Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure on Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus-Related Mortality among U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries
Previous Article in Journal
Pesticides and Parabens Contaminating Aquatic Environment: Acute and Sub-Chronic Toxicity towards Early-Life Stages of Freshwater Fish and Amphibians
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Toxics
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/toxics11040335
toxics-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sources, Fate, and Detection of Dust-Associated Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review

by
Usman M. Ismail
1,
Haitham Elnakar
1,2,* and
Muhammad Faizan Khan
3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
2
Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Construction and Building Materials, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
3
Alberta Environment and Protected Areas, Drinking Water and Wastewater, Regulatory Assurance Division, Government of Alberta, 2938 11 St. NE, Calgary, AB T2E 7L7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2023, 11(4), 335; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11040335
Submission received: 5 March 2023 / Revised: 23 March 2023 / Accepted: 30 March 2023 / Published: 31 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Emerging Contaminants)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The occurrence of sand and dust storms (SDSs) is essential for the geochemical cycling of nutrients; however, it is considered a meteorological hazard common to arid regions because of the adverse impacts that SDSs brings with them. One common implication of SDSs is the transport and disposition of aerosols coated with anthropogenic contaminants. Studies have reported the presence of such contaminants in desert dust; however, similar findings related to ubiquitous emerging contaminants, such as per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been relatively scarce in the literature. This article reviews and identifies the potential sources of dust-associated PFAS that can accumulate and spread across SDS-prone regions. Furthermore, PFAS exposure routes and their toxicity through bioaccumulation in rodents and mammals are discussed. The major challenge when dealing with emerging contaminants is their quantification and analysis from different environmental media, and these PFAS include known and unknown precursors that need to be quantified. Consequently, a review of various analytical methods capable of detecting different PFAS compounds embedded in various matrices is provided. This review will provide researchers with valuable information relevant to the presence, toxicity, and quantification of dust-associated PFAS to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

1. Introduction

Sand and dust storms (SDSs) are considered common meteorological hazards in areas with arid and semi-arid climates [1,2]. SDSs are accompanied by strong winds that lift large amounts of sand and dust, leading to visibility dropping to less than 1000 m. Blowing dust is less intense and causes visibility to reduce to a value between 1 and 10 km. When the visibility of a dust event is greater than 10 km, then the appropriate classification would be dust-in-suspension [1,3,4]. The adverse direct health implications of dust storms have been widely reported in different regions. A study by Chang et al. (2006) revealed that the number of visits to Shin Guang Memorial Hospital and National Taiwan University Hospital surged for three days after a severe dust storm, with children and cardiac patients as the major victims [5]. Inhalation of suspended dust can cause desert lung syndrome (silicosis) and trigger diseases such as bronchitis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and emphysema, while dermal contact can result in conjunctivitis and dermatological problems [6]. The transportation and subsequent deposition of dust have major implications for climate change and the functioning of urban societies. The transboundary nature of SDSs makes it possible for dust from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region to reach glaciers in Afghanistan, and once deposited, it induces a warming effect by reducing the albedo of glaciers [7]. African dust has been found in the Western Caribbean and Florida, with major implications for air quality and aerosol atmospheric loading [8].
One of the important, but scarcely studied, adverse environmental implications of SDS is aerosols coated by pollution originating from land-use changes and human-induced climate change. Figure 1 shows some of the key factors affecting storm erosion and the principal means of dust deposition. Anthropogenic aerosols can superimpose natural dust aerosols on dust storm transport routes, and they can be transferred several kilometers away [9]. It has been reported, for example, that arsenic and mercury have been detected in desert dust in downwind environments at concentrations higher than the regional crustal concentration [10]. The combined effect of these anthropogenic and dust aerosols may negatively influence downwind environments based on the frequency of exposure, the concentration and composition of particulates, and the health status of the receiving environment. Dust composition, accumulation, and potential consequences may vary due to weather conditions, traffic density, industrial activity, and proximity to mobile soil. There have been only rare studies about the characterization of falling dust in the Arabian Gulf region, mainly focused on reporting the pollutants within urban road dust, particularly trace metals [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. While these studies represent a great start to the scientific effort to understand the anthropogenic pollutants mixed with street dust, there is still a need to advance our understanding to include emerging contaminants and study the impact of SDSs on baseline pollution levels.

2. Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Properties

Among the dust-associated emerging anthropogenic contaminants, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are very persistent, with a half-life exceeding several decades [20]. The manufacturing and the use of PFAS, for a variety of purposes, started in the 1940s, and there is no consensus about the number of PFAS that have been produced, with 3000 PFAS reported as the smallest number [21]. Table 1 presents the chemical properties of some selected commonly used PFAS.
PFAS are very resistant to biological, chemical, and thermal degradation because of their strong carbon-fluorine bonds, and they can accumulate in the environment and ultimately bioaccumulate in living organisms [28,29]. It is important to note that several families and subfamilies of PFAS do exist, and the property of one PFAS may differ significantly from another in the length of the carbon chain, which is the major determinant of the chemical properties of PFAS. PFAS with at least seven carbon atom chains are considered long-chain PFAS, while those with fewer than seven carbon atom chains are considered short-chain PFAS [30]. The functional group of PFAS is also another important determinant of their properties [27]. While the use of long-chain and legacy PFAS, which are known to be more toxic and persistent, was slowly phased out in Europe and North America, the use of PFAS in less developed countries has not been prohibited. Furthermore, the production of PFAS precursors is on the rise as well [31,32].

3. Sources, Exposure Route, and Toxicity of Dust-Associated PFAS

3.1. Sources of Dust-Associated PFAS

PFAS are expected to accumulate in soil and potentially be picked up, transferred, and deposited during SDSs. To our knowledge, there are very limited studies available on the presence of PFAS in dust, runoff, and stormwater samples [33,34,35]. Particularly in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Gulf Region, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support the extent to which PFAS are released and transported from the paved or unpaved ground surface, where they have accumulated, to stormwater or another location. Consequently, it is essential to understand the industries, facilities, and products that significantly release PFAS into the environment, so we can better identify the appropriate mitigation and adaptation measures against PFAS exposure [36].

3.1.1. Firefighting Stations, Military Bases, and Aviation Sites

Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is a PFAS-containing firefighting foam used to quickly extinguish fire, specifically class B fires, which are petroleum fuel based and can occur at military and aviation sites [37]. Depending on the formulation, AFFF may contain diverse types of PFAS [38]. The concentrations of 17 different PFAS in the dust matrix of 49 fire stations located in Canada and the United States have been compared with the concentrations of the same PFAS in the dust collected from 184 homes in the same region [38]. The most prevalent PFAS found in the dust matrices of both homes and firefighting stations were fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and di-poly-fluoroalkyl phosphoric acid esters (diPAPs), with a median concentration of at least 100 ng/g. It was also found that PFOS and PFOA concentrations were significantly higher in fire stations’ dust, even though 8:2 FTOH was significantly higher in dust obtained from homes. PFAS flame retardants probably originating from AFFF were also detected in oil sands process-affected water (OSPW), produced by the surface-mining activities as the oil sands industry in Alberta, Canada [39]. This finding emphasizes the increased risk of such toxic materials leaching into the groundwater if left untreated [40]. Another study conducted in the United States on different environmental media showed that the concentration of PFOS was the highest at 10 active US Air Force installations [41]. These studies confirmed that fire stations, aviation sites, and military site dust are significant sources of the widespread legacy PFAS.

3.1.2. Fluorochemical Industry

The majority of global emissions of some specific PFAS is attributed to fluorochemical manufacturing sites, even though there are few of these sites around the world [42]. Releases from such facilities can impact a large population and have detrimental consequences for a vast geographical area. A study conducted by Hu et al. (2016) confirmed that there are only 16 fluorochemical manufacturing plants in the USA while Prevedouros et al. (2006) reported the existence of 33 fluoropolymer production plants worldwide, spread across North America, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, and India as of 2002 [43,44].

