Sources and Pathways of PFAS Occurrence in Water Sources: Relative Contribution of Land-Applied Biosolids in an Agricultural Dominated Watershed
Open accessAbstract
This study evaluated PFAS occurrence in rural well water and surface water relative to land application of biosolids in a tile-drained agriculture-dominated watershed. Spatial data were used to identify potentially vulnerable rural wells based on their proximity to biosolid-permitted land and location with respect to groundwater flow. Water was collected from 103 private wells in Greater Tippecanoe County Indiana and 168 surface water locations within the Region of the Great Bend of the Wabash River watershed. Overall, results indicate that surface water (∑PFAS ≤ 169.4 ng/L) is more vulnerable to PFAS contamination than well water (∑PFAS ≤ 15.7 ng/L). Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids made up 72% of the ∑PFAS in both water sources. Nonetheless, long-chain homologues were detected more frequently in surface water (94%) than well water (82%). Hierarchical cluster analysis identified biosolid-applied fields, WTTPs, and industrial discharges as PFAS sources in first-order streams with high ∑PFAS. Temporal trends revealed an inverse relationship between streamflow and concentrations in surface water sites impacted by point discharges and vice versa for diffuse sources, thereby providing complementary evidence of potential sources. The well water data set did not show a distinct spatial trend between ∑PFAS and distance from biosolid application or well characteristics.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study evaluated PFAS in 103 private wells and 168 surface-water sites in an agriculture-dominated Indiana watershed to assess whether land-applied biosolids contribute to water contamination. Surface water was more vulnerable than well water, with the highest surface-water PFAS site hydrologically connected to an active biosolid-applied field, while well-water PFAS showed no clear spatial relationship to biosolid application or well characteristics.
Key findings
- Surface water had higher PFAS than well water: ∑PFAS ≤169.4 ng/L in surface water versus ≤15.7 ng/L in well water (abstract; Results reports a maximum surface-water total of 169.5 ng/L at site N60). At least one PFAS was detected above the LOD in 90% of surface-water and 84% of well-water samples, and 14 of 51 targeted PFASs were above the LOQ in one or more samples.
- Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids made up 72% of ∑PFAS in both water sources, but long-chain homologues were detected more frequently in surface water (94%) than well water (82%). PFBS had the highest maximum concentration (87 ng/L), followed by PFPeA (24 ng/L) and PFBA (17 ng/L), all in surface water.
- Hierarchical cluster analysis identified biosolid-applied fields, WWTPs, and industrial discharges as PFAS sources in first-order streams with high ∑PFAS. Three stream sites draining biosolid-receiving fields (N23, N60, N62) had total PFAS concentrations of 93.6, 169.5, and 79.2 ng/L, respectively; N60 receives tile drainage from an active biosolid-applied field with yearly application for over 20 years.
- Temporal trends showed an inverse relationship between streamflow and concentrations at surface-water sites impacted by point discharges, and the opposite for diffuse sources. Well-water data showed no distinct spatial trend between ∑PFAS and distance from biosolid application or well characteristics.
Methods
- The study area was the Region of the Great Bend of the Wabash River watershed, primarily Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Samples included 103 private wells in Greater Tippecanoe County and 168 surface-water locations; surface water was grab-sampled, and private well owners collected untreated well water via a citizen-science network.
- Unfiltered water samples were processed by solid-phase extraction and analyzed by UPLC coupled to a quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer. QA/QC included laboratory blanks, matrix spikes, surrogate standards, LOD/LOQ determination, and exclusion of analytes present in blanks above LOQs.
- Spatial and statistical analyses included Moran’s I spatial autocorrelation, hierarchical cluster analysis, bivariate correlation after maximum-likelihood substitution of censored data, and ArcGIS-based distance calculations using potentiometric surface maps and IDEM records.
Limitations
- Stated: the well-water dataset did not show a distinct spatial trend between ∑PFAS and distance from biosolid application or well characteristics; source apportionment remained ambiguous at sites impacted by multiple NPDES discharges; additional data are needed for robust interpretation of temporal trends; and the study area does not adequately capture the combination of industrially impacted biosolids, coarse-textured soils, nonconfining aquifer material, and high water table.
- Stated: more studies across diverse agricultural landscapes are needed to characterize causative factors driving PFAS transport to groundwater, and future work could sample individual points of release to improve source apportionment.
- Evident from the text: streamflow was not measured directly; flow conditions were inferred from rainfall data and stream gauges. The paper also reports different targeted PFAS counts in different places (abstract says 48; Results says 51), which is an evident inconsistency in the text.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 44 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Long-chain homologues were detected more frequently in surface water (94%) than in well water (82%).
“Nonetheless, long-chain homologues were detected more frequently in surface water (94%) than well water (82%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids made up 72% of the ∑PFAS in both surface water and well water.
“Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids made up 72% of the ∑PFAS in both water sources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Hierarchical cluster analysis identified biosolid-applied fields, wastewater treatment plants, and industrial discharges as PFAS sources in first-order streams with high ∑PFAS.
“Hierarchical cluster analysis identified biosolid-applied fields, WTTPs, and industrial discharges as PFAS sources in first-order streams with high ∑PFAS.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The well water data set did not show a distinct spatial trend between ∑PFAS and distance from biosolid application or well characteristics.
“The well water data set did not show a distinct spatial trend between ∑PFAS and distance from biosolid application or well characteristics.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Median total PFAS concentrations in surface water (2.6 ng/L) and well water (1.0 ng/L) are comparable.
“Nevertheless, in our study, median concentrations in surface water (2.6 ng/L) and well water (1.0 ng/L) are comparable, indicating similarity in concentrations for both water sources except for the hotspot surface water locations that are disproportionately impacted directly by PFAS discharges.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingreasoning
Sites S06 and S64, approximately 0.1 and 0.2 km downstream of S31, had different chemical profiles likely due to PFAS dilution along the stream.
“Sites S06 and S64, which are ∼0.1 and 0.2 km downstream of S31, had different chemical profiles likely due to PFAS dilution along the stream.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Total PFAS concentrations above the median were often detected in the urbanized northeastern part of the watershed where point discharges are heavily present, including NPDES, CSOs, and WWTPs.
“Total PFAS concentrations above the median were often detected in the urbanized northeastern part of the watershed where point discharges are heavily present, including NPDES, CSOs, and WWTPs (Figure 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
At sites S31 and N08, FBSA was detected at higher concentrations than PFOS (15.5 and 13.5 ng/L vs 2.9 and 2.3 ng/L, respectively).
“In both sites, FBSA (15.5 and 13.5 ng/L, respectively) was detected at higher concentrations than PFOS (2.9 and 2.3 ng/L, respectively)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, and to a lesser extent PFOA were detected frequently in both surface water and groundwater.
“Among PFCAs, PFPeA, PFHxA, PFHpA, and, to a lesser extent, PFOA were detected frequently in both surface water and groundwater.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Over 80% of the streams in the more agriculturally dominated southern part of the watershed had total PFAS concentrations below 2 ng/L.
“In contrast, over 80% of the streams in the more agriculturally dominated southern part of the watershed had total concentrations <2 ng/L.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
PFOA and PFOS concentrations in well water were below the proposed EPA MCL of 4 ng/L.
“PFOA and PFOS concentrations in well water were below the proposed EPA MCL of 4 ng/L, suggesting that potential exposure to these two PFAS of concern is low for households that depend on well water in the study area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
PFAS distribution in surface water was spatially clustered (Moran I test, p value < 0.05).
“PFAS distribution in surface water was spatially clustered (Moran I test, p value < 0.05), suggesting that PFAS contamination in the watershed is driven by location-specific activities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Sites R03 and R04 along the Wabash River had elevated PFAS concentrations in spring.
“Interestingly, sites R03 and R04 along the Wabash River also had elevated PFAS concentrations in the spring.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
PFNA and PFDA, both long-chain PFCAs, constituted another grouping, especially in cluster 10.
“PFNA and PFDA, both long-chain PFCAs, constituted another grouping, especially in cluster 10.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Site N60 had the highest concentrations for all but one of the frequently detected PFAAs.
“Site N60, which had the highest concentrations for all but one of these PFAAs, receives tile drain discharges from an active biosolid-applied field with yearly application for over 20 years.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The summer-high pattern was also evident for headwaters in this study impacted by point sources from industrial discharge (N08 and N15) or WWTP effluents (S06, S31, and S64).
“This also was evident for headwaters in our study impacted by point sources from industrial discharge (N08 and N15) or WWTP effluents (S06, S31, and S64).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Ninety percent of the agricultural fields in the southern part of the watershed have received biosolids only twice over the past 20 years.
“While land application is active in this area, 90% of the agricultural fields have received biosolids only twice over the past 20 years (Figure S3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
FBSA and PFOS were grouped together primarily due to the chemical profiles observed in cluster 3 (sites S31 and N08).
“Additionally, FBSA and PFOS were grouped together (Figure 4) primarily due to the chemical profiles observed in cluster 3 (sites S31 and N08).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Total PFAS concentrations at locations N23, N60, and N62 were 93.6, 169.5, and 79.2 ng/L, respectively.
“Total PFAS concentrations at these locations were 93.6, 169.5, and 79.2 ng/L respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
The transport dynamic of a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations was observed at sites N60 and N62, both of which directly receive tile drainage from biosolid amended fields.
“This transport dynamic was observed at sites N60 and N62, both of which directly receive tile drainage from biosolid amended fields.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Preferential flow through tile drains can increase PFAS export to ditch networks during storm events, resulting in a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations.
- Findingown data
Bivariate correlation analysis found no significant relationship between PFAS concentrations in wells and explanatory variables including well depth, static water level, and distance to upstream sources.
“Bivariate correlation analysis corroborates similar findings between PFAS concentrations in wells and explanatory variables, including well depth, static water level, and distance to upstream sources. None of the variables showed a significant relationship with PFAS concentrations in wells (Table S4 and Figure S5).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The site with the highest PFAS concentration was hydrologically connected to an active biosolid-applied field.
“the site with the highest concentration was hydrologically connected to an active biosolid-applied field.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Spatial autocorrelation with Moran I did not confirm any relationship between PFAS concentration in individual wells and average PFAS concentration in neighboring wells (p > 0.05).
“Spatial autocorrelation implemented with Moran I did not confirm any relationship between the PFAS concentration in individual wells and the average PFAS concentration in neighboring wells (p > 0.05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Other locations with high surface water PFAS concentrations relative to other observations in the study area were in urbanized areas impacted by WWTPs and industrial discharges, as shown by spatial and temporal trends and hierarchical cluster analysis.
“Other locations with high surface water PFAS concentrations relative to other observations in the study area were in urbanized areas impacted by WWTPs and industrial discharges, as shown by spatial and temporal trends as well as hierarchical cluster analysis.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Concentrations of quantifiable PFAS were generally higher in surface water compared to well water.
“Concentrations of quantifiable PFAS were generally higher in surface water compared to well water”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Detectable levels of PFASs in approximately 83% of wells are indicative of the ubiquitous presence of PFASs in the environment.
“Nonetheless, detectable levels of PFASs in approximately 83% of the wells are indicative of the ubiquitous presence of PFASs in the environment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The relationship between flow conditions and concentrations can be nonlinear, as observed at sites S21 and S22.
“The relationship between flow conditions and concentrations can be nonlinear as observed in sites S21 and S22.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The shift to shorter-chain alternatives is reflected by consistently higher concentrations of C4 PFSAs (e.g., PFBS) and FASAs (e.g., FBSA) compared to longer-chain homologues.
“The shift to shorter-chain alternatives is reflected by consistently higher concentrations of C4 PFSAs (e.g., PFBS) and FASAs (e.g., FBSA) compared to longer-chain homologues.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
Short-chain PFASs (CF2,3 < 6) are relatively more mobile and thus more susceptible to leaching compared to longer-chain homologues.
“Short-chain PFASs (CF2,3 < 6) are relatively more mobile and thus more susceptible to leaching compared to the longer-chain homologues.14,15”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
In the biosolid sites reviewed by Johnson et al., only one study evaluated PFAS mobilization to drinking wells beyond the biosolid application site.
“Moreover, in the biosolid sites, only one study evaluated PFAS mobilization to drinking wells beyond the biosolid application site.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Potential exposure to PFOA and PFOS is low for households that depend on well water in the study area.
“PFOA and PFOS concentrations in well water were below the proposed EPA MCL of 4 ng/L, suggesting that potential exposure to these two PFAS of concern is low for households that depend on well water in the study area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Variation in the extent of contamination reported in Lindstrom et al., the Moehne River study, and this study is likely due to differences in PFAS concentrations in applied biosolids that largely hinge on wastewater influent sources.
“The variation in the extent of contamination reported in both studies as well in our study is likely due to differences in PFAS concentrations in applied biosolids that largely hinge on wastewater influent sources.42”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [42] source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Proximity to the source might explain the differences in PFAS concentrations between sites N60, N23, and N62.
“Site N60 is 0.05 km from the source, while N23 and N62 are 0.7 and 1.9 km, respectively; therefore, the proximity to the source might explain the differences in concentrations between these three sites.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
Site S31 is impacted by wastewater discharge from a WWTP located less than 0.5 m upstream.
“Site S31 is impacted by wastewater discharge from a WWTP located <0.5 m upstream.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
WWTP effluent typically comprises a suite of PFASs including sulfonamido derivatives such as FBSA.
“The WTTP effluent typically comprises a suite of PFASs including sulfonamido derivatives such as FBSA49,50”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Premisecitation
During intense storm events, PFASs sorbed to soils are most likely transported to surface water via suspended solids even in tile-drained fields subject to preferential flow, as previously reported by Gall et al.54.
“During intense storm events, PFASs sorbed to soils are most likely transported to surface water via suspended solids even in tile-drained fields that are subject to preferential flow as previously reported by Gall et al.54”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gall et al.54 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationnone given
Hotspot surface water locations are disproportionately impacted directly by PFAS discharges.
“Nevertheless, in our study, median concentrations in surface water (2.6 ng/L) and well water (1.0 ng/L) are comparable, indicating similarity in concentrations for both water sources except for the hotspot surface water locations that are disproportionately impacted directly by PFAS discharges.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Land application of biosolids rarely resulted in PFAS contamination, as shown by negligible concentrations in streams with hydrological connection to biosolid-receiving fields except for three locations (N23, N60, and N62).
“Nevertheless, even at a higher frequency, land application of biosolids rarely resulted in PFAS contamination as demonstrated by the negligible concentrations in streams with hydrological connection to biosolid-receiving fields except for three locations (N23, N60, and N62).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
At site N15, also downstream from the same computer chip manufacturing company, elevated FBSA concentrations indicate that chip manufacturing is the likely source.
“at site N15, also downstream from the same company, elevated FBSA concentrations were observed indicating that the chip manufacturing is the likely source.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Elevated levels of PFAAs at sites N11 and N12 might be explained by historical release of AFFF.
“The elevated levels of PFAAs in both sites might be explained by the historical release of AFFF as observed in several studies.44,45”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationown data
PFAS contamination in the watershed is driven by location-specific activities.
“PFAS distribution in surface water was spatially clustered (Moran I test, p value < 0.05), suggesting that PFAS contamination in the watershed is driven by location-specific activities.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Such observations are typical for effluent-dominated or -influenced streams during low-flow conditions.
“Such observations are typical for effluent-dominated or -influenced streams during low-flow conditions.51−53”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Premisecitation
Total PFAS concentrations at N23, N60, and N62 are lower than those previously reported in surface water linked to primary sources including AFFF, landfill leachates, and industrial discharges.
“Also, the total concentrations are lower than those previously reported in surface water linked to primary sources including AFFF,37,38 landfill leachates,35 and industrial discharges.39”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
Water treatment systems are effective in reducing total PFAS concentrations in drinking water available to the public.
“However, only 10 facilities exceeded the MCLs in treated water for PFOA (max 11 ng/L) and/or PFOS (max 7.8 ng/L), indicating that water treatment systems are effective in reducing total PFAS concentrations in drinking water available to the public.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] IDEM Guidance Document Guidance for Initial PFAS Sampling Requirements for Surface Water Systems 1 of 2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Guidance for Initial PFAS Sampling Requirements for Surface Water Public Water Systems . www.idem.IN.gov.
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
PFAS used in construction materials can end up in surface water via wastewater disposal.
“PFAS used in different construction materials including cements, roofs, cables, hoses, and gaskets to promote stability and durability5,46 can end up in surface water via wastewater disposal.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationreasoning
The chemical profile at site S31 can be linked to WWTP effluent.
“and can therefore be linked to the chemical profile at this site.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Statewide monitoring of PFAS in public water systems detected PFOA and PFOS above the proposed MCLs in 20 untreated water sources.
“Statewide monitoring of PFAS in public water systems (PWS) is ongoing,36 and current results detected PFOA and PFOS above the proposed MCLs in 20 untreated water sources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] IDEM Guidance Document Guidance for Initial PFAS Sampling Requirements for Surface Water Systems 1 of 2 GUIDANCE DOCUMENT INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Guidance for Initial PFAS Sampling Requirements for Surface Water Public Water Systems . www.idem.IN.gov.
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The risk of contamination might increase when industrially impacted biosolids are applied to coarse-textured soils in areas with nonconfining aquifer material and a high-water table.
“Nevertheless, the risk of contamination might increase when industrially impacted biosolids are applied to coarse-textured soils in areas with nonconfining aquifer material and a high-water table.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
With coarse aquifer media and a high-water table, this well is likely susceptible to advective flow of PFAS from overlying surface sources compared with other wells with similar characteristics but completed in parts of the glacial aquifer system with more restrictive layers.
“With coarse aquifer media and a high-water table, this well is likely susceptible to advective flow of PFAS from overlying surface sources compared with other wells with similar characteristics but completed in parts of the glacial aquifer system with more restrictive layers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Elevated PFAS concentrations observed in agricultural-influenced headwaters are partly linked to subsurface tile drains typically employed in this region, especially in poorly drained silty clay loam agricultural soils.
“Elevated PFAS concentrations observed in agricultural-influenced headwaters are partly linked to subsurface tile drains typically employed in this region especially in poorly drained silty clay loam agricultural soils.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Preferential flow through tile drains can increase PFAS export to ditch networks during storm events, resulting in a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations.
- Premisecitation
Aquifers with low hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity in this area have been reported to contain substantial proportions of groundwater that dates from the 1940s to 1950s, a period that precedes the proliferation of PFAS use.
“Such aquifers with low hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity in this area have been reported to contain substantial proportions of groundwater that dates from the 1940s to 1950s,58 a period that precedes the proliferation of PFAS use.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [58] source
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 50
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataSurface water is more vulnerable to PFAS contamination than well water, with maximum total PFAS concentrations of 169.5 ng/L in surface water and 15.7 ng/L in well water, and over 90% of wells having total concentrations below 5 ng/L.
“Overall, results indicate that surface water (∑PFAS ≤ 169.4 ng/L) is more vulnerable to PFAS contamination than well water (∑PFAS ≤ 15.7 ng/L).”
- Also stated in: § PFAS in Well and Surface Waters · plain
“The maximum total PFAS concentration in surface water (169.5 ng/L) was higher than well water (15.7 ng/L) with over 90% of the wells having total concentrations <5 ng/L (Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § PFAS in Well and Surface Waters · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAt least one PFAS was detected above the LOD in 90% of surface water samples and 84% of well water samples, and none of the samples had more than 10 targeted PFASs of quantifiable concentration.
“At least one PFAS was detected above the LOD in 90 and 84% of the surface water and well water samples, respectively; however, none of the samples had more than 10 targeted PFASs of quantifiable concentration.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSixty-six percent of the wells sampled were within 2 km of an application site, with the nearest well located 0.05 km from a biosolid-receiving field.
“Sixty-six percent of the wells sampled were within 2 km of an application site with the nearest well located 0.05 km from a biosolid-receiving field.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe distribution of PFAAs was similar between water sources, with PFCAs making up 67% of surface water and 63% of well water, and PFSAs comprising 29% of surface water and 27% of well water.
“The distribution of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) was similar between water sources, with perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs) making up 67 and 63% and perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs) comprising 29 and 27% in surface water and well water, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTemporal trends revealed an inverse relationship between streamflow and PFAS concentrations at surface water sites impacted by point discharges, and the opposite relationship at sites impacted by diffuse sources.
“Temporal trends revealed an inverse relationship between streamflow and concentrations in surface water sites impacted by point discharges and vice versa for diffuse sources, thereby providing complementary evidence of potential sources.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAmong all PFASs across all samples, PFBS had the highest maximum concentration of 87 ng/L, followed by PFPeA at 24 ng/L and PFBA at 17 ng/L, all in surface water samples.
“Among all the PFASs across all samples, PFBS had the highest maximum concentration of 87 ng/L followed by 24 ng/L for PFPeA and 17 ng/L for PFBA, all of which were in surface water samples.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPFOA concentrations at N23, N60, and N62 were 1.8, 10.8, and 4.0 ng/L, and PFOS concentrations were 0.7, 3.7, and 1.5 ng/L, respectively.
“PFOA concentrations were 1.8, 10.8, and 4.0 ng/L, and PFOS concentrations were 0.7, 3.7, and 1.5 ng/L.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenSite N60 is 0.05 km from the source, while N23 and N62 are 0.7 and 1.9 km, respectively.
“Site N60 is 0.05 km from the source, while N23 and N62 are 0.7 and 1.9 km, respectively; therefore, the proximity to the source might explain the differences in concentrations between these three sites.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPFBS, PFHxS, and PFOS were the major PFSAs in all water samples, with surface water having higher proportions of PFOS (68%) compared to well water (48%).
“PFBS, PFHxS, and PFOS were the major PFSAs in all water samples with surface water having higher proportions of PFOS (68%) compared to well water (48%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFBSA and EtFOSAA were detected in 11% and 3%, respectively, of surface water sampling locations.
“FBSA and EtFOSAA, two electrochemically derived precursors to PFSAs, were detected in 11 and 3%, respectively, of surface water sampling locations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor surface water in this study, the highest concentration of PFOA was 6.8 ng/L and of PFOS was 4.6 ng/L.
“For surface water in this study, the highest concentration of PFOA and PFOS measured was 6.8 and 4.6 ng/L, respectively.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataHierarchical cluster analysis identified PFAS co-occurrence trends and spatial clustering of sites.
“Hierarchical cluster analysis identified PFAS co-occurrence trends and spatial clustering of sites (Figure 4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAt N23, N60, and N62, PFOS levels were all below the proposed EPA drinking water standards, and PFOA exceeded the limit in only one location.
“While these are relatively high concentrations compared to the rest of the watershed, PFOS levels are all below the proposed EPA drinking water standards, and PFOA exceeds the limit in only one location.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningSites associated with AFFF use for fire training activities (N11 and N12) had higher concentrations in spring than summer, possibly due to surface runoff.
“Sites associated with AFFF use for fire training activities (N11 and N12) also had higher concentrations in the spring than in the summer possibly due to surface runoff.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningPFAS concentrations were highest in summer for 46% of sites sampled temporally, with all sites but one recording approximately 2 times more total concentrations in summer compared to spring.
“PFAS concentrations were highest in the summer for 46% of sites sampled temporally, with all sites but one recording ∼2× more total concentrations in the summer compared to the spring (Figure 5).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAverage flow in summer and spring was 2300 and 10000 ft3/s, respectively.
“Average flow in the summer and spring was 2300 and 10000 f3/s, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSites associated with point discharges had peak concentrations in summer when low streamflow is expected, while locations impacted by nonpoint source release recorded higher concentrations in spring.
“Sites associated with point discharges had peak concentrations in the summer when low streamflow is expected, while locations impacted by nonsource point release recorded higher concentrations in the spring.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningFor the remaining sites, there were no clear temporal trends, possibly due to increased downstream dilution for sites S78, S81, and S90 or sustained concentrations from year-round equitable flow conditions for sites along the river (R01, R02, R05, and R06).
“For the remaining sites, there were no clear temporal trends possibly due to increased downstream dilution for sites S78, S81, and S90 or sustained concentrations from year-round equitable flow conditions for sites along the river (R01, R02, R05, and R06).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingcitationPFBS and other PFAAs were detected across all sites due to their ubiquitous use, while concentrations of less-documented FBSA were elevated downstream from a computer hardware manufacturer that is a previously reported novel source.
“PFBS and other PFAAs were detected across all sites due to their ubiquitous use, while concentrations of the less-documented FBSA were elevated downstream from a computer hardware manufacturer that is a previously reported novel source.47”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [47] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Findingnone givenThe well in this study with the highest total PFAS concentration is approximately 0.9 km from an upstream biosolid-applied field, with a total well depth of 43 m and 1.5 m static water level.
“For example, the well in our study with the highest total PFAS concentration is ∼0.9 km from an upstream biosolid-applied field, with a total well depth of 43 m and 1.5 m static water level.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPFAS concentrations in wells were relatively low and did not exceed enforceable EPA MCLs.
“Although PFAS concentrations in wells were relatively low and did not exceed the enforceable EPA MCLs”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningObserved concentrations in wells near impacted surface water sites associated with known PFAS sources were comparable to other well water samples, indicating that groundwater in this area is generally protected from contamination.
“Also, observed concentrations in wells near impacted surface water sites associated with known PFAS sources were comparable to other well water samples, indicating that groundwater in this area is generally protected from contamination.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenThe field has frequently received biosolids over the past 20 years at a loading rate between 1.0 and 4.8 dry tons/acre, except for an instance where biosolids were applied at approximately 30 dry tons/acre.
“The field has frequently received biosolids over the past 20 years at a loading rate between 1.0 and 4.8 dry tons/acre except for an instance where biosolids were applied at ∼30 dry tons/acre.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationPFASs released from source zones during weathering and drainage events are delivered either via suspended solids in runoffs to surface waters or via leaching to groundwater.
“PFASs released from source zones during weathering and drainage events are delivered either via suspended solids in runoffs to surface waters or via leaching to groundwater.11−13”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationJohnson et al. reviewed 96 studies for PFAS distribution in groundwater, of which AFFF-impacted sites made up 32% of known sources, 18% were in locations impacted by PFAS manufacturing and industrial activities, and only 3% were for biosolid application sites.
“For example, Johnson et al.28 reviewed 96 studies for PFAS distribution in groundwater of which AFFF-impacted sites made up 32% of known sources, 18% in locations impacted by PFAS manufacturing and industrial activities, and only 3% for biosolid application sites.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe relative contribution of biosolids to PFAS in water sources is poorly understood, partly due to knowledge gaps in tracing and connecting diffuse sources of PFAS to contamination of water sources.
“While several studies have evaluated the environmental occurrence of PFAS, the relative contribution of biosolids to PFAS in water sources is poorly understood, partly due to knowledge gaps in tracing and connecting diffuse sources of PFAS to contamination of water sources.24”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [24] source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationGottschall et al. detected PFOS and PFOA with maximum concentrations of 17 and 12 ng/L, respectively, in tile drains installed in a biosolid-applied field.
“Gottschall et al.18 detected PFOS and PFOA with maximum concentrations of 17 and 12 ng/L, respectively, in tile drains installed in a biosolid-applied field.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [18] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPFASs are consistently detected in wastewater treatment influents, effluents, and residuals including biosolids, which present pathways for PFAS redistribution in aquatic environments.
“The ubiquitous use of PFASs is reflected by their consistent detection in wastewater treatment influents, effluents, and residuals including biosolids,7−9 all of which present pathways for PFAS redistribution in aquatic environments.10”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationOther non-PFAS tile-drained field studies have shown that agrochemicals including pesticides and inorganic fertilizers bypass the soil network and move horizontally through tile drainage into receiving water bodies.
“Other non-PFAS tile-drained field studies have shown that instead of vertical migration, agrochemicals including pesticides and inorganic fertilizers bypass the soil network and move horizontally through the tile drainage into receiving water bodies.19−22”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThe higher FBSA than PFOS at sites S31 and N08 is possibly due to changes in the industrial use of long-chain PFASs over the past decade.
“possibly due to changes in the industrial use of long-chain PFASs over the past decade.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Premisenone givenSite N08 is located approximately 2 km downstream of a computer chip manufacturing company.
“Site N08 is located ∼2 km downstream of a computer chip manufacturing company.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenDilution might explain the clustering pattern along the Wabash River in which sites with elevated PFOS concentrations (R01 and R02) located between three WWTP outfalls were separated from diluted downstream river sites (R03, R04, R05, and R06).
“Similarly, dilution might explain the clustering pattern along the Wabash River in which sites with elevated PFOS concentrations (R01 and R02) located between three WWTP outfalls were separated from diluted downstream river sites (R03, R04, R05, and R06).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationSite N60 is likely impacted by short-chain PFAAs that leached into tile drains following land application of biosolids in addition to surface runoff of long-chain PFAS sorbed to the soil.
“The site is likely impacted by short-chain PFAAs that leached into tile drains following land application of biosolids in addition to surface runoff of long-chain PFAS sorbed to the soil.12”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationAFFF use is another potential source at cluster 4 sites N11 and N12, which are located within approximately 0.3 km from a small airport with a nearby undisclosed fire training site.
“Another potential source is the use of AFFF as observed in cluster 4 sites (N11 and N12) that are located within ∼0.3 km from a small airport with a nearby undisclosed fire training site.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataStreamflow was not measured; changes in flow conditions were inferred from rainfall data and stream gauges placed in the Wabash River within the watershed.
“Although streamflow was not measured, changes in flow conditions were inferred from rainfall data and stream gauges placed in the Wabash River within the watershed (Figure S4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSites R03 and R04 are flanked by biosolid-receiving fields and thereby impacted by both nonpoint and upstream point sources.
“Unlike other sampling locations on the river, both sites are flanked by biosolid-receiving fields and thereby impacted by both nonpoint and upstream point sources.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBiosolids applied to agricultural fields were linked to PFAS contamination in the upper Moehne River in Heidelberg, Germany, with a maximum total concentration of 4,348 ng/L (seven PFASs with 83% being PFOA).
“In another study, biosolids applied to agricultural fields were linked to PFAS contamination in the upper Moehne River in Heidelberg, Germany, with a maximum total concentration of 4,348 ng/L (seven PFASs with 83% being PFOA).41”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [41] source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningContaminated surface water locations could potentially impact downstream public water supplies or provide a pathway for exposure via fish consumption.
“However, contaminated locations could potentially impact downstream public water supplies or provide a pathway for exposure via fish consumption.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationLindstrom et al. reported total concentrations of up to 30,000 ng/L in surface water associated with land application of industrial-impacted biosolids.
“Lindstrom et al.40 reported total concentrations of up to 30,000 ng/L in surface water associated with land application of industrial-impacted biosolids.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [40] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIn spring, high streamflow can dilute PFAS concentrations in point discharges or increase concentrations via surface runoff in locations impacted by nonpoint sources.
“In the spring, high streamflow can dilute PFAS concentrations in point discharges or increase concentrations via surface runoff in locations impacted by nonpoint sources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationSorption to river sediment and bioaccumulation in biota are other potential attenuation pathways along the river reach.
“Sorption to river sediment and bioaccumulation in biota are other potential attenuation pathways along the river reach.13”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisereasoningIn the early 2000s, biosolids were applied at site N60 at approximately 30 dry tons/acre, which is more than 10 times the regular application rate.
“Additionally, in the early 2000s, biosolids were applied at ∼30 dry tons/acre, which is >10× the regular application rate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSummer sampling followed periods of little to no precipitation, resulting in insufficient flow to dilute point discharges and thereby higher PFAS concentrations.
“Summer sampling followed periods of little to no precipitation resulting in insufficient flow to dilute point discharges and thereby resulted in higher PFAS concentrations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationFBSA was reported as a short-chain substitute for PFOS in semiconductor production.
“In another study, FBSA was reported as a short-chain substitute for PFOS in semiconductor production.48”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [48] source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationFBSA is a metabolite of N-methyl-perfluorobutanesulfonyl [C4F9SO2N(CH3)], a short-chain fluorinated surfactant used in Scotchgard products as an alternative to N-ethyl-perfluorooctanesulfonyl (a PFOS precursor).
“Chu and Letcher47 identified FBSA as a metabolite of N-methyl-perfluorobutanesulfonyl [C4F9SO2N(CH3)], which is a short-chain fluorinated surfactant used in Scotchgard products as an alternative to N-ethyl-perfluorooctaneslfonyl (C8F17SO2N(C2H5), a PFOS precursor).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chu and Letcher47
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe high p value and z score of 0.62 signify absence of geospatial clustering for PFAS concentrations in wells, implying a random distribution of concentrations relative to landscape factors.
“The high p value and z score of 0.62 clearly signify the absence of geospatial clustering for PFAS concentrations in wells, thereby implying a random distribution of concentrations relative to landscape factors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSites S21 and S22 are likely impacted not by nonpoint sources but by upstream ephemeral headwaters that receive point discharges but only have flowing water in spring, resulting in elevated PFAS levels during spring sampling.
“Both sites are likely impacted not by nonpoint sources but rather by upstream ephemeral headwaters that receive point discharges but only have flowing water in the spring, hence resulting in elevated PFAS levels during spring sampling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe glacial aquifer system protects groundwater from contamination in the study area, and subsurface drainage systems obscure transport pathways and source attribution, highlighting the importance of incorporating prevailing hydrogeological conditions into PFAS forensic studies.
“Overall, the glacial aquifer system protects groundwater from contamination in the study area, and subsurface drainage systems obscure transport pathways and source attribution, which highlight the importance of incorporating prevailing hydrogeological conditions into PFAS forensic studies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThis particular location is unlikely to be impacted by industrial sources due to absence of NPDES discharges and likely represents the worst case scenario of PFAS contamination from biosolid applications in the study area.
“This particular location is unlikely to be impacted by industrial sources due to the absence of NPDES discharges and likely represents the worst case scenario of PFAS contamination from biosolid applications in the study area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSuch transport models can inform risk assessment at a large scale but sometimes have limitations at capturing location-specific nuances.
“Such transport models can inform risk assessment at a large scale; however, they sometimes have limitations at capturing location-specific nuances.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe results provide evidence of PFAS transport down the soil profile, but the impact from land application of biosolids and other sources is confounded by multiple interdependent transport factors.
“our results provide evidence of PFAS transport down the soil profile, but the impact from land application of biosolids and other sources is confounded by multiple interdependent transport factors.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningArtificial drainage systems facilitate horizontal transport of porewater from soils to agricultural ditches and surface water bodies and thereby are critical sources of PFASs in the study area.
“These artificial drainage systems facilitate the horizontal transport of porewater from soils to agricultural ditches and surface water bodies and thereby are critical sources of PFASs in the study area.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Preferential flow through tile drains can increase PFAS export to ditch networks during storm events, resulting in a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThis alteration in drainage might explain why distance from upstream sources as a factor was not apparent in well water.
“This alteration in drainage might explain why the distance from upstream sources as a factor was not apparent in well water.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningPrevalence of subsurface drainage in the study mediates transport of chemicals to groundwater; rather than vertical transport, soil porewater is redirected to ditches and other waterbodies.
“In addition to geological factors, the prevalence of subsurface drainage in the study mediates transport of chemicals to groundwater; rather than vertical transport, soil porewater is redirected to ditches and other waterbodies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningAquifer characteristics appear more critical than distance to upstream location for the highest-PFAS well, because the well was completed in parts of the Till Veneer aquifer system where protective clay layers are thin or absent.
“Although the distance to the upstream location might play a role in this case, aquifer characteristics appear to be more critical considering that the well was completed in parts of the Till Veneer aquifer system where protective clay layers are thin or absent.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationIn such scenarios, concentrations are often highest immediately after source application, which aligns with the spring timeline for biosolid application in the watershed.
“In such scenarios, concentrations are often highest immediately after source application, which aligns with the spring timeline for biosolid application in the watershed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: In scenarios of intense storm events and biosolid application, concentrations are often highest immediately after source application.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationStatistical models that identify drivers of PFAS concentrations in groundwater have been reported in statewide or regional studies.
“Statistical models that identify drivers of PFAS concentrations in groundwater have been reported in statewide or regional studies.55−57”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checkedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe current study area does not adequately capture a combination of factors that could increase contamination risk; therefore, more studies across diverse agricultural landscapes within the region are needed to sufficiently characterize causative factors driving PFAS transport to groundwater.
“Our current study area does not adequately capture a combination of these factors; therefore, more studies across diverse agricultural landscapes within the region are needed to sufficiently characterize causative factors driving PFAS transport to groundwater.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataDifferences in PFAS concentrations in this study cannot be explained by a generalized model and transport from potential sources to groundwater is location specific.
“This suggests that differences in PFAS concentrations in this study cannot be explained by a generalized model and that transport from potential sources to groundwater is location specific.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningGaining streams are prevalent in the watershed; therefore, PFAS-impaired surface water is unlikely to impact groundwater.
“Moreover, gaining streams are prevalent in the watershed; therefore, PFAS-impaired surface water is unlikely to impact groundwater.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Gaining streams are prevalent in the watershed.
The paper relies on this without support.
Surface water in this watershed does not serve as a drinking water source.
“While these values are above EPA’s MCLs, surface water in this watershed does not serve as a drinking water source.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management spatial data records accurately represent biosolid application permits and historical application.
“According to Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) spatial data records, 39,055 acres have permits for biosolid application in the watershed, of which only 9430 acres have received biosolids in the past 20 years (Figure S1).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Potentiometric surface maps accurately represent groundwater flow paths for calculating well distance from land application sites.
“Well distance from the closest upstream land application site was calculated along the path of groundwater flow paths from lines of potentiometric surface maps using ArcGIS.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Preferential flow through tile drains can increase PFAS export to ditch networks during storm events, resulting in a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations.
“Preferential flow through tile drains can also increase PFAS export to ditch networks during storm events, resulting in a direct relationship between streamflow and concentrations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In scenarios of intense storm events and biosolid application, concentrations are often highest immediately after source application.
“In such scenarios, concentrations are often highest immediately after source application, which aligns with the spring timeline for biosolid application in the watershed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Gaining streams are prevalent in the watershed.
“Moreover, gaining streams are prevalent in the watershed; therefore, PFAS-impaired surface water is unlikely to impact groundwater.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The potential impact of land application of biosolids on water sources is unclear due to limited studies.
“The potential impact of other sources such as land application of biosolids on water sources is unclear due to limited studies.”
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?
Diffuse agricultural inputs may influence PFAS occurrence within the watershed.
“In addition to point sources, diffuse agricultural inputs may also influence PFAS occurrence within the watershed.”
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 [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Reported maximum surface-water PFOA is below a measured value
MajorThe results call 6.8 ng/L the highest surface-water PFOA concentration, but later report 10.8 ng/L at one surface-water location.
“For surface water in this study, the highest concentration of PFOA and PFOS measured was 6.8 and 4.6 ng/L, respectively.”
“PFOA concentrations were 1.8, 10.8, and 4.0 ng/L”
Two different maximum surface-water PFAS totals
MinorThe abstract gives the maximum total surface-water concentration as 169.4 ng/L, but the results give 169.5 ng/L at the same reported precision.
“surface water (∑PFAS ≤ 169.4 ng/L)”
“The maximum total PFAS concentration in surface water (169.5 ng/L) was higher than well water (15.7 ng/L)”
Number of targeted PFAS differs between sections
MinorThe introduction says 48 PFASs were targeted, while the results say 51 were targeted.
“We targeted 48 PFASs and coupled chemical data with spatial analysis”
“Out of 51 targeted PFASs, 14 were detected above the LOQ in one or more water samples.”
Surface-water location categories total 164, not 168
MinorThe four listed categories sum to 164 locations, leaving four of the stated 168 locations unaccounted for.
Reported 168 · recomputed 164
“Of all the samples, 91 were in small streams close to biosolid-applied fields, 55 in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)/industrial effluent associated streams, 12 in major tributaries of Wabash River, and 6 longitudinal sampling along the river.”
Cites
Sunderland, E. M., Hu, X. C., Dassuncao, C., Tokranov, A. K., Wagner, C. C., & Allen, J. G. (2019) · Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology · doi:10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1 · Cited by 2,786 · see citing works
An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I. T., DeWitt, J. C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C. A., Trier, X., & Wang, Z. (2020) · Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts · doi:10.1039/d0em00291g · Cited by 2,466 · see citing works
Fenton, S. E., Ducatman, A., Boobis, A., DeWitt, J. C., Lau, C., Ng, C., Smith, J. S., & Roberts, S. M. (2020) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.4890 · Cited by 2,445 · see citing works
Kurwadkar, S., Dane, J., Kanel, S. R., Nadagouda, M. N., Cawdrey, R. W., Ambade, B., Struckhoff, G. C., & Wilkin, R. (2022) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151003 · Cited by 937 · see citing works
Historical and current usage of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A literature review
Gaines, L. G. T. (2023) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.23362 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
Podder, A., Sadmani, A. H. M. A., Reinhart, D., Chang, N.-B., & Goel, R. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126361 · Cited by 623 · see citing works
KOLPIN, D., SKOPEC, M., MEYER, M., FURLONG, E., & ZAUGG, S. (2004) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.01.015 · Cited by 579 · see citing works
Microbial degradation of polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the environment: A review
Liu, J., & Mejia Avendaño, S. (2013) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.08.022 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters (9 pp)
Exner, M., & Färber, H. (2006) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research - International · doi:10.1065/espr2006.07.326 · Cited by 507 · see citing works
Worldwide trends in tracing poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the environment
Nakayama, S. F., Yoshikane, M., Onoda, Y., Nishihama, Y., Iwai-Shimada, M., Takagi, M., Kobayashi, Y., & Isobe, T. (2019) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2019.02.011 · Cited by 399 · see citing works
Anderson, R. H., Long, G. C., Porter, R. C., & Anderson, J. K. (2016) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.014 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Surface Runoff and Tile Drainage Transport of Phosphorus in the Midwestern United States
Smith, D. R., King, K. W., Johnson, L. T., Francesconi, W., Richards, P., Baker, D., & Sharpley, A. N. (2014) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2014.04.0176 · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Heathwaite, A. L., Quinn, P. F., & Hewett, C. (2004) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.07.043 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Biodegradation of Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphates as a Source of Perfluorinated Acids to the Environment
Lee, H., D’eon, J., & Mabury, S. A. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es9028183 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
What are the effects of PFAS exposure at environmentally relevant concentrations?
Sinclair, G. M., Long, S. M., & Jones, O. A. H. (2020) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127340 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Filipovic, M., Woldegiorgis, A., Norström, K., Bibi, M., Lindberg, M., & Österås, A.-H. (2015) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.005 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Lindstrom, A. B., Strynar, M. J., Delinsky, A. D., Nakayama, S. F., McMillan, L., Libelo, E. L., Neill, M., & Thomas, L. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es1039425 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Venkatesan, A. K., & Halden, R. U. (2013) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.016 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Pesticide Transport to Subsurface Tile Drains in Humid Regions of North America
Kladivko, E. J., Brown, L. C., & Baker, J. L. (2001) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/20016491089163 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Gobelius, L., Hedlund, J., Dürig, W., Tröger, R., Lilja, K., Wiberg, K., & Ahrens, L. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b05718 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Bolan, N., Sarkar, B., Vithanage, M., Singh, G., Tsang, D. C. W., Mukhopadhyay, R., Ramadass, K., Vinu, A., Sun, Y., Ramanayaka, S., et al. (2021) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106600 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
McMahon, P. B., Tokranov, A. K., Bexfield, L. M., Lindsey, B. D., Johnson, T. D., Lombard, M. A., & Watson, E. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04795 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Fate and transport of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the vadose zone
Sharifan, H., Bagheri, M., Wang, D., Burken, J. G., Higgins, C. P., Liang, Y., Liu, J., Schaefer, C. E., & Blotevogel, J. (2021) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145427 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Ahmed, M. B., Johir, M. A. H., McLaughlan, R., Nguyen, L. N., Xu, B., & Nghiem, L. D. (2020) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141251 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Johnson, G. R., Brusseau, M. L., Carroll, K. C., Tick, G. R., & Duncan, C. M. (2022) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156602 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Addressing Urgent Questions for PFAS in the 21st Century
Ng, C., Cousins, I. T., DeWitt, J. C., Glüge, J., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Miller, M., Patton, S., Scheringer, M., et al. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c03386 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Zhang, X., Lohmann, R., Dassuncao, C., Hu, X. C., Weber, A. K., Vecitis, C. D., & Sunderland, E. M. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00255 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Rice, J., & Westerhoff, P. (2017) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo2984 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Lapen, D. R., Topp, E., Metcalfe, C. D., Li, H., Edwards, M., Gottschall, N., Bolton, P., Curnoe, W. E., Payne, M., & Beck, A. (2008) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.02.025 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Wei, Y., Chen, Y., Cao, X., Xiang, M., Huang, Y., & Li, H. (2024) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c08543 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Hormone Discharges from a Midwest Tile-Drained Agroecosystem Receiving Animal Wastes
Gall, H. E., Sassman, S. A., Lee, L. S., & Jafvert, C. T. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es2011435 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Self-citationLegacy and emerging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in Australian biosolids
Moodie, D., Coggan, T., Berry, K., Kolobaric, A., Fernandes, M., Lee, E., Reichman, S., Nugegoda, D., & Clarke, B. O. (2021) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129143 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Side-chain fluorinated polymer surfactants in biosolids from wastewater treatment plants
Letcher, R. J., Chu, S., & Smyth, S.-A. (2020) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122044 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Lazcano, R. K., Choi, Y. J., Mashtare, M. L., & Lee, L. (2020) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b07281 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Self-citationJarvis, A. L., Justice, J. R., Elias, M. C., Schnitker, B., & Gallagher, K. (2021) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.5147 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Long-chain perfluorinated chemicals in digested sewage sludges in Switzerland
Sun, H., Gerecke, A. C., Giger, W., & Alder, A. C. (2010) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2010.09.020 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Borthakur, A., Wang, M., He, M., Ascencio, K., Blotevogel, J., Adamson, D. T., Mahendra, S., & Mohanty, S. K. (2021) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126159 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Fang, S., Deitch, M. J., Gebremicael, T. G., Angelini, C., & Ortals, C. J. (2024) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2024.121286 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Breitmeyer, S. E., Williams, A. M., Duris, J. W., Eicholtz, L. W., Shull, D. R., Wertz, T. A., & Woodward, E. E. (2023) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164161 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Chen, Y.-J., Wang, R.-D., Shih, Y.-L., Chin, H.-Y., & Lin, A. Y.-C. (2024) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c04435 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Tributary Loading and Sediment Desorption as Sources of PFAS to Receiving Waters
Balgooyen, S., & Remucal, C. K. (2022) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.1c00348 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Fate of a perfluoroalkyl acid mixture in an agricultural soil studied in lysimeters
McLachlan, M. S., Felizeter, S., Klein, M., Kotthoff, M., & De Voogt, P. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.012 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Kolpin, D. W., Hubbard, L. E., Cwiertny, D. M., Meppelink, S. M., Thompson, D. A., & Gray, J. L. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00750 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Wang, S., Wang, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2022) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109084 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Hu, X. C., Ge, B., Ruyle, B. J., Sun, J., & Sunderland, E. M. (2021) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00264 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Chu, S., & Letcher, R. J. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es500169x · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Aly, N. A., Luo, Y.-S., Liu, Y., Casillas, G., McDonald, T. J., Kaihatu, J. M., Jun, M., Ellis, N., Gossett, S., Dodds, J. N., et al. (2020) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115009 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Gottschall, N., Topp, E., Edwards, M., Russell, P., Payne, M., Kleywegt, S. M., Curnoe, W. E., & Lapen, D. R. (2009) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.063 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Gallen, C., Bignert, A., Taucare, G., O'Brien, J., Braeunig, J., Reeks, T., Thompson, J., & Mueller, J. F. (2022) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150211 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Ghirardini, A., & Verlicchi, P. (2018) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.249 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Siegel, H. G., Nason, S. L., Warren, J. L., Prunas, O., Deziel, N. C., & Saiers, J. E. (2023) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.3c05192 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Frisbee, M. D., Meyers, Z. P., Stewart‐Maddox, N. S., Caffee, M. W., Bogeholz, P., & Hughes, M. N. (2017) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.11345 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
PFAS fate using lysimeters during degraded soil reclamation using biosolids
Peter, L. G., Gharehveran, M. M., Alvarez‐Campos, O., Evanylo, G. K., & Lee, L. (2024) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.1002/jeq2.20576 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationA data-driven approach to identifying PFAS water sampling priorities in Colorado, United States
Barton, K. E., Anthamatten, P. J., Adgate, J. L., McKenzie, L. M., Starling, A. P., Berg, K., Murphy, R. C., & Richardson, K. (2024) · Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology · doi:10.1038/s41370-024-00705-7 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156602 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Islam, M. A., Parvin, M. I., Nguyen, C., Alam, M. R., Kwong, P. C. W., Zhou, J. L., Hessel, V., & Ahmed, M. B. (2025) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2025.127036 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Han, M., Qin, C., & Gao, Y. (2025) · New Contaminants · doi:10.48130/newcontam-0025-0007 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Abeysinghe, H., Ma, X., & Tsige, M. (2025) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2025.144323 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Guo, Y., Hua, Y., Chen, X., Li, Y., Chen, C., & Dai, X. (2025) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2025.139989 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
PFAS contamination and its rising toll on food security: A hidden global threat
Ohoro, C. R., & Ngole-Jeme, V. M. (2025) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111611 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Faught, P. W., Shojaei, M., Joyce, A. S., & Ferguson, P. L. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.5c01014 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Liu, Z., Wang, G., Zheng, X., Sepúlveda, M. S., Wang, B., & Zhang, H. (2026) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2026.118826 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Wood, E. F., Mulhern, R., Gibson, J. M., Reich, B. J., McWilliams, A., Liyanapatirana, C., Hoffman, K. M., Kondash, A. J., & Redmon, J. H. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c02521 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Doria-Manzur, A., Gray, E. P., Streets, S. S., & Guelfo, J. L. (2025) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2025.124674 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Peter, L. G., Lee, L., Burbage, C., Hoffman, K., & Richardson, A. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.128137 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationZhenyu, Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Qu, H., Ma, J., Pang, M., Wang, B., & Yu, G. (2026) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2026.127988 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Wang, T., Wang, W., Peng, J., Soltan, W. B., Cao, X. M., & Liu, H. (2025) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146359 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Kumar, R., & Lamba, J. (2025) · Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health · doi:10.1016/j.coesh.2025.100686 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Hoang, H.-G., Chacha, W. E., Binh, Q. A., Mukherjee, S., Jiang, Y., Zhang, T., Tung, T. V., Tran, H.-T., & Naidu, R. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.129237 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Bald eagles as bio-sentinels: Monitoring and fingerprinting PFAS contamination
Dehnert, G. K., Lazarcik, J., Haney, S. G., Strom, S. M., Maddox, J. D., Grewe, F., & Ruhs, E. C. (2026) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2026.124413 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Yee, T. L., Lohwacharin, J., & Hu, J. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2026.130245 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
From Adsorption to Destruction: A Cross-Media Evaluation of PFAS Removal Technologies
Uddin, M. N., Islam, M. S., Samwini, A. M.-N., Talukder, B., Badsha, M. A. H., & Kang, D. H. (2026) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2026.112099 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Sun, M., & Li, Y. (2025) · Water · doi:10.3390/w17111589 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Chuiprasert, J., Piyaviriyakul, P., Boontanon, N., Wichatham, K., Visvanathan, C., Kurwadkar, S., O’Carroll, D. M., & Boontanon, S. K. (2025) · Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cscee.2025.101297 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Guo, Y., Hua, Y., Li, Y., Chen, C., Liu, H., Yang, W., Chen, S., Chen, X., Zou, B., Wang, L., et al. (2025) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109997 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Advancing Total Fluorine Measurement of PFAS in Liquid Samples Using HR-CS-GFMAS
Duan, J., Lee, L. S., & Choi, Y. J. (2026) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c01519 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationJakobsen, C., Holbak, M., Svane, S. F., Abrahamsen, P., & Strobel, B. W. (2026) · Vadose Zone Journal · doi:10.1002/vzj2.70114 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Global patterns and predictors of PFAS contamination in odontocetes
Stokes, L., Stockin, K. A., Stevenson, G. J., Araujo, J. D., Saltré, F., & Peters, K. J. (2026) · Marine Pollution Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2026.119949 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Sun, J., Cheng, J., Chu, J., Dai, Y., & Wang, Z. (2026) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c18959 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Rodriguez, C. A., Schramm, M., Postma, S., McDonald, T. J., Brinkmeyer-Langford, C., & Ma, X. (2026) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.6c00886
Kerna, N. A., Boulos, A., Abreu, M., Eze, C., Ugochukwu, O. A., Nicely, T. M., Arisi, O. P., Flores, J. V., & Anderson, J. (2025) · European journal of ecology, biology and agriculture. · doi:10.59324/ejeba.2025.2(2).04
Duncan, C. M., Ghezelsofla, F., Nyoni, H. H., Escobar, J., & Mina, O. (2026) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics14030245
Zhao, C., Guo, Q., & Zhang, R. (2026) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2026.128119
PFAS Uptake by Plants in Soils Amended with Biosolids Derived from Wastewater with Industrial Input
Kumar, I. A., Kharel, M., Zhang, W., & Liang, Y. (2026) · ACS Environmental Au · doi:10.1021/acsenvironau.6c00004
Chen, S., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., Zhou, Y., Li, Z., Fang, H., Tao, Y., Pang, Y., Zhang, X., & Li, F. (2026) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10021-026-01067-x
Riverine PFAS Dynamics in an Agricultural-Urban Watershed
Adeola, A., Green, D. I. S., Crumpton, W. G., & Charbonnet, J. A. (2026) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.6c00171
Subedi, B., Sapkota, R., & Mamun, F. A. (2026) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2026.120361
Peter, L. G., Lee, L., Burbage, C., Richardson, A., Hoffman, K., & Holloway, D. (2026) · ACS ES&T Water · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.6c00339
Self-citationSurface water quality impacts from organic versus conventional agricultural systems
Bier, R. L., Daniels, M. D., Oviedo‐Vargas, D., Peipoch, M., Kelsick, E. N., & Kan, J. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.1002/jeq2.70208
Metal–organic frameworks for the remediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
Emmanuel, S. S., & Adesibikan, A. A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-43856-1.00021-6
de Falco, G., & Post, G. B. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-43856-1.00016-2
Ye, X., Cai, W., Chen, J., Jin, Y., & Liu, Z. (2026) · Toxics · doi:10.3390/toxics14090739
Brown, S. L., & Mansell, S. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.1002/jeq2.70279
The effect of soil pH amendment on PFOS uptake for phytoremediation
Kent, C., Thompson, J. T., Lin, A. M., Timshina, A. S., Bryce, L., Bowden, J. A., & Planavsky, N. J. (2026) · Environmental Science Advances · doi:10.1039/d6va00342g
Not everywhere, not always: 30 targeted PFAS in ambient surface waters of Queensland, Australia
Baddiley, B., Myburgh, A., & Vardy, S. (2026) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-026-16030-5
- Authors
- Peter, L. G., & Lee, L. S.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Linda S.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2025-01-08
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1344-1353
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- PMC
- PMC11874022
- OpenAlex
- W4406162513
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 15
- FWCI
- 11.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Food and Agriculture (1006516)
- Hampton Roads Sanitation District
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (G20B113019085, R84008201)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
- Keywords
- PFAS, perfluoroalkyl acids, biosolids land application, surface water contamination, groundwater contamination, tile drainage, agricultural watersheds, point source discharges, river discharge, short-chain PFAS, long-chain PFAS, industrial discharge, source apportionment
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Environmental Monitoring, Fluorocarbons, Indiana, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Rivers, Groundwater
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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