CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 307

Comparison of currently available PFAS remediation technologies in water: a review

Wanninayake, Dushanthi M.·2021·Journal of Environmental Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Remediation of Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the environment has rapidly increased due to growing concerns of environmental contamination and associated adverse toxicological effects on wildlife and humans due to bioaccumulation and extreme persistence. Although, PFASs are highly recalcitrant to conventional water treatment processes, there are some effective techniques available. Those techniques involve exceedingly high costs due to high energy use, and high capital or operational costs. Thus, most remediation techniques have limitations in field applications even though the laboratory scale experiments are promising. As a result of stringent new health and environmental regulatory standards are being established, development of suitable water treatment methodology is more challenging. Most of the separation and destruction techniques have their own limitations in field applications while the biological approaches to treat PFASs are extremely limited and are not currently considered as viable. In this review, extra consideration is given to novel advanced techniques for wide array of PFAS classes including short chain PFAS removal, and compare their efficiencies, effectiveness, energy use, sustainability, cost, and simplicity in laboratory scale to field applications. Electrochemical, sonochemical, advanced oxidation processers (AOPs) and plasma together with novel hybrid techniques are considered as effective approaches for PFASs removal and have shown pro…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wanninayake, D. M.
ORCID
Wanninayake, Dushanthi M.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
283
Pages
111977
ISSN
0301-4797
DOI
10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111977
Cited by
307
References
6
Language
en
Licence
Funders
  • Queensland University of Technology
  • University of Southern Queensland

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