3.1.3. Indoor Dust and Landfills

The term indoor dust is used here to provide an umbrella for a variety of PFAS-containing products used in daily household, office, and business activities. PFAS have been detected in jackets, carpets, personal care products, building materials, cleansers, polishes, office desks, food contact materials, upholstery, impregnation agents, and cars [45,46,47,48]. A detailed review by Savvaides et al. (2021) outlined the types of PFAS associated with many of the items listed above [49]. For example, FTOHs, PFCAs, PAPs, and PFSAs are often used in food packaging, as they have good resistance to water and oil. While this study seeks to find a connection between SDSs and PFAS-associated dust, it should be noted that some of these items are used daily and disposed of in open areas, which may expose them to SDSs. Other items have a significantly longer life; however, at the end of their life, they are disposed of in landfills, making the landfill another source of dust-associated PFAS. Chen et al. (2020) estimated that, in 2017, PFAS accumulated in landfilled carpets amounted to about 180 tons, while in-use carpets accumulated about 60 tons [50]. The concentration of PFAS in indoor dust may vary significantly from one location to another depending on the country’s wealth and development status. According to a study conducted by Shoeib et al. (2016), countries with high development indices, such as the USA have the highest median concentration of PFOS + PFOA in home dust, all exceeding 300 ng/g [31]. However, countries with stringent regulations regarding the use and consumption of PFAS, such as Norway, have a high human development index coupled with a very low median concentration (<50 ng/g) of PFOS + PFOA.

3.1.4. Wastewater Treatment Plants

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) often discharge treated effluents or bypass untreated or partially treated wastewater into rivers that may serve as source water for a variety of reuse purposes [51,52,53,54]. A study conducted by Shigei et al. (2020) investigated the presence and concentration of 20 targeted PFAS in water resources within the catchment area of the Zarqa river and also the buildup of PFAS in soils and crops [55]. The point of interest here is that PFAS can accumulate in the soil matrix, especially the topsoil, as there is potential for it to be carried by wind, resulting in dermal or inhalation PFAS exposure during dust events. The first finding revealed that WWTP effluent (14–24 ng/L) has a higher concentration than the influent (10–15 ng/L), indicating PFAS poor removal. This finding signifies that the WWTP may act as a point source for PFAS in the environment. PFAS were detected in the soil matrix albeit in a generally low concentration. A similar trend was reported by Dalahmeh et al. in Uganda [56]. Sludge from WWTPs is used as fertilizer, and a study conducted by Borthakur et al. (2022) confirmed the presence of PFCA in biosolids obtained from WWTPs in the USA, Canada, Australia, and Spain [20,57].

3.1.5. Road Dust

Road dust is known to contain various types of contaminants that originate from vehicle exhaust emission, wear and tear of tires, litter, dust fall, accidental spills from vehicles transporting goods, biological debris, breakdown of particles from emission sources, and erosion as a result of water or wind from adjacent areas [58,59]. Several studies have confirmed that road dust contains contaminants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and metals [60,61]. In Saudi Arabia, numerous studies have confirmed the presence of heavy metals in road dust matrix, with a positive correlation with proximity to industrial sites that consume or generate trace metals [11,12,62,63]. However, the presence of PFAS in this dust matrix has not been investigated. A study conducted by Ahmadireskety et al. (2021) investigated the presence of 37 PFAS in street sweepings in the USA by collecting 117 sweeping samples and analyzing them [64]. More than 90% of the PFAS quantified were found to be perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their precursors, and in one site, 26 different PFAS were found; other studies confirmed the presence of PFAS in roads [65,66].

3.2. PFAS’ Exposure Route

There are several routes by which humans and other animals may be exposed to PFAS, with the oral route being the most common. This exposure could happen through the intake of drinking water contaminated with PFAS, eating food associated with PFAS-containing products, and consumption of animal meat and plants in which PFAS have bioaccumulated. Exposure through inhalation of dust-associated PFAS, volatilized PFAS, and dermal absorption have been recorded, albeit to a lesser degree of frequency. Infants are exposed through breastmilk and in utero exposure from mothers exposed to PFAS [67,68,69,70,71]. The mechanisms of transfer between PFAS in the air and dust are yet to be understood; however, it is imperative to try and reduce dust-associated exposure, especially as it is more common in children and infants, who are more likely to inhale resuspended dust in great quantities [49]. It is known that atmospheric particulate matter functions as a sink that houses atmospheric contaminants, and associated contaminants are brought to the earth’s surface via dry deposition [59,72]. In the MENA region, dust storms transport a significant amount of dust, which could pose a significant risk for adults and older people, who are likely to be outside during dust events. While data about the exposure of individuals or animals to PFAS in the MENA region are generally not available, studies have been conducted in other regions. For instance, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the presence of PFAS in the blood samples of 98% of all Americans [73,74,75]. Another study by Geisy and Kannan (2001) sought to determine the global distribution of perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) in wildlife by testing tissues and blood samples from mammals, fishes, reptiles, and birds in different countries [76]. Some selected findings from the study are reported as part of Table 2. Similarly, other studies have been conducted, albeit on a relatively smaller scale, and some of the significant findings are also reported in Table 2. The studies showed the ubiquitous nature of PFAS exposure, emphasizing the immediate need to advance hazard/exposure assessments for PFAS. Additionally, these findings highlight a gap in knowledge related to similar studies in ascertaining the exposure levels t associated with the population in developing countries, as in the case of the MENA region.

3.3. PFAS’ Toxicity

Research on potential human health risks due to PFAS exposure has mainly focused on the oral route, with limited data available on the health risks associated with dermal or inhalation exposure to PFAS [77]. Studies of health effects associated with PFAS exposure have mainly included long-chain perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and PFOS because short-chain PFAS are thought to be less likely to bioaccumulate, more biodegradable, and less toxic, even though there are limited toxicity data available to back up the claims [77]. Sunderland et al. (2019) reviewed several studies related to the health implications of exposure to PFAS and found there was a significant correlation between elevated PFAS exposure and dyslipidemia, a metabolic disorder related to lipid profiles, such as total cholesterol and triglycerides [48]. In some studies, metabolic diseases, such as heart disease, overweight, diabetes, and obesity, were associated with PFAS exposure, although there are inconsistencies related to the evidence supporting such claims. The carcinogenicity of PFAS, immunotoxicity, and neurodevelopment deficiency have also been investigated, with most of these studies conducted on animals, such as rodents. Translating the results to human exposure tends to be very challenging because one of the main toxicity mechanisms of PFAS is peroxisome proliferation expression, which differs between humans and rodents. Nevertheless, studies conducted on rodents have shown that exposure to PFAS can cause liver disease, immune issues, thyroid disease, and cancer, as well as adverse effects on fetuses during pregnancy [78,79]. For these reasons, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recently classified PFOA and PFOS as part of the fourth Contaminant Candidate List [77].
Table
Table 2. Concentrations of some selected PFAS in organs and tissues of animals.
Table 2. Concentrations of some selected PFAS in organs and tissues of animals.
ClassSpeciesLocationTissueNYearPFOSPFOSAPFOAPFHxSReference
MammalHumanGermanyBreast Milk5720060.028–0.309 [0.119]–––[80]
Gyor, Hungary131996/19970.096–0.639 [0.330]–––
USASerum14321999–200027.1–33.9 (30.3)–4.72–5.78 (5.22)1.92–2.41 (2.15)[81]
14321999–200027.1–33.9 (30.3)–4.72–5.78 (5.22)1.42–1.98 (1.67)
21202005–200616.0–18.2 (17.1)–3.48–4.42 (3.92)1.51–1.82 (1.66)
22332009–20108.13–10.7 (9.32)–2.81–3.36 (3.07)
19542013–20144.53–5.54 (5.01)–1.76–2.15 (1.94)0.996–1.18 (1.08)
19292017–20183.90–4.62 (4.25)–1.33–1.52 (1.42)
California, USASerum9620166.51<LOD1.410.767[82]
9920177.47<LOD1.691.29
Melon-Headed WhaleMiyazaki, Japanese coastLiver1219820.0053–0.0089 (0.0071)6.0–12.3 (8.8)––[76,83,84]
Ibaraki, Japanese coast212001/200217.8–117 (51.1)25.3–111 (65.8)––
Indo-Pacific Humpback DolphinSouth China102003–200726–693 (251)9.51–37.6 (18.7)0.243–8.32 (1.74)–
Finless Porpoises102003–200851.3–262 (151)0.307–7.82 (1.70)0.23–0.859 (0.33)–
California Sea LionCoastal California62001<35–49–––
Polar BearAlaska, USA17180–680 (350)–––
Bottlenose DolphinMediterranean Sea5170–430 (270)–––
MinkMidwestern USA18970–3680 (2630)–––
Ringed SealNorwegian ArcticPlasma185–14 (9)–––
BirdSea GullRishiri Island, HokkaidoLiver14199823–89 (53)–<19–[76,85]
Common CormorantSagami River, Kanagawa Prefecture81999170–650 (385)–<19–
Black Tailed GullKoreaLiver15200170–500 (170)–––
Double-Crested CormorantLake Winnipeg, CanadaEgg yolk4130–320 (210)–––
Common CormorantItalyLiver1233–470 (96)–––
Bald EagleMidwestern USAPlasma261–2570 (360)–––
FishBrown TroutMichigan waters, USAEggs3200149–75 (64)–––[76]
Blue-Fin TunaMediterranean SeaLiver821–87 (48)–––
CarpSaginaw Bay, Michigan, USAMuscle1060–300 (120)–––
ReptileYellow-Blotched Map TurtleMississippi, USALiver6200139–700 (190)–––
AmphibianGreen FrogsLake St. Clair, Michigan, USAPlasma520011–170 (72)–––[76]
Key: (mean concentrations), [median concentrations], PFOS = Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOSA = Perfluorooctanesulfonamide. Note: For solid samples, wet weight is reported in ng/g, while liquid samples are reported in ng/mL.

