Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water

dc.citation.articleNumber100122en_US
dc.citation.journalTitleJournal of Hazardous Materials Lettersen_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber5en_US
dc.contributor.authorDixit, Fuharen_US
dc.contributor.authorAntell, Edmund H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFaber, Katharine A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Chuhuien_US
dc.contributor.authorPannu, Manmeet W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPlumlee, Megan H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorVan Buren, Jeanen_US
dc.contributor.authorDoroshow, Abrahamen_US
dc.contributor.authorPomerantz, William C. K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorArnold, William A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHiggins, Christopher P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPeaslee, Graham F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAlvarez-Cohen, Lisaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSedlak, David L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAteia, Mohameden_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-01T14:03:57Zen_US
dc.date.available2024-10-01T14:03:57Zen_US
dc.date.issued2024en_US
dc.description.abstractMultiple poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are present in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) used for firefighting activities. Currently, no single analytical technique provides a complete accounting of total PFASs or total organofluorine content in AFFF-contaminated samples. To provide insight into the performance of existing methods, we compared ten previously described PFAS measurement techniques. In AFFF-amended tap water, US EPA Methods 533 and 1633, adsorbable organic fluorine with particle induced gamma emission spectroscopy (AOF-PIGE) and fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance (19F NMR) provided similar estimates of total fluorine. The total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay, suspect screening, and adsorbable organic fluorine with combustion ion chromatography (AOF-CIC) yielded estimates of total organic fluorine that were about two to three times higher than the other techniques. Proximate to AFFF sources, suspect screening and modified EPA Method 1633 yielded higher results, while the TOP assay results were between the other two sets of analyses. Further from sources, suspect screening, modified EPA Method 1633, and the TOP assay yielded similar results that were 4-fold higher than results from targeted quantification methods, such as EPA Method 1633. These results are consistent with expectations about PFAS behavior and inform the selection of analytical techniques used for PFAS contamination characterization efforts.en_US
dc.identifier.citationDixit, F., Antell, E. H., Faber, K. A., Zhang, C., Pannu, M. W., Plumlee, M. H., Van Buren, J., Doroshow, A., Pomerantz, W. C. K., Arnold, W. A., Higgins, C. P., Peaslee, G. F., Alvarez-Cohen, L., Sedlak, D. L., & Ateia, M. (2024). Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water. Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, 5, 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122en_US
dc.identifier.digital1-s20-S2666911024000212-mainen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/117889en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsExcept where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.  Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the terms of the license or beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder.en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/en_US
dc.titleClosing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted wateren_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.dcmiTexten_US
dc.type.publicationpublisher versionen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s20-S2666911024000212-main.pdf
Size:
1.95 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format