Next Article in Journal
Effects of Microscopic Properties and Calibration on the Mechanical Behavior of Cohesive Soil-Rock Mixtures Based on Discrete Element Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning-Based Ground-Level NO2 Estimation in Istanbul: A Comparative Analysis of Sentinel-5P and GEOS-CF
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing IoT Education Through Hybrid Robotic Arm Integration: A Quantitative and Qualitative Student Experience Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
VDMS: An Improved Vision Transformer-Based Model for PM2.5 Concentration Prediction
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/app151910540
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Linking Analysis to Atmospheric PFAS: An Integrated Framework for Exposure Assessment, Health Risks, and Future Management Strategies

by
Myoungki Song
1,
Hajeong Jeon
1 and
Min-Suk Bae
1,2,*
1
Department of Environmental Engineering, Mokpo National University, Muan 58554, Republic of Korea
2
Particle Pollution Research and Management Center, Mokpo National University, Muan 58554, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(19), 10540; https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910540
Submission received: 23 August 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 29 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Air Quality Monitoring, Analysis and Modeling)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are highly chemically stable synthetic compounds. They are widely used in industrial and commercial sectors due to their ability to repel water and oil, thermal stability, and surfactant properties. However, this stability results in environmental persistence and bioaccumulation, posing significant health risks as PFASs eventually find their way into environmental media. Key PFAS compounds, including PerFluoroOctanoic Acid (PFOA), PerFluoroOctane Sulfonic acid (PFOS), and PerFluoroHexane Sulfonic acid (PFHxS), have been linked to hepatotoxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and endocrine disruption. In response to the health threats these substances pose, global regulatory measures, such as the Stockholm Convention restrictions and national drinking water standards, have been implemented to reduce PFAS exposure. Despite these efforts, a lack of universally accepted definitions or comprehensive inventories of PFAS compounds hampers the effective management of these substances. As definitions differ across regulatory bodies, research and policy integration have become complicated. PFASs are broadly categorized as either perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), precursors, or other fluorinated substances; however, PFASs encompass over 5000 distinct compounds, many of which are poorly characterized. PFAS contamination arises from direct industrial emissions and indirect environmental formation, these substances have been detected in water, soil, and even air samples from all over the globe, including from remote regions like Antarctica. Analytical methods, such as primarily liquid and gas chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry, have advanced PFAS detection. However, standardized monitoring protocols remain inadequate. Future management requires unified definitions, expanded monitoring efforts, and standardized methodologies to address the persistent environmental and health impacts of PFAS. This review underscores the need for improved regulatory frameworks and further research.
Keywords:
PFAS; PFOA; PFOS

1. Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are fluorinated substances containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom, with no hydrogen (H), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), or iodine (I) atoms attached [1]. In PFAS structures, the carbon atoms are not bonded with H, Cl, Br, or I, resulting in fully or nearly fully fluorinated molecular frameworks. The carbon–fluorine (C-F) bond in PFAS creates extremely stable substances; this means that their terminal transformation products persist in the environment for long periods (Table 1). Furthermore, the perfluorinated carbon chains in PFASs exhibit both hydrophobic and lipophobic characteristics, making them effective surfactants and surface protectants [2]. Due to their advantageous properties—such as the ability to repel water and oil, thermal stability, and surfactant behavior—PFASs have been utilized in various industrial and commercial applications since the 1950s, while patents list PFAS uses across 39 categories [3,4]. The unique chemical characteristics and stability of PFASs have led to their widespread application in industry. However, this chemical stability hinders their natural degradation, resulting in their detection across global environmental matrices, including water, soil, and air, after being steadily distributed by environmental transport and long-range atmospheric movement (Figure 1) [4,5,6,7]. Additionally, PFASs bioaccumulate in organisms and have been detected in both humans and animals. Certain PFASs, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), are recognized as hazardous to human health [2,6,8,9,10,11,12]. As a result, PFASs are now perceived as requiring strict management due to their health risks, persistence, and bioaccumulation potential. These dangers are seen to outweigh their industrial utility for current and future generations.
In response to these risks, regulatory measures on PFASs have been implemented worldwide. For instance, the Stockholm Convention has classified certain PFASs compounds as substances subject to production and usage restrictions [9]. Specifically, PFOS was listed in Annex B of the Convention in 2009, restricting its production and use, while PFOA was added to Annex A in 2019, permitting only limited uses. PFHxS was included in Annex A in 2022, prohibiting all uses without exemptions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established drinking water standards for PFASs in April 2024. PFASs are also regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Additionally, U.S. states such as California, New York, Maine, Vermont, Washington, Connecticut, and Minnesota adopted legislation in 2022–2023 banning PFASs in food packaging [17]. In the European Union (EU), usage restrictions were proposed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in February 2023. These proposals are currently under public consultation [17].
Despite increased research and regulation due to the health and environmental risks posed by PFASs, a universally accepted definition of PFASs has yet to be established. The health effects of most PFAS compounds, apart from a few well-known examples, remain unverified, while their sources of release and environmental cycling have not been fully elucidated [18]. Moreover, due to the diversity of PFAS compounds, comprehensive data on their environmental concentrations, analytical methodologies, and toxicological profiles remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to summarize existing PFAS research and highlight the importance of further studies focusing on the accumulation of these substances in environmental media.

2. Definition and Substances of PFASs

PFASs are man-made chemicals with high heat resistance and strong persistence in the environment. They are found worldwide in water, soil, and air. Because of this, managing PFASs requires both national rules and international cooperation. However, there is still no clear, shared definition of PFASs. This gap leads to differences in regulations between countries, slows down agreement in international discussions, and can delay global action. It also makes research and monitoring results harder to compare across countries and creates uncertainty for companies about production standards, which may cause economic losses. This study looks at how PFASs have been defined in earlier research and points out key aspects to consider when creating a clearer, common definition for future environmental and regulatory work. An initial definition was proposed by Buck et al. in 2011. The study defined PFASs as an aliphatic substance in which all hydrogen atoms in the carbon chain are replaced by fluorine, incorporating a perfluoroalkyl moiety (-CnF2n₊1-) [6]. However, this definition implied, but did not explicitly specify, the inclusion of fully fluorinated terminal carbons. In 2018, the OECD expanded the definition to include chemicals with a perfluoroalkyl moiety containing at least three carbon atoms (-CnF2n-, n ≥ 3) or a perfluoroalkyl ether moiety with at least two carbon atoms (-CnF2nOCmF2m-, n, m ≥ 1) [13]. In 2021, the OECD redefined PFASs as fluorinated substances containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl (-CF3) or methylene (-CF2-) carbon without any bonded H, Cl, Br, or I atoms, removing the requirement for an aliphatic structure [1]. Similarly, the TSCA defines PFASs as substances or mixtures structurally characterized by R-(CF2)-C(F)(R′)R″. This definition was applied to the draft drinking water contaminant candidate list [14]. The U.S. National Defense Authorization Act defines PFASs as synthetic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom [15]. Over time, these definitions have evolved to become more precise and practical. However, differences in definitions across institutions and regulatory purposes hinder consistent communication and complicate the delineation of PFASs for research purposes.
The lack of a universally agreed-upon definition also complicates the categorization of PFASs. Nevertheless, substances with the general structure (CnF2n₊1-R) are conservatively classified as PFASs. More than 5000 such compounds are known to exist in the global market, with most of these being uncharacterized and referred to as PFAS precursors [19]. PFASs are broadly divided into categories such as perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), PFAA precursors, and other substances. PFAAs include subcategories such as perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs), perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs), perfluorophosphonic acids (PFPAs), perfluoroalkyl iodides (PFPIAs), perfluoroether carboxylic acids (PFECAs), and perfluoroether sulfonic acids (PFESAs). PFAA precursors comprise perfluoroalkyl sulfonyl fluoride (PASF)-based and fluorotelomer-based substances, while other categories include fluoropolymers and perfluoropolyethers (PFPEs) [20].
Among these, PFCAs (e.g., perfluorobutanoic acid [PFBA], perfluoropentanoic acid [PFPeA], and perfluorohexanoic acid [PFHxA]) are primarily long-chain compounds with significant potential for environmental persistence and bioaccumulation, posing risks of hepatotoxicity, immunosuppression, and carcinogenicity. PFCAs are commonly used in fluorinated coatings and water repellents [1,16]. PFSAs are structurally similar to PFOA but are more chemically stable; they exhibit high environmental and biological persistence and cause toxic effects such as carcinogenicity, hormonal disruption, and immunosuppression. They are mainly used in firefighting foams and waterproof coatings [21]. Other PFAS categories, including PFPAs, PFPIAs, PFECAs, and PFESAs, show varying degrees of environmental accumulation and toxicity; these substances are used in specialty chemicals and industrial applications [20,22]. Fluorotelomer-based substances, despite having shorter chains, resist degradation and exhibit reproductive toxicity and immunosuppressive effects [1,20,21]. Fluoropolymers are non-biodegradable but tend to be less toxic than other PFAS. They are used as insulators [16,22,23]. Based on institutional definitions of PFASs and the substances classified as PFASs, early criteria consistently focused on the presence of fully fluorinated carbon moieties (-CF3, -CF2-) within aliphatic structures. Over time, these criteria have been broadened to encompass aromatic frameworks. To more accurately reflect the environmental behavior of PFASs, precursor substances must also be considered. Accordingly, the definition of PFASs should, from a conservative standpoint, delineate the minimum scope of PFAS while still capturing the core structural and functional attributes that drive their persistence and transformation.
In line with this rationale, PFASs can be defined as “synthetic organic compounds containing at least one fully fluorinated alkyl group (-CnF2n+1-, n ≥ 1), including precursor substances capable of generating the same fluorinated alkyl moieties during environmental degradation or transformation.”

