Analysis of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances in air samples from Northwest Europe
Abstract
Air samples were collected from 4 field sites in Europe: 2 sites from the UK, Hazelrigg (semi-rural) and Manchester (urban); 1 site from Ireland: Mace Head (rural); and 1 site from Norway: Kjeller (rural). Additionally, air samples were taken from indoor locations in Tromsø, Norway. Air samples were collected using high-volume air samplers employing sampling modules containing glass-fibre filters (GFFs, particle phase), and glass columns with a polyurethane foam (PUF)-XAD-2-PUF sandwich (gaseous phase). Typical outdoor air volumes required for the determination of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) ranged from 500-1800 m3. GFFs and PUF-XAD columns were analysed separately to obtain information on phase partitioning. All air samples were analysed for volatile, neutral PFAS, with selected GFF samples halved for analysis of both neutral and airborne particle-bound ionic PFAS. Volatile PFAS were extracted from air samples by cold-column immersion with ethyl acetate, and were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry in the positive chemical ionisation mode (GC-PCI-MS). Ionic PFAS were extracted from GFFs by sonication in methanol, and were analysed by liquid chromatography-time-of-flight-mass spectrometry (LC-TOF-MS) using electrospray ionisation in the negative ion mode (ESI-). Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) was often the predominant analyte found in the particulate phase at concentrations ranging from 1-818 pg m(-3), and 8:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (FTOH) and 6:2 FTOH were the prevailing analytes found in the gas phase, at 5-243 pg m(-3) and 5-189 pg m(-3), respectively. These three PFAS were ubiquitous in air samples. Many other PFAS, both neutral and ionic, were also present, and levels of individual analytes were in the 1-125 pg m(-3) range. Levels of some PFAS exceeded those of traditional persistent organic pollutants (POPs). In this study, the presence of 12:2 FTOH and fluorotelomer olefins (FTolefins), and ionic PFAS other than perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOA, are reported in air samples for the first time. Concentrations of neutral PFAS were several orders of magnitude higher in indoor air than outdoor air, making homes a likely important diffuse source of PFAS to the atmosphere. Our repeated findings of non-volatile ionic PFAS in air samples raises the possibility that they might directly undergo significant atmospheric transport on particles away from source regions, and more atmospheric measurements of ionic PFAS are strongly recommended.
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?
The indoor APM PFAS profile agreed with a North American report but differed from a Tromsø, Norway, report based on PFSAs.
“The profile obtained is consistent with a report based on PFASs in North America but different from that based on PFSAs in Tromsø (Norway).29,42”
From Non-Target and Suspect Screening of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Airborne Particulate Matter in China (2018) · cites this paper as [42]
PFAS concentrations found in this study were similar to those from two UK cities (299 and 325 pg/m3) but much higher than those reported for Norway and Ireland.
“Concentrations of PFASs found in this study were similar to results obtained in two cities in the UK (299 and 325 pg m -3 ) but much higher than those noted for Norway and Ireland.”
From Non-Target and Suspect Screening of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Airborne Particulate Matter in China (2018) · cites this paper as [71]
PFASs are distributed differently in indoor and outdoor environments.
“Furthermore, PFASs are distributed differently in indoor and outdoor environments.”
From Non-Target and Suspect Screening of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Airborne Particulate Matter in China (2018) · cites this paper as [42]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 353
- Authors
- Barber, J. L., Berger, U., Chaemfa, C., Huber, S., Jahnke, A., Temme, C., & Jones, K. C.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Stockholm University (SE)
- NILU (NO)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Barber, Jonathan L.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Monitoring
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 530
- ISSN
- 1464-0325 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0333
- OpenAlex
- W2135849381
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 17.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Monitoring (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Fluorine in Organic Chemistry
- Keywords
- per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOS, fluorotelomer alcohols, phase partitioning, indoor air
- MeSH terms
- Air Pollutants, Environmental Monitoring, Fluorocarbons, Ireland, Norway, Air Pollution, Indoor
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