Cited by 83Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchGroundwater flow and contamination studiesChemical Analysis and Environmental Impact

Characterization of relevant site-specific PFAS fate and transport processes at multiple AFFF sites

Open access
Adamson, David T., Kulkarni, Poonam R., Nickerson, Anastasia, Higgins, Christopher P., Field, Jennifer, Schwichtenberg, Trever, Newell, Charles, Kornuc, John J.·2022·Environmental Advances

Abstract

The relevance of multiple poly- and perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) fate and transport process across multiple sites was established through high-resolution characterization of the spatial distribution of PFAS within aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)-related source areas and the downgradient plumes. The maximum total PFAS concentrations in source area groundwater at the three study sites ranged from 6 to 51 mg/L but consistently decreased by several orders of magnitude with distance from the source area at all sites, indicating that non-destructive attenuation of PFAS occurred along each flow path. The relative distribution of different PFAS classes, including zwitterionic/cationic species, provided site-specific lines of evidence for retardation due to hydrophobic, air-water interfacial, and electrostatic partitioning processes, as well as impacts from biotransformation and matrix diffusion at multiple sites. The only site where one of these processes (air-water interfacial partitioning) was not supported by the data (Site 1) was attributable to disturbance of vadose zone soils as part of historic remedial efforts. In other cases, the magnitude that these processes influenced PFAS transport reflected site-specific conditions. This included apparent salting out of PFAS at Site 2 due to its elevated groundwater salinity, which has implications for plume migration in coastal areas. In addition, PFAS was present in lower-permeability soils at each site, suggesting that longer-term retention of PFAS is occurring in these zones. The finding that multiple processes were active at site-wide scales is consistent with expectations that these are naturally occurring reactions that should be relevant at most AFFF-impacted source zones.

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.envadv.2022.100167

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Primary sources of soil PFAS contamination include direct releases such as AFFF during firefighting training, leaks or spills during storage/handling/cleaning, direct discharges from industries, and landfill leachate seepage.

    “Primary sources include direct releases, such as the use of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) during firefighting training exercises in designated areas (FFTAs), along with leaks or spills during the storage, handling, or cleaning of these foams [155]. Other primary sources involve direct discharges from industries that produce or use fluorinated chemicals [156] and landfill leachate seepage.”

    From Industrial Applications, Environmental Fate, Human Exposure, and Health Effects of PFAS (2025) · cites this paper as [155]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies AFFF releases during fire training as a potential long-term PFAS source. Identification of source areas (page unavailable) finds the highest soil PFAS concentrations near fire-training areas or an AFFF storage and transfer area, but does not establish leaks or spills during storage, handling, or cleaning. The industry and landfill examples follow a different citation and are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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
Adamson, D. T., Kulkarni, P. R., Nickerson, A., Higgins, C. P., Field, J., Schwichtenberg, T., Newell, C., & Kornuc, J. J.
Affiliations
  • GSI Environmental (United States) (US)
  • Colorado School of Mines (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (US)
Corresponding author
Adamson, David T.
Venue
Environmental Advances
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-04
Volume
7
Pages
100167
ISSN
2666-7657 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206184492
Cited by
83
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University of Notre Dame
  • GSI Environmental
  • Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ER-201633)
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 › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Chemical Analysis and Environmental Impact
Keywords
PFAS, aqueous film-forming foam, groundwater contamination, PFAS fate and transport, hydrophobic partitioning, matrix diffusion, biotransformation, salting-out, groundwater salinity, source zone, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

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