3. PFAS Analysis Methods

The growing recognition of the significant effects PFASs have on human and environmental health has increased global demands for enhanced PFAS monitoring. However, the number of PFAS compounds to be monitored, and their permissible concentrations have not yet been standardized, except for recommendations in a few countries, such as Germany, Australia, and the United States [24,25]. This lack of standardization is attributed to the vast number of PFAS compounds and the absence of universally established analytical methods for all PFASs. Consequently, researchers face challenges in determining appropriate analytical parameters and methods for testing various environmental media, which may hinder effective monitoring efforts. Therefore, this study aims to introduce current trends in PFAS analytical parameters and methods. The standardized methods for PFAS analysis, along with the associated target compounds and measurement instruments, are presented in Table S3. As indicated, water is the primary medium for PFAS analysis, as most analytical methods have been developed to monitor drinking water. Specifically, EPA methods 537, 533, and 537.1 focus on PFAS detection in drinking water, while EPA SW-846 addresses PFAS analysis in surface water, groundwater, and wastewater for pollution control. Similarly, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) provide guidelines for analyzing PFASs in drinking water, surface water, groundwater, and wastewater. However, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards emphasize PFAS analysis in solid materials. These standardized methods primarily use liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) techniques that incorporate internal or isotope dilution standards to enhance sensitivity. This approach is taken because PFAS concentrations in the environment are often extremely low.
The number of PFAS compounds monitored by standardized methods, including those from the EPA, ISO, and ASTM, is generally limited to a maximum of 25 compounds. This is insufficient considering the extensive number of PFAS compounds that require surveillance. Additionally, these standardized methods focus on ionic PFAS and may not effectively detect volatile and semi-volatile PFAS compounds or PFAS precursors in gaseous form. Consequently, non-standardized analytical methods have been developed based on recent research to address these limitations. Due to the persistence of PFAS in the environment, various chromatographic and mass spectrometric techniques have been employed to detect trace concentrations in environmental media. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC), capillary liquid chromatography (CLC), and gas chromatography (GC) are commonly used for PFAS analysis. LC methods are typically employed to analyze ionic PFASs (e.g., PFCAs, PFSAs), while GC is used for volatile and semi-volatile PFAS compounds (e.g., fluorotelomer alcohols, FTOHs; and fluorotelomer sulfonate esters, FASEs). Tandem mass spectrometry is frequently employed in combination with these chromatographic techniques to improve accuracy by using MRM, which minimizes interferences and enhances detection limits.
The analysis of low concentrations of PFASs requires not only advanced instrumentation but also appropriate sample preparation and pretreatment procedures to minimize matrix effects and concentrate target analytes. Common pretreatment methods, summarized in Table S4, include solid-phase extraction (SPE), solid–liquid extraction (SLE), pressurized liquid extraction (PLE), liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), ultrasonic extraction, Soxhlet extraction, and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) [19]. These methods may be employed individually or in combination, depending on the sample type and analytical requirements. After extraction, analytes may undergo further concentration, purification, or chemical derivatization to optimize detection. Internal or isotope-labeled standards (e.g., 13C, 18O, 15N-labeled PFAS analogs) are typically used to improve quantification accuracy. Detection involves comparing the mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) and retention time of analytes to known standards.
In tandem mass spectrometry, MRM analysis is performed to selectively detect characteristic secondary ions by eliminating interfering substances. This process involves generating primary fragment ions (precursor ions) through applying a Fragmentation Voltage (FV) in the first mass analyzer. These ions are then subjected to Collision-Induced Dissociation (CID) to produce secondary product ions, these are selectively detected in a second mass analyzer under Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) conditions. MRM analysis provides greater sensitivity and specificity than conventional mass spectrometry. While time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS) is generally less sensitive than tandem MS, it offers advantages such as an unlimited mass range and superior resolution, making it useful for screening unknown compounds. Since PFAS samples often contain a wide variety of precursor compounds and degradation products, TOF-MS is particularly effective for comprehensive profiling and structural identification of these samples. A summary of the analytical methods used in prior research for various environmental media is provided in Table 2.

4. Environmental Behavior and Levels of PFASs

4.1. Direct and Indirect Emissions Define PFAS Presence in the Environment

The presence of PFASs in the environment is classified into direct and indirect emissions [78]. Direct emissions refer to the release of PFASs during production, consumption, and transportation from industrial and domestic environments. In contrast, indirect emissions involve the formation of PFASs in the environment through photolysis, chemical reactions, or biological degradation of precursor substances. Direct emissions have been associated with the production of fluoropolymers and their subsequent use since PFOA production began in 1947 [79]. According to studies that looked at the EPA’s ECHO (Enforcement and Compliance History Online) database, approximately 41,862 facilities in the United States, out of 1.5 million regulated facilities, were identified as potential sources of PFAS emissions [80]. These facilities include not only waste treatment, landfill, incineration, and sewage treatment facilities but also industrial sites involved in plating, coating, petrochemicals, metal manufacturing, cleaning, papermaking, textile production, and mining. It has been estimated that approximately 3% of industrial facilities in the United States are potential PFAS emission sources, indicating that emissions are not limited to any specific industrial sector.
Indirect PFAS emissions remain poorly understood, largely due to the extensive variety of PFAS and their precursors, making it impractical to comprehensively track all PFAS-related formation and degradation products. However, some known indirect emission processes have been documented. For example, firefighting aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) has been found to produce over 10 types of PFASs, including PFOS, when released into aquatic environments [23]. Fluoropolyalcohols, used in water-repellent coatings in the construction industry, are emitted into the atmosphere due to their high vapor pressure. Once emitted, they react with water vapors and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to form PFCAs [81]. Fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), used in the synthesis of fluoropolymers and water repellents, are more volatile than fluoropolyalcohols and can undergo oxidation and biodegradation to produce PFOA and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). These volatile compounds can travel long distances in the atmosphere [82]. Fluorotelomer iodides (FTIs), precursors in polymer synthesis, convert to FTOHs; these subsequently form PFOA and PFNA. Fluorotelomer sulfonic acids (FTSAs), which are used as industrial surfactants, degrade to produce PFOA and PFOS [83,84]. Similarly, perfluoroalkane sulfonamido ethanols (FOSEs), previously used as PFOS precursors, degrade into PFOS and PFOA, while polyfluoroalkyl substances used in food packaging convert to PFOA within the environment or even in the human body [85,86,87,88].

4.2. PFAS Transport and Partitioning Between Water, Sediment, and Atmosphere

The stability of the C-F bond in PFASs contributes to their long-term environmental persistence after direct or indirect emission. PFAS and PFAA precursor substances are often found in ionic form within aqueous environments due to their physicochemical properties. These substances are transported downstream in rivers and through groundwater. PFAS species commonly found in water include highly soluble short-chain PFCAs, including PFBA, PFPeA, and PFHxA, although long-chain compounds such as PFOA may also be present [78]. PFASs in water can adsorb to or desorb from suspended particulates. Adsorbed PFASs may settle into sediments along riverbanks or deposit in sediment layers. In these cases, their behavior is influenced by both hydrophobic and hydrophilic functional groups. However, unlike other persistent organic pollutants, the behavior of PFASs in sediment environments is not fully understood. Sediment samples generally contain a higher proportion of long-chain PFASs, such as PFOS and PerFluoroUnDecanoic Acid (PFUnDA), compared to water samples that tend to contain higher concentrations of short-chain PFASs.
While most PFASs are found in ionic form in water, soil, or sediment, some PFAS compounds and precursors are present in the atmosphere. These atmospheric PFASs undergo long-range transport driven by air currents. For instance, perfluoroaldehyde and fluoropolyaldehyde can photodegrade to form PFCAs. Volatile compounds such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and N-Methyl perfluorobutane sulfonamidoethanol (NMeFBSE) are oxidized in the atmosphere to produce perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and PFCAs [89,90]. Additionally, fluorotelomer compounds such as FTIs and FTOHs contribute to atmospheric PFAS formation through chemical reactions. Atmospheric PFAS can be deposited into aquatic environments through precipitation or particle deposition, where they eventually accumulate in sediment or soil. Some PFAS in these media may re-enter the atmosphere through volatilization. This environmental cycling highlights the persistence of PFASs, facilitating their widespread distribution and bioaccumulation in organisms. Through various exposure pathways, including entry in the food chain, PFAS can accumulate and exert toxic effects on biological systems [91,92,93].

