Cited by 136Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchChemical Analysis and Environmental ImpactFluorine in Organic Chemistry

Isolating the AFFF Signature in Coastal Watersheds Using Oxidizable PFAS Precursors and Unexplained Organofluorine

Open access
Ruyle, Bridger J., Pickard, Heidi M., LeBlanc, Denis R., Tokranov, Andrea K., Thackray, Colin P., Hu, Xindi C., Vecitis, Chad D., Sunderland, Elsie M.·2021·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Water supplies for millions of U.S. individuals exceed maximum contaminant levels for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Contemporary and legacy use of aqueous film forming foams (AFFF) is a major contamination source. However, diverse PFAS sources are present within watersheds, making it difficult to isolate their predominant origins. Here we examine PFAS source signatures among six adjacent coastal watersheds on Cape Cod, MA, U.S.A. using multivariate clustering techniques. A distinct signature of AFFF contamination enriched in precursors with six perfluorinated carbons (C6) was identified in watersheds with an AFFF source, while others were enriched in C4 precursors. Principal component analysis of PFAS composition in impacted watersheds showed a decline in precursor composition relative to AFFF stocks and a corresponding increase in terminal perfluoroalkyl sulfonates with < C6 but not those with ≥ C6. Prior work shows that in AFFF stocks, all extractable organofluorine (EOF) can be explained by targeted PFAS and precursors inferred using Bayesian inference on the total oxidizable precursor assay. Using the same techniques for the first time in impacted watersheds, we find that only 24%-63% of the EOF can be explained by targeted PFAS and oxidizable precursors. Our work thus indicates the presence of large non-AFFF organofluorine sources in these coastal watersheds.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.0c07296

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Multivariate analyses have been used to establish PFAS source signatures and distinguish PFAS source inputs in surface water.

    “Multivariate analyses have been used to establish PFAS source signatures and distinguish PFAS source inputs in surface water.”
  • Perfluoroalkyl sulfonamido compounds (C4, C6, and C8) are the predominant precursors in 3M AFFF (46 ± 1% of total PFAS) and are biotransformed in the subsurface into PFSA of the same number of perfluorinated carbons.

    “Perfluoroalkyl sulfonamido compounds (C4, C6, and C8) are the predominant precursors in 3M AFFF (46 ± 1% of total PFAS) and are biotransformed in the subsurface into PFSA of the same number of perfluorinated carbons.11,24”
  • Together with their terminal PFSA, the C4, C6, and C8 precursor groups make up 88 ± 1% of total PFAS in 3M AFFF and 40 ± 8% of total PFAS in groundwater beneath the JBCC fire training area.

    “Together with their terminal PFSA, these three precursor groups make up 88 ± 1% of total PFAS in 3M AFFF and 40 ± 8% of total PFAS in groundwater beneath the JBCC fire training area.11”
  • For C6 compounds, the ratio of precursors to terminal PFSA was 0.7 ± 0.4 in groundwater compared to 6.7 ± 1.4 in 3M AFFF.

    “For the C4 and C6 compounds, the ratios of precursors to their terminal PFSA were 4.9 ± 1.6 in groundwater compared to 11 ± 4.7 in 3M AFFF (C4 compounds), and 0.7 ± 0.4 in groundwater compared to 6.7 ± 1.4 in 3M AFFF (C6 compounds).5,11”
  • For C4 compounds, the ratio of precursors to terminal PFSA was 4.9 ± 1.6 in groundwater compared to 11 ± 4.7 in 3M AFFF.

    “For the C4 and C6 compounds, the ratios of precursors to their terminal PFSA were 4.9 ± 1.6 in groundwater compared to 11 ± 4.7 in 3M AFFF (C4 compounds), and 0.7 ± 0.4 in groundwater compared to 6.7 ± 1.4 in 3M AFFF (C6 compounds).5,11”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [33]Farnham I; Singh A; Stetzenbach K; Johannesson K Treatment of Nondetects in Multivariate Analysis of Groundwater Geochemistry Data. Chemom. Intell. Labortory Syst. 2002, 60 (1–2), 265– 281.
  2. [34]Helsel DR Statistics for Censored Environmental Data Using Minitab and R, Second.; Wiley: Denver, CO, 2012.
  3. [40]Aitchison J The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data; The Blackburn Press: Caldwell, New Jersey, 1986.
  4. [42]Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Monitoring and Analytical Requirements; 2019; Vol. 22.07G.
  5. [62]Cambareri TC; Eichner EM Watershed Delineation and Ground Water Discharge to a Coastal Embayment. Ground Water 1998, 36 (4), 626– 634.
  6. [64]Johannes RE The Ecological Significance of the Submarine Discharge of Groundwater. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser 1980, 3, 365– 373.
  7. [65]Moore WS Large Groundwater Inputs to Coastal Waters Revealed by 226Ra Enrichments. Nature 1996, 380, 612– 614.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruyle, B. J., Pickard, H. M., LeBlanc, D. R., Tokranov, A. K., Thackray, C. P., Hu, X. C., Vecitis, C. D., & Sunderland, E. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • New England Water Science Center (US)
Corresponding author
Ruyle, Bridger J.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2021-03-05
Volume
55
Issue
6
Pages
3686-3695
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W3133663268
Cited by
136
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 7
FWCI
8.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P42ES027706)
  • U.S. Department of Defense (SERDP ER18-1280)
  • U.S. Geological Survey
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Chemical Analysis and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Fluorine in Organic Chemistry
Keywords
aqueous film-forming foam, perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, coastal watersheds, Cape Cod, PFAS contamination, multivariate clustering
MeSH terms
Alkanesulfonates, Bayes Theorem, Fluorocarbons, Humans, Water, Water Pollutants, Chemical

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