4. Analytical Methods for the Detection and Quantification of PFAS

Owing to the omnipresent nature of PFAS and the wide range of concentrations reported in the literature, the detection of PFAS has been an arduous task for researchers. Sample preparation, detection methods, analytical instruments, and detection limits are not always provided in detail and vary greatly among researchers and commercial laboratories around the world. Even though dust is our major concern, a detailed list of some of the analytical methods published in peer-reviewed journals for the detection of PFAS in various matrices has been compiled and is provided in Table 3. The purpose of Table 3 is to provide researchers with an overview of which instruments are capable of quantifying PFAS and their precursors from specific matrices and their detection limits. As shown in Table 3, PFAS have been identified extensively in different regions, including North America, Europe, China, and Australia. In these studies, PFAS were extracted from drinking water, wastewater, atmosphere, dust particulates, street sweeping, surface water, synthetic contaminated water/soils, sediments, contaminated soil, and groundwater from various locations, AFFF-impacted soil and groundwater, landfill and leachate, among other samples. In general, the pretreatment steps are based on the sample matrices but typically include solid phase extraction (SPE) with Oasis WAX, HLB, or Strata-X cartridges.
PFAS in water and soil samples are usually detected using liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy (LC-MS) or tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Similarly, high-performance or ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC or UHPLC) was also employed by many researchers, as shown in Table 3. In terms of mass spectrometry, the most commonly reported spectrometers for PFAS also included triple quadrupole (QqQ), quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF), and quadrupole-orbitrap in positive or negative electrospray ionization (ESI) modes [86,87,88,89]. Typically for atmospheric or dust samples, gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) equipped with electron impact (EI) [38], electron capture negative ion (ECNI) [90], and mass selector detector (MSD) [91] have been used by researchers. Despite these studies, researchers are constantly investigating new detection methods, as there might be still many unknown PFAS precursors in the environment. Usually, targeted analysis is performed to quantify known PFAS and their precursors. The targeted analysis includes methods that are only applicable to detect and measure known analytes in the matrix. The analytical standard for quantification already exists in targeted analysis. In contrast, non-targeted analysis includes methods that detect known and unknown analytes. Typically, high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is used for non-targeted analysis, as employed by [92] to predict the fate of new generations of PFAS. These instruments are capable of measuring both known and unknown analytes, and data can be stored in HRMS for analyzing new analytes later. Some of the new detection methods recently developed used particle-induced gamma ray emission spectroscopy (PIGE) [93,94] and fluorine nuclear magnetic resonance (19F-NMR) [95]. The limit of detection (LOD), the limit of quantification (LOQ), the method detection limit (MDL), and the method quantification limit (MQL) varied among samples from water, soil, and air/dust, as shown in Table 3.
Table
Table 3. Analytical methods used in the detection of PFAS (precursors of PFCAs, PFSAs, sulfonamide, and telomers) in various matrices.
Table 3. Analytical methods used in the detection of PFAS (precursors of PFCAs, PFSAs, sulfonamide, and telomers) in various matrices.
MatrixLocationTarget ApplicationDetection EquipmentDetection LimitReference
Dust
House and fire station dustUSA and CanadaPresence of PFAS in a fire station and house dustHPLC-ESI-MS/MS and GC/EI-MSMDL in ng/g dust for house and fire station dust: 6:2 diPAP = 0.48, 2.54; 8:2 diPAP = 10.63, 9.63; PFCAs = 0.06–15.80, 0.47–48.90; PFSAs = 0.20–22.28, 0.97–8.56; PFPA = 0.14, 1.2.[38]
Fire station dustMassachusetts, USAPresence of PFAS in a fire station and house dustPIGE spectroscopy for total fluorine; for targeted analysis, LC-MS/MSMDL for total fluorine was 25 µg/g. PFAS MDLS ranged from 0.00242 to 18.1 ng/g[94]
College dustUSAPFAS in college dustGC–ECNI/MS and GC–EI/MS or by LC–MS/MSLOQ in ng/g: PFCAs = 20, PFSAs = 20[90]
House dustBelgium, Italy and SpainPFAS in house dust and human exposure to PFASHPLC-MS/MSLOQ in ng/g: PFCAs = 0.02–0.27; PFSAs = 0.003–0.57.[96]
Indoor dust from urban, industrial, and e-waste dismantling areasGuangdong Province, ChinaDetection of PFAS in indoor dust of different indoor facilitiesHPLC-MS/MS LOQ of analytes ranged from 0.02–0.50 ng/mL (liquid extracts were used for detection limit quantification).[97]
Street sweepingsAcross the USADetection of PFAS in street sweepingsUHPLC-MS/MSMDL, MQL in ng/g dust: PFCAs = 0.01–0.02, 0.01–0.69; PFSAs = 0.01–0.13, 0.03–0.42; PFPAs = 0.03–0.12, 0.10–0.41; HFPO-DA = 0.41, 1.37; FHEA = 0.08, 0.26; FOEA = 0.04, 0.13; FOUEA = 0.01, 0.05; FDUEA = 0.01, 0.03; N-6:6 PFPi = 0.01, 0.04; diSAmPAP = 0.04, 0.12; EtFHxSE (SYN 2) = 0.40, 1.33.[64]
Dust from university buildingsUSATo confirm the implementation of “healthier material” manufactured without PFAS in buildings HPLC-ESI-MS/MSMQL, MDL in ng/g: PFCAs = 0.05–9.19, 0.02–2.76; PFSAs = 0.05–15.06, 0.02–4.52; NaDONA = 0.10, 0.03.[98]
Soil and Groundwater
Artificially contaminated soilN/ASoil remediation LC-TQMSIDL = 0.0001 mg/L(Soil slurry was analyzed)[99]
Soil sampleGermanyThe optimized fast and simple extraction method for PFASHR–CS–GFMAS-[100]
AFFF-impacted soilUSANew methods for PFAS detection in soilLC-QTOF-MS-[89]
Soil samples near industrial areasShifang City, ChinaDetermination of PFAS in soilLC-MS/MS Qtrap with negative ion ESILODs, LOQs in ng/g: PFCAs = 0.001–0.006, 0.004–0.018; PFSAs = 0.001–0.01, 0.004–0.034[101]
Surface soilNew Jersey, USAPredicting the fate of new generation PFASHRUPLC-QtoF MS in –ve ESI for non-targeted analysis; LC-MS/MS for targeted analysis.-[92]
Soil and groundwater samplesMilitary bases in Pennsylvania and Michigan impacted by AFFFSoil and groundwater remediation-electron beam technologyLC-MS/MSDetection limits ranged from 0.3 ng/g dry weight to 1.2 ng/g dry weight.[102]
Groundwater impacted by AFFF useWillow Grove, Pennsylvania, USATreatment of contaminated groundwaterLC-MS/MS QTOF or QTRAPLOD between 0.1 To 10 ng/L, MDL between 5000 to 10,000 ng/L[103]
