Spatial distribution and mass transport of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in surface water: A statewide evaluation of PFAS occurrence and fate in Alabama
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been previously detected near suspected sources in Alabama, but the overall extent of contamination across the state is unknown. This study evaluated the spatial distribution of 17 PFAS within the ten major river basins in Alabama and provided insights into their transport and fate through a mass flux analysis. Six PFAS were identified in 65 out of the 74 riverine samples, with mean ∑6 PFAS levels of 35.2 ng L-1. The highest ∑6 PFAS concentration of 237 ng L-1 was detected in the Coosa River, a transboundary river that receives discharges from multiple sources in Alabama and Georgia. PFAS distribution was not observed to be uniform across the state: while the Coosa, Alabama, and Chattahoochee rivers presented relatively high mean ∑6 PFAS concentrations of 191, 100 and 28.8 ng L-1, respectively, PFAS were not detected in the Conecuh, Escatawpa, and Yellow rivers. Remaining river systems presented mean ∑6 PFAS concentrations between 7.94 and 24.7 ng L-1. Although the short-chain perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) was the most detected analyte (88%), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) was the substance with the highest individual concentration of 79.4 ng L-1. Consistent increases in the mass fluxes of PFAS were observed as the rivers flowed through Alabama, reaching up to 63.3 mg s-1, indicating the presence of numerous sources across the state. Most of the mass inputs would not have been captured if only aqueous concentrations were evaluated, since concentration is usually heavily impacted by environmental conditions. Results of this study demonstrate that mass flux is a simple and powerful complementary approach that can be used to broadly understand trends in the transport and fate of PFAS in large river systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Statewide surveys of Iowa and Alabama concluded that agriculturally dominated watersheds had sporadic PFAS detections.
“statewide surveys of Iowa and Alabama yielded conclusions that agriculturally dominated watersheds had sporadic PFAS detections”
From Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Surface Water and Fluvial Sediments of a Rural Gulf Coast Watershed: A Year-long Spatiotemporal Assessment (2026) · cites this paper as [57]
Other occurrence studies in rural regions are limited to state-wide surveys.
“Other occurrence studies in rural regions are limited to state-wide surveys.”
From Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Surface Water and Fluvial Sediments of a Rural Gulf Coast Watershed: A Year-long Spatiotemporal Assessment (2026) · cites this paper as [57]
Stormwater runoff PFAS levels in this study were much higher than those in prior studies.
“Compared to prior studies, stormwater runoff PFAS levels in this study were much higher.”
From Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Urban Stormwater Runoff: Insights from a Roadside Rain Garden (2025) · cites this paper as [38]
Another study conducted in Alabama US found that ∑PFOA+PFOS levels were not detected in three of 14 selected natural water bodies.
“Another study conducted in Alabama US found that ∑PFOA+PFOS levels were not detected in three of 14 selected natural water bodies”
From Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in leachate, gas condensate, stormwater and groundwater at landfills (2023) · cites this paper as Viticoski et al., 2022
Among the 14 waters with detectable levels, the levels ranged from 0.19 ng L−1 to 44 ng L−1.
“Among the 14 waters with detectable levels, the levels ranged from 0.19 ng L−1 to 44 ng L−1”
From Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in leachate, gas condensate, stormwater and groundwater at landfills (2023) · cites this paper as Viticoski et al., 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Viticoski, R. L., Wang, D., Feltman, M. A., Mulabagal, V., Rogers, S. R., Blersch, D. M., & Hayworth, J. S.
- Affiliations
- Auburn University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hayworth, Joel S.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-08
- Volume
- 836
- Pages
- 155524
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4224951966
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 6.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Auburn University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Chemical Analysis and Environmental Impact
- Keywords
- per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS contamination, surface water, river basins, mass flux, PFAS transport, spatial distribution, short-chain PFAS, PFBS, PFPeA, Coosa River, Alabama, transboundary rivers, source apportionment
- MeSH terms
- Alabama, Environmental Monitoring, Fluorocarbons, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Rivers
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