Document Type
Article
Date of Original Version
7-14-2022
Abstract
Numerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are of growing concern worldwide due to their ubiquitous presence, bioaccumulation and adverse effects. Surface waters in the United States have displayed elevated concentrations of PFAS, but so far discrete water sampling has been the commonly applied sampling approach. In the present study we field-tested a novel integrative passive sampler, a microporous polyethylene tube, and derived sampling rates (Rs) for nine PFAS in surface waters. Three sampling campaigns were conducted, deploying polyethylene tube passive samplers in the effluent of two wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents and across Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island, USA) for 1 month each in 2017 and 2018. Passive samplers exhibited linear uptake of PFAS in the WWTP effluents over 16–29 days, with in situ Rs for nine PFAS ranging from 10 ml day−1 (perfluoropentanoic acid) to 29 ml day−1 (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid). Similar sampling rates of 19 ± 4.8 ml day−1 were observed in estuarine field deployments. Applying these Rs values in a different WWTP effluent predicted dissolved PFAS concentrations mostly within 50% of their observations in daily composite water samples, except for perfluorobutanoic acid (where predictions from passive samplers were 3 times greater than measured values), perfluorononanoic acid (1.9 times), perfluorodecanoic acid (1.7 times), and perfluoropentanesulfonic acid (0.1 times). These results highlight the potential use of passive samplers as measurement and assessment tools of PFAS in dynamic aquatic environments.
Publication Title, e.g., Journal
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Volume
41
Issue
10
Citation/Publisher Attribution
Christine L Gardiner, Jitka Becanova, Mark G. Cantwell, David R. Katz, Anna R. Robuck, and Rainer Lohmann. Evaluation of a novel passive sampler for poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in aquatic environments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2022, 41, 2375-2385. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5431
Figure 1
CLG MS Supporting Info May16.docx (2450 kB)
Supporting Info
CLG Table 1 May'22.docx (16 kB)
Table 1
CLG Table 2.docx (15 kB)
Table 2
Figure 2 June'5.pdf (137 kB)
Figure 2
Figure 3 June'22.pdf (121 kB)
Figure 3
Figure 4 June'22.pdf (79 kB)
Author Manuscript
This is a pre-publication author manuscript of the final, published article.
Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable
towards Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth in our Terms of Use.