Landfill leachateQueensland, AustraliaFoam-fractionation (water treatment)HPLC-MS/MS PFCAs and PFSAs LOD = 0.02–0.05 µg/L, PFCAs and PFSAs LOQ = 0.08–0.17 µg/L, 6:2 FTS LOD = 0.03 µg/L, 6:2 FTS LOQ = 0.1 µg/L; PFECHS LOD = 0.03 µg/L, PFECHS LOQ 0.11 µg/L.[86]
Synthetic soils including clay and sandN/ATreatment of contaminated soil pyrolysis and thermal air degradationUPLC. Thermal desorption−pyrolysis (TD−Pyr) connected to a GC−MS to detect products of PFOA and PFOSThe limits of detection (S/N = 3) are 7 nmol/L for PFBA and PFPeA, 2 nmol/L for PFSAs, 5 nmol/L for other anionic PFAS, and 5 nmol/L for cationic and zwitterionic PFAS (Liquid extracts were used for detection limit quantification).[104]
Soil samples near industrial areas, airports, landfills, and fire stationsShanghai, ChinaDetection of PFAS contamination and distributionLC-MS equipped with C18 columnMDL, MQL in µg/kg (dry weight): PFPrA = 0.05, 0.15; PFCAs = 0.02–0.1, 0.01–0.3; PFSAs = 0.003–0.03, 0.01–0.10; HFPO-DA = 0.003, 0.01.[105]
Biosolid extract and clean extractUSANew PFAS detection method19F-NMR spectroscopyA detection limit of 50 nM (25 µg/L for PFOS) was achieved in groundwater samples[95]
AFFF impacted groundwaterColorado, USWater treatment-NF and UV-sulfite treatment trainLC-QtoF-MSLOQ of groundwater in ng/L: PFCAs = 0.7; PFSAs = 0.4–0.7; FhxSA = 0.4, 6:2 FTS = 0.7.[106]
Water
WaterN/AWater treatment-electro oxidationLC-MS/MSLOD 1.0 ng/L, LOQ 3.0–4.0 ng/L[107]
River waterPretoria, South AfricaA new extraction method for PFAS in waterHPLC-DAD and UHPLC-MS/MS LOD and LOQ for HPLC in ng/L = 0.3–0.66, 1.0–2.2; LOD and LOQ for UHPLC in ng/L = 0.011–0.04, 0.037–0.12[108]
Model and industrial wastewaterN/AWater treatment-electrochemical oxidationLC-MS/MS with negative ESIMRL is 2 ng/L for all samples[109]
Simulated waterN/AWater treatment-UV photo-catalysisHPLC-MS equipped with MicroToF MSPFOA = 1 mg/L, fluoride = 0.1 mg/L, HPLC ToF = 0.01 mg/L[110]
Ultrapure water and river waterGrand River water, CanadaDrinking water treatment-ion-exchangeGC/MSMDL, LOQ for ultrapure water in ng/L = 11–23, 35–74; MDL, LOQ for river water in ng/L = 16–49, 52–157.[111]
Surface waterAlabama, USASpatial distribution of PFAS in surface waterUHPLC-MS/MS equipped with ESILOD in ng/L: PFCAs = 0.21–0.72; PFSAs = 0.69–1.27; HFPO-DA = 0.55; ADONA = 0.48; PF4OpeA = 0.91; PF5OhxA = 0.75; 3,6-OPFHpA = 0.69[112]
Drinking waterChinaDrinking water treatment, adsorptionHPLC-TQ MSPFCAs LOD = 0.01–0.1 ng/L, PFCAs LOQ = 0.05–0.1 ng/L, PFSAs LOD = 0.02–0.05 ng/L, PFSAs LOQ = 0.05–0.12 ng/L[87]
Drinking water, surface water, and wastewaterThessaloniki WTP, GreecePFAS analysis technique and workflowOrbitrap Q ExactiveTM Focus equipped with HESI-IIMQL in ng/L. IDL and IQL in µg/L PFSAs = 0.0011–0.2063, 0.02–0.17, 0.02–0.56; PFCAs = 0.0024–0.2605, 0.02–0.22, 0.05–0.71.[113]
Drinking water samplesMultiple locations in USANew extraction method for PFAS in waterHPLC-MS/MS LOD in ng/L: PFCAs = 0.08–0.30; PFSAs = 0.05–0.30.[114]
Surface waterNetherlandsDetermination of PFAS in surface waters and validation of new analytical methodsUHPLC-MS/MS connected to a Sciex Qtrap 5500I-LOD = 0.01–0.09 ng/mL; I-LOQ = 0.03–0.30 ng/mL; MDL = 0.02–0.75 ng/L; MQL = 0.07–2.55 ng/L.[115]
Municipal wastewater samplesNorthern New Jersey, USARapid analytical method for PFAS quantificationHPLC-TQMS and Nano-ESI-HRMSLODs in ng/L first for Nano-ESI HRMS and then for HPLC-TQMS: PFSAs = 4.2–25.1, 1.1–135.6; PFCAs = 3.2–36.2, 6.7–87.8; GenX = 6.4, 96.6[116]
Surface waterPoyang Lake, ChinaDistribution, partitioning behavior, and flux of PFASUPLC TQ in negative ESI MQL, MDL in pg/L: PFCAs = 0.41–18, 0.81–39; PFSAs = 1.4–33, 2.0–35; 6:2 Cl-PFESA = 1.8, 15, 8:2 Cl-PFESA = 1.0, 3.6; OBS = 2.0, 92; PF4OpeA = 6.8, 3.1; PF5OhxA = 3.0, 2.7; NaDONA = 3.0, 4.6; PFEESA = 0.94, n.d; HFPO-DA 6.9, 7.0, HFPO-TA = 11, 71[117]
AFFF-impacted stormwaterUSAStormwater treatment-photocatalysisLC-QtoF-MS. ICS-90 for fluoride; UHPLC for the analyteMDL in ng/L for column: PFCAs = 400–950; PFSAs = 100–250.[118]
Surface and tap watersBiscayne Bay, USAPresence of PFAS in waterLC-MS/MS system equipped with AJS ESI sourceMDL, IQL in ng/L: PFCAs = 0.01–1.99, 0.26–205; PFSAs = 0.01–0.45, 0.51–97.3; Adona = 0.02, 0.98; GenX = 0.02, 5.90; PFOUDS = 0.36, 66.00.[119]
Wastewater treatment plant influentSouth-East Queensland, AustraliaThe trend of PFAS in WWTP influentHPLC-MS/MS using TurboIonSpray® probePFCAs = 0.27–8.7; PFSAs = 0.54–32.0; ADONA = 1.0, PFECHS = 0.47, 6:2FTAB = 5.4, 8-Cl-PFOS = 1.0, PFOPA = 1.8.[120]
Drinking water sourceTianjin City, ChinaDetection of PFAS in lakes.HPLC-MS/MS in negative ESI modeLOD, LOQ in ng/L: PFCAs = 0.02–0.14, 0.05–0.47; PFSAs = 0.00–0.03, 0.01–0.11; 8:2Cl-PFESA = 0.00, 0.01; 6:2Cl-PFESA = 0.00, 0.01; PFECHS = 0.00, 0.01; HFPO-DA = 0.08, 0.28.[121]
Spiked synthetic tap water University of Notre Dame, USAA new method for PFAS screeningPIGE spectroscopyLOD in ppt F, LOD in ppt analyte, HFPO-DA = 48.8, 77.1; PFSAs = 31.5–64.7, 34.6–59.4; PFCAs = 31.6–40, 45.9–58.8.[93]
Air
Air samples and carpetsSouthern Rhode Island, USATo study the partitioning of volatile PFAS between air, dust, and carpetGC-MSD operating in positive chemical ionization mode using selected ion monitoringLOQ in (ng/uL): PFCAs = 0.01–0.07; PFSAs = 0.002–0.20; 8:2 FTAcr = 0.01, 10:2 FTAcr = 0.02.[91]
Air matrix42 developing countriesMonitoring of air qualityLC–MS/MS with negative ESI modeLOQ was the lowest point in the calibration curve since target compounds were not detected.[122]
Fine airborne particulate matter (PM2.5)Dublin and Enniscorthy, IrelandScreening of atmospheric PMOn-line SPE LC-HRMSLOD, LOQ in pg/mL: PFCAs = 0.17–0.51, 0.58–1.69; PFSAs = 0.08–0.17, 0.26–0.58. [123]
AtmosphereJapanDetection of PFAS in the atmosphereCombustion ion chromatography (CIC), HPIC, ILC-TQ MS with negative ESI and GCMSIDL in pg, LOQ in pg, LOQ in pg/m3: PFSAs = 0.003–3.67, 1.77–500, 0.033–9.43; PFCAs = 0.001–5.88, 1.89–500, 0.036–18.9; TFA = 0.836,200, 3.77; FTIs = 0.039–4.72, 50–1000, 0.943–18.9; PFDeI = 1.20, 250, 4.72, PFDoI = 1.72, 250, 4.72 PFBuDil = 0.103, 50.0, 0.943, PFHxDil = 0.246, 50.0, 0.943, PFODil = 1.07, 250, 4.7; 6:2 Cl-PFESA = 0.005, 1.86, 0.035, HFPO-DA = 0.007, 2.00, 0.038[124]
KEY: MDL = method detection limit, MQL = method quantification limit, LOD = limit of detection, LOQ = limit of quantification, IDL = instrument detection, IQL = instrument quantification limit, MRL = method reporting limit, I-LOD = instrument limit of detection, I-LOQ = instrument limit of quantification. Abbreviations of the different precursors detected can be found in the Supplementary Materials.

