Cited by 688Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchWater Treatment and DisinfectionFluoride Effects and Removal

Legacy and Emerging Perfluoroalkyl Substances Are Important Drinking Water Contaminants in the Cape Fear River Watershed of North Carolina

Sun, Mei, Arevalo, Elisa, Strynar, Mark, Lindstrom, Andrew, Richardson, Michael, Kearns, Ben, Pickett, Adam, Smith, Chris +1 more·2016·Environmental Science & Technology Letters

Abstract

Long-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are being replaced by short-chain PFASs and fluorinated alternatives. For ten legacy PFASs and seven recently discovered perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs), we report (1) their occurrence in the Cape Fear River (CFR) watershed, (2) their fate in water treatment processes, and (3) their adsorbability on powdered activated carbon (PAC). In the headwater region of the CFR basin, PFECAs were not detected in raw water of a drinking water treatment plant (DWTP), but concentrations of legacy PFASs were high. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s lifetime health advisory level (70 ng/L) for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was exceeded on 57 of 127 sampling days. In raw water of a DWTP downstream of a PFAS manufacturer, the mean concentration of perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid (PFPrOPrA), a replacement for PFOA, was 631 ng/L ( n = 37). Six other PFECAs were detected, with three exhibiting chromatographic peak areas up to 15 times that of PFPrOPrA. At this DWTP, PFECA removal by coagulation, ozonation, biofiltration, and disinfection was negligible. The adsorbability of PFASs on PAC increased with increasing chain length. Replacing one CF 2 group with an ether oxygen decreased the affinity of PFASs for PAC, while replacing additional CF 2 groups did not lead to further affinity changes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00398

Cites

7 of 7 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
Sun, M., Arevalo, E., Strynar, M., Lindstrom, A., Richardson, M., Kearns, B., Pickett, A., Smith, C., & Knappe, D. R. U.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • Cape Fear Public Utility Authority, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, United States
  • Town of Pittsboro, Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312, United States
  • Fayetteville Public Works Commission, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301, United States
Corresponding author
Sun, Mei
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology Letters
Published
2016-11-16
Volume
3
Issue
12
Pages
415-419
ISSN
2328-8930 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555522022
Cited by
688
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 14
FWCI
25.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Environmental Science & Technology Letters (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Water Research Foundation (4344)
  • Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (1550222)
  • North Carolina Urban Water Consortium
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
Keywords
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, drinking water contamination, powdered activated carbon adsorption, coagulation, ozonation, biofiltration, disinfection

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