Literature DB >> 31922402

Sorption of Polyfluoroalkyl Surfactants on Surface Soils: Effect of Molecular Structures, Soil Properties, and Solution Chemistry.

Sandra Mejia-Avendaño1, Yue Zhi1, Bei Yan1, Jinxia Liu1.   

Abstract

Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are identified in aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) concentrates and AFFF-impacted sites. However, the mobility potential of zwitterionic and cationic PFASs is poorly understood, preventing reliable site assessment. The study aimed to elucidate the mobility behaviors of PFASs of various charge states in saturated soil-water systems and assess critical influencing factors. Five anionic, three zwitterionic, and one cationic PFASs were investigated in five soils through batch sorption experiments. Pairwise comparison revealed that the quaternary ammonium group imparted a strong affinity of cationic perfluorooctaneamide ammonium compound (PFOAAmS) for soils. The influence of the quaternary ammonium group is mitigated in polyfluoroalkyl betaines, yet perfluorooctane sulfonamidoalkyl betaine (PFOSB) showed strong sorption in selected soils. Two soil bulk properties showed some correlations with the soil-water distribution coefficient (Kd). A positive correlation with the fraction of soil organic carbon was found only for anionic PFASs, whereas cation exchange capacity had an approximate positive correlation with Kd only for PFOAAmS. Water chemistry (Ca2+ and pH) influences the sorption of nonanionic PFASs in very distinct fashions or even in opposite trends to what was known for anionic PFASs. Sorption was insensitive to pH changes except for PFOSB; PFOSB underwent profound sorption reduction because its speciation occurs around neutral pH, while the two other betaines and PFOAAmS have pKa values that are outside of the environmentally relevant range. The lack of correlations suggests that the transport potential of PFASs is probably highly site-specific. It remains a challenge in deciphering PFAS sorption mechanisms and predicting how AFFF plumes migrate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31922402     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04989

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  5 in total

1.  Limitations of Current Approaches for Predicting Groundwater Vulnerability from PFAS Contamination in the Vadose Zone.

Authors:  Matt Rovero; Diana Cutt; Rachel Griffiths; Urszula Filipowicz; Katherine Mishkin; Brad White; Sandra Goodrow; Richard T Wilkin
Journal:  Ground Water Monit Remediat       Date:  2021-09-30       Impact factor: 1.870

Review 2.  Developing innovative treatment technologies for PFAS-containing wastes.

Authors:  Chelsea Berg; Brian Crone; Brian Gullett; Mark Higuchi; Max J Krause; Paul M Lemieux; Todd Martin; Erin P Shields; Ed Struble; Eben Thoma; Andrew Whitehill
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 2.636

Review 3.  The role of soils in the disposition, sequestration and decontamination of environmental contaminants.

Authors:  Binoy Sarkar; Raj Mukhopadhyay; Sammani Ramanayaka; Nanthi Bolan; Yong Sik Ok
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 6.671

4.  Column versus batch methods for measuring PFOS and PFOA sorption to geomedia.

Authors:  Sarah Van Glubt; Mark L Brusseau; Ni Yan; Dandan Huang; Naima Khan; Kenneth C Carroll
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 8.071

5.  Ideal versus Nonideal Transport of PFAS in Unsaturated Porous Media.

Authors:  Mark L Brusseau; Bo Guo; Dandan Huang; Ni Yan; Ying Lyu
Journal:  Water Res       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 13.400

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.