5. Conclusions

SDSs are naturally occurring phenomena peculiar to arid and semi-arid regions. They are transboundary in nature, and as such, they are important for the global biogeochemical cycling of nutrients, which is essential for agriculture and the fertilization of oceans. However, with climate change leading to extensive droughts and loss of vegetation in many regions, the frequency at which they occur may significantly change which will result in negative consequences significantly outweighing their positive implications. SDSs may pick up contaminants along their journey, which will lead to human exposure through inhalation or dermal contact. Some contaminants, such as heavy metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have been well studied, and their presence in the dust of different regions has been confirmed. However, there are emerging contaminants such as PFAS, the presence of which in the dust matrix has only been scarcely studied. PFAS are a group of more than 3000 persistent fluorinated organic compounds with a half-life exceeding several decades. Because of their specific characteristics, they are used in various applications; hence, they have numerous dust-associated sources in the environment, including firefighting stations, military bases, indoor dust, the atmosphere, landfills, and water and wastewater treatment plants. The health risks associated with PFAS exposure are yet to be fully understood; however, several studies conducted on rodents have indicated carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, and the potential for PFAS to cause neurodevelopmental disorders. The above uncertainties make the presence of PFAS in the dust matrix worth exploring and make it more of a concern, especially in arid and semi-arid regions. However, it must be noted that the major challenge when dealing with PFAS contamination is the lack of consensus about standard analytical techniques and sample preparation procedures. This review provided a summary of analytical instruments and their detection limits used to quantify different PFAS and their precursors from various environmental media. More studies are recommended to develop new PFAS detection methods to curb PFAS exposure effectively, especially in matrices considered complex, such as SDS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics11040335/s1. Table S1: Literature review of the analytical methods used in the detection of PFAS in various matrices, including the name of the specific PFAS tested.

Author Contributions

U.M.I.: writing—original draft preparation; H.E.: conceptualization; supervision, funding acquisition, writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing; M.F.K.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The second author at KFUPM acknowledges the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals and the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Construction and Building Materials (Project Number: INCB2308) for this publication.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were collected or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The first author, Usman M. Ismail, acknowledges that the initial work on this manuscript was part of his term project in CE404: Climate Engineering, taught at KFUPM by the second author (Haitham Elnakar), in Fall 2022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Middleton, N.J. REVIEW Dust Storms in the Middle East. J. Arid Environ. 1986, 10, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cao, H.; Amiraslani, F.; Liu, J.; Zhou, N. Identification of Dust Storm Source Areas in West Asia Using Multiple Environmental Datasets. Sci. Total. Environ. 2015, 502, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shao, Y.; Dong, C.H. A Review on East Asian Dust Storm Climate, Modelling and Monitoring. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2006, 52, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al-Dousari, A.; Doronzo, D.; Ahmed, M. Types, Indications and Impact Evaluation of Sand and Dust Storms Trajectories in the Arabian Gulf. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chang, C.-C.; Lee, I.-M.; Tsai, S.-S.; Yang, C.-Y. Correlation of Asian Dust Storm Events with Daily Clinic Visits for Allergic Rhinitis in Taipei, Taiwan. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2006, 69, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Goudie, A.S. Desert Dust and Human Health Disorders. Environ. Int. 2014, 63, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. APDIM. Sand and Dust Storms Risk Assessment in Asia and the Pacific. Tehran. 2021. Available online: https://apdim.unescap.org/knowledge-hub/sand-and-dust-storms-risk-assessment-asia-and-pacific (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  8. Prospero, J.M.; Mayol-Bracero, O.L. Understanding the Transport and Impact of African Dust on the Caribbean Basin. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2013, 94, 1329–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abbasi, S.; Rezaei, M.; Ahmadi, F.; Turner, A. Atmospheric Transport of Microplastics during a Dust Storm. Chemosphere 2022, 292, 133456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Holmes, C.W.; Miller, R. Atmospherically Transported Elements and Deposition in the Southeastern United States: Local or Transoceanic? Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 1189–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Alharbi, B.H.; Pasha, M.J.; Alotaibi, M.D.; Alduwais, A.K.; Al-Shamsi, M.A.S. Contamination and Risk Levels of Metals Associated with Urban Street Dust in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 18475–18487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Alghamdi, A.G.; EL-Saeid, M.H.; Alzahrani, A.J.; Ibrahim, H.M. Heavy Metal Pollution and Associated Health Risk Assessment of Urban Dust in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khoder, M.I.; al Ghamdi, M.A.; Shiboob, M.H. Heavy Metal Distribution in Street Dust of Urban and Industrial Areas in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. JKAU Met. Env. Arid Land Agric. Sci. 2012, 23, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Idris, A.M.; Said, T.O.; Brima, E.I.; Sahlabji, T.; Alghamdi, M.M.; El-Zahhar, A.A.; Arshad, M.; el Nemr, A.M. Assessment of Contents of Selected Heavy Metals in Street Dust from Khamees-Mushait City, Saudi Arabia, Using Multivariate Statistical Analysis, GIS Mapping, Geochemical Indices and Health Risk. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 6059–6069. [Google Scholar]
  15. Suleman, N.M.; Mohammad, I.A.; Almesned, S.S.; Aljaghwani, A.A. Measurements of Some Trace Elements in Street Dust in Zilfi Province at Saudi Arabia Using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometer. World Environ. 2012, 2, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Suleman, N.M.; Mohammad, I.A.; Almesned, S.S.; Aljaghwani, A.A. Some Trace Elements in Zilfi Streets Dust. Am. J. Chem. 2013, 2013, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ahmed, K.O.; Ai-Swaidan, H.M. Lead and Cadmium in Urban Dust of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Sci. Total. Environ. 1993, 136, 205–210. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ahmed, K.O.; Ai-Swaidan, H.M.; Davies, B.E. Simultaneous Elemental Analysis in Dust of the City of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia by Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP/MS). Sci. Total Environ. 1993, 138, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Modaihsh, A.S.; Mahjou, M.O. Falling Dust Characteristics in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia During Winter Months. APCBEE Procedia 2013, 5, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borthakur, A.; Leonard, J.; Koutnik, V.S.; Ravi, S.; Mohanty, S.K. Inhalation Risks of Wind-Blown Dust from Biosolid-Applied Agricultural Lands: Are They Enriched with Microplastics and PFAS? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2022, 25, 100309. [Google Scholar]
  21. 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] [PubMed]
  22. ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. 2021. Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  23. Kim, M.; Li, L.Y.; Grace, J.R.; Yue, C. Selecting Reliable Physicochemical Properties of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Based on Molecular Descriptors. Environ. Pollut. 2015, 196, 462–472. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Zhang, M.; Yamada, K.; Bourguet, S.; Guelfo, J.; Suuberg, E.M. Vapor Pressure of Nine Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Determined Using the Knudsen Effusion Method. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2020, 65, 2332–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Krusic, P.J.; Marchione, A.A.; Davidson, F.; Kaiser, M.A.; Kao, C.P.C.; Richardson, R.E.; Botelho, M.; Waterland, R.L.; Buck, R.C. Vapor Pressure and Intramolecular Hydrogen Bonding in Fluorotelomer Alcohols. J. Phys. Chem. A 2005, 109, 6232–6241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. USEPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard|US EPA. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/comptox-chemicals-dashboard (accessed on 9 February 2023).
  27. Wang, Z.; MacLeod, M.; Cousins, I.T.; Scheringer, M.; Hungerbühler, K. Using COSMOtherm to Predict Physicochemical Properties of Poly- and Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFASs). Environ. Chem. 2011, 8, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borg, D.; Håkansson, H.; Institutet, K. Environmental and Health Risk Assessment of Perfluoroalkylated and Polyfluoroalkylated Substances (PFASs) in Sweden. 2012. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:770762/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  29. 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.J. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins. Integr. Environ. Assess Manag. 2011, 7, 513–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bergström, S. Transport of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Soil and Groundwater in Uppsala, Sweden. 2014. Available online: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/7392/18/bergstrom_s_141008.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  31. 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] [PubMed]
  32. D’Eon, J.C.; Hurley, M.D.; Wallington, T.J.; Mabury, S.A. Atmospheric Chemistry of N-Methyl Perfluorobutane Sulfonamidoethanol, C4F9SO2N(CH3)CH2CH 2OH: Kinetics and Mechanism of Reaction with OH. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1862–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kitahara, K.I.; Nakata, H. Plastic Additives as Tracers of Microplastic Sources in Japanese Road Dusts. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 736, 139694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Monira, S.; Bhuiyan, M.A.; Haque, N.; Shah, K.; Roychand, R.; Hai, F.I.; Pramanik, B.K. Understanding the Fate and Control of Road Dust-Associated Microplastics in Stormwater. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 152, 47–57. [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Brien, S.; Okoffo, E.D.; Rauert, C.; O’Brien, J.W.; Ribeiro, F.; Burrows, S.D.; Toapanta, T.; Wang, X.; Thomas, K.V. Quantification of Selected Microplastics in Australian Urban Road Dust. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 416, 125811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Salvatore, D.; Mok, K.; Garrett, K.K.; Poudrier, G.; Brown, P.; Birnbaum, L.S.; Goldenman, G.; Miller, M.F.; Patton, S.; Poehlein, M.; et al. Presumptive Contamination: A New Approach to PFAS Contamination Based on Likely Sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2022, 9, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rotander, A.; Toms, L.M.L.; Aylward, L.; Kay, M.; Mueller, J.F. Elevated Levels of PFOS and PFHxS in Firefighters Exposed to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). Environ. Int. 2015, 82, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hall, S.M.; Patton, S.; Petreas, M.; Zhang, S.; Phillips, A.L.; Hoffman, K.; Stapleton, H.M. Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Dust Collected from Residential Homes and Fire Stations in North America. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 14558–14567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mark Hewitt, L.; Roy, J.W.; Rowland, S.J.; Bickerton, G.; DeSilva, A.V.; Headley, J.B.; Milestone, C.G.; Scarlett, A.; Brown, S.; Spencer, C.; et al. Advances in Distinguishing Groundwater Influenced by Oil Sands Process-Affected Water (OSPW) from Natural Bitumen-Influenced Groundwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 1522–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khan, M.F.; Elnakar, H. Treatment of Oil Sands’ Mature Fine Tailings Using Advanced Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) and Wet Air Peroxide Oxidation (WAPO). Catalysts 2022, 12, 1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anderson, R.H.; Long, G.C.; Porter, R.C.; Anderson, J.K. Occurrence of Select Perfluoroalkyl Substances at U.S. Air Force Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Release Sites Other than Fire-Training Areas: Field-Validation of Critical Fate and Transport Properties. Chemosphere 2016, 150, 678–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. de Silva, A.O.; Armitage, J.M.; Bruton, T.A.; Dassuncao, C.; Heiger-Bernays, W.; Hu, X.C.; Kärrman, A.; Kelly, B.; Ng, C.; Robuck, A.; et al. PFAS Exposure Pathways for Humans and Wildlife: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Key Gaps in Understanding. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2021, 40, 631–657. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Hu, X.C.; Andrews, D.Q.; Lindstrom, A.B.; Bruton, T.A.; Schaider, L.A.; Grandjean, P.; Lohmann, R.; Carignan, C.C.; Blum, A.; Balan, S.A.; et al. Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. Herzke, D.; Olsson, E.; Posner, S. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Consumer Products in Norway—A Pilot Study. Chemosphere 2012, 88, 980–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yuan, G.; Peng, H.; Huang, C.; Hu, J. Ubiquitous Occurrence of Fluorotelomer Alcohols in Eco-Friendly Paper-Made Food-Contact Materials and Their Implication for Human Exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. 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. 2019, 29, 131–147. [Google Scholar]
  49. Savvaides, T.; Koelmel, J.P.; Zhou, Y.; Lin, E.Z.; Stelben, P.; Aristizabal-Henao, J.J.; Bowden, J.A.; Godri Pollitt, K.J. Prevalence and Implications of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Settled Dust. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2021, 8, 323–335. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chen, J.; Tang, L.; Tang, L.; Chen, W.Q.; Chen, W.Q.; Peaslee, G.F.; Jiang, D. Flows, Stock, and Emissions of Poly-and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in California Carpet in 2000–2030 under Different Scenarios. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 6908–6918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Elnakar, H. Disinfection and Antimicrobial Processes. Water Environ. Res. 2020, 92, 1625–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Elnakar, H.; Buchanan, I. Treatment of Bypass Wastewater Using Novel Integrated Potassium Ferrate(VI) and Iron Electrocoagulation System. J. Environ. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Elnakar, H.; Buchanan, I. Treatment of Bypass Wastewater Using Potassium Ferrate(VI): Assessing the Role of Mixing. Environ. Technol. 2019, 41, 3354–3362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Elnakar, H.; Buchanan, I. Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand Removal from Bypass Wastewater Using Iron Electrocoagulation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 706, 136076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shigei, M.; Ahren, L.; Hazaymeh, A.; Dalahmeh, S.S. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water and Soil in Wastewater-Irrigated Farmland in Jordan. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 716, 137057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dalahmeh, S.; Tirgani, S.; Komakech, A.J.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Ahrens, L. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Water, Soil and Plants in Wetlands and Agricultural Areas in Kampala, Uganda. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 631–632, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Armstrong, D.L.; Lozano, N.; Rice, C.P.; Ramirez, M.; Torrents, A. Temporal Trends of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Limed Biosolids from a Large Municipal Water Resource Recovery Facility. J Environ Manag. 2016, 165, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Egami, R.T.; Frazier, C.A.; Lu, Z.; Goodrich, A.; Bird, A. Evaluation of Regenerative-Air Vacuum Street Sweeping on Geological Contributions to Pm10. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 1990, 40, 1134–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sabin, L.D.; Hee Lim, J.; Teresa Venezia, M.; Winer, A.M.; Schiff, K.C.; Stolzenbach, K.D. Dry Deposition and Resuspension of Particle-Associated Metals near a Freeway in Los Angeles. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 7528–7538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Azah, E.; Kim, H.; Townsend, T. Assessment of Direct Exposure and Leaching Risk from PAHs in Roadway and Stormwater System Residuals. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 609, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chrysikou, L.P.; Gemenetzis, P.G.; Samara, C.A. Wintertime Size Distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) in the Urban Environment: Street- vs. Rooftop-Level Measurements. Atmos Environ 2009, 43, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shabbaj, I.I.; Alghamdi, M.A.; Shamy, M.; Hassan, S.K.; Alsharif, M.M.; Khoder, M.I. Risk Assessment and Implication of Human Exposure to Road Dust Heavy Metals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 15, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Harb, M.K.; Ebqa’ai, M.; Al-rashidi, A.; Alaziqi, B.H.; Al Rashdi, M.S.; Ibrahim, B. Investigation of Selected Heavy Metals in Street and House Dust from Al-Qunfudah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 74, 1755–1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ahmadireskety, A.; da Silva, B.F.; Robey, N.M.; Douglas, T.E.; Aufmuth, J.; Solo-Gabriele, H.M.; Yost, R.A.; Townsend, T.G.; Bowden, J.A. Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Street Sweepings. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 6069–6077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pramanik, B.K.; Roychand, R.; Monira, S.; Bhuiyan, M.; Jegatheesan, V. Fate of Road-Dust Associated Microplastics and per- and Polyfluorinated Substances in Stormwater. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 144, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Murakami, M.; Takada, H. Perfluorinated Surfactants (PFSs) in Size-Fractionated Street Dust in Tokyo. Chemosphere 2008, 73, 1172–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. McGoldrick, D.J.; Murphy, E.W. Concentration and Distribution of Contaminants in Lake Trout and Walleye from the Laurentian Great Lakes (2008–2012). Environ. Pollut. 2016, 217, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Franko, J.; Meade, B.J.; Frasch, H.F.; Barbero, A.M.; Anderson, S.E. Dermal Penetration Potential of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human and Mouse Skin. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2012, 75, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ghisi, R.; Vamerali, T.; Manzetti, S. Accumulation of Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) in Agricultural Plants: A Review. Environ. Res. 2019, 169, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Trudel, D.; Horowitz, L.; Wormuth, M.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I.T.; Hungerbühler, K. Estimating Consumer Exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fromme, H.; Tittlemier, S.A.; Völkel, W.; Wilhelm, M.; Twardella, D. Perfluorinated Compounds—Exposure Assessment for the General Population in Western Countries. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2009, 212, 239–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yao, Y.; Sun, H.; Gan, Z.; Hu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Chang, S.; Zhou, Q. Nationwide Distribution of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Outdoor Dust in Mainland China from Eastern to Western Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3676–3685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lewis, R.C.; Johns, L.E.; Meeker, J.D. Serum Biomarkers of Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Relation to Serum Testosterone and Measures of Thyroid Function among Adults and Adolescents from NHANES 2011–2012. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6098–6114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. CDC. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 2015. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/fourthreport_updatedtables_feb2015.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  75. Calafat, A.M.; Wong, L.Y.; Kuklenyik, Z.; Reidy, J.A.; Needham, L.L. Polyfluoroalkyl Chemicals in the U.S. Population: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004 and Comparisons with NHANES 1999–2000. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 1596–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Giesy, J.P.; Kannan, K. Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 1339–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. USEPA EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan. 2019. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  78. USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  79. USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  80. Völkel, W.; Genzel-Boroviczény, O.; Demmelmair, H.; Gebauer, C.; Koletzko, B.; Twardella, D.; Raab, U.; Fromme, H. Perfluorooctane Sulphonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human Breast Milk: Results of a Pilot Study. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2008, 211, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. ATSDR National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Surfactants. 2017. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/fourthreport_updatedtables_volume1_jan2017.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  82. Biomonitoring California Results for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)|Measuring Chemicals in Californians. Available online: https://biomonitoring.ca.gov/results/chemical/2183 (accessed on 21 March 2023).
  83. Hart, K.; Kannan, K.; Isobe, T.; Takahashi, S.; Yamada, T.K.; Miyazaki, N.; Tanabe, S. Time Trends and Transplacental Transfer of Perfluorinated Compounds in Melon-Headed Whales Stranded along the Japanese Coast in 1982, 2001/2002, and 2006. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 7132–7137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Yeung, L.W.Y.; Miyake, Y.; Wang, Y.; Taniyasu, S.; Yamashita, N.; Lam, P.K.S. Total Fluorine, Extractable Organic Fluorine, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate and Other Related Fluorochemicals in Liver of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins (Sousa Chinensis) and Finless Porpoises (Neophocaena Phocaenoides) from South China. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Kannan, K.; Choi, J.-W.; Iseki, N.; Senthilkumar, K.; Kim, D.H.; Masunaga, S.; Giesy, J.P. Concentrations of Perfluorinated Acids in Livers of Birds from Japan and Korea. Chemosphere 2002, 49, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Vo, P.H.N.; Buckley, T.; Xu, X.; Nguyen, T.M.H.; Rudolph, V.; Shukla, P. Foam Fractionation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Landfill Leachate Using Different Cosurfactants. Chemosphere 2023, 310, 136869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Chen, R.; Huang, X.; Li, G.; Yu, Y.; Shi, B. Performance of In-Service Granular Activated Carbon for Perfluoroalkyl Substances Removal under Changing Water Quality Conditions. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 848, 157723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Dixit, F.; Munoz, G.; Mirzaei, M.; Barbeau, B.; Liu, J.; Duy, S.V.; Sauvé, S.; Kandasubramanian, B.; Mohseni, M. Removal of Zwitterionic PFAS by MXenes: Comparisons with Anionic, Nonionic, and PFAS-Specific Resins. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 6212–6222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Shojaei, M.; Kumar, N.; Guelfo, J.L. An Integrated Approach for Determination of Total Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 14517–14527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Schildroth, S.; Rodgers, K.M.; Strynar, M.; McCord, J.; Poma, G.; Covaci, A.; Dodson, R.E. Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Persistent Chemical Mixtures in Dust from U.S. Colleges. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Morales-Mcdevitt, M.E.; Becanova, J.; Blum, A.; Bruton, T.A.; Vojta, S.; Woodward, M.; Lohmann, R. The Air That We Breathe: Neutral and Volatile PFAS in Indoor Air. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2021, 8, 897–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Evich, M.G.; Davis, M.; Weber, E.J.; Tebes-Stevens, C.; Acrey, B.; Henderson, W.M.; Goodrow, S.; Bergman, E.; Washington, J.W. Environmental Fate of Cl-PFPECAs: Predicting the Formation of PFAS Transformation Products in New Jersey Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 7779–7788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Peaslee, G.F.; Tighe, M.; Jin, Y.; Whitehead, H.D.; Hayes, K.; Lieberman, M.; Pannu, M.; Plumlee, M.H. Screening for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water with Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission Spectroscopy. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1, 2477–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Young, A.S.; Sparer-Fine, E.H.; Pickard, H.M.; Sunderland, E.M.; Peaslee, G.F.; Allen, J.G. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Total Fluorine in Fire Station Dust. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2021, 31, 930–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Camdzic, D.; Dickman, R.A.; Aga, D.S. Total and Class-Specific Analysis of per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Environmental Samples Using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 2021, 2, 100023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. de la Torre, A.; Navarro, I.; Sanz, P.; Mártinez, M. de los Á. Occurrence and Human Exposure Assessment of Perfluorinated Substances in House Dust from Three European Countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 685, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Zhang, B.; He, Y.; Huang, Y.; Hong, D.; Yao, Y.; Wang, L.; Sun, W.; Yang, B.; Huang, X.; Song, S.; et al. Novel and Legacy Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Indoor Dust from Urban, Industrial, and e-Waste Dismantling Areas: The Emergence of PFAS Alternatives in China. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Young, A.S.; Pickard, H.M.; Sunderland, E.M.; Allen, J.G. Organic Fluorine as an Indicator of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Dust from Buildings with Healthier versus Conventional Materials. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 17090–17099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Kewalramani, J.A.; Wang, B.; Marsh, R.W.; Meegoda, J.N.; Rodriguez Freire, L. Coupled High and Low-Frequency Ultrasound Remediation of PFAS-Contaminated Soils. Ultrason. Sonochem 2022, 88, 106063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Simon, F.; Gehrenkemper, L.; von der Au, M.; Wittwer, P.; Roesch, P.; Pfeifer, J.; Cossmer, A.; Meermann, B. A Fast and Simple PFAS Extraction Method Utilizing HR–CS–GFMAS for Soil Samples. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. dan Gan, C.; Peng, M.Y.; Liu, H.B.; Yang, J.Y. Concentration and Distribution of Metals, Total Fluorine, per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Vertical Soil Profiles in Industrialized Areas. Chemosphere 2022, 302, 134855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Lassalle, J.; Gao, R.; Rodi, R.; Kowald, C.; Feng, M.; Sharma, V.K.; Hoelen, T.; Bireta, P.; Houtz, E.F.; Staack, D.; et al. Degradation of PFOS and PFOA in Soil and Groundwater Samples by High Dose Electron Beam Technology. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2021, 189, 109705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ellis, A.C.; Liu, C.J.; Fang, Y.; Boyer, T.H.; Schaefer, C.E.; Higgins, C.P.; Strathmann, T.J. Pilot Study Comparison of Regenerable and Emerging Single-Use Anion Exchange Resins for Treatment of Groundwater Contaminated by per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Water Res. 2022, 223, 119019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Alinezhad, A.; Challa Sasi, P.; Zhang, P.; Yao, B.; Kubátová, A.; Golovko, S.A.; Golovko, M.Y.; Xiao, F. An Investigation of Thermal Air Degradation and Pyrolysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Aqueous Film-Forming Foams in Soil. ACS ES&T Eng. 2022, 2, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Zhu, Q.; Qian, J.; Huang, S.; Li, Q.; Guo, L.; Zeng, J.; Zhang, W.; Cao, X.; Yang, J. Occurrence, Distribution, and Input Pathways of per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Soils near Different Sources in Shanghai. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 308, 119620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Liu, C.J.; McKay, G.; Jiang, D.; Tenorio, R.; Cath, J.T.; Amador, C.; Murray, C.C.; Brown, J.B.; Wright, H.B.; Schaefer, C.; et al. Pilot-Scale Field Demonstration of a Hybrid Nanofiltration and UV-Sulfite Treatment Train for Groundwater Contaminated by per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Water Res. 2021, 205, 117677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hwang, J.H.; Li Sip, Y.Y.; Kim, K.T.; Han, G.; Rodriguez, K.L.; Fox, D.W.; Afrin, S.; Burnstine-Townley, A.; Zhai, L.; Lee, W.H. Nanoparticle-Embedded Hydrogel Synthesized Electrodes for Electrochemical Oxidation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS). Chemosphere 2022, 296, 134001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Selahle, S.K.; Mpupa, A.; Nomngongo, P.N. Liquid Chromatographic Determination of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Environmental River Water Samples. Arab. J. Chem. 2022, 15, 103960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Nienhauser, A.B.; Ersan, M.S.; Lin, Z.; Perreault, F.; Westerhoff, P.; Garcia-Segura, S. Boron-Doped Diamond Electrodes Degrade Short- and Long-Chain per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances in Real Industrial Wastewaters. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2022, 10, 107192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Duan, L.; Wang, B.; Heck, K.N.; Clark, C.A.; Wei, J.; Wang, M.; Metz, J.; Wu, G.; Tsai, A.L.; Guo, S.; et al. Titanium Oxide Improves Boron Nitride Photocatalytic Degradation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 448, 137735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rahman, M.F.; Anderson, W.B.; Peldszus, S.; Huck, P.M. Ion-Exchange Treatment of Perfluorinated Carboxylic Acids in Water: Comparison of Polystyrenic and Polyacrylic Resin Structures and Impact of Sulfate on Their Performance. ACS ES&T Water 2022, 2, 1195–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Viticoski, R.L.; Wang, D.; Feltman, M.A.; Mulabagal, V.; Rogers, S.R.; Blersch, D.M.; Hayworth, J.S. Spatial Distribution and Mass Transport of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Surface Water: A Statewide Evaluation of PFAS Occurrence and Fate in Alabama. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 836, 155524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Koronaiou, L.A.; Nannou, C.; Xanthopoulou, N.; Seretoudi, G.; Bikiaris, D.; Lambropoulou, D.A. High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry-Based Strategies for the Target Analysis and Suspect Screening of per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Aqueous Matrices. Microchem. J. 2022, 179, 107457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Skaggs, C.S.; Logue, B.A. Ultratrace Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Drinking Water Using Ice Concentration Linked with Extractive Stirrer and High Performance Liquid Chromatography—Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2021, 1659, 462493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Awchi, M.; Gebbink, W.A.; Berendsen, B.J.A.; Benskin, J.P.; van Leeuwen, S.P.J. Development, Validation, and Application of a New Method for the Quantitative Determination of Monohydrogen-Substituted Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylic Acids (H–PFCAs) in Surface Water. Chemosphere 2022, 287, 132143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Wu, C.; Wang, Q.; Chen, H.; Li, M. Rapid Quantitative Analysis and Suspect Screening of Per-and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFASs) in Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFFs) and Municipal Wastewater Samples by Nano-ESI-HRMS. Water Res. 2022, 219, 118542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tang, A.; Zhang, X.; Li, R.; Tu, W.; Guo, H.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Y.; Mai, B. Spatiotemporal Distribution, Partitioning Behavior and Flux of per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Surface Water and Sediment from Poyang Lake, China. Chemosphere 2022, 295, 133855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. McIntyre, H.; Minda, V.; Hawley, E.; Deeb, R.; Hart, M. Coupled Photocatalytic Alkaline Media as a Destructive Technology for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Impacted Stormwater. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 132790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Li, X.; Fatowe, M.; Cui, D.; Quinete, N. Assessment of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Biscayne Bay Surface Waters and Tap Waters from South Florida. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 806, 150393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gallen, C.; Bignert, A.; Taucare, G.; O’Brien, J.; Braeunig, J.; Reeks, T.; Thompson, J.; Mueller, J.F. Temporal Trends of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in an Australian Wastewater Treatment Plant: A Ten-Year Retrospective Investigation. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 804, 150211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Li, Y.; Niu, Z.; Zhang, Y. Occurrence of Legacy and Emerging Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Water: A Case Study in Tianjin (China). Chemosphere 2022, 287, 132409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Camoiras González, P.; Sadia, M.; Baabish, A.; Sobhanei, S.; Fiedler, H. Air Monitoring with Passive Samplers for Perfluoroalkane Substances in Developing Countries (2017–2019). Chemosphere 2021, 282, 131069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Kourtchev, I.; Hellebust, S.; Heffernan, E.; Wenger, J.; Towers, S.; Diapouli, E.; Eleftheriadis, K. A New On-Line SPE LC-HRMS Method for the Analysis of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in PM2.5 and Its Application for Screening Atmospheric Particulates from Dublin and Enniscorthy, Ireland. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 835, 155496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Lin, H.; Taniyasu, S.; Yamazaki, E.; Wu, R.; Lam, P.K.S.; Eun, H.; Yamashita, N. Fluorine Mass Balance Analysis and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Atmosphere. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 435, 129025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Toxics 11 00335 g001 550
Figure 1. Key Factors Affecting Storm Erosion and the Principal Means of Dust Deposition.
Figure 1. Key Factors Affecting Storm Erosion and the Principal Means of Dust Deposition.
Toxics 11 00335 g001
Table
Table 1. Chemical properties of some selected PFAS.
Table 1. Chemical properties of some selected PFAS.
PFAS NameAcronymMolecular Formula, Wt (g/mol)Solubility (mg/L) (25 °C)Melting Point (°C)Boiling Point (°C)Density (g/cm3)Vapor Pressure (Pa)References
Perfluoroalkyl SubstancesPerfluorocarboxylic Acids (PFCAs)
Perfluorobutanoic acidPFBAC3F7COOH, 214.049,000−17.51211.651 (20 °C)251 (25 °C)[22,23]
Perfluoropentanoic acidPFPeAC4F9COOH, 264.19812−13.2–−5.9–1.713 (25 °C)151 (25 °C)[23,24]
Perfluorohexanoic acidPFHxAC5F11COOH, 314.118937.8–14.8–1.759 (20 °C)13.2 (25 °C)
Perfluoroheptanoic acidPFHpAC6F13COOH, 364.135619.1–32.8––55 (25 °C)
Perfluorooctanoic acidPFOAC7F15COOH, 414.14340 (24.1 °C)44.8–52.3–1.82.0 (25 °C)[24,25]
Perfluorosulfonic Acids (PFSAs)
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acidPFBSC4F9SO3H, 300.1687520.4–70.480–2111.81–1.85132 (25 °C)[23,26]
Perfluorohexane sulfonic acidPFHxSC6F13SO3H, 400.123619095–4521.8447.9 (25 °C)[23,24]
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acidPFOSC8F17SO3H, 500.17.715.2–185133–2491.84–1.8516.98 (25 °C)
Polyfluoroalkyl SubstancesFluorotelomer Carboxylic Acids (FTCAs)
6:2 Fluorotelomer carboxylic acid6:2 FTCAC6F13CH2COOH, 378.155955175–1931.64–1.675.8[26,27]
Fluorotelomer Sulfonic Acids (FTSAs)
4:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid4:2 FTSAC4F9(CH2)2SO3H, 328.2280001072161.680.33[26,27]
6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid6:2 FTSAC6F13(CH2)2SO3H, 528.2132318.7–80.7219–2721.64–1.710.01
8:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonic acid8:2 FTSAC8F17(CH2)2SO3H, 528.25816.8–91.1224–2931.690.01
Fluorotelomer Alcohols (FTOHs)
4:2 Fluorotelomer alcohol4:2 FTOHC4F9(CH2)2OH, 264.12703–137.5–105 (25 °C)[23,25]
6:2 Fluorotelomer alcohol6:2 FTOHC6F13(CH2)2OH, 364.198–171.5–173.5–38 (25 °C)[26,27]
8:2 Fluorotelomer alcohol8:2 FTOHC8F17(CH2)2OH, 464.13.244.75–46.95201.3–202.0–13.5 (25 °C)[24,26,27]
10:2 Fluorotelomer alcohol10:2 FTOHC10F21(CH2)2OH, 564.10.1089.75–92.35228.4–4.90 (25 °C)
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

Ismail, U.M.; Elnakar, H.; Khan, M.F. Sources, Fate, and Detection of Dust-Associated Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Toxics 2023, 11, 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11040335

AMA Style

Ismail UM, Elnakar H, Khan MF. Sources, Fate, and Detection of Dust-Associated Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review. Toxics. 2023; 11(4):335. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11040335

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ismail, Usman M., Haitham Elnakar, and Muhammad Faizan Khan. 2023. "Sources, Fate, and Detection of Dust-Associated Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Review" Toxics 11, no. 4: 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11040335

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