4.3. Global Variations in PFAS Concentrations Across Water, Soil, and Atmospheric Environments

Figure 2 provides PFAS concentrations in water, soil, and atmospheric environments. The primary PFASs of concern for human health are PFOA and PFOS. Although making direct comparisons across studies is challenging due to differences in research periods and analytical methods, the data indicate that PFOA concentrations in drinking water are generally higher than PFOS concentrations. In certain regions, such as Japan and the United States, higher PFAS levels have been detected compared to other countries. Groundwater samples from Australian landfills and Chinese fluorochemical complexes show the highest concentrations of PFOA and PFOS. The elevated concentrations near industrial and landfill sites indicate that PFAS emissions are associated with production and disposal processes.
The concentrations of PFASs in soil have been reported in a study by Rankin, who collected soil samples on a global scale and analyzed them using consistent methods [113]. The highest concentrations of PFOA and PFOS were observed in Asia, while the lowest concentrations were detected in Africa. Identifying clear causes for these variations is challenging due to limited data. However, it can be inferred that higher PFOA and PFOS concentrations may be linked to the presence of PFAS manufacturing facilities. PFOA production began in 1947 by 3M in the United States, while perfluorinated compound manufacturing has primarily taken place in countries such as the United States, Belgium, and Italy [79]. Over time, companies like 3M phased out the production of perfluorinated compounds, resulting in a shift of these manufacturing activities to Asian countries [114,115]. Therefore, the elevated concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in Asian countries may be attributed to current production activities, while the concentrations detected in Europe and North America may reflect the legacy of past PFAS production and serve as another indication of the environmental persistence of these substances.
The highest atmospheric concentrations of PFOA and PFOS were found in industrial regions of China. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia showed moderate concentrations, while Sweden and Finland had the lowest levels. These differences are consistent with the influence of fluorochemical manufacturing facilities, with direct emissions from industrial sites in China being a notable factor. Comparisons of PFOA and PFOS concentrations across regions reveal that urban and industrial areas exhibit relatively higher PFAS concentrations, whereas rural areas have lower concentrations. These findings emphasize the role of industrial emissions in determining atmospheric PFAS levels and suggest that the spatial distribution of PFASs is closely tied to regional industrial activities and facility emissions.

5. Health Risks of PFAS

Over 5000 PFAS products are available on the global market. These products can generate secondary PFASs when they degrade [23]. Despite the danger, these substances pose, a comprehensive definition of PFASs and a detailed inventory of PFAS compounds have not yet been established. This lack of clarity complicates both human health risk assessments and regulatory measures aimed at mitigating the harm these substances cause. To address these challenges, since 2018, the EPA and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have been developing a detailed library of PFAS definitions, management protocols, and toxicity testing resources to facilitate the evaluation of PFAS-related human health risks. This PFAS library employs both structure-based chemical informatics and expert-derived structural categories linked to human health risks. The PFAS structure candidates utilized in this library are drawn from the Distributed Structure–Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) database. As of 10 December 2024, DSSTox contains a curated list of approximately 1,218,248 substances. Each substance’s chemical structure is examined prior to registration [116]. Within this database, the KEMI PFAS list (PFASKEMI) serves as one of the largest inventories, containing about 1200 chemical structures [33,34]. From this list, around 600 potentially purchasable substances have been identified, and approximately 400 of them have been included in the PFAS toxicity testing library. Through these efforts, 150 substances have been prioritized for human health risk assessment, with toxicity evaluations currently underway [117,118].
Although the health risks of certain PFASs (e.g., PFOA, PFOS) have been demonstrated, the risks associated with most other PFAS compounds remain unconfirmed. In response, in vitro experiments have been conducted on priority PFASs identified in the EPA’s library. Due to the limited availability of health risk data on many PFASs, these studies have been designed to encompass a wide range of biological responses, based on known human health risks associated with PFOA and PFOS. The selected in vitro tests include assessments of developmental neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and general toxicity. Studies predicting the distribution and metabolism of PFAS in biological systems have also been carried out (Table S2). Specifically, the above experiments include developmental toxicity assays using zebrafish embryos, MicroElectrode Array (MEA) network formation tests for developmental neurotoxicity, high-throughput screening assays provided by ACEA Biosciences and Attagene, BioSeek Diversity Plus assays for immunosuppression and other phenotypic evaluations, High-Throughput Transcriptomics (HTTr), High-Throughput Phenotypic Profiling (HTPP) for broad biological activity assessment, and in vitro toxicokinetics studies [118].
PFAS have been shown to pose various human health risks, particularly risks related to developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and endocrine disruption. In addition, liver damage has been identified as a critical point of impact. This conclusion is supported by evidence of mRNA alterations and changes in cellular organelle morphology, which indicate potential carcinogenic and teratogenic risks [119]. Table 3 summarizes representative epidemiological studies highlighting human exposure pathways to PFASs, primary target organs, exposure durations, and the associated health effects. Collectively, these findings indicate that PFASs not only exert neurotoxic effects but also exhibit carcinogenic, mutagenic, and genotoxic properties. The results of these human health risk assessments for PFASs have been corroborated by previous studies (Table 3). PFAS exposure has been associated with immunosuppression, metabolic disorders, impaired neurodevelopment, liver dysfunction, and adverse effects on fetal development. These findings align closely with the outcomes of the EPA’s in vitro experiments (Table S2). Collectively, both the EPA’s research and prior studies confirm that PFASs pose significant genotoxic, immunotoxin, neurotoxic, and hepatotoxic human health risks.

6. Importance of PFAS in the Atmospheric Environment

In the atmospheric environment, PFAS differ from conventional persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in their wide physicochemical diversity and structural heterogeneity. Diverse PFAS species with long-range transport potential drive global contamination and present exposure risks distinct from waterborne pathways. Fluoropolymer manufacturing facilities have emerged as major atmospheric sources, with novel PFASs and derivatives increasingly documented [127]. Li et al. (2025) identified 74 new PFASs near such a facility—32 reported for the first time—with PFECAs and Cl-PFECAs dominant, indicating substitution products and by-products entering the atmosphere and transforming to H-PFECAs and H-PFESAs [127]. Atmospheric PFASs display chain-length-dependent behavior. The concentrations of most PFAS declined by >95% within 5 km of the emission source, whereas short-chain species (PFBA, PFPeA) exhibited persistence and long-range transport, and long-chain species attached to particles favored local deposition [127]. These patterns establish a mechanistic basis for distinguishing “long-range transport” versus “short-range deposition” PFASs.
Remote regions confirm this transport paradigm. In Svalbard, PFCAs dominate snow, freshwater, and glacial meltwater, formed from the atmospheric oxidation of volatile precursors (FTOHs, FOSAs, FOSEs) [128]. PFOA/PFNA ratios (~1.7) match Canadian and Arctic ice cores, evidencing long-range transport [128]. Hartz et al. (2024) linked seasonal PFAS variability in Arctic snow to air-mass trajectories, detecting short-chain PFCAs, HFPO-DA (GenX), and FOSA transported from Asia and Europe [129]. Together, these studies show that Arctic PFAS levels reflect global emissions, precursor oxidation, and seasonal–geographic modulation [128,129]. Atmospheric PFAS deposition via precipitation transfers contamination to aquatic and terrestrial systems. Global rainfall concentrations already exceed “safe planetary boundaries” [130], with short-chain PFASs more prone to widespread aqueous dispersion and long-chain PFASs depositing locally in soils [129,130].

7. Future PFAS Management Strategies and Review Conclusions

Atmospheric PFASs represent a pivotal yet underappreciated component of global chemical contamination. Unlike traditional waterborne exposure pathways, the atmospheric dimension functions simultaneously as a reservoir, transformation arena, and a delivery mechanism for PFASs to distant ecosystems and human populations. Its persistence, long-range transport, and continuous evolution into novel derivatives challenge conventional regulatory frameworks and necessitate a paradigm shift in how PFASs are monitored, assessed, and managed. Without a systematic focus on atmospheric processes, global strategies for PFAS mitigation will remain incomplete and potentially ineffective. To advance this agenda, three interconnected priorities emerge:
  • Comprehensive surveillance of atmospheric PFASs: A unified and globally harmonized monitoring network is urgently needed to capture PFASs across gaseous and particle-bound phases, precipitation, and deposition pathways. This includes not only legacy PFAS but also precursors, transformation products, and substitutes. Enhanced laboratory capacity, standardized analytical protocols, and greater access to reference standards will ensure comparability and accuracy of data. Such infrastructure will enable researchers and regulators to track spatiotemporal patterns, identify emission hotspots, and quantify long-range transport mechanisms.
  • Mechanistic understanding of transformation and transport: atmospheric PFAS research must go beyond occurrence data to unravel the kinetics and mechanisms of photochemical, oxidative, and heterogeneous reactions that generate new PFAS species in situ. This includes linking emission inventories to transformation pathways and assessing how chain length, functional groups, and atmospheric conditions influence mobility and deposition. Integrating atmospheric models with field data will clarify exposure scenarios and inform predictive risk assessments.
  • Human health and ecosystem risk integration: a holistic risk framework is required to capture inhalation and dermal uptake as critical exposure routes alongside ingestion. Research should quantify internal doses, biotransformation, and the bioaccumulation potential of atmospheric PFASs, especially emerging short-chain and ether-based compounds. This risk integration must also address sensitive ecosystems such as the Arctic, where atmospheric PFASs act as cumulative indicators of global emissions and climate-driven transport processes.
Together, these priorities establish atmospheric PFAS research as an indispensable pillar of global chemical safety. By systematically incorporating atmospheric processes into PFAS science and regulation, the international community can build science-based policies that anticipate emerging compounds, protect public health, and prevent irreversible environmental damage.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app151910540/s1; Table S1: PFAS abbreviations, full names, and chemical formulas; Table S2: Classes, Compounds, Human and Environmental Effects, and Sources of Per- and Polyfluoroal-kyl Substances (PFAS); Table S3: Standard Methods for the Analysis of PFAS in Various Environmental Matrices; Table S4: Extraction Methods for PFAS Analysis: Description, Common Matrices, Solvents, Advantages, and References; Table S5: Regulatory Guidelines for PFAS Levels in Drinking Water Across Regions. References [131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153] are cited in the supplementary materials.

Author Contributions

M.S. contributed to manuscript preparation and paper collection. H.J. contributed to data collection and assisted in manuscript preparation, including preparation of tables and figures. M.-S.B. contributed to research planning and overall project supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Research funded by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the Republic of Korea (NIER-2021–03-03–007) and supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (RS-2022-RD010226), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Allison Lee of Fossil Ridge High School in Fort Collins for her assistance with literature research throughout this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. OECD. Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance; Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2021; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/reconciling-terminology-of-the-universe-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances_e458e796-en.html (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  2. Glüge, J.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I.T.; DeWitt, J.C.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C.A.; Trier, X.; Wang, Z. An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2345–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kissa, E. Fluorinated Surfactants and Repellents; Marcel Dekker AG: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  4. Johansson, J.H.; Berger, U.; Cousins, I.T. Can the use of deactivated glass fibre filters eliminate sorption artefacts associated with active air sampling of perfluorooctanoic acid? Environ. Pollut. 2017, 224, 779–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ahrens, L.; Bundschuh, M. Fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 1921–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Buck, R.C.; Franklin, J.; Berger, U.; Conder, J.M.; Cousins, I.T.; de Voogt, P.; Jensen, A.A.; Kannan, K.; Mabury, S.A.; van Leeuwen, S.P. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2011, 7, 513–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Martin, J.W.; Smithwick, M.M.; Braune, B.M.; Hoekstra, P.F.; Muir, D.C.G.; Mabury, S.A. Identification of long-chain perfluorinated acids in biota from the Canadian Arctic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Houde, M.; Czub, G.; Small, J.M.; Backus, S.; Wang, X.; Alaee, M.; Muir, D.C.G. Fractionation and bioaccumulation of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) isomers in a Lake Ontario food web. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 9397–9403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lindstrom, A.B.; Strynar, M.J.; Libelo, E.L. Polyfluorinated compounds: Past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7954–7961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Loos, R.; Locoro, G.; Huber, T.; Wollgast, J.; Christoph, E.H.; de Jager, A.; Manfred Gawlik, B.; Hanke, G.; Umlauf, G.; Zaldívar, J.-M. Analysis of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and other perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in the River Po watershed in N-Italy. Chemosphere 2008, 71, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Powley, C.R.; George, S.W.; Russell, M.H.; Hoke, R.A.; Buck, R.C. Polyfluorinated chemicals in a spatially and temporally integrated food web in the Western Arctic. Chemosphere 2008, 70, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yamashita, N.; Taniyasu, S.; Petrick, G.; Wei, S.; Gamo, T.; Lam, P.K.S.; Kannan, K. Perfluorinated acids as novel chemical tracers of global circulation of ocean waters. Chemosphere 2008, 70, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. OECD. OECD, Summary Report on Updating the OECD 2007 List of Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs); OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications, Series on Risk Management, No. 39, Report ENV/JM/MONO(2018)7, Paris, France. 2018. Available online: https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/JM/MONO(2018)7/en/pdf (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  14. TSCA. Toxic Substances Control Act Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; TSCA Substances. 2020. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-section-8a7-reporting-and-recordkeeping (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  15. National Defense Authorization. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020; Public Law No. 116–92, 2019. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1790 (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  16. EPA. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Basic Information and Effects; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  17. Kourtchev, I.; Sebben, B.G.; Bogush, A.; Godoi, A.F.L.; Godoi, R.H.M. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in urban PM2.5 samples from Curitiba, Brazil. Atmos. Environ. 2023, 309, 119911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ford, L.C.; Lin, H.-C.; Zhou, Y.-H.; Wright, F.A.; Gombar, V.K.; Sedykh, A.; Shah, R.R.; Chiu, W.A.; Rusyn, I. Characterizing PFAS hazards and risks: A human population-based in vitro cardiotoxicity assessment strategy. Hum. Genom. 2024, 18, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Al Amin, M.; Sobhani, Z.; Liu, Y.; Dharmaraja, R.; Chadalavada, S.; Naidu, R.; Chalker, J.M.; Fang, C. Recent advances in the analysis of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—A review. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 19, 100879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Z.; DeWitt, J.C.; Higgins, C.P.; Cousins, I.T. A never-ending story of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 2508–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. IARC. Evaluation of the Carcinogenicity of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS); International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon, France, 2020; Available online: https://publications.iarc.fr/588 (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  22. UNEP. Environmental Risks of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019; Available online: https://chm.pops.int/Portals/0/download.aspx?d=UNEP-POPS-PUB-factsheet-PFAS-2022.English.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  23. Place, B.J.; Field, J.A. Identification of novel fluorochemicals in aqueous film-forming foams used by the US military. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7120–7127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Podder, A.; Sadmani, A.H.M.A.; Reinhart, D.; Chang, N.-B.; Goel, R. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as a contaminant of emerging concern in surface water: A transboundary review of their occurrences and toxicity effects. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zarębska, M.; Bajkacz, S. Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—Recent advances in the aquatic environment analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 163, 117062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Barber, J.L.; Berger, U.; Chaemfa, C.; Huber, S.; Jahnke, A.; Temme, C.; Jones, K.C. Analysis of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances in air samples from Northwest Europe. J. Environ. Monit. 2007, 9, 530–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fiedler, H.; de Boer, J.; Abad, E. Persistent organic pollutants in air across the globe using a comparative passive air sampling method. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2024, 171, 117494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jahnke, A.; Ahrens, L.; Ebinghaus, R.; Berger, U.; Barber, J.L.; Temme, C. An improved method for the analysis of volatile polyfluorinated alkyl substances in environmental air samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2007, 387, 965–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kubwabo, C.; Stewart, B.; Zhu, J.; Marro, L. Occurrence of perfluorosulfonates and other perfluorochemicals in dust from selected homes in the city of Ottawa, Canada. J. Environ. Monit. 2005, 7, 1074–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Li, J.; Del Vento, S.; Schuster, J.; Zhang, G.; Chakraborty, P.; Kobara, Y.; Jones, K.C. Perfluorinated Compounds in the Asian Atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7241–7248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Moriwaki, H.; Takata, Y.; Arakawa, R. Concentrations of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in vacuum cleaner dust collected in Japanese homes. J. Environ. Monit. 2003, 5, 753–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Padilla-Sánchez, J.A.; Papadopoulou, E.; Poothong, S.; Haug, L.S. Investigation of the best approach for assessing human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances through indoor air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12836–12843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Saini, A.; Chinnadurai, S.; Schuster, J.K.; Eng, A.; Harner, T. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and volatile methyl siloxanes in global air: Spatial and temporal trends. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 323, 121291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shoeib, M.; Harner, T.; Ikonomou, M.; Kannan, K. Indoor and outdoor air concentrations and phase partitioning of perfluoroalkyl sulfonamides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 1313–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shoeib, M.; Harner, T.; Lee, S.C.; Lane, D.; Zhu, J. Sorbent-impregnated polyurethane foam disk for passive air sampling of volatile fluorinated chemicals. Anal. Chem. 2008, 80, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shoeib, T.; Hassan, Y.; Rauert, C.; Harner, T. Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in indoor dust and food packaging materials in Egypt: Trends in developed and developing countries. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 1573–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, H.; Chang, S.; Zhu, L.; Alder, A.C.; Kannan, K. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in indoor air and dust from homes and various microenvironments in China: Implications for human exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 3156–3166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Backe, W.J.; Day, T.C.; Field, J.A. Zwitterionic, cationic, and anionic fluorinated chemicals in aqueous film-forming foam formulations and groundwater from US military bases by nonaqueous large-volume injection HPLC-MS/MS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5226–5234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Boiteux, V.; Dauchy, X.; Bach, C.; Colin, A.; Hemard, J.; Sagres, V.; Rosin, C.; Munoz, J.-F. Concentrations and patterns of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a river and three drinking water treatment plants near and far from a major production source. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 583, 393–400. [Google Scholar]
  40. Boulanger, B.; Vargo, J.; Schnoor, J.L.; Hornbuckle, K.C. Detection of perfluorooctane surfactants in Great Lakes water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 4064–4070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deng, Z.-H.; Cheng, C.-G.; Wang, X.-L.; Shi, S.-H.; Wang, M.-L.; Zhao, R.-S. Preconcentration and determination of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water samples by bamboo charcoal-based solid-phase extraction prior to liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Molecules 2018, 23, 902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. González-Barreiro, C.; Martínez-Carballo, E.; Sitka, A.; Scharf, S.; Gans, O. Method optimization for determination of selected perfluorinated alkylated substances in water samples. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2006, 386, 2123–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hansen, K.J.; Johnson, H.; Eldridge, J.; Butenhoff, J.; Dick, L. Quantitative characterization of trace levels of PFOS and PFOA in the Tennessee River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 1681–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Hao, S.; Choi, Y.J.; Deeb, R.A.; Strathmann, T.J.; Higgins, C.P. Application of hydrothermal alkaline treatment for destruction of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in contaminated groundwater and soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 6647–6657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hebert, G.N.; Odom, M.A.; Craig, P.S.; Dick, D.L.; Strauss, S.H. Method for the determination of sub-ppm concentrations of perfluoroalkylsulfonate anions in water. J. Environ. Monit. 2002, 4, 90–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Janda, J.; Nödler, K.; Brauch, H.-J.; Zwiener, C.; Lange, F.T. Robust trace analysis of polar (C2-C8) perfluorinated carboxylic acids by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: Method development and application to surface water, groundwater and drinking water. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 7326–7336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kaboré, H.A.; Duy, S.V.; Munoz, G.; Méité, L.; Desrosiers, M.; Liu, J.; Sory, T.K.; Sauvé, S. Worldwide drinking water occurrence and levels of newly-identified perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616, 1089–1100. [Google Scholar]
  48. Loewen, M.; Halldorson, T.; Wang, F.; Tomy, G. Fluorotelomer carboxylic acids and PFOS in rainwater from an urban center in Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 2944–2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Loos, R.; Tavazzi, S.; Mariani, G.; Suurkuusk, G.; Paracchini, B.; Umlauf, G. Analysis of emerging organic contaminants in water, fish and suspended particulate matter (SPM) in the Joint Danube Survey using solid-phase extraction followed by UHPLC-MS-MS and GC–MS analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607, 1201–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Miyake, Y.; Yamashita, N.; Rostkowski, P.; So, M.K.; Taniyasu, S.; Lam, P.K.S.; Kannan, K. Determination of trace levels of total fluorine in water using combustion ion chromatography for fluorine: A mass balance approach to determine individual perfluorinated chemicals in water. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1143, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schaefer, C.E.; Nguyen, D.; Fang, Y.; Gonda, N.; Zhang, C.; Shea, S.; Higgins, C.P. PFAS Porewater concentrations in unsaturated soil: Field and laboratory comparisons inform on PFAS accumulation at air-water interfaces. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2024, 264, 104359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schultz, M.M.; Barofsky, D.F.; Field, J.A. Quantitative determination of fluorotelomer sulfonates in groundwater by LC MS/MS. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 1828–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilson, S.R.; Malerød, H.; Holm, A.; Molander, P.; Lundanes, E.; Greibrøkk, T. On-line SPE–Nano-LC–Nanospray-MS for rapid and sensitive determination of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate in river water. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2007, 45, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yamashita, N.; Kannan, K.; Taniyasu, S.; Horii, Y.; Okazawa, T.; Petrick, G.; Gamo, T. Analysis of perfluorinated acids at parts-per-quadrillion levels in seawater using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 5522–5528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Baqar, M.; Saleem, R.; Zhao, M.; Zhao, L.; Cheng, Z.; Chen, H.; Yao, Y.; Sun, H. Combustion of high-calorific industrial waste in conventional brick kilns: An emerging source of PFAS emissions to agricultural soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 906, 167612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Higgins, C.P.; Field, J.A.; Criddle, C.S.; Luthy, R.G. Quantitative determination of perfluorochemicals in sediments and domestic sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 3946–3956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Müller, V.; Andrade Costa, L.C.; Rondan, F.S.; Matic, E.; Mesko, M.F.; Kindness, A.; Feldmann, J. Per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS) target and EOF analyses in ski wax, snowmelts, and soil from skiing areas. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2023, 25, 1926–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Powley, C.R.; George, S.W.; Ryan, T.W.; Buck, R.C. Matrix effect-free analytical methods for determination of perfluorinated carboxylic acids in environmental matrices. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 6353–6358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Schröder, H.F. Determination of fluorinated surfactants and their metabolites in sewage sludge samples by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry after pressurized liquid extraction and separation on fluorine-modified reversed-phase sorbents. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 1020, 131–151. [Google Scholar]
  60. Semerád, J.; Hatasová, N.; Grasserová, A.; Černá, T.; Filipová, A.; Hanč, A.; Innemanová, P.; Pivokonský, M.; Cajthaml, T. Screening for 32 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) including GenX in sludges from 43 WWTPs located in the Czech Republic—Evaluation of potential accumulation in vegetables after application of biosolids. Chemosphere 2020, 261, 128018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Sinclair, E.; Kannan, K. Mass loading and fate of perfluoroalkyl surfactants in wastewater treatment plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1408–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wang, L.; Chen, L.; Wang, J.; Hou, J.; Han, B.; Liu, W. Spatial distribution, compositional characteristics, and source apportionment of legacy and novel per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in farmland soil: A nationwide study in mainland China. J. Hazard. Mater. 2024, 470, 134238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Washington, J.W.; Ellington, J.J.; Jenkins, T.M.; Evans, J.J. Analysis of perfluorinated carboxylic acids in soils: Detection and quantitation issues at low concentrations. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1154, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Washington, J.W.; Henderson, W.M.; Ellington, J.J.; Jenkins, T.M.; Evans, J.J. Analysis of perfluorinated carboxylic acids in soils II: Optimization of chromatography and extraction. J. Chromatogr. A 2008, 1181, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fromme, H.; Schlummer, M.; Möller, A.; Gruber, L.; Wolz, G.; Ungewiss, J.; Böhmer, S.; Dekant, W.; Mayer, R.; Liebl, B. Exposure of an adult population to perfluorinated substances using duplicate diet portions and biomonitoring data. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 7928–7933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lee, S.; Kim, S.; Park, J.; Kim, H.-J.; Choi, G.; Choi, S.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.Y.; Kim, S.; Choi, K.; et al. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in breast milk from Korea: Time-course trends, influencing factors, and infant exposure. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Llorca, M.; Farré, M.; Picó, Y.; Teijón, M.L.; Álvarez, J.G.; Barceló, D. Infant exposure of perfluorinated compounds: Levels in breast milk and commercial baby food. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Luque, N.; Ballesteros-Gómez, A.; van Leeuwen, S.; Rubio, S. Analysis of perfluorinated compounds in biota by microextraction with tetrahydrofuran and liquid chromatography/ion isolation-based ion-trap mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 3774–3782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nania, V.; Pellegrini, G.E.; Fabrizi, L.; Sesta, G.; De Sanctis, P.; Lucchetti, D.; Di Pasquale, M.; Coni, E. Monitoring of perfluorinated compounds in edible fish from the Mediterranean Sea. Food Chem. 2009, 115, 951–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Squadrone, S.; Ciccotelli, V.; Prearo, M.; Favaro, L.; Scanzio, T.; Foglini, C.; Abete, M. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA): Emerging contaminants of increasing concern in fish from Lake Varese, Italy. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tittlemier, S.A.; Pepper, K.; Seymour, C.; Moisey, J.; Bronson, R.; Cao, X.-L.; Dabeka, R.W. Dietary exposure of Canadians to perfluorinated carboxylates and perfluorooctane sulfonate via consumption of meat, fish, fast foods, and food items prepared in their packaging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 3203–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Zabaleta, I.; Bizkarguenaga, E.; Iparragirre, A.; Navarro, P.; Prieto, A.; Fernández, L.Á.; Zuloaga, O. Focused ultrasound solid–liquid extraction for the determination of perfluorinated compounds in fish, vegetables and amended soil. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1331, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Dinglasan-Panlilio, M.J.A.; Mabury, S.A. Significant residual fluorinated alcohols present in various fluorinated materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1447–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Sinclair, E.; Kim, S.K.; Akinleye, H.B.; Kannan, K. Quantitation of gas-phase perfluoroalkyl surfactants and fluorotelomer alcohols released from nonstick cookware and microwave popcorn bags. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 1180–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zabaleta, I.; Bizkarguenaga, E.; Bilbao, D.; Etxebarria, N.; Prieto, A.; Zuloaga, O. Fast and simple determination of perfluorinated compounds and their potential precursors in different packaging materials. Talanta 2016, 152, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zabaleta, I.; Negreira, N.; Bizkarguenaga, E.; Prieto, A.; Covaci, A.; Zuloaga, O. Screening and identification of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in microwave popcorn bags. Food Chem. 2017, 230, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zafeiraki, E.; Costopoulou, D.; Vassiliadou, I.; Bakeas, E.; Leondiadis, L. Determination of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in various foodstuff packaging materials used in the Greek market. Chemosphere 2014, 94, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, W.; Wu, J.; He, W.; Xu, F. A review on perfluoroalkyl acids studies: Environmental behaviors, toxic effects, and ecological and health risks. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2019, 5, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Prevedouros, K.; Cousins, I.T.; Buck, R.C.; Korzeniowski, S.H. Sources, fate, and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Andrews, D.Q.; Hayes, J.; Stoiber, T.; Brewer, B.; Campbell, C.; Naidenko, O.V. Identification of point source dischargers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the United States. AWWA Water Sci. 2021, 3, e1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ellis, D.A.; Martin, J.W.; De Silva, A.O.; Mabury, S.A.; Hurley, M.D.; Sulbaek Andersen, M.P.; Nielsen, O.J. Degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols: A likely atmospheric source of perfluorinated carboxylic acids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 3316–3321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dinglasan, M.J.A.; Ye, Y.; Edwards, E.A.; Mabury, S.A. Aerobic biotransformation of 14C-labeled 8-2 telomer alcohol by activated sludge from a domestic sewage treatment plant. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar]
  83. Butt, C.M.; Berger, U.; Bossi, R.; Tomy, G.T. Review: Spatial trends of perfluoroalkyl substances in wildlife. Chemosphere 2010, 78, 933–941. [Google Scholar]
  84. Martin, J.W.; Asher, B.J.; Beesoon, S.; Benskin, J.P.; Ross, M.S. Biodegradation and metabolism of polyfluorinated compounds. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 208, 53–71. [Google Scholar]
  85. Begley, T.H.; White, K.; Honigfort, P.; Twaroski, M.L.; Neches, R.; Walker, R.A. Perfluorochemicals: Potential sources of and migration from food packaging. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22, 1023–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Boulanger, B.; Peck, A.M.; Schnoor, J.L.; Hornbuckle, K.C. Mass budget of perfluorooctane surfactants in Lake Ontario. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. D’Eon, J.C.; Mabury, S.A. Production of perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs) from polyfluoroalkyl phosphate diesters (PAPs) in the rat. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 956–962. [Google Scholar]
  88. Webster, E.; Ellis, D.A.; McLachlan, M.S. Modeling the fate of perfluorocarboxylates and their precursors in the atmosphere. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 6123–6130. [Google Scholar]
  89. Chiappero, M.S.; Malanca, F.E.; Argüello, G.A.; Wooldridge, S.T.; Hurley, M.D.; Ball, J.C.; Wallington, T.J.; Waterland, R.L.; Buck, R.C. Atmospheric chemistry of perfluoroaldehydes and fluorotelomer aldehydes: Quantification of the important role of photolysis. J. Phys. Chem. A 2006, 110, 11944–11953. [Google Scholar]
  90. D’Eon, J.C.; Hurley, M.D.; Wallington, T.J.; Mabury, S.A. Atmospheric chemistry of N-methyl perfluorobutane sulfonamidoethanol: Kinetics and mechanism of reaction with OH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1862–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Conder, J.M.; Hoke, R.A.; Wolf, W.d.; Russell, M.H.; Buck, R.C. Are PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and comparison with regulatory criteria and persistent lipophilic compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 995–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kannan, K.; Corsolini, S.; Falandysz, J.; Oehme, G.; Focardi, S.; Giesy, J.P. Perfluorooctanesulfonate and related fluorinated hydrocarbons in marine mammals, fishes, and birds from coasts of the Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3210–3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kumar, K.S.; Zushi, Y.; Masunaga, S.; Gilligan, M.; Pride, C.; Sajwan, K.S. Perfluorinated organic contaminants in sediment and aquatic wildlife, including sharks, from Georgia, USA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Toms, L.; Bräunig, J.; Vijayasarathy, S.; Phillips, S.; Hobson, P.; Aylward, L.; Kirk, M.; Mueller, J. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Australia: Current levels and estimated population reference values for selected compounds. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2019, 222, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Bossi, R.; Skjøth, C.A.; Skov, H. Three years (2008–2010) of measurements of atmospheric concentrations of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) at Station Nord, North-East Greenland. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2013, 15, 2213–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Dreyer, A.; Matthias, V.; Temme, C.; Ebinghaus, R. Annual Time Series of Air Concentrations of Polyfluorinated Compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4029–4036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Jahnke, A.; Berger, U.; Ebinghaus, R.; Temme, C. Latitudinal Gradient of Airborne Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in the Marine Atmosphere between Germany and South Africa (53° N−33° S). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 3055–3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Shimizu, M.S.; Mott, R.; Potter, A.; Zhou, J.; Baumann, K.; Surratt, J.D.; Turpin, B.; Avery, G.B.; Harfmann, J.; Kieber, R.J.; et al. Atmospheric Deposition and Annual Flux of Legacy Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Replacement Perfluoroalkyl Ether Carboxylic Acids in Wilmington, NC, USA. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Q.; Ruan, Y.; Lin, H.; Lam, P.K.S. Review on perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the Chinese atmospheric environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139804. [Google Scholar]
  100. Shoeib, M.; Harner, T.; M. Webster, G.; Lee, S.C. Indoor Sources of Poly- and Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCS) in Vancouver, Canada: Implications for Human Exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 7999–8005. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  101. Valsecchi, S.; Conti, D.; Crebelli, R.; Polesello, S.; Rusconi, M.; Mazzoni, M.; Preziosi, E.; Carere, M.; Lucentini, L.; Ferretti, E.; et al. Deriving environmental quality standards for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and related short chain perfluorinated alkyl acids. J. Hazard. Mater. 2017, 323, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Chen, S.; Jiao, X.-C.; Gai, N.; Li, X.-J.; Wang, X.-C.; Lu, G.-H.; Piao, H.-T.; Rao, Z.; Yang, Y.-L. Perfluorinated compounds in soil, surface water, and groundwater from rural areas in eastern China. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 211, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bao, J.; Yu, W.-J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, X.; Jin, Y.-H.; Dong, G.-H. Perfluoroalkyl substances in groundwater and home-produced vegetables and eggs around a fluorochemical industrial park in China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 171, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hepburn, E.; Madden, C.; Szabo, D.; Coggan, T.L.; Clarke, B.; Currell, M. Contamination of groundwater with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from legacy landfills in an urban re-development precinct. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 248, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sharma, B.M.; Bharat, G.K.; Tayal, S.; Larssen, T.; Bečanová, J.; Karásková, P.; Whitehead, P.G.; Futter, M.N.; Butterfield, D.; Nizzetto, L. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in river and ground/drinking water of the Ganges River basin: Emissions and implications for human exposure. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 208, 704–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yong, Z.Y.; Kim, K.Y.; Oh, J.-E. The occurrence and distributions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater after a PFAS leakage incident in 2018. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Mak, Y.L.; Taniyasu, S.; Yeung, L.W.Y.; Lu, G.; Jin, L.; Yang, Y.; Lam, P.K.S.; Kannan, K.; Yamashita, N. Perfluorinated compounds in tap water from China and several other countries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4824–4829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Quinete, N.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, T.; Yun, S.H.; Moreira, I.; Kannan, K. Specific profiles of perfluorinated compounds in surface and drinking waters and accumulation in mussels, fish, and dolphins from southeastern Brazil. Chemosphere 2009, 77, 863–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Quiñones, O.; Snyder, S.A. Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and sulfonates in drinking water utilities and related waters from the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 9089–9095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Takagi, S.; Adachi, F.; Miyano, K.; Koizumi, Y.; Tanaka, H.; Mimura, M.; Watanabe, I.; Tanabe, S.; Kannan, K. Perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorooctanoate in raw and treated tap water from Osaka, Japan. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 1409–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Thompson, J.; Eaglesham, G.; Mueller, J. Concentrations of PFOS, PFOA and other perfluorinated alkyl acids in Australian drinking water. Chemosphere 2011, 83, 1320–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wilhelm, M.; Bergmann, S.; Dieter, H.H. Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in drinking water of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, and new approach to assess drinking water contamination by shorter-chained C4-C7 PFCs. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2010, 213, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rankin, K.; Mabury, S.A.; Jenkins, T.M.; Washington, J.W. A North American and global survey of perfluoroalkyl substances in surface soils: Distribution patterns and mode of occurrence. Chemosphere 2016, 161, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wang, T.; Wang, P.; Meng, J.; Liu, S.; Lu, Y.; Khim, J.S.; Giesy, J.P. A review of sources, multimedia distribution and health risks of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in China. Chemosphere 2015, 129, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zareitalabad, P.; Siemens, J.; Hamer, M.; Amelung, W. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in surface waters, sediments, soils and wastewater—A review on concentrations and distribution coefficients. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Williams, A.J.; Grulke, C.M.; Edwards, J.; McEachran, A.D.; Mansouri, K.; Baker, N.C.; Patlewicz, G.; Shah, I.; Wambaugh, J.F.; Judson, R.S.; et al. The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: A community data resource for environmental chemistry. J. Cheminform. 2017, 9, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Patlewicz, G.; Richard, A.M.; Williams, A.J.; Grulke, C.M.; Sams, R.; Lambert, J.; Noyes, P.D.; DeVito, M.J.; Hines, R.N.; Strynar, M.; et al. A chemical category-based prioritization approach for selecting 75 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for tiered toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 014501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Patlewicz, G.; Richard, A.M.; Williams, A.J.; Judson, R.S.; Thomas, R.S. Towards reproducible structure-based chemical categories for PFAS to inform and evaluate toxicity and toxicokinetic testing. Comput. Toxicol. 2022, 24, 100250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fenton, S.E.; Ducatman, A.; Boobis, A.; DeWitt, J.C.; Lau, C.; Ng, C.; Smith, J.S.; Roberts, S.M. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance toxicity and human health review: Current state of knowledge and strategies for informing future research. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40, 606–630. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  120. Cousins, I.T.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Miller, M.; Ng, C.A. PFAS: Forever chemicals—Persistent, bioaccumulative and mobile. Reviewing the status and the need for their phase-out and remediation of contaminated sites. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  121. Koshy, T.T.; Attina, T.M.; Ghassabian, A.; Gilbert, J.; Burdine, L.K.; Marmor, M.; Honda, M.; Chu, D.B.; Han, X.; Shao, Y.; et al. Serum perfluoroalkyl substances and cardiometabolic consequences in adolescents exposed to the World Trade Center disaster and a matched comparison group. Environ. Int. 2017, 109, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Sunderland, E.M.; Hu, X.C.; Dassuncao, C.; Tokranov, A.K.; Wagner, C.C.; Allen, J.G. A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2018, 28, 147–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Grandjean, P.; Andersen, E.W.; Budtz-Jørgensen, E.; Nielsen, F.; Mølbak, K.; Weihe, P.; Heilmann, C. Serum vaccine antibody concentrations in children exposed to perfluorinated compounds. JAMA 2012, 307, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Melzer, D.; Rice, N.; Depledge, M.H.; Henley, W.E.; Galloway, T.S. Association between serum perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and thyroid disease in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ. Health Perspect. 2010, 118, 686–692. [Google Scholar]
  125. Fei, C.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Lipworth, L.; Olsen, J. Maternal levels of perfluorinated chemicals and subfecundity. Hum. Reprod. 2009, 24, 1200–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Eriksen, K.T.; Sørensen, M.; McLaughlin, J.K.; Tjønneland, A.; Overvad, K.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O. Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate plasma levels and risk of cancer in the general Danish population. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2009, 101, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Li, X.; Li, W.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.; Cai, Y.; Shi, Y. Atmospheric Emission of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from a Fluoropolymer Manufacturing Facility: Focus on Emerging PFAS and the Potential Contribution of Condensable PFAS on their Atmospheric Partitioning. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2025, 59, 9709–9720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Ahrens, L.; Rakovic, J.; Ekdahl, S.; Kallenborn, R. Environmental distribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on Svalbard: Local sources and long-range transport to the Arctic. Chemosphere 2023, 345, 140463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hartz, W.F.; Björnsdotter, M.K.; Yeung, L.W.Y.; Humby, J.D.; Eckhardt, S.; Evangeliou, N.; Ericson Jogsten, I.; Kärrman, A.; Kallenborn, R. Sources and seasonal variations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in surface snow in the Arctic. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 21817–21828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Cousins, I.T.; Johansson, J.H.; Salter, M.E.; Sha, B.; Scheringer, M. Outside the safe operating space of a new planetary boundary for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 11172–11179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Giesy, J.P.; Kannan, K. Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 1339–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. EPA. Method 537; Version 1.1. Determination of Selected Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; EPA/600/R-08/092.
  133. EPA. Method 533; Determination of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking Water by Isotope Dilution Anion Exchange Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; EPA Document No. 815-B-19-020, 1–52.
  134. EPA. Method 537.1; Version 2.0. Determination of Selected Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  135. EPA. SW-846 Method 8327; Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Using External Standard Calibration and Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Revision 0.
  136. ISO 21675; Water Quality—Determination of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Water—Method Using Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  137. ISO 25101; Water Quality—Determination of Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA)—Method for Unfiltered Samples Using Solid Phase Extraction and Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  138. ASTM D7979-20; Standard Test Method for Determination of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water, Sludge, Influent, Effluent, and Wastewater by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
  139. ASTM D7968-17a; Standard Test Method for Determination of Polyfluorinated Compounds in Soil by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  140. Alzaga, R.; Salgado-Petinal, C.; Jover, E.; Bayona, J. Development of a procedure for the determination of perfluorocarboxylic acids in sediments by pressurised fluid extraction, headspace solid-phase microextraction followed by gas chromatographic–mass spectrometric determination. J. Chromatogr. A 2005, 1083, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  141. Rogatsky, E.; O’Hehir, C.; Daly, J.; Tedesco, A.; Jenny, R.; Aldous, K. Development of high throughput LC/MS/MS method for analysis of perfluorooctanoic acid from serum, suitable for large-scale human biomonitoring. J. Chromatogr. B 2017, 1049–1050, 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  142. Kuklenyik, Z.; Reich, J.A.; Tully, J.S.; Needham, L.L.; Calafat, A.M. Automated Solid-Phase Extraction and Measurement of Perfluorinated Organic Acids and Amides in Human Serum and Milk. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 3698–3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Takino, M.; Daishima, S.; Nakahara, T. Determination of perfluorooctane sulfonate in river water by liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure photoionization mass spectrometry by automated on-line extraction using turbulent flow chromatography. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2003, 17, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  144. EPA. PFAS Drinking Water Advisory Levels. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  145. NYSDEC. New York State PFAS Regulations for Drinking Water; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: Albany, NY, USA, 2024. Available online: https://dec.ny.gov/environmental-protection/site-cleanup/pfas (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  146. MassDEP. Final PFAS Drinking Water Standard and Cleanup Standards; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Boston, MA, USA, 2024. Available online: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-in-drinking-water (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  147. EEA. European PFAS Drinking Water Directive Guidelines. European Environment Agency. 2023. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/european-zero-pollution-dashboards/indicators/treatment-of-drinking-water-to-remove-pfas-signal (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  148. UBA. PFAS Regulations in German Drinking Water. German Federal Environment Agency. 2023. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/water/drinking-water (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  149. NHMRC. PFAS in Australian Drinking Water. National Health and Medical Research Council. 2023. Available online: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/environmental-health/water/PFAS-review/questions-and-answers (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  150. MOE Japan. PFAS Drinking Water Standards in Japan. Ministry of the Environment Japan. 2023. Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/water/standard/pfas.html (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  151. NHC. PFAS Guidelines for Drinking Water in China. National Health Commission of China. 2023. Available online: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/ (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  152. DWS RSA. South Africa PFAS Drinking Water Guidelines. Department of Water and Sanitation, South Africa. 2023. Available online: https://www.dws.gov.za/ (accessed on 23 August 2025).
  153. IBAMA. PFAS Regulations in Brazilian Drinking Water. Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources. 2023. Available online: https://www.ibama.gov.br/ (accessed on 23 August 2025).
Applsci 15 10540 g001
Figure 1. Environmental cycling and distribution of PFASs across air, water, and soil.
Figure 1. Environmental cycling and distribution of PFASs across air, water, and soil.
Applsci 15 10540 g001
Applsci 15 10540 g002
Figure 2. Global distribution of PFOA and PFOS concentrations in environmental media. Panels show (a) atmosphere, (b) groundwater, (c) drinking water, and (d) soil. Note: the solid (darker) horizontal line indicates the mean concentration. References for data sources: atmosphere [5,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]; groundwater [102,103,104,105,106]; drinking water [107,108,109,110,111,112]; soil [113].
Figure 2. Global distribution of PFOA and PFOS concentrations in environmental media. Panels show (a) atmosphere, (b) groundwater, (c) drinking water, and (d) soil. Note: the solid (darker) horizontal line indicates the mean concentration. References for data sources: atmosphere [5,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]; groundwater [102,103,104,105,106]; drinking water [107,108,109,110,111,112]; soil [113].
Applsci 15 10540 g002
Table 1. Evolution of PFAS definitions across regulatory and research frameworks.
Table 1. Evolution of PFAS definitions across regulatory and research frameworks.
ReferencesDefinitions
Buck et al. (2011) [6]-Definition: PFAS are aliphatic substances where all hydrogen atoms in the carbon chain are replaced by fluorine atoms, including the “perfluoroalkyl moiety (−CnF2n+1−).”
-Note: The moiety implies a fully fluorinated terminal carbon, but the textual definition does not explicitly require it.
OECD (2018) [13]-Definition: PFAS are chemicals with a perfluoroalkyl moiety containing at least three carbons (–CnF2n−, n ≥ 3) or a perfluoroalkyl ether moiety with at least two carbons (–CnF2nOCmF2m−, n, m ≥ 1).
-Note: Expanded the perfluoroalkyl moiety from Buck et al.’s “(CnF2n+1−)” to “–CnF2n–” including cases where both ends of the moiety are attached to functional groups.
TSCA (2020) [14]-Definition: Any chemical substance or mixture containing the structural unit R-(CF2)-C(F)(R′)R″.
-Both CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons, and none of the R groups (R, R′, or R″) can be hydrogen.
-Application: Proposed rule for TSCA reporting and recordkeeping requirements and the 2021 Draft Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List.
National Defense Authorization (2020) [15]-Definition: Man-made chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.
-Note: A simplified definition to encompass a broad range of PFAS.
OECD (2021) [1]-Definition: Fluorinated substances containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl (–CF3) or methylene (–CF2–) carbon atom without any H/Cl/Br/I attached.
-Note: Removes the requirement for entirely aliphatic structures, only requiring a minimally fully fluorinated carbon group.
EPA (2021) [16]-PFASMASTER List: Initially contained over 5000 unique PFASs, including substances without defined chemical structures, polymers, and mixtures.
-PFASSTRUCT List: Structure-based definitions to clearly delineate PFAS chemical space for research and regulatory purposes.
Table 2. Analytical techniques and extraction approaches for PFAS detection across environmental and food matrices.
Table 2. Analytical techniques and extraction approaches for PFAS detection across environmental and food matrices.
Sample MatrixAnalytical TechniqueExtraction ApproachReference
Air and air particlesGC-MS 1, GC-MS/MS 2, LC-MS/MS 3ASE 10, cold column extraction, concentration after solvent capture, SLE 11, Soxhlet extraction, SPE 12[26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]
WaterGC-MS/MS, LC-MS/MS, LC-HRMS 4, 19F-NMR 5, Nano-LC-MS 6Automated solid-phase extraction, LLE 13, micro-LLE 14, Soxhlet extraction, SPE, SPME 15, turbulent flow chromatograph-based online extraction[38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]
Soil and sedimentFlow injection-MS/MS 7, LC-HRMS, LC-MS/MS, LC-QToF-MS 8FUSLE 16, hot vapor/Soxhelt extraction and PLE 17, PLE, SLE, SPE[55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]
FoodsLC-MS/MS, LC-QqLIT-MS 9FUSLE, IPE 18, LLE, microextraction, PLE, SLE, SPE [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72]
Packaging materialsGC-MS, LC-MS/MS, LC-QToF-MSFUSLE, PLE, SLE, SPE, UPAE 19, XAD extracted with EtOAc 20[73,74,75,76,77]
1 GC-MS—gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; 2 GC-MS/MS—gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry; 3 LC-MS/MS—liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry; 4 LC-HRMS—liquid chromatography–high resolution mass spectrometry; 5 19F-NMR—fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; 6 nano-LC-MS—nano liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry; 7 flow injection-MS/MS—flow injection–tandem mass spectrometry; 8 LC-QToF-MS—liquid chromatography–quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry; 9 LC-QqLIT-MS—liquid chromatography–quadrupole–linear ion trap mass spectrometry; 10 ASE—accelerated solvent extraction; 11 SLE—solid–liquid extraction; 12 SPE—solid-phase extraction; 13 LLE—liquid–liquid extraction; 14 micro-LLE—micro-liquid–liquid extraction; 15 SPME—solid-phase microextraction; 16 FUSLE—fast ultrasound-assisted solvent extraction; 17 PLE—pressurized liquid extraction; 18 IPE—ion-pair extraction; 19 UPAE—ultrasound-phased array extraction; 20 XAD extracted with EtOAc—use of XAD resin (a polymeric adsorbent) followed by elution with ethyl acetate for analyte recovery.
Table 3. Key research findings on PFAS exposure and health effects.
Table 3. Key research findings on PFAS exposure and health effects.
ReferenceExposure PathwayBiological SampleTarget OrganExposure DurationHealth OutcomeMeasured PFAS Concentration
Cousins et al., 2023 [120]Food, drinking water, environmentNot reportedLiver, kidney, thyroid, immune systemChronicHepatotoxicity, immune suppression, endocrine disruptionFrequently exceeded EFSA TWI 1 of 4.4 ng/kg bw/week
Koshy et al., 2017 [121]Environmental (disaster-related)SerumMetabolic system (lipids, insulin)AdolescenceDyslipidemia, insulin resistanceSerum PFASs (PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA) in WTC-exposed 2 adolescents; PFOA positively associated with cholesterol and triglycerides
Sunderland et al., 2018 [122]Seafood, drinking water, food packaging, indoor environmentNot reportedImmune, metabolic, nervous systemsLong-term, chronicImmune suppression, metabolic disorders, neurodevelopmental issuesGlobal biomonitoring: PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS stable or increasing in serum
Fenton et al., 2021 [119]Multiple environmental sourcesNot reportedLiver, immune systemLong-termLiver dysfunction, reduced immune response, developmental impairmentDoubling of serum PFOS/PFOA associated with ~39–49% reduction in vaccine antibody levels
Grandjean et al., 2012 [123]Maternal exposure (placenta, child environment)Maternal blood, cord blood, child serumImmune systemBirth to childhoodReduced vaccine antibody response, impaired immune functionTwo-fold increase in PFOS/PFOA linked to ~39–49% lower antibody concentrations
Melzer et al., 2010 [124]General environmental exposureSerumThyroidChronicAltered thyroid hormone levelsNHANES 3 data: serum PFOA/PFOS detected; associated with thyroid disease
Fei et al., 2009 [125]Maternal PFAS levelsMaternal plasmaFetusPregnancyReduced birth weight, developmental effectsDanish cohort 4: higher maternal PFOS/PFOA levels linked to reduced birth weight
Eriksen et al., 2009 [126]General environmental exposurePlasmaLiverChronicIncreased liver cancer riskDanish cohort: plasma PFOA/PFOS associated with ~30–40% higher liver cancer risk
1 European Food Safety Authority Tolerable Weekly Intake; 2 World Trade Center-exposed population; 3 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; 4 Danish birth/health cohort study.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Song, M.; Jeon, H.; Bae, M.-S. Linking Analysis to Atmospheric PFAS: An Integrated Framework for Exposure Assessment, Health Risks, and Future Management Strategies. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 10540. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910540

AMA Style

Song M, Jeon H, Bae M-S. Linking Analysis to Atmospheric PFAS: An Integrated Framework for Exposure Assessment, Health Risks, and Future Management Strategies. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(19):10540. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910540

Chicago/Turabian Style

Song, Myoungki, Hajeong Jeon, and Min-Suk Bae. 2025. "Linking Analysis to Atmospheric PFAS: An Integrated Framework for Exposure Assessment, Health Risks, and Future Management Strategies" Applied Sciences 15, no. 19: 10540. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910540

APA Style

Song, M., Jeon, H., & Bae, M.-S. (2025). Linking Analysis to Atmospheric PFAS: An Integrated Framework for Exposure Assessment, Health Risks, and Future Management Strategies. Applied Sciences, 15(19), 10540. https://doi.org/10.3390/app151910540

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop