Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 70

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma

Palma, Davide, Papagiannaki, Dimitra, Lai, Manuel, Binetti, Rita, Sleiman, Mohamad, Minella, Marco, Richard, Claire·2021·Molecules
DOI 10.3390/molecules26040924PMC PMC7916234
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent one of the most recalcitrant class of compounds of emerging concern and their removal from water is a challenging goal. In this study, we investigated the removal efficiency of three selected PFAS from water, namely, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and pefluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) using a custom-built non-thermal plasma generator. A modified full factorial design (with 2 levels, 3 variables and the central point in which both quadratic terms and interactions between couple of variables were considered) was used to investigate the effect of plasma discharge frequency, distance between the electrodes and water conductivity on treatment efficiency. Then, the plasma treatment running on optimized conditions was used to degrade PFAS at ppb level both individually and in mixture, in ultrapure and groundwater matrices. PFOS 1 ppb exhibited the best degradation reaching complete removal after 30 min of treatment in both water matrices (first order rate constant 0.107 min−1 in ultrapure water and 0.0633 min−1 in groundwater), while the degradation rate of PFOA and PFHxA was slower of around 65% and 83%, respectively. During plasma treatment, the production of reactive species in the liquid phase (hydroxyl radical, hydrogen peroxide) and in the gas phase (ozone, NOx) was investigated. Particular attention was dedicated to the nitrogen balance in solution where, following to NOx hydrolysis, total nitrogen (TN) was accumulated at the rate of up to 40 mgN L−1 h−1.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/molecules26040924

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the plasma generator connected to the Pyrex glass (PG) reactor (A): (1) plasma generator, (2) air inlet, (3) air outlet, (4) plasma switch and frequency control, (5) ground, (6) 220 V power supply, (7) PG reactor, (8) sintered tungsten electrode, (9) stainless steel electrode. polypropylene (PP) reactor (B).
Figure 1 Schematic representation of the plasma generator connected to the Pyrex glass (PG) reactor (A): (1) plasma generator, (2) air inlet, (3) air outlet, (4) plasma switch and frequency control, (5) ground, (6) 220 V power supply, (7) PG reactor, (8) sintered tungsten electrode, (9) stainless steel electrode. polypropylene (PP) reactor (B).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Degradation profiles of methylene blue (MB) (initial concentration 10−5 M) in the presence of increasing concentrations of 2-propanol, treated in the PG reactor (A). Evolution of the reaction rate for MB degradation in presence of increasing concentration of 2-propanol (0–2 mM range) (B).
Figure 2 Degradation profiles of methylene blue (MB) (initial concentration 10−5 M) in the presence of increasing concentrations of 2-propanol, treated in the PG reactor (A). Evolution of the reaction rate for MB degradation in presence of increasing concentration of 2-propanol (0–2 mM range) (B).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Concentration of hydrogen peroxide produced during plasma treatment of 50 mL of ultrapure water in PG reactor with surface and underwater discharge.
Figure 3 Concentration of hydrogen peroxide produced during plasma treatment of 50 mL of ultrapure water in PG reactor with surface and underwater discharge.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 NO, NO2, NOx and O3 concentration profiles measured before, during and after plasma treatment of 50 mL of ultrapure water in the PG reactor using superficial discharge.
Figure 4 NO, NO2, NOx and O3 concentration profiles measured before, during and after plasma treatment of 50 mL of ultrapure water in the PG reactor using superficial discharge.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Comparison between the TN accumulation rate during treatment with surface and underwater discharge for a solution of ultrapure water and for a solution of NOM 10 mg/L (A); Concentration of ammonium, nitrite and nitrate ions over 30 min treatment with surface discharge in a solution on ammonium 40 mg/L (B) and in a solution of nitrite 60 mg/L (C).
Figure 5 Comparison between the TN accumulation rate during treatment with surface and underwater discharge for a solution of ultrapure water and for a solution of NOM 10 mg/L (A); Concentration of ammonium, nitrite and nitrate ions over 30 min treatment with surface discharge in a solution on ammonium 40 mg/L (B) and in a solution of nitrite 60 mg/L (C).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Degradation of pefluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (A), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) (B) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (C) treated individually in ultrapure and groundwater matrices. Degradation of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treated in mixture (D) in ultrapure (solid symbols, solid lines) and groundwater (open symbols, dashed lines).
Figure 6 Degradation of pefluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) (A), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) (B) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (C) treated individually in ultrapure and groundwater matrices. Degradation of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treated in mixture (D) in ultrapure (solid symbols, solid lines) and groundwater (open symbols, dashed lines).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 70

Metadata

Authors
Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M., & Richard, C.
Affiliations
  • Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS, Sigma Clermont, ICCF, 63178 Aubière, France
  • SMAT S.p.A., Research Centre, C.so Unità d’Italia 235/3, 10127 Torino, Italy
  • IRIS s.r.l., Via Papa Giovanni Paolo Secondo 26, 10043 Orbassano, Italy
  • Department of Chemistry and Interdepartmental Centre Nanostructured Interfaces and Surfaces (NIS), University of Torino, Via Pietro Giuria 5, 10125 Torino, Italy
ORCID
Venue
Molecules
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-02-09
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
924
ISSN
1420-3049
DOI
10.3390/molecules26040924
PMC
PMC7916234
Cited by
70
References
40
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (765860)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/molecules26040924
The paper
Palma, D., Papagiannaki, D., Lai, M., Binetti, R., Sleiman, M., Minella, M., & Richard, C. (2021). PFAS Degradation in Ultrapure and Groundwater Using Non-Thermal Plasma. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26040924

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.