Cited by 58

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Volatility and Nonspecific van der Waals Interaction Properties of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Evaluation Using Hexadecane/Air Partition Coefficients

Hammer, Jort, Endo, Satoshi·2022·Environmental Science & Technology

Overview

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.2c05804

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • The reason for the inconsistent descriptor values is likely the problem of extrapolation; the system parameters calibrated with only nonfluorinated compounds are not applicable to PFAS.

    “The reason for this is likely the problem of extrapolation; the system parameters calibrated with only nonfluorinated compounds are not applicable to PFAS.9,18”

    From Intermolecular Interactions, Solute Descriptors, and Partition Properties of Neutral Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) (2023) · cites this paper as [18]

    In Results and Discussion, under “KHxd/air Values Determined by the GC-RT Method” (page not provided), the paper says that calibrating equation 4 only with nonfluorinated reference chemicals required extrapolation to PFAS and produced relatively large errors. This supports extrapolation as a reason for inconsistent values, but the finding concerns that specific equation and measured partition coefficients; it does not establish that system parameters calibrated without PFAS are generally inapplicable to PFAS descriptors. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • L can be explained by summing the contributions from the fluorinated and nonfluorinated parts of the molecule.

    “The study showed that L can be explained by summing the contributions from the fluorinated and nonfluorinated parts of the molecule.”
  • L was updated from the reported values using literature data for nonpolar GC columns (squalane, SPB-Octyl, and Apolane) because small influences of polar interactions on log k could be taken into account with the values of S and A for PFAS.

    “L was also updated from the reported values18 in this iterative calculation using the literature data for nonpolar GC columns (squalane, SPB-Octyl,18 and Apolane)11 because small influences of polar interactions on log k, which were not considered in the previous studies,11,18 could be taken into account with the values of S and A for PFAS.”
  • The current version of COSMOtherm likely slightly overestimates the partitioning of PFAS from air to liquid phases.

    “It is likely that the current version of COSMOtherm slightly overestimates the partitioning of PFAS from air to liquid phases, as reported in previous articles.5,18”
  • In a previous study, our group measured KHxd/air for 64 neutral PFAS to elucidate their nonpolar interaction properties.

    “In a previous study, our group measured the values of KHxd/air, the decadic logarithm of which is L in eq 1, for 64 neutral PFAS to elucidate their nonpolar interaction properties.18”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1002/etc.4863 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2008.08.011 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1021/es200171y · DOI
  4. 10.1021/acs.est.2c00254 · DOI
  5. 10.1126/science.aaa0812 · DOI
  6. 10.1021/acs.est.1c03697 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/10643389.2011.627016 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1021/jp062684o · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1021/es060004p · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1021/es405091h · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1039/P29870000797 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1080/10643380490443263 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.chroma.2003.12.004 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/j.fluid.2005.04.006 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1007/s11356-016-8302-9 · DOI
  16. 10.1021/acs.est.1c07045 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/ac00069a026 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/BF02278560 · DOI
  19. 10.1021/acs.jced.9b00235 · DOI
  20. 10.1093/chromsci/8.12.685 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0021-9673(94)00819-1 · DOI
  22. 10.1039/b006380k · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S0003-2670(00)84607-3 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.fluid.2010.09.043 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.11.053 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.07.028 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/BF02311772 · DOI
  28. 10.1021/j100007a062 · DOI
  29. 10.1021/es060744y · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1071/EN10143 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1080/1062936X.2013.841286 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s10953-022-01162-2 · DOI
  33. 10.1021/acs.est.0c00175 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hammer, J., & Endo, S.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2022-10-14
Volume
56
Issue
22
Pages
15737-15745
ISSN
  • 0013-936X
  • 1520-5851
Cited by
58
References
7
Language
en
Funders
Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (JPMEERF20213002)

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