Cited by 52Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies

Temporal and spatial analysis of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances in surface waters of Houston ship channel following a large-scale industrial fire incident

Open access
Aly, Noor A., Luo, Yu-Syuan, Liu, Yina, Casillas, Gaston, McDonald, Thomas J., Kaihatu, James M., Jun, Mikyoung, Ellis, Nicholas +6 more·2020·Environmental Pollution

Abstract

Firefighting foams contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) - a class of compounds widely used as surfactants. PFAS are persistent organic pollutants that have been reported in waterways and drinking water systems across the United States. These substances are of interest to both regulatory agencies and the general public because of their persistence in the environment and association with adverse health effects. PFAS can be released in large quantities during industrial incidents because they are present in most firefighting foams used to suppress chemical fires; however, little is known about persistence of PFAS in public waterways after such events. In response to large-scale fires at Intercontinental Terminal Company (ITC) in Houston, Texas in March 2019, almost 5 million liters of class B firefighting foams were used. Much of this material flowed into the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay (HSC/GB) and concerns were raised about the levels of PFAS in these water bodies that have commercial and recreational uses. To evaluate the impact of the ITC incident response on PFAS levels in HSC/GB, we collected 52 surface water samples from 12 locations over a 6-month period after the incident. Samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to evaluate 27 PFAS, including perfluorocarboxylic acids, perfluorosulfonates and fluorotelomers. Among PFAS that were evaluated, 6:2 FTS and PFOS were detected at highest concentrations. Temporal and spatial profiles of PFAS were established; we found a major peak in the level of many PFAS in the days and weeks after the incident and a gradual decline over several months with patterns consistent with the tide- and wave-associated water movements. This work documents the impact of a large-scale industrial fire, on the environmental levels of PFAS, establishes a baseline concentration of PFAS in HSC/GB, and highlights the critical need for development of PFAS water quality standards.

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.envpol.2020.115009

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?

  • Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products are major sources of PFAA compounds in the environment.

    “In addition, aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) products were identified as major sources of PFAA compounds in the environment (Langberg et al., 2019; Mejia-Avendane; o et al., 2017; Aly et al., 2020).”

    From Biotransformation of perfluoroalkyl acid precursors from various environmental systems: advances and perspectives (2021) · cites this paper as Aly et al., 2020

    The Introduction says many AFFFs contain PFAS, and the Discussion (‘ITC Fire Response Resulted in a Release of PFAS into the Houston Ship Channel’; page unavailable) links AFFF use to PFOS and other PFAS detected after the fire. This supports AFFF as an environmental source, but the paper does not establish that AFFF products are major sources of PFAA compounds in the environment generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Total PFAS concentrations at N23, N60, and N62 are lower than those previously reported in surface water linked to primary sources including AFFF, landfill leachates, and industrial discharges.

    “Also, the total concentrations are lower than those previously reported in surface water linked to primary sources including AFFF,37,38 landfill leachates,35 and industrial discharges.39”

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 58 · Cited by 52

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Dean RG, Dalrymple RA, 1991 Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. World Scientific, Singapore.
  2. DSHS, 2015 ADV-55 Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisory for Galveston Bay Estuary, in: Department of State Health Services (Ed.). Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX Accessed on: February 01, 2020
  3. Egbert GD, Erofeeva SY, 2002 Efficient Inverse Modeling of Barotropic Ocean Tides. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 19 2, 183– 204.
  4. Fotheringham AS, Wegener M, 1999 Spatial models and GIS: New and Potential Models. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  5. Hopkins ZR, Sun M, DeWitt JC, Knappe DRU, 2018 Recently Detected Drinking Water Contaminants: GenX and Other Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Acids. Journal American Water Works Association 110, 13– 28.
  6. Le Provost C, 2001 Ocean Tides, in: Fu LL, Cazenave A (Eds.), Satellite Altimetry and Earth Sciences: A handbook of Techniques and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 267– 301.
  7. Thomas A, 2019 ITC Fire Response Causes Toxic Contamination of Houston Ship Channel. Sierra Club, https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2019/09/itc-fire-response-causes-toxic-contamination-houston-ship-channel. Accessed on: January 28, 2020

Authors
Aly, N. A., Luo, Y.-S., Liu, Y., Casillas, G., McDonald, T. J., Kaihatu, J. M., Jun, M., Ellis, N., Gossett, S., Dodds, J. N., Baker, E. S., Bhandari, S., Chiu, W. A., & Rusyn, I.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rusyn, Ivan
Venue
Environmental Pollution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
265
Issue
Pt B
Pages
115009
ISSN
0269-7491 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035240321
Cited by
52
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Pollution (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (T32 ES026568)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Keywords
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, firefighting foam, Houston Ship Channel, Galveston Bay, surface water contamination, spatiotemporal variation, PFOS, fluorotelomers, perfluorocarboxylic acids, water quality standards, persistent organic pollutants
MeSH terms
Fires, Fluorocarbons, Texas, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Drinking Water

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