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

IF 6.6 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Journal of hazardous materials letters Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122
{"title":"Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Multiple 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 (<sup>19</sup>F 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93463,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hazardous materials letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666911024000212/pdfft?md5=0eef8e1b23047be6151be11e5b4302e5&pid=1-s2.0-S2666911024000212-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hazardous materials letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666911024000212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multiple 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
缩小全氟辛烷磺酸分析差距:针对受 AFFF 影响的水体的总有机氟技术的方法间评估
用于消防活动的水成膜泡沫 (AFFF) 中含有多种多氟和全氟烷基物质 (PFAS)。目前,还没有任何一种分析技术能够全面检测受 AFFF 污染的样品中的全氟烷基化合物总量或有机氟总量。为了深入了解现有方法的性能,我们比较了之前介绍过的十种 PFAS 测量技术。在添加了 AFFF 的自来水中,美国环保署方法 533 和 1633、可吸附有机氟颗粒诱导伽马发射光谱法 (AOF-PIGE) 和氟-19 核磁共振法 (19F NMR) 提供了类似的总氟估算值。总氧化前体 (TOP) 分析法、疑似筛选法和燃烧离子色谱法 (AOF-CIC) 吸附性有机氟得出的总有机氟估计值比其他技术高出约两到三倍。在接近 AFFF 源的地方,可疑筛选和修改后的 EPA 方法 1633 得出的结果更高,而 TOP 分析法的结果介于其他两组分析法之间。在离来源更远的地方,疑似筛选、修改后的 EPA 方法 1633 和 TOP 分析法得出的结果相似,但比 EPA 方法 1633 等目标定量方法得出的结果高出 4 倍。这些结果符合人们对 PFAS 行为的预期,并为 PFAS 污染特征描述工作中分析技术的选择提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of hazardous materials letters
Journal of hazardous materials letters Pollution, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Environmental Chemistry, Waste Management and Disposal, Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 days
期刊最新文献
Cyanide and chloroform detection through J-aggregates based aggregation induced emission probe with real sample applications Dissolved elemental mercury accumulation by freshwater phytoplankton species: A pilot study Kinetic modeling and optimization of triclosan adsorption onto coconut shell activated carbon The role of environmentally relevant concentrations of oxytetracycline in the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in Aeromonas hydrophila and Edwardsiella tarda First evidence of microplastic-associated extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria in the Red River Delta, Vietnam
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1