Cited by 211Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchWater Treatment and DisinfectionAdsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal

Influence of dissolved organic matter concentration and composition on the removal efficiency of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) during drinking water treatment

Kothawala, Dolly N., Köhler, Stephan J., Östlund, Anna, Wiberg, Karin, Ahrens, Lutz·2017·Water Research

Abstract

Drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) are constantly adapting to a host of emerging threats including the removal of micro-pollutants like perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), while concurrently considering how background levels of dissolved organic matter (DOM) influences their removal efficiency. Two adsorbents, namely anion exchange (AE) and granulated active carbon (GAC) have shown particular promise for PFAS removal, yet the influence of background levels of DOM remains poorly explored. Here we considered how the removal efficiency of 13 PFASs are influenced by two contrasting types of DOM at four concentrations, using both AE (Purolite A-600®) and GAC (Filtrasorb 400®). We placed emphasis on the pre-equilibrium conditions to gain better mechanistic insight into the dynamics between DOM, PFASs and adsorbents. We found AE to be very effective at removing both PFASs and DOM, while largely remaining resistant to even high levels of background DOM (8 mg carbon L-1) and surprisingly found that smaller PFASs were removed slightly more efficiently than longer chained counterparts, In contrast, PFAS removal efficiency with GAC was highly variable with PFAS chain length, often improving in the presence of DOM, but with variable response based on the type of DOM and PFAS chain length.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.watres.2017.05.047

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 211

Authors
Kothawala, D. N., Köhler, S. J., Östlund, A., Wiberg, K., & Ahrens, L.
Affiliations
  • Uppsala University (SE)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Kothawala, Dolly N.
Venue
Water Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
121
Pages
320-328
ISSN
0043-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2617458443
Cited by
211
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Water Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Adsorption and biosorption for pollutant removal
Keywords
perfluorinated compounds, PFAS removal, dissolved organic matter, drinking water treatment, anion exchange, granular activated carbon, adsorption, chain length effects, pre-equilibrium, micropollutants
MeSH terms
Charcoal, Fluorocarbons, Water Purification, Drinking Water

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