CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Behavior and Fate of PFOA and PFOS in Sandy Aquifer Sediment

Ferrey, Mark L., Wilson, John T., Adair, Cherri, Su, Chunming, Fine, Dennis D., Liu, Xuyang, Washington, John W.·2012·Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation
DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01395.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Microcosms were constructed with sediment from beneath a landfill that received waste containing PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate). The microcosms were amended with PFOA and PFOS , and sampled after 91, 210, 343, 463, 574, and 740 d of incubation. After 740 d, selected microcosms were extracted to determine the mass of PFOA and PFOS remaining. There was no evidence for degradation of PFOA or PFOS . Over time, the aqueous concentrations of PFOA and PFOS increased in the microcosms, indicating that PFOA and PFOS that had originally sorbed to the sediment was desorbing. At the beginning of the experiment, the adsorption coefficient, K d , averaged 0.27 L/kg for PFOA and 1.2 L/kg for PFOS . After 740 d of incubation, sorption of PFOA was not detectable and the K d of PFOS was undetectable in two microcosms and was 0.08 L/kg in a third microcosm. During incubation, the pH of the pore water in the microcosms increased from pH 7.2 to pH ranging from 8.1 to 8.8. The zeta potential of the sediment decreased with increasing pH . These observations suggest that the sorption of PFOA and PFOS at near neutral pH was controlled by the electrostatic sorption on ferric oxide minerals, and not by the sorption to organic carbon. Accurate predictions of PFOA and PFOS mobility in ground water should be based on empirical estimates of sorption using affected aquifer sediment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01395.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Anschutz A.J.2006.Reactivity of iron oxyhydroxide nanoparticles: Effects of physical variables. Dissertation submitted to the University of Minnesota UMI Number: 3230144.
  2. 10.1021/es060744y · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/0304-3894(92)85094-H · DOI
  4. 10.1021/es802047v · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s00216‐010‐4066‐0 · DOI
  6. 10.1021/es0305609 · DOI
  7. Hiemenz P.C., 1997, Determining the surface charge from electrokinetic measurements, Section 12.10. Principles of Colloid and Surface Chemistry
  8. 10.1016/j.cis.2009.08.003 · DOI
  9. 10.1021/es00056a005 · DOI
  10. Lyman W.J., 1982, Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods, 4.1
  11. 10.1039/b212497a · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1021/es981355 · DOI
  13. 10.1021/es702842q · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1021/es0512475 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1098/rsta.2009.0109 · DOI
  16. 10.1021/es102769t · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1021/es9002668 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.12.042 · DOI
  19. 10.1002/9780470172964 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ferrey, M. L., Wilson, J. T., Adair, C., Su, C., Fine, D. D., Liu, X., & Washington, J. W.
Venue
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-04
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
63-71
ISSN
  • 1069-3629
  • 1745-6592
DOI
10.1111/j.1745-6592.2012.01395.x
Cited by
39
References
3
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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