Cited by 66Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchEnvironmental Chemistry and AnalysisPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies

Sorption, Aerobic Biodegradation, and Oxidation Potential of PFOS Alternatives Chlorinated Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Sulfonic Acids

Chen, Hong, Choi, Youn Jeong, Lee, Linda S.·2018·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Global phase out of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) has led to increasing production of alternatives such as the chlorinated polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonic acids (Cl-PFESAs) for which little is known on their environmental fate. In this study, sorption by soils, aerobic soil biodegradation, and oxidation potential of 6:2 Cl-PFESA (9-chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonate) and 8:2 Cl-PFESA (9-chlorooctadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonate) were evaluated. 6:2 Cl-PFESA sorption was quantified for aqueous and acetone/water solutions, whereas 8:2 PFESA could only be accurately measured in acetone/water solutions. The log–linear cosolvency model was applied and validated to estimate sorption of 8:2 Cl-PFESA. Only soil organic carbon (OC, 0.76–4.30%) was highly and positively correlated to sorption of the Cl-PFESAs ( R 2 > 0.96). The resulting log K oc values (OC-normalized sorption coefficients) are 4.01 ± 0.09 ( n = 6) and 5.54 ± 0.05 ( n = 4) L kg –1 for 6:2 Cl-PFESA and 8:2 Cl-PFESA, respectively. Aerobic biodegradation in a loam soil at 24 ± 0.5 °C showed negligible degradation of both Cl-PFESAs. Cl-PFESAs also remained unchanged in an unbuffered heat (50 °C)-activated 42 mM persulfate oxidation treatment. Therefore, Cl-PFESAs are equally recalcitrant as PFOS in addition to being more sorptive, thus with a higher bioaccumulation potential for a similar alkyl chain length.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.8b02913

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, H., Choi, Y. J., & Lee, L. S.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Linda S.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2018-08-12
Volume
52
Issue
17
Pages
9827-9834
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2886107684
Cited by
66
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (1006516)
  • DuPont
  • China Scholarship Council
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • Department of Agronomy, Purdue University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Environmental Chemistry and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Keywords
PFOS alternatives, sorption, soil organic carbon, cosolvency models, aerobic biodegradation, persulfate oxidation, recalcitrant compounds, bioaccumulation potential, environmental fate
MeSH terms
Adsorption, Ether, Ethers, Fluorocarbons, Soil, Soil Pollutants, Sulfonic Acids, Alkanesulfonic Acids

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