Distribution, Partitioning, Source Apportionment, and Ecological Risk Assessment of Legacy and Emerging PFAS in Water and Sediment of the Pearl River Delta
Abstract
The occurrence and risk assessment of legacy and emerging poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aquatic environments are attracting public concern due to their environmental persistence and potential risks to ecosystems and humans. This study investigated the distribution, partitioning, and ecological risk of PFAS in four rivers of the Pearl River Delta (PRD). The results showed that the mean values of ∑ 33 PFAS in surface water and ∑ 30 PFAS in sediment were 69 and 2.3 ng/g, respectively, with concentrations ranging from 0.13 to 1400 ng/L and 0.025 to 150 ng/g. 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonic acid (6:2 FTSA) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were the most abundant individual PFAS in water, while perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), 6:2 FTSA, and fluorotelomer phosphate diester (di-PAP) dominated the PFAS profile in sediment. Field-derived water-sediment partitioning coefficients ( K d and K oc ) were significantly correlated with the carbon chain length of PFAS ( p < 0.001). Source apportionment first indicated that firefighting and metal plating (67%) were the primary sources of PFAS in the PRD. Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) was associated with high ecological risks in both surface water and sediment.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Recent studies on PFAS distribution across water-sediment compartments have mainly focused on either specific pollution sources or large watersheds, with limited attention to diffuse urban sources.
“Despite recent studies that have advanced the understanding of PFAS distribution across watersediment compartments in various settings, including in harbours [23], large river deltas [24], and urban waterways [25], these studies have mainly focused on either specific pollution sources or large watersheds, with limited attention to diffuse urban sources.”
Cites
Wang, Z., Cousins, I. T., Scheringer, M., & Hungerbühler, K. (2013) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2013.08.021 · Cited by 924 · see citing works
Lenka, S. P., Kah, M., & Padhye, L. P. (2021) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2021.117187 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
Li, F., Duan, J., Tian, S., Ji, H., Zhu, Y., Wei, Z., & Zhao, D. (2020) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.122506 · Cited by 707 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, N., Liu, J., Buck, R. C., Korzeniowski, S. H., Wolstenholme, B. W., Folsom, P. W., & Sulecki, L. M. (2011) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.11.003 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
A review of sources, multimedia distribution and health risks of novel fluorinated alternatives
Wang, Y., Chang, W., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, M., Wang, Y., & Li, P. (2019) · Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109402 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Occurrence and sources of perfluoroalkyl acids in Italian river basins
Valsecchi, S., Rusconi, M., Mazzoni, M., Viviano, G., Pagnotta, R., Zaghi, C., Serrini, G., & Polesello, S. (2015) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.07.044 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Yang, X., Huang, J., Zhang, K., Yu, G., Deng, S., & Wang, B. (2014) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-013-2389-z · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Inconsistencies in the EU regulatory risk assessment of PFAS call for readjustment
Reinikainen, J., Bouhoulle, E., & Sorvari, J. (2024) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108614 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Dauchy, X., Boiteux, V., Rosin, C., & Munoz, J.-F. (2012) · Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00128-012-0704-x · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Koongolla, J. B., Egodawatta, P., Goonetilleke, A., & Ayoko, G. A. (2026) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.143434
- Authors
- Bian, R., Stubbings, W. A., Li, F., Wu, F., & Wang, S.
- Affiliations
- Guangzhou University (CN)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Guangdong Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Shaorui
- Venue
- ACS ES&T Water
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2024-12-26
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 253-263
- ISSN
- 2690-0637 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4405814548
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 18
- FWCI
- 4.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- ACS ES&T Water (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (2023B0303000006)
- Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Project (2024A04J6599)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (42077334, 42321005, 42394151)
- National Natural Science Fund for Excellent Young Scientists Fund Program
- Guangdong Foundation for Program of Science and Technology Research (2023B1212060044)
- GDAS' Project of Science and Technology Development (2020GDASYL-20200101002, 2022GDASZH-2022010105)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Environmental Chemistry and Analysis
- Keywords
- per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, legacy PFAS, emerging PFAS, Pearl River Delta, surface water contamination, sediment contamination, sediment-water partitioning, source apportionment, firefighting foam, metal plating, PFOS, environmental risk assessment, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorohexanoic acid
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
