Cited by 169Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchGroundwater flow and contamination studiesPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Partitioning of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances from soil to groundwater within aqueous film-forming foam source zones

Open access
Hunter Anderson, R., Adamson, Dave T., Stroo, Hans F.·2019·Journal of Contaminant Hydrology

Abstract

Metadata from on-going site investigations at U.S. Air Force sites impacted by Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) were used to evaluate primary factors that affect transport of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) within source zones. Soil-to-groundwater ratios (γ Soil-GW ) were calculated for each site and PFAS as an empirical transport metric and regressed against select soil chemical and physical properties, as well as relevant interactions thereof, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Total organic carbon and percent total clay content were significant covariates and best fit log-transformed γ Soil-GW with a parallel lines model. Regression parameters were used to derive apparent K OC estimates for 15 perfluoroalkyl acids, perfluorooctane sulfonamide, and the 6:2 and 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonates, which were bimodal where significant differences were primarily observed between PFAS with fewer than 8 perfluorinated carbons (including perfluorooctoanoic acid; PFOA) and those with 8 or more (including perfluorooctane sulfonate; PFOS). Surprisingly, clay content was observed with a negative slope (i.e., γ Soil-GW decreased with increasing clay content), which may reflect greater retardation at more permeable sites due to air-water interfacial partitioning. Further analysis demonstrated that γ Soil-GW is also affected by the degree of flushing in a way that suggests mass transfer (as opposed to hysteretic desorption) primarily controls mass discharge at poorly flushed sit…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.011

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–169 of 169

Metadata

Authors
Hunter Anderson, R., Adamson, D. T., & Stroo, H. F.
Venue
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
220
Pages
59-65
ISSN
0169-7722 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902144279
Cited by
169
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10
FWCI
1.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Contaminant Hydrology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory
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
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, aqueous film-forming foam, source zone, organic carbon partition coefficient, clay content, total organic carbon, PFOS, fluorotelomer sulfonates, mass transfer, groundwater contamination, military base contamination
MeSH terms
Fluorocarbons, Soil, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical, 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.

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