Difference between revisions of "User:Jhurley/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: Ecological)
(→‎Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone)
 
(191 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment==  
+
==Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone==  
−
This article presents an overview of current practices for human health and ecological risk assessment related to [[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)]] exposures at [[Wikipedia: Firefighting foam | aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)]] impacted sites.
+
[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | PFAS]] are frequently introduced to the environment through soil surface applications which then transport through the vadose zone to reach underlying groundwater receptors. Due to their unique properties and resulting transport and retention behaviors, PFAS in the vadose zone can be a persistent contaminant source to underlying groundwater systems. Determining the fraction of PFAS present in the mobile porewater relative to the total concentrations in soils is critical to understanding the risk posed by PFAS in vadose zone source areas. Lysimeters are instruments that have been used by agronomists and vadose zone researchers for decades to determine water flux and solute concentrations in unsaturated porewater. Lysimeters have recently been developed as a critical tool for field investigations and characterizations of PFAS impacted source zones.  
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
 
<div style="float:right;margin:0 0 2em 2em;">__TOC__</div>
  
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
 
*[[Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)]]
−
*[[PFAS Sources]]
 
 
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
 
*[[PFAS Transport and Fate]]
 +
*[[PFAS Toxicology and Risk Assessment]]
 +
*[[Mass Flux and Mass Discharge]]
  
−
'''Contributors:''' Jennifer Arblaster, Jason Conder, Jean Zodrow and Elizabeth Nichols
+
'''Contributors:''' Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer
  
−
'''Key Resource(s):'''
+
'''Key Resources:'''
−
*State of the Science for Risk Assessment of PFAS at Contaminated Sites<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021">Zodrow, J., Arblaster, J., Conder, J., 2021. State of the Science for Risk Assessment of PFAS at Contaminated Sites. In: ''Forever Chemicals: Environmental, Economic, and Social Equity Concerns with PFAS in the Environment'', Kempisty, D., Racz, L., (Ed.s). pp. 161-186. CRC Press. [https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003024521 doi: 10.1201/9781003024521]</ref>
+
*Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>
−
*[https://itrcweb.org/ Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)], [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ PFAS – Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances]
+
*PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>
 +
*Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>
 +
*Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>
 +
*PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>
  
−
==PFAS Exposure and Conceptual Site Models==
+
==Introduction==
−
[[File:ConderFig1.png|thumb|500px|Figure 1. Simplified Conceptual Site Model for Sites Impacted by AFFF or other PFAS Sources. Used with permission<ref name="ConderEtAl2021">Conder, J., Zodrow, J., Arblaster, J., Kelly, B., Gobas, F., Suski, J., Osborn, E., Frenchmeyer, M., Divine, C., Leeson, A., 2021. Strategic resources for assessing PFAS ecological risks at AFFF sites. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(4), pp. 746-752. [https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4405 doi: 10.1002/ieam.4405]</ref>]]  
+
Lysimeters are devices that are placed in the subsurface above the groundwater table to monitor the movement of water through the soil<ref name="GossEhlers2009">Goss, M.J., Ehlers, W., 2009. The Role of Lysimeters in the Development of Our Understanding of Soil Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Ecosystems. Soil Use and Management, 25(3), pp. 213–223. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x]</ref><ref>Pütz, T., Fank, J., Flury, M., 2018. Lysimeters in Vadose Zone Research. Vadose Zone Journal, 17 (1), pp. 1-4. [https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035 doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035]&nbsp; [[Media: PutzEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025">Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C.D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., Wilkin, R.T., 2025. Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 59(9), pp. 4215-4229. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c10246 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c10246]</ref>. Lysimeters have historically been used in agricultural sciences for monitoring nutrient or contaminant movement, soil moisture release curves, natural drainage patterns, and dynamics of plant-water interactions<ref name="GossEhlers2009"/><ref>Bergström, L., 1990. Use of Lysimeters to Estimate Leaching of Pesticides in Agricultural Soils. Environmental Pollution, 67 (4), 325–347. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S]</ref><ref>Dabrowska, D., Rykala, W., 2021. A Review of Lysimeter Experiments Carried Out on Municipal Landfill Waste. Toxics, 9(2), Article 26. [https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics9020026 doi: 10.3390/toxics9020026]&nbsp; [[Media: Dabrowska Rykala2021.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>Fernando, S.U., Galagedara, L., Krishnapillai, M., Cuss, C.W., 2023. Lysimeter Sampling System for Optimal Determination of Trace Elements in Soil Solutions. Water, 15(18), Article 3277. [https://doi.org/10.3390/w15183277 doi: 10.3390/w15183277]&nbsp; [[Media: FernandoEtAl2023.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020">Meissner, R., Rupp, H., Haselow, L., 2020. Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching. In: Climate Change and Soil Interactions. Elsevier, pp. 171-205. [https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2]</ref><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993">Rogers, R.D., McConnell, J.W. Jr., 1993. Lysimeter Literature Review, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Numbers: NUREG/CR--6073, EGG--2706. [https://www.osti.gov/] ID: 10183270. [https://doi.org/10.2172/10183270 doi: 10.2172/10183270]&nbsp; [[Media: RogersMcConnell1993.pdf | Open  Access Article]]</ref><ref>Sołtysiak, M., Rakoczy, M., 2019. An Overview of the Experimental Research Use of Lysimeters. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 7(2), pp. 49-56. [https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0012 doi: 10.2478/environ-2019-0012]&nbsp; [[Media: SołtysiakRakoczy2019.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="Stannard1992">Stannard, D.I., 1992. Tensiometers—Theory, Construction, and Use. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(1), pp. 48-58. [https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10224J doi: 10.1520/GTJ10224J]</ref><ref name="WintonWeber1996">Winton, K., Weber, J.B., 1996. A Review of Field Lysimeter Studies to Describe the Environmental Fate of Pesticides. Weed Technology, 10(1), pp. 202-209. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X00045929 doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00045929]</ref>. Recently, there has been strong interest in the use of lysimeters to measure and monitor movement of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021">Anderson, R.H., 2021. The Case for Direct Measures of Soil-to-Groundwater Contaminant Mass Discharge at AFFF-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(10), pp. 6580-6583. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01543 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01543]</ref><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022">Anderson, R.H., Feild, J.B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., Elsharnouby, O., Krebs, R.K., 2022. Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters. Chemosphere, 308(1), Article 136247. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024">Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Fang, Y., Gonda, N., Zhang, C., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., 2024. PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 264, Article 104359. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Schaum, A., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2023. Leaching of Perfluoroalkyl Acids During Unsaturated Zone Flushing at a Field Site Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(5), pp. 1940-1948. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06903 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06903]</ref><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022">Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., O’Hare, S., Lemes, M.C.S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. A Field Study to Assess the Role of Air-Water Interfacial Sorption on PFAS Leaching in an AFFF Source Area. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 248, Article 104001. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001]&nbsp; [[Media: SchaeferEtAl2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021">Quinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., Hasbrouck, K., 2021. Application of PFAS-Mobile Lab to Support Adaptive Characterization and Flux-Based Conceptual Site Models at AFFF Releases. Remediation, 31(3), pp. 7-26. [https://doi.org/10.1002/rem.21680 doi: 10.1002/rem.21680]</ref>. PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through land surface application and have been found to be strongly retained within the upper 5 feet of soil<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020">Brusseau, M.L., Anderson, R.H., Guo, B., 2020. PFAS Concentrations in Soils: Background Levels versus Contaminated Sites. Science of The Total Environment, 740, Article 140017. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017]</ref><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024">Bigler, M.C., Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., Jones, S.L., Pritchard, J.C., Higgins, C.P., Hatton, J., 2024. High-Resolution Depth-Discrete Analysis of PFAS Distribution and Leaching for a Vadose-Zone Source at an AFFF-Impacted Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 58(22), pp. 9863-9874. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c01615 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c01615]</ref>. PFAS recalcitrance in the vadose zone means that environmental program managers and consultants need a cost-effective way of monitoring concentration conditions within the vadose zone. Repeated soil sampling and extraction processes are time consuming and only give a representative concentration of total PFAS in the matrix<ref name="NickersonEtAl2020">Nickerson, A., Maizel, A.C., Kulkarni, P.R., Adamson, D.T., Kornuc, J. J., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 4952-4962. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00792 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00792]</ref>, not what is readily transportable in mobile porewater<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024">Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D., Real, I., Hao, S., Guelfo, J.L., 2024. Air-Water Interfacial Collapse and Rate-Limited Solid Desorption Control Perfluoroalkyl Acid Leaching from the Vadose Zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 265, Article 104382. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382 doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382]&nbsp; [[Media: StultsEtAl2024.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref name="StultsEtAl2023">Stults, J.F., Choi, Y.J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D.D., Knappe, D.R.U., Illangasekare, T.H., Higgins, C.P., 2023. Predicting Concentration- and Ionic-Strength-Dependent Air–Water Interfacial Partitioning Parameters of PFASs Using Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships (QSPRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 57(13), pp. 5203-5215. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c07316 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07316]</ref><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022">Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2022. PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces. Chemosphere, 302, Article 134938. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauGuo2022.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref>. Fortunately, lysimeters have been found to be a viable option for monitoring the concentration of PFAS in the mobile porewater phase in the vadose zone<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>. Note that while some lysimeters, known as weighing lysimeters, can directly measure water flux, the most commonly utilized lysimeters in PFAS investigations only provide measurements of porewater concentrations.
−
This article provides a brief overview of the environmental toxicology and risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The article’s main focus is on the environmental toxicology and risk assessment of PFAS derived from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).  
 
  
−
The use of AFFF can release PFAS into the environment during fire training, an emergency response, or as a result of leaks or spills from AFFF systems. Following AFFF releases, perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs), particularly PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS, tend to be the most commonly detected PFAS in environmental media. Due to their solubility, sorption, and bioaccumulation properties, perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) can be prevalent in a variety of environmental media, including groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, biosolids, landfill leachate, plants, fish, invertebrates, and wildlife<ref>Lau, C., 2012. Perfluorinated Compounds. In: ''Molecular, Clinical and Environmental Toxicology, Volume 3: Environmental Toxicology'', A. Luch (Ed.), pp. 47-86. Springer Science and Business Media. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_3 doi: 10.1007/978-3-7643-8340-4_3]</ref>.
+
==PFAS Background==
−
+
PFAS are a broad class of chemicals with highly variable chemical structures<ref>Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es981355+ doi: 10.1021/es981355+]</ref><ref name="MoodyField2000">Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 2000. Perfluorinated Surfactants and the Environmental Implications of Their Use in Fire-Fighting Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(18), pp. 3864-3870. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es991359u doi: 10.1021/es991359u]</ref><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020">Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Trier, X., Wang, Z., 2020. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(12), pp. 2345-2373. [https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G doi: 10.1039/D0EM00291G]&nbsp; [[Media: GlügeEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. One characteristic feature of PFAS is that they are fluorosurfactants, distinct from more traditional hydrocarbon surfactants<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="Brusseau2018">Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2018.pdf | Open Access Manuscript]]</ref><ref>Dave, N., Joshi, T., 2017. A Concise Review on Surfactants and Its Significance. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(3), pp. 663-672. [https://doi.org/10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672 doi: 10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672]&nbsp; [[Media: DaveJoshi2017.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref>García, R.A., Chiaia-Hernández, A.C., Lara-Martin, P.A., Loos, M., Hollender, J., Oetjen, K., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., 2019. Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in Afffs and Afff-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(14), pp. 8068-8077. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01895 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01895]</ref>. Fluorosurfactants typically have a fully or partially fluorinated, hydrophobic tail with ionic (cationic, zwitterionic, or anionic) head group that is hydrophilic<ref name="MoodyField2000"/><ref name="GlügeEtAl2020"/>. The hydrophobic tail and ionic head group mean PFAS are very stable at hydrophobic adsorption interfaces when present in the aqueous phase<ref>Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs): Environmental Challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 20(3), pp. 192-212. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004]</ref>. Examples of these interfaces include naturally occurring organic matter in soils and the air-water interface in the vadose zone<ref>Schaefer, C.E., Culina, V., Nguyen, D., Field, J., 2019. Uptake of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances at the Air–Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), pp. 12442-12448. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04008 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04008]</ref><ref>Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air–Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02348 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348]</ref><ref>Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., 2019. Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the Air-Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 6(8), pp. 487-491. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355 doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355]</ref><ref>Li, F., Fang, X., Zhou, Z., Liao, X., Zou, J., Yuan, B., Sun, W., 2019. Adsorption of Perfluorinated Acids onto Soils: Kinetics, Isotherms, and Influences of Soil Properties. Science of The Total Environment, 649, pp. 504-514. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209]</ref><ref>Nguyen, T.M.H., Bräunig, J., Thompson, K., Thompson, J., Kabiri, S., Navarro, D.A., Kookana, R.S., Grimison, C., Barnes, C.M., Higgins, C.P., McLaughlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., 2020. Influences of Chemical Properties, Soil Properties, and Solution pH on Soil–Water Partitioning Coefficients of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science and Technology, 54(24), pp. 15883-15892. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05705 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05705]&nbsp; [[Media: NguyenEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Their strong adsorption to both soil organic matter and the air-water interface is a major contributor to elevated concentrations of PFAS observed in the upper 5 feet of the soil column<ref name="BrusseauEtAl2020"/><ref name="BiglerEtAl2024"/>. While several other PFAS partitioning processes exist<ref name="Brusseau2018"/>, adsorption to solid phase soils and air-water interfaces are the two primary processes present at nearly all PFAS sites<ref>Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035]</ref>. The total PFAS mass obtained from a vadose zone soil sample contains the solid phase, air-water interfacial, and aqueous phase PFAS mass, which can be converted to porewater concentrations using Equation 1<ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/>.</br>
−
PFAS exhibit a range of physical and chemical properties, with the fate of the PFAAs, particularly the PFCAs and PFSAs, being the most studied PFAS. PFAAs are relatively water-soluble and mobile in the environment, are not volatile (i.e., they do not evaporate to the atmosphere readily<ref>Field, J., Higgins, C., Deeb, R., Conder, J., 2017. FAQs Regarding PFASs Associated with AFFF Use at U.S. Military Sites. Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Project ER-201574. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/resources/details/ccf87a8d-f8b2-4fce-bc4a-78c32091f896 Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: FAQ_ER-201574.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>) and can sorb to the organic carbon present in soil or sediment. PFAAs are more soluble and mobile compared to other persistent organic chemicals of concern documented at contaminated sites. PFAS can bioaccumulate in animals and plants, and persistent PFAS, such as PFCAs and PFSAs, do not undergo significant biodegradation or biotransformation once present in a biological system<ref>Conder, J.M., Hoke, R.A., de Wolf, W., Russell, M.H., Buck, R.C., 2008. Are PFCAs Bioaccumulative? A Critical Review and Comparison with Regulatory Criteria and Persistent Lipophilic Compounds. Environmental Science and Technology, 42(4), pp. 995-1003. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es070895g doi: 10.1021/es070895g]</ref>.  
+
:: <big>'''Equation 1:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq1.png | 400 px]]</br>
 +
Where ''C<sub>p</sub>'' is the porewater concentration, ''C<sub>t</sub>'' is the total PFAS concentration, ''ρ<sub>b</sub>'' is the bulk density of the soil, ''θ<sub>w</sub>'' is the volumetric water content, ''R<sub>d</sub>'' is the PFAS retardation factor, ''K<sub>d</sub>'' is the solid phase adsorption coefficient, ''K<sub>ia</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial adsorption coefficient, and ''A<sub>aw</sub>'' is the air-water interfacial area. The air-water interfacial area of the soil is primarily a function of both the soil properties and the degree of volumetric water saturation in the soil. There are several methods of estimating air-water interfacial areas including thermodynamic functions based on the soil moisture retention curve. However, the thermodynamic function has been shown to underestimate air-water interfacial area<ref name="Brusseau2023">Brusseau, M.L., 2023. Determining Air-Water Interfacial Areas for the Retention and Transport of PFAS and Other Interfacially Active Solutes in Unsaturated Porous Media. Science of The Total Environment, 884, Article 163730. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730]&nbsp; [[Media: Brusseau2023.pdf  | Open Access Article]]</ref>, and must typically be scaled using empirical scaling factors. An empirical method recently developed to estimate air-water interfacial area is presented in Equation 2<ref name="Brusseau2023"/>.</br>
 +
:: <big>'''Equation 2:'''</big>&nbsp;&nbsp; [[File: StultsEq2.png | 400 px]]</br>
 +
Where ''S<sub>w</sub>'' is the water phase saturation as a ratio of the water content over the volumetric soil porosity, and ''d<sub>50</sub>'' is the median grain diameter.
 +
 
 +
==Lysimeters Background==
 +
[[File: StultsFig1.png |thumb|600 px|Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2024<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>, which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer ''et al.'' 2023<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/]]
 +
Lysimeters,&nbsp;generally&nbsp;speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/><ref name="RogersMcConnell1993"/>. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.
 +
# <u>Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b):</u> These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
 +
# <u>Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c):</u> These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter<ref name="MeissnerEtAl2020"/>. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves<ref name="Stannard1992"/><ref name="WintonWeber1996"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/><ref>van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. [https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x]</ref>. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
 +
# <u>Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d):</u>  Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.
  
−
The current state of the science and understanding of PFAS fate and transport indicates that the human health issues associated with PFAS AFFF sites are primarily the exposure pathways associated with drinking water ingestion and dietary intake of PFAS<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021"/>. Incidental soil ingestion and/or dust inhalation are typically of moderate concern and are recommended for inclusion into human health risk assessments, but compared to drinking water and dietary ingestion, generally result in lower exposures for most receptors. Exposures via dermal contact with soils and water, and inhalation of vapors (due to volatilization of PFAS), are generally of even lower concern for most sites with AFFF PFAS sources. Human health conceptual site models (CSMs) for AFFF sites typically reflect common receptors including current or future residents and industrial or commercial workers, depending on the current and reasonable anticipated future land uses at the site, along with potential exposures in offsite areas. Receptors associated with recreation and fishing activities may be incorporated if water resources used for recreational purposes are located near the site. Additional considerations may need to be incorporated into the CSM, such as the source of PFAS release into the environment. Release mechanism can differ based on site uses of PFAS. For example, while AFFF use often resulted in historic releases to ground surfaces, industrial emissions can result in aerial deposition, and biosolids application can  result in widespread releases to soils which result in different exposure pathways that should be considered.    
+
==Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater==
 +
{| class="wikitable mw-collapsible" style="float:left; margin-right:20px; text-align:center;"
 +
|+Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
 +
|-
 +
!Site
 +
!PFAS
 +
!Field</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 +
!Lab Core</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 +
!Predicted</br>Porewater</br>Concentration</br>(&mu;g/L)
 +
|-
 +
|Site A||PFOS||6.2 ± 3.4||3.0 ± 0.37||6.6 ± 3.3
 +
|-
 +
|Site B||PFOS||2.2 ± 2.0||0.78 ± 0.38||2.8
 +
|-
 +
|rowspan="3"|Site C||PFOS||13 ± 4.1||680 ± 460||164 ± 75
 +
|-
 +
|8:2 FTS||1.2 ± 0.46||52 ± 13||16 ± 6.0
 +
|-
 +
|PFHpS||0.36 ± 0.051||2.9 ± 2.0||5.9 ± 3.4
 +
|}
 +
[[File: StultsFig2.png | thumb | 600 px | Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>]]
 +
[[File: StultsFig3.png | thumb | 400 px | Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>.]]
 +
Schaefer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>&nbsp;measured&nbsp;PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.
  
−
Ecological CSMs generally focus on exposures in areas adjacent to or downgradient of initial AFFF releases which have habitats present which support ecological resources (Figure 1). Most areas at the point of AFFF releases (and many industrial areas where PFAS products are or were used) do not generally feature favorable ecological habitats that make these areas relevant for ecological risk assessment. However, the relatively high solubility of PFAS in water results in a high potential for offsite transport via groundwater, surface water and stormwater, or by erosion of impacted soils and sediment<ref name="ConderEtAl2021"/>.
+
Data from sites A and B showed reasonably good agreement (within ½ order of magnitude) for most PFAS measured in the systems. At site C, more hydrophobic constituents (> C6 PFAS) tended to have higher concentrations in the lab core than the field site while less hydrophobic constituents (< C6) had higher concentrations in the field than lab cores. Site D showed substantially greater (1 order of magnitude or more) PFAS concentrations measured in the laboratory-collected porewater sample compared to what was measured in the field lysimeters. This discrepancy for the Site D soil can likely be attributed to soil heterogeneity (as indicated by ground penetrating radar) and the fact that the soil consisted of back-filled materials rather than undisturbed native soils.  
 
   
 
   
−
==Toxicological Effects of PFAS==
+
Site&nbsp;C&nbsp;showed&nbsp;elevated PFAS concentrations in the laboratory collected porewater for the more surface-active compounds. This increase was attributed to the soil wetting that occurred at the bench scale, which was reasonably described by the model shown in Equations 1 and 2 (see Table 1<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>). Equations 1 and 2 were also used to predict PFAS porewater concentrations (using porous cup lysimeters) in a highly instrumented test cell<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/>(Figure 3). The ability to predict soil concentrations from recurring porewater samples is critical to the practical application of lysimeters in field settings<ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/>.
−
The characterization of toxicological effects in human health risk assessments is based on toxicological studies of mammalian exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), primarily studies involving [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid | perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)]] and [[Wikipedia:Perfluorooctanoic acid|perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)]]. The most sensitive noncancer adverse effects involve the liver and kidney, immune system, and various developmental and reproductive endpoints<ref name="USEPA2024b">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. [https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas Website]</ref>. A select number of PFAS have been evaluated for carcinogenicity, primarily using epidemiological data. Only PFOS and PFOA (and their derivatives) have sufficient data for USEPA to characterize as ''Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'' via the oral route of exposure. Epidemiological studies provided evidence of bladder, prostate, liver, kidney, and breast cancers in humans related to PFOS exposure, as well as kidney and testicular cancer in humans and limited evidence of breast cancer related to PFOA exposure<ref name="USEPA2024b"/><ref name="USEPA2016a">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-004. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfos_health_advisory_final-plain.pdf  Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: pfos_EPA 822-R-16-004.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2016b">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2016b. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-005. [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final_508.pdf Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: pfoa_EPA 822-R-16-005.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
USEPA’s Integrated Risk Management System (IRIS) Program is developing Toxicological Reviews to improve understanding of the toxicity of several additional PFAS (i.e., not solely PFOA and PFOS). Toxicological Reviews provide an overview of cancer and noncancer health effects based on current literature and, where data are sufficient, derive human health toxicity criteria (i.e., human health oral reference doses and cancer slope factors) that form the basis for risk-based decision making. For risk assessors, these documents provide USEPA reference doses and cancer slope factors that can be used with exposure information and other considerations to assess human health risk. Final Toxicological Reviews have been completed for the following PFAS:
 
−
*Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
 
−
*Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
 
−
*Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
 
−
*Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
 
−
*Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
 
−
*Perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA)
 
−
*Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
 
−
*Lithium bis[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl]azanide (HQ-115)
 
−
*Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO DA) and its Ammonium Salt
 
−
 
 
−
Toxicity assessments are ongoing for the following PFAS:
 
−
*Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
 
−
*Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
 
−
 
 
−
It is important to note human health toxicity criteria for inhalation of PFAS are not included in the Final Toxicological Reviews and are not currently available.
 
−
In addition to IRIS, state agencies have developed peer-reviewed provisional toxicity values that have been incorporated into USEPA’s RSLs, which are updated biannually. These values have not been reviewed by or incorporated into IRIS.
 
−
 
 
−
With respect to ecological toxicity, effects on reproduction, growth, and development of avian and mammalian wildlife have been documented in controlled laboratory studies of exposures of standard toxicological test species (e.g., mice, quail) to PFAS. Many of these studies have been reviewed<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"> Conder, J., Arblaster, J., Larson, E., Brown, J., Higgins, C., 2020. Guidance for Assessing the Ecological Risks of PFAS to Threatened and Endangered Species at Aqueous Film Forming Foam-Impacted Sites. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Project ER 18-1614. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/3f890c9b-7f72-4303-8d2e-52a89613b5f6 Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: ER18-1614_Guidance.pdf | Guidance Document]]</ref><ref name="GobasEtAl2020">Gobas, F.A.P.C., Kelly, B.C., Kim, J.J., 2020. Final Report: A Framework for Assessing Bioaccumulation and Exposure Risks of PFAS in Threatened and Endangered Species on AFFF-Impacted Sites. SERDP Project ER18-1502. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/09c93894-bc73-404a-8282-51196c4be163 Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: ER18-1502_Final.pdf | Final Report]]</ref><ref name="Suski2020">Suski, J.G., 2020. Investigating Potential Risk to Threatened and Endangered Species from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on Department of Defense (DoD) Sites. SERDP Project ER18-1626. [https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/c328f8e3-95a4-4820-a0d4-ef5835134636 Project Website]&nbsp; [[Media: ER18-1626_Final.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a">Zodrow, J.M., Frenchmeyer, M., Dally, K., Osborn, E., Anderson, P. and Divine, C., 2021. Development of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Ecological Risk-Based Screening Levels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 40(3), pp. 921-936. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4975 doi: 10.1002/etc.4975]&nbsp;&nbsp; [[Media: ZodrowEtAl2021a.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref> to derive ecological Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs). TRVs can be used alongside exposure information and other considerations to assess ecological risk. Avian and mammalian wildlife receptors are generally expected to have the highest risks due to PFAS exposure. Direct toxicity to aquatic life, such as fish and invertebrates, from exposure to sediment and surface water also occurs, though concentrations in water associated with adverse effects to aquatic life are generally higher than those that could result in adverse effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife. Soil invertebrates and plants are less sensitive to PFAS when compared to terrestrial wildlife, with risk-based PFAS concentrations in soil being much higher than those associated with potential effects to terrestrial wildlife<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>. 
 
−
 
 
−
==PFAS Screening Levels for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments==
 
−
===Human Health Screening Levels===
 
−
Human health screening levels for PFAS have been modified multiple times over the last decade and, in the United States, are currently available for drinking water and soil exposures as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs). USEPA finalized a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six PFAS<ref name="USEPA2024b"/>:
 
−
*Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
 
−
*Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)
 
−
*Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS)
 
−
*Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
 
−
*Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA, commonly known as GenX chemicals)
 
−
*Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)
 
−
 
 
−
MCLs are enforceable drinking water standards based on the most recently available toxicity information that consider available treatment technologies and costs. The MCLs for PFAS include a Hazard Index of 1 for combined exposures to four PFAS. RSLs are developed for use in risk assessments and include soil and tap water screening levels for multiple PFAS. Soil RSLs are based on residential/unrestricted and commercial/industrial land uses, and calculations of site-specific RSLs are available.
 
−
 
 
−
Internationally, Canada and the European Union have also promulgated drinking water standards for select PFAS. However, large discrepancies exist among the various regulatory organizations, largely due to the different effect endpoints and exposure doses being used to calculate risk-based levels. The PFAS guidance from the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) in the US includes a regularly updated compilation of screening values for PFAS and is available on their PFAS website<ref name="ITRC2023">Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) 2023. PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document. [https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/ ITRC PFAS Website]</ref>: https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org.
 
−
 
 
−
===Ecological Screening Levels===
 
−
Most peer-reviewed literature and regulatory-based environmental quality benchmarks have been developed using data for PFOS and PFOA; however, other select PFAAs have been evaluated for potential effects to aquatic receptors<ref name="ITRC2023"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/>. USEPA has developed water quality criteria for aquatic life<ref name="USEPA2022"> United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2022. Fact Sheet: Draft 2022 Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS)). Office of Water, EPA 842-D-22-005. [[Media: USEPA2022.pdf | Fact Sheet]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2024c">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Final Freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Acute Saltwater Aquatic Life Benchmark for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). Office of Water, EPA-842-R-24-002. [[Media: USEPA2024c.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA2024d">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. Final Freshwater Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria and Acute Saltwater Aquatic Life Benchmark for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). Office of Water, EPA-842-R-24-003. [[Media: USEPA2024d.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> for PFOA and PFOS. Following extensive reviews of the peer-reviewed literature, Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> used the USEPA Great Lakes Initiative methodology<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System. Part 132. [https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2013-title40-vol23/CFR-2013-title40-vol23-part132 Government Website]&nbsp; [[Media: CFR-2013-title40-vol23-part132.pdf | Part132.pdf]]</ref> to calculate acute and chronic screening levels for aquatic life for 23 PFAS. The Argonne National Laboratory has also developed Ecological Screening Levels for multiple PFAS<ref name="GrippoEtAl2024">Grippo, M., Hayse, J., Hlohowskyj, I., Picel, K., 2024. Derivation of PFAS Ecological Screening Values - Update. Argonne National Laboratory Environmental Science Division. [[Media: GrippoEtAl2024.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref>. In contrast to surface water aquatic life benchmarks, sediment benchmark values are limited. For terrestrial systems, screening levels for direct exposure of soil plants and invertebrates to PFAS in soils have been developed for multiple AFFF-related PFAS<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>, and the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment developed several draft thresholds protective of direct toxicity of PFOS in soil<ref>Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2021. Canadian Soil and Groundwater Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). [[Media: CCME2021.pdf | Open Access Government Document]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
Wildlife screening levels for abiotic media are back-calculated from food web models developed for representative receptors. Both Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> and Grippo ''et al.''<ref name="GrippoEtAl2024"/> include the development of risk-based screening levels for wildlife. The Michigan Department of Community Health<ref>Dykema, L.D., 2015. Michigan Department of Community Health Final Report, USEPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Project, Measuring Perfluorinated Compounds in Michigan Surface Waters and Fish. Grant GL-00E01122. [https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/MDCH_GL-00E01122-0_Final_Report_493494_7.pdf Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: MDCH_Geart_Lakes_PFAS.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> derived a provisional PFOS surface water value for avian and mammalian wildlife. In California, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board developed terrestrial habitat soil ecological screening levels based on values developed in Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>. For PFOS only, a dietary screening level (i.e. applicable to the concentration of PFAS measured in dietary items) has been developed for mammals at 4.6 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg) wet weight (ww), and for avians at 8.2 μg/kg ww<ref>Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2018. Federal Environmental Quality Guidelines, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). [[Media: ECCC2018.pdf | Repoprt.pdf]]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: Human Health==
 
−
Exposure pathways and effects for select PFAS are well understood, such that standard human health risk assessment approaches can be used to quantify risks for populations relevant to a site. Human health exposures via drinking water have been the focus in risk assessments and investigations at PFAS sites<ref>Post, G.B., Cohn, P.D., Cooper, K.R., 2012. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an emerging drinking water contaminant: A critical review of recent literature. Environmental Research, 116, pp. 93-117. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.007 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.007]</ref><ref>Guelfo, J.L., Marlow, T., Klein, D.M., Savitz, D.A., Frickel, S., Crimi, M., Suuberg, E.M., 2018. Evaluation and Management Strategies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Drinking Water Aquifers: Perspectives from Impacted U.S. Northeast Communities. Environmental Health Perspectives,126(6), 13 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2727 doi: 10.1289/EHP2727]&nbsp; [[Media: GuelfoEtAl2018.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Risk assessment approaches for PFAS in drinking water follow typical, well-established drinking water risk assessment approaches for chemicals as detailed in regulatory guidance documents for various jurisdictions.
 
−
 
 
−
Incidental exposures to soil and dusts for PFAS can occur during a variety of soil disturbance activities, such as gardening and digging, hand-to-mouth activities, and intrusive groundwork by industrial or construction workers. As detailed by the ITRC<ref name="ITRC2023"/>, many US states and USEPA have calculated risk-based screening levels for these soil and drinking water pathways (and many also include dermal exposures to soils) using well-established risk assessment guidance.
 
−
 
 
−
Field and laboratory studies have shown that some PFCAs and PFSAs bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic life at rates that could result in relevant dietary PFAS exposures for consumers of fish and other seafood<ref>Martin, J.W., Mabury, S.A., Solomon, K.R., Muir, D.C., 2003. Dietary accumulation of perfluorinated acids in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22(1), pp.189-195. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620220125 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220125]</ref><ref>Martin, J.W., Mabury, S.A., Solomon, K.R., Muir, D.C., 2003. Bioconcentration and tissue distribution of perfluorinated acids in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22(1), pp.196-204. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620220126 doi: 10.1002/etc.5620220126]</ref><ref>Chen, F., Gong, Z., Kelly, B.C., 2016. Bioavailability and bioconcentration potential of perfluoroalkyl-phosphinic and -phosphonic acids in zebrafish (Danio rerio): Comparison to perfluorocarboxylates and perfluorosulfonates. Science of The Total Environment, 568, pp. 33-41. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.215 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.215]</ref><ref>Fang, S., Zhang, Y., Zhao, S., Qiang, L., Chen, M., Zhu, L., 2016. Bioaccumulation of per fluoroalkyl acids including the isomers of perfluorooctane sulfonate in carp (Cyprinus carpio) in a sediment/water microcosm. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(12), pp. 3005-3013. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3483 doi: 10.1002/etc.3483]</ref><ref>Bertin, D., Ferrari, B.J.D. Labadie, P., Sapin, A., Garric, J., Budzinski, H., Houde, M., Babut, M., 2014. Bioaccumulation of perfluoroalkyl compounds in midge (Chironomus riparius) larvae exposed to sediment. Environmental Pollution, 189, pp. 27-34. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.018  doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.018]</ref><ref>Bertin, D., Labadie, P., Ferrari, B.J.D., Sapin, A., Garric, J., Geffard, O., Budzinski, H., Babut. M., 2016. Potential exposure routes and accumulation kinetics for poly- and perfluorinated alkyl compounds for a freshwater amphipod: Gammarus spp. (Crustacea). Chemosphere, 155, pp. 380-387. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.006]</ref><ref>Dai, Z., Xia, X., Guo, J., Jiang, X., 2013. Bioaccumulation and uptake routes of perfluoroalkyl acids in Daphnia magna. Chemosphere, 90(5), pp.1589-1596. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.026 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.08.026]</ref><ref>Prosser, R.S., Mahon, K., Sibley, P.K., Poirier, D., Watson-Leung, T. 2016. Bioaccumulation of perfluorinated carboxylates and sulfonates and polychlorinated biphenyls in laboratory-cultured Hexagenia spp., Lumbriculus variegatus and Pimephales promelas from field-collected sediments. Science of The Total Environment, 543(A), pp. 715-726. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.062 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.062]</ref><ref>Rich, C.D., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L., Higgins, C., 2015. Bioaccumulation of Perfluoroalkyl Acids by Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) Exposed to Contaminated Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(2) pp. 881-888. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504152d doi: 10.1021/es504152d]</ref><ref>Muller, C.E., De Silva, A.O., Small, J., Williamson, M., Wang, X., Morris, A., Katz, S., Gamberg, M., Muir, D.C.G., 2011. Biomagnification of Perfluorinated Compounds in a Remote Terrestrial Food Chain: Lichen–Caribou–Wolf. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(20), pp. 8665-8673. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es201353v doi: 10.1021/es201353v]</ref>. In addition to fish, terrestrial wildlife can accumulate contaminants from impacted sites, resulting in potential exposures to consumers of wild game<ref name="ConderEtAl2021"/>. Additionally, exposures can occur though consumption of homegrown produce or agricultural products that originate from areas irrigated with PFAS-impacted groundwater, or that are amended with biosolids that contain PFAS, or that contain soils that were directly affected by PFAS releases<ref>Brown, J.B, Conder, J.M., Arblaster, J.A., Higgins, C.P.,  2020. Assessing Human Health Risks from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS)-Impacted Vegetable Consumption: A Tiered Modeling Approach. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(23), pp. 15202-15214. [https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03411 doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c03411]&nbsp; [[Media: BrownEtAl2020.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref>. Multiple studies have found PFAS can be taken up by plants from soil porewater<ref>Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Hundal, L.S., Lau, C., Mills, M.A., Harris, K.M., Higgins, C.P., 2013. Uptake of Perfluoroalkyl Acids into Edible Crops via Land Applied Biosolids: Field and Greenhouse Studies. Environmental Science and Technology, 47(24), pp. 14062-14069. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es403094q doi: 10.1021/es403094q]&nbsp; [https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/508_pfascropuptake.pdf Free Download from epa.gov]</ref><ref>Blaine, A.C., Rich, C.D., Sedlacko, E.M., Hyland, K.C., Stushnoff, C., Dickenson, E.R.V., Higgins, C.P., 2014. Perfluoroalkyl Acid Uptake in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) Irrigated with Reclaimed Water. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(24), pp. 14361-14368. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es504150h doi: 10.1021/es504150h]</ref><ref>Ghisi, R., Vamerali, T., Manzetti, S., 2019. Accumulation of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: A review. Environmental Research, 169, pp. 326-341. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023 doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023]</ref>, and livestock can accumulate PFAS from drinking water and/or feed<ref>van Asselt, E.D., Kowalczyk, J., van Eijkeren, J.C.H., Zeilmaker, M.J., Ehlers, S., Furst, P., Lahrssen-Wiederhold, M., van der Fels-Klerx, H.J., 2013. Transfer of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) from contaminated feed to dairy milk. Food Chemistry, 141(2), pp.1489-1495. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.035 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.035]</ref>. Thus, when PFAS are present in surface water bodies where fishing or shellfish harvesting occurs or terrestrial areas where produce is grown or game is hunted, the bioaccumulation of PFAS into dietary items can be an important pathway for human exposure.
 
−
 
 
−
PFAAs such as PFOA and PFOS are not expected to volatilize from PFAS-impacted environmental media<ref name="USEPA2016a"/><ref name="USEPA2016b"/> such as soil and groundwater, which are the primary focus of most site-specific risk assessments. In contrast to non-volatile PFAAs, fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) are among the more widely studied of the volatile PFAS. FTOHs are transient in the atmosphere with a lifetime of 20 days<ref>Ellis, D.A., Martin, J.W., De Silva, A.O., Mabury, S.A., Hurley, M.D., Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Wallington, T.J., 2004. Degradation of Fluorotelomer Alcohols:  A Likely Atmospheric Source of Perfluorinated Carboxylic Acids. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(12), pp. 3316-3321. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es049860w doi: 10.1021/es049860w]</ref>. At most AFFF sites under evaluation, AFFF releases have occurred many years before such that FTOH may no longer be present. As such, the current assumption is that volatile PFAS, such as FTOHs historically released at the site, will have transformed to stable, low-volatility PFAS, such as PFAAs in soil or groundwater, or will they have diffused to the outdoor atmosphere. There is no evidence that FTOHs or other volatile PFAS are persistent in groundwater or soils such that they present an indoor vapor intrusion pathway risk concern as observed for chlorinated solvents. Ongoing research continues for the vapor pathway<ref name="ITRC2023"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
General and site-specific human health exposure pathways and risk assessment methods as outlined by USEPA<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/540/1-89/002. [https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=10001FQY.txt Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: USEPA1989.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref><ref name="USEPA1997">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments, Interim Final. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 540-R-97-006. [http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/157941 Free Download]&nbsp; [[Media: EPA540-R-97-006.pdf | Report.pdf]]</ref> can be applied to PFAS risk assessments for which human health toxicity values have been developed. Additionally, for risk assessments with dietary exposures of PFAS, standard risk assessment food web modeling can be used to develop initial estimates of dietary concentrations which can be confirmed with site-specific tissue sampling programs.
 
−
 
 
−
==Approaches for Evaluating Exposures and Effects in AFFF Site Environmental Risk Assessment: Ecological==
 
−
Information available currently on exposures and effects of PFAS in ecological receptors indicate that the PFAS ecological risk issues at most sites are primarily associated with risks to vertebrate wildlife.  Avian and mammalian wildlife are relatively sensitive to PFAS, and dietary intake via bioaccumulation in terrestrial and aquatic food webs can result in exposures that are dominated by the more accumulative PFAS<ref name="LarsonEtAl2018">Larson, E.S., Conder, J.M., Arblaster, J.A., 2018. Modeling avian exposures to perfluoroalkyl substances in aquatic habitats impacted by historical aqueous film forming foam releases. Chemosphere, 201, pp. 335-341. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.03.004]</ref><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>. Direct toxicity to aquatic life (e.g., fish, pelagic life, benthic invertebrates, and aquatic plants) can occur from exposure to sediment and surface water at effected sites.  For larger areas, surface water concentrations associated with adverse effects to aquatic life are generally higher than those that could result in adverse effects to aquatic-dependent wildlife. Soil invertebrates and plants are generally less sensitive, with risk-based concentrations in soil being much higher than those associated with potential effects to terrestrial wildlife<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>.
 
−
 
 
−
Aquatic life are exposed to PFAS through direct exposure in surface water and sediment. Ecological risk assessment approaches for PFAS for aquatic life follow standard risk assessment approaches. The evaluation of potential risks for aquatic life with direct exposure to PFAS in environmental media relies on comparing concentrations in external exposure media to protective, media-specific benchmarks, including the aquatic life risk-based screening levels discussed above<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref name="USEPA2024a">United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2024. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table. [https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table USEPA Website]</ref>.
 
−
 
 
−
When an area at the point of PFAS release is an industrial setting which does not feature favorable habitats for terrestrial and aquatic-dependent wildlife, the transport mechanisms may allow PFAS to travel offsite. If offsite or downgradient areas contain ecological habitat, then PFAS transported to these areas are expected to pose the highest risk potential to wildlife, particularly those areas that feature aquatic habitat<ref>Ahrens, L., Bundschuh, M., 2014. Fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(9), pp. 1921-1929. [https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2663 doi: 10.1002/etc.2663]&nbsp; [[Media: AhrensBundschuh2014.pdf | Open Access Article]]</ref><ref name="LarsonEtAl2018"/>.
 
  
−
Wildlife receptors, specifically birds and mammals, are typically exposed to PFAS through uptake from dietary sources such as plants and invertebrates, along with direct soil ingestion during foraging activities. Dietary intake modeling typical for ecological risk assessments is the recommended approach for an evaluation of potential risks to wildlife species where PFAS exposure occurs primarily via dietary uptake from bioaccumulation pathways. Dietary intake modeling uses relevant exposure factors for each receptor group (terrestrial birds, terrestrial mammals, aquatic-dependent birds, and aquatic mammals) to determine a total daily intake (TDI) of PFAS via all potential exposure pathways. This approach requires determination of concentrations of PFAS in dietary items, which can be obtained by measuring PFAS in biota at sites or by using food web models to predict concentrations in biota using measured concentrations of PFAS in soil, sediment, or surface water. Food web models use bioaccumulation metrics such as bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) and biomagnification factors (BMFs) with measurements of PFAS in abiotic media to estimate concentrations in dietary items, including plants and benthic or pelagic invertebrates, to model wildlife exposure and calculate TDI. Once site-specific TDI values are calculated, they are compared to known TRVs identified from toxicity data with exposure doses associated with a lack of adverse effects (termed no observed adverse effect level [NOAEL]) or low adverse effects (termed lowest observed adverse effect level [LOAEL]), per standard risk assessment practice<ref name="USEPA1997"/>.
+
Results from suction lysimeters studies and field lysimeter studies show that PFAS concentrations in porewater predicted from soil concentrations using Equations 1 and 2 generally have reasonable agreement with measured ''in situ'' porewater data when air-water interfacial partitioning is considered. Results show that for less hydrophobic components like PFOA, the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption is less significant than for highly hydrophobic components like PFOS. The soil for the field lysimeter in Figure 3 was a sandy soil with a relatively low air-water interfacial area. The effect of air-water interfacial partitioning is expected to be much more significant for a greater range of PFAS in soils with high capillary pressure (i.e. silts/clays) with higher associated air-water interfacial areas<ref name="Brusseau2023"/><ref>Peng, S., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Air-Water Interfacial Area and Capillary Pressure: Porous-Medium Texture Effects and an Empirical Function. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(7), pp. 829-832. [https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515 doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515]</ref><ref>Brusseau, M.L., Peng, S., Schnaar, G., Costanza-Robinson, M.S., 2006. Relationships among Air-Water Interfacial Area, Capillary Pressure, and Water Saturation for a Sandy Porous Medium. Water Resources Research, 42(3), Article W03501, 5 pages. [https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004058 doi: 10.1029/2005WR004058]&nbsp; [[Media: BrusseauEtAl2006.pdf | Free Access Article]]</ref>.
  
−
Recently, Conder ''et al.''<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/>, Gobas ''et al.''<ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/>, and Zodrow ''et al.''<ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/> compiled bioaccumulation modeling parameters and approaches for terrestrial and aquatic food web modeling of a variety of commonly detected PFAS at AFFF sites. There are also several sources of TRVs which can be relied upon for estimating TDI values<ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/><ref>Newsted, J.L., Jones, P.D., Coady, K., Giesy, J.P., 2005. Avian Toxicity Reference Values for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(23), pp. 9357-9362. [https://doi.org/10.1021/es050989v doi: 10.1021/es050989v]</ref><ref name="Suski2020"/>. In general, the highest risk for PFAS is expected for smaller insectivore and omnivore receptors (e.g., shrews and other small rodents, small nonmigratory birds), which tend to be lower in trophic level and spend more time foraging in small areas similar to or smaller in size than the impacted area. Compared to smaller, lower-trophic level organisms, larger mammalian and avian carnivores are expected to have lower exposures from site-specific PFAS sources because they forage over larger areas that may include areas that are not impacted, as compared to small organisms with small home ranges<ref name="LarsonEtAl2018"/><ref name="ConderEtAl2020"/><ref name="GobasEtAl2020"/><ref name="Suski2020"/><ref name="ZodrowEtAl2021a"/>.
+
==Summary and Recommendations==
 +
The majority of research with lysimeters for PFAS site investigations has been done using porous cup suction lysimeters<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="AndersonEtAl2022"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="QuinnanEtAl2021"/>. Porous cup suction lysimeters are advantageous because they can be routinely sampled or sampled after specific wetting or drying events much like groundwater wells. This sampling is easier and more efficient than routinely collecting soil samples from the same locations. Co-locating lysimeters with soil samples is important for establishing the baseline soil concentration levels at the lysimeter location and developing correlations between the soil concentrations and the mobile porewater concentration<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/>. Appropriate standard operation procedures for lysimeter installation and operation have been established and have been reviewed in recent literature<ref name="CostanzaEtAl2025"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/>. Lysimeters should typically be installed near the source area and just above the maximum groundwater level elevation to obtain accurate results of porewater concentrations year round. Depending upon the geology and vertical PFAS distribution in the soil, multilevel lysimeter installations should also be considered.
  
−
Available information regarding PFAS exposure pathways and effects in aquatic life, terrestrial invertebrates and plants, as well as aquatic and terrestrial wildlife allow ecological risk assessment methods to be applied as outlined by USEPA<ref name="USEPA1997"/> to site-specific PFAS risk assessments. Additionally, food web modeling can be used in site-specific PFAS risk assessment to develop initial estimates of dietary concentrations for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, which can be confirmed with tissue sampling programs at a site.
+
Results from several lysimeters studies across multiple field sites and modelling analysis has shown that lysimeters can produce reasonable results between field and laboratory studies<ref name="SchaeferEtAl2024"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2023"/><ref name="SchaeferEtAl2022"/>. Transient effects of wetting and drying as well as media heterogeneity affects appear to be responsible for some variability and uncertainty in lysimeter based PFAS measurements in the vadose zone. These mobile porewater concentrations can be coupled with effective recharge estimates and simplified modelling approaches to determine mass flux from the vadose zone to the underlying groundwater<ref name="Anderson2021"/><ref name="StultsEtAl2024"/><ref name="BrusseauGuo2022"/><ref>Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., MacBeth, T., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Laboratory Validation of a Simplified Model for Estimating Equilibrium PFAS Mass Leaching from Unsaturated Soils. Science of The Total Environment, 970, Article 179036. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036]</ref><ref>Smith, J. Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2024. An Integrated Analytical Modeling Framework for Determining Site-Specific Soil Screening Levels for PFAS. Water Research, 252, Article121236. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236]</ref>.
  
−
==Summary==
+
Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:
−
High-pressure membranes including NF and RO are well established technologies used in a variety of water treatment fields for the purification of water resources and industrial process waste streams. Research conducted over the past decade has demonstrated that various available membrane products can achieve high rejection of PFAS, enabling compliance with state and federal PFAS regulations. As opposed to adsorbent based PFAS removal technologies (e.g., [[PFAS Ex Situ Water Treatment#Activated Carbon Adsorption | activated carbon]], [[PFAS Treatment by Anion Exchange | ion exchange]]), high-pressure membranes do not have a finite capacity for PFAS removal and do not exhibit breakthrough. High-recovery membrane systems are being implemented into ex situ treatment trains to simultaneously treat PFAS impacted water resources and concentrate PFAS into the retentate stream to enable more effective and efficient PFAS destruction.
+
#<u>Collect larger datasets of PFAS concentrations</u> to determine how transient wetting or drying periods and media type affect PFAS concentrations in the mobile porewater. Some research has shown that non-equilibrium processes can occur in the vadose zone, which can affect grab sample concentration in the porewater at specific time periods.
 +
#<u>More work should be done with flux averaging lysimeters</u> like the drainage cup or wicking lysimeter. These lysimeters can directly measure net recharge and provide time averaged concentrations of PFAS in water over the sampling period. However, there is little work detailing their potential applications in PFAS research, or operational considerations for their use in remedial investigations for PFAS.
 +
#<u>Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying</u> in the vadose zone using ''in situ'' soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
 +
#<u>Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data</u> are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 15:50, 15 January 2026

Lysimeters for Measuring PFAS Concentrations in the Vadose Zone

PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through soil surface applications which then transport through the vadose zone to reach underlying groundwater receptors. Due to their unique properties and resulting transport and retention behaviors, PFAS in the vadose zone can be a persistent contaminant source to underlying groundwater systems. Determining the fraction of PFAS present in the mobile porewater relative to the total concentrations in soils is critical to understanding the risk posed by PFAS in vadose zone source areas. Lysimeters are instruments that have been used by agronomists and vadose zone researchers for decades to determine water flux and solute concentrations in unsaturated porewater. Lysimeters have recently been developed as a critical tool for field investigations and characterizations of PFAS impacted source zones.

Related Article(s):

Contributors: Dr. John F. Stults, Dr. Charles Schaefer

Key Resources:

  • Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters[1]
  • PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces[2]
  • Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review[3]
  • Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching[4]
  • PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces[5]

Introduction

Lysimeters are devices that are placed in the subsurface above the groundwater table to monitor the movement of water through the soil[6][7][3]. Lysimeters have historically been used in agricultural sciences for monitoring nutrient or contaminant movement, soil moisture release curves, natural drainage patterns, and dynamics of plant-water interactions[6][8][9][10][4][11][12][13][14]. Recently, there has been strong interest in the use of lysimeters to measure and monitor movement of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through the vadose zone[15][1][5][16][17][18]. PFAS are frequently introduced to the environment through land surface application and have been found to be strongly retained within the upper 5 feet of soil[19][20]. PFAS recalcitrance in the vadose zone means that environmental program managers and consultants need a cost-effective way of monitoring concentration conditions within the vadose zone. Repeated soil sampling and extraction processes are time consuming and only give a representative concentration of total PFAS in the matrix[21], not what is readily transportable in mobile porewater[16][22][23][2]. Fortunately, lysimeters have been found to be a viable option for monitoring the concentration of PFAS in the mobile porewater phase in the vadose zone[15][1]. Note that while some lysimeters, known as weighing lysimeters, can directly measure water flux, the most commonly utilized lysimeters in PFAS investigations only provide measurements of porewater concentrations.

PFAS Background

PFAS are a broad class of chemicals with highly variable chemical structures[24][25][26]. One characteristic feature of PFAS is that they are fluorosurfactants, distinct from more traditional hydrocarbon surfactants[25][27][28][29]. Fluorosurfactants typically have a fully or partially fluorinated, hydrophobic tail with ionic (cationic, zwitterionic, or anionic) head group that is hydrophilic[25][26]. The hydrophobic tail and ionic head group mean PFAS are very stable at hydrophobic adsorption interfaces when present in the aqueous phase[30]. Examples of these interfaces include naturally occurring organic matter in soils and the air-water interface in the vadose zone[31][32][33][34][35]. Their strong adsorption to both soil organic matter and the air-water interface is a major contributor to elevated concentrations of PFAS observed in the upper 5 feet of the soil column[19][20]. While several other PFAS partitioning processes exist[27], adsorption to solid phase soils and air-water interfaces are the two primary processes present at nearly all PFAS sites[36]. The total PFAS mass obtained from a vadose zone soil sample contains the solid phase, air-water interfacial, and aqueous phase PFAS mass, which can be converted to porewater concentrations using Equation 1[2].

Equation 1:   StultsEq1.png

Where Cp is the porewater concentration, Ct is the total PFAS concentration, ρb is the bulk density of the soil, θw is the volumetric water content, Rd is the PFAS retardation factor, Kd is the solid phase adsorption coefficient, Kia is the air-water interfacial adsorption coefficient, and Aaw is the air-water interfacial area. The air-water interfacial area of the soil is primarily a function of both the soil properties and the degree of volumetric water saturation in the soil. There are several methods of estimating air-water interfacial areas including thermodynamic functions based on the soil moisture retention curve. However, the thermodynamic function has been shown to underestimate air-water interfacial area[37], and must typically be scaled using empirical scaling factors. An empirical method recently developed to estimate air-water interfacial area is presented in Equation 2[37].

Equation 2:   StultsEq2.png

Where Sw is the water phase saturation as a ratio of the water content over the volumetric soil porosity, and d50 is the median grain diameter.

Lysimeters Background

Figure 1. (a) A field suction lysimeter with labeled parts typically used in field settings – Credit: Bibek Acharya and Dr. Vivek Sharma, UF/IFAS, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AE581. (b) Laboratory suction lysimeters used in Schaefer et al. 2024[5], which employed the use of micro-sampling suction lysimeters. (c) A field lysimeter used in Schaefer et al. 2023[16]. (d) Diagram of a drainage wicking lysimeter – Credit: Edaphic Scientific, https://edaphic.com.au/products/water/lysimeter-wick-for-drainage/

Lysimeters, generally speaking, refer to instruments which collect water from unsaturated soils[4][11]. However, there are multiple types of lysimeters which can be employed in field or laboratory settings. There are three primary types of lysimeters relevant to PFAS listed here and shown in Figure 1a-d.

  1. Suction Lysimeters (Figure 1a,b): These lysimeters are the most relevant for PFAS sampling and are the majority of discussion in this article. These lysimeters operate by extracting liquid from the unsaturated vadose zone by applying negative suction pressure at the sampling head[3][5][18]. The sampling head is typically constructed of porous ceramic or stainless steel. A PVC case or stainless-steel case is attached to the sampling head and extends upward above the ground surface. Suction lysimeters are typically installed between 1 and 9 feet below ground surface, but can extend as deep as 40-60 feet in some cases[3]. Shallow lysimeters (< 10 feet) are typically installed using a hand auger. For ceramic lysimeters, a silica flour slurry should be placed at the base of the bore hole and allowed to cover the ceramic head before backfilling the hole partially with natural soil. Once the hole is partially backfilled with soil to cover the sampling head, the remainder of the casing should be sealed with hydrated bentonite chips. When sampling events occur, suction is applied at the ground surface using a rubber gasket seal and a hand pump or electric pump. After sufficient porewater is collected (the time for which can vary greatly based on the soil permeability and moisture content), the seal can be removed and a peristaltic pump used to extract liquid from the lysimeter.
  2. Field Lysimeters (Figure 1c): These large lysimeters can be constructed from plastic or metal sidings. They can range from approximately 2 feet in diameter to as large as several meters in diameter[4]. Instrumentation such as soil moisture probes and tensiometers, or even multiple suction lysimeters, are typically placed throughout the lysimeter to measure the movement of water and determine characteristic soil moisture release curves[13][14][16][17][38]. Water is typically collected at the base of the field lysimeter to determine net recharge through the system. These field lysimeters are intended to represent more realistic, intermediate scale conditions of field systems.
  3. Drainage Lysimeters (Figure 1d): Also known as a “wick” lysimeter, these lysimeters typically consist of a hollow cup attached to a spout which protrudes above ground to relieve air pressure from the system and act as a sampling port. The hollow cup typically has filters and wicking devices at the base to collect water from the soil. The cup is filled with natural soil and collects water as it percolates through the vadose zone. These lysimeters are used to directly monitor net recharge from the vadose zone to the groundwater table and could be useful in determining PFAS mass flux.

Analysis of PFAS Concentrations in Soil and Porewater

Table 1. Measured and Predicted PFAS Concentrations in Porewater for Select PFAS in Three Different Soils
Site PFAS Field
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L) 		Lab Core
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L) 		Predicted
Porewater
Concentration
(μg/L)
Site A PFOS 6.2 ± 3.4 3.0 ± 0.37 6.6 ± 3.3
Site B PFOS 2.2 ± 2.0 0.78 ± 0.38 2.8
Site C PFOS 13 ± 4.1 680 ± 460 164 ± 75
8:2 FTS 1.2 ± 0.46 52 ± 13 16 ± 6.0
PFHpS 0.36 ± 0.051 2.9 ± 2.0 5.9 ± 3.4
Figure 2. Field Measured PFAS concentration Data (Orange) and Lab Core Measured Concentration Data (Blue) for four PFAS impacted sites[1]
Figure 3. Measured and predicted data for PFAS concentrations from a single site field lysimeter study. Model predictions both with and without PFAS sorption to the air-water interface were considered[16].

Schaefer et al.[5] measured PFAS porewater concentrations with field and laboratory suction lysimeters across several sites. Intact cores from the site were collected for soil water extraction using laboratory lysimeters. The lysimeters were used to directly compare field derived measurements of PFAS concentration in the mobile porewater phase. Results from measurements are for four sites presented in Figure 2.

Data from sites A and B showed reasonably good agreement (within ½ order of magnitude) for most PFAS measured in the systems. At site C, more hydrophobic constituents (> C6 PFAS) tended to have higher concentrations in the lab core than the field site while less hydrophobic constituents (< C6) had higher concentrations in the field than lab cores. Site D showed substantially greater (1 order of magnitude or more) PFAS concentrations measured in the laboratory-collected porewater sample compared to what was measured in the field lysimeters. This discrepancy for the Site D soil can likely be attributed to soil heterogeneity (as indicated by ground penetrating radar) and the fact that the soil consisted of back-filled materials rather than undisturbed native soils.

Site C showed elevated PFAS concentrations in the laboratory collected porewater for the more surface-active compounds. This increase was attributed to the soil wetting that occurred at the bench scale, which was reasonably described by the model shown in Equations 1 and 2 (see Table 1[1]). Equations 1 and 2 were also used to predict PFAS porewater concentrations (using porous cup lysimeters) in a highly instrumented test cell[16](Figure 3). The ability to predict soil concentrations from recurring porewater samples is critical to the practical application of lysimeters in field settings[1].

Results from suction lysimeters studies and field lysimeter studies show that PFAS concentrations in porewater predicted from soil concentrations using Equations 1 and 2 generally have reasonable agreement with measured in situ porewater data when air-water interfacial partitioning is considered. Results show that for less hydrophobic components like PFOA, the impact of air-water interfacial adsorption is less significant than for highly hydrophobic components like PFOS. The soil for the field lysimeter in Figure 3 was a sandy soil with a relatively low air-water interfacial area. The effect of air-water interfacial partitioning is expected to be much more significant for a greater range of PFAS in soils with high capillary pressure (i.e. silts/clays) with higher associated air-water interfacial areas[37][39][40].

Summary and Recommendations

The majority of research with lysimeters for PFAS site investigations has been done using porous cup suction lysimeters[3][1][5][18]. Porous cup suction lysimeters are advantageous because they can be routinely sampled or sampled after specific wetting or drying events much like groundwater wells. This sampling is easier and more efficient than routinely collecting soil samples from the same locations. Co-locating lysimeters with soil samples is important for establishing the baseline soil concentration levels at the lysimeter location and developing correlations between the soil concentrations and the mobile porewater concentration[3]. Appropriate standard operation procedures for lysimeter installation and operation have been established and have been reviewed in recent literature[3][5]. Lysimeters should typically be installed near the source area and just above the maximum groundwater level elevation to obtain accurate results of porewater concentrations year round. Depending upon the geology and vertical PFAS distribution in the soil, multilevel lysimeter installations should also be considered.

Results from several lysimeters studies across multiple field sites and modelling analysis has shown that lysimeters can produce reasonable results between field and laboratory studies[5][16][17]. Transient effects of wetting and drying as well as media heterogeneity affects appear to be responsible for some variability and uncertainty in lysimeter based PFAS measurements in the vadose zone. These mobile porewater concentrations can be coupled with effective recharge estimates and simplified modelling approaches to determine mass flux from the vadose zone to the underlying groundwater[15][22][2][41][42].

Future research opportunities should address the current key uncertainties related to the use of lysimeters for PFAS investigations, including:

  1. Collect larger datasets of PFAS concentrations to determine how transient wetting or drying periods and media type affect PFAS concentrations in the mobile porewater. Some research has shown that non-equilibrium processes can occur in the vadose zone, which can affect grab sample concentration in the porewater at specific time periods.
  2. More work should be done with flux averaging lysimeters like the drainage cup or wicking lysimeter. These lysimeters can directly measure net recharge and provide time averaged concentrations of PFAS in water over the sampling period. However, there is little work detailing their potential applications in PFAS research, or operational considerations for their use in remedial investigations for PFAS.
  3. Lysimeters should be coupled with monitoring of wetting and drying in the vadose zone using in situ soil moisture sensors or tensiometers and groundwater levels. Direct measurements of soil saturation at field sites are vital to directly correlate porewater concentrations with soil concentrations. Similarly, groundwater level fluctuations can inform net recharge estimates. By collecting these data we can continue to improve partitioning and leaching models which can relate porewater concentrations to total PFAS mass in soils and PFAS leaching at field sites.
  4. Comparisons of various bench-scale leaching or desorption tests to field-based lysimeter data are recommended. The ability to correlate field measurements of PFAS concentrations with estimates of leaching from laboratory studