Cited by 141Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchGeotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationEnvironmental remediation with nanomaterials

Stabilization and solidification remediation of soil contaminated with poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)

Sörengård, Mattias, Kleja, Dan B., Ahrens, Lutz·2019·Journal of Hazardous Materials

Abstract

Remediation methods for soils contaminated with poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are urgently needed to protect the surrounding environment and drinking water source areas from pollution. In this study, the stabilization and solidification (S/S) technique was tested on aged PFAS-contaminated soil that were artificially spiked with 14 PFAS. To further reduce leaching of PFASs in S/S-treated soil, seven different additives were tested at 2% concentration: powdered activated carbon (PAC), Rembind®, pulverized zeolite, chitosan, hydrotalcite, bentonite, and calcium chloride. Standardized leaching tests on S/S-treated soil revealed that leaching of 13 out of 14 target PFASs (excluding perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBA)) was reduced by, on average, 70% and 94% by adding PAC and Rembind®. Longer-chained PFASs such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which is considered persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, were stabilized by 99.9% in all S/S treatments when PAC or Rembind® was used as an additive. The S/S stabilization efficiency depended on PFAS perfluorocarbon chain length and functional group, e.g., it increased on average by 11-15 % per CF 3 -moeity and was on average 49% higher for the perfluorosulfonates (PFSAs) than the perfluorocarboxylates (PFCAs). Overall, the S/S treatment with active carbon-based additives showed excellent performance in reducing leaching of PFASs, without marked loss of physical matrix stability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.01.005

Cites

8 of 8 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
Sörengård, M., Kleja, D. B., & Ahrens, L.
Affiliations
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SE)
Corresponding author
Sörengård, Mattias
Venue
Journal of Hazardous Materials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
367
Pages
639-646
ISSN
0304-3894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2907418593
Cited by
141
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 6
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hazardous Materials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
VINNOVA
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
Keywords
powdered activated carbon, chitosan, hydrotalcite, bentonite, calcium chloride, PFOS, perfluorocarboxylates, chain length effects, soil additives

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