T., Andriyani, R., et al. (2026) · Environments · doi:10.3390/environments13070373
Streets, S. S., de Souza, E. D. F. C., McNearney, M., Jedinak, S., Doria-Manzur, A., Guelfo, J. L., & Rosen, C. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.1002/jeq2.70220
Ratnasari, A. (2026) · Current Pollution Reports · doi:10.1007/s40726-026-00428-3
Individual and synergetic adsorption of PFOS and PFOA on ferrihydrite
Hazrati, S., Antelo, J. M., Fiol, S., Kumpienė, J., & Carabante, I. (2026) · Colloids and Surfaces A Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects · doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2026.141738
Kudzin, M. H., Mrozińska, Z., Gloc, M., Górska, B., & Ponczek, M. B. (2026) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-026-09792-4
Farid, A. M., Alaghemand, A., Alam, M. K., Estrada, D., Evans, D., Hart, M. L., Karamiqucham, B., McKibben, N., Wagland, S. T., & Zadegan, R. (2026) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-026-09794-2
Hu, X., Buchanan, C. M., Blecker, S. W., Wang, A., Xia, K., Hao, S., & Ippolito, J. A. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.143728 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
PFAS Mass Discharge at an AFFF‐Impacted Site: 2. Evaluation of SPLP Test Reliability
Carey, G. R., Adamson, D. T., Rebeiro‐Tunstall, M., Mumford, K. G., Guo, B., Krebs, R. K., Carey, G. T., & Worthing, M. (2026) · Remediation Journal · doi:10.1002/rem.70088
Self-citationA capillary microporosity framework for modeling the fate and transport of PFAS in concrete
Schmeltzer, K., Newell, C. J., deBlanc, P., Jacob, S., McDade, J., Caird, R., Dooley, G., Gamlin, J., Kainer, E., Leong, C., et al. (2026) · Journal of Contaminant Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jconhyd.2026.105151
Song, J., Zheng, J., Liu, F., Yuan, Y., Hui, K., & Tan, W. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.144041
- Authors
- Brusseau, M. L., & Guo, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brusseau, M.L.
- Venue
- Chemosphere
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-09
- Volume
- 302
- Pages
- 134938
- ISSN
- 0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9667730
- OpenAlex
- W4280496898
- Semantic Scholar
- 3cb161374ee721896136a607b7a7689320fdf3f5
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 5.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 257 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Chemosphere (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P42 ES 4940)
- Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ER21–5041)
- National Science Foundation (2023351)
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Groundwater flow and contamination studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
- Keywords
- PFAS, soil pore water, air-water interface adsorption, solid-phase sorption, groundwater contamination, distribution coefficient, molecular size effects, lysimeter experiments, long-chain PFAS
- MeSH terms
- Adsorption, Fluorocarbons, Soil, Water, Groundwater
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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
