Cited by 19Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesEnvironmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies

Comparison of the PFAS and physical-chemical parameter fluctuations between an ash landfill and a MSW landfill

Open access
Zhang, Hekai, Chen, Yutao, Liu, Yalan, Bowden, John A., Townsend, Timothy G., Solo-Gabriele, Helena M.·2024·Waste Management

Abstract

Studies of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) fluctuations at landfills have focused on municipal solid waste (MSW) leachate. Few studies exist that evaluate fluctuations (defined by the coefficient of variation, CV) in MSW incinerator ash (MSWA) landfill leachate and that evaluate PFAS fluctuations in stormwater, groundwater, and treated liquids on-site. In this study, aqueous landfill samples (leachate, treated leachate, stormwater, gas condensate, ambient groundwater, and effluent from a groundwater remediation system) were collected from a MSW and an MSWA landfill geographically located within close proximity (less than 40 km). The objective of this study was to compare the leachate compositions between these two landfill types and to evaluate temporal variations. Results indicated that the CV of total detected PFAS concentrations in leachate was higher for the MSW landfill (CV = 43 %) compared to the MSWA landfill (CV = 16 %). The total detected PFAS concentration in MSW leachate samples (mean: 9641 ng/L) was higher than in MSWA leachate samples (mean: 2621 ng/L) (p s > 0.6, p 26 PFAS concentration increased 3 % after the treatment. Overall, results demonstrated that differences between landfill types and fluctuations in PFAS within landfills should be considered when designing landfill leachate collection and treatment systems to remove PFAS. The comparative analysis in this study can provide insights into optimizing leachate management for MSW and MSWA landfill…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.wasman.2023.12.027

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Bowden, J. A., Townsend, T. G., & Solo-Gabriele, H. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Florida Atlantic University (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
Waste Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-02
Volume
174
Pages
558-567
ISSN
0956-053X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390122908
Cited by
19
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Waste Management (acceptedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (SUB00001955)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Landfill Environmental Impact Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
Keywords
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, landfill leachate, leachate treatment, temporal variation, coefficient of variation, alkalinity, total organic carbon, ammonia, leachate collection system, groundwater contamination, stormwater, gas condensate
MeSH terms
Ammonia, Fluorocarbons, Refuse Disposal, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Solid Waste, Waste Disposal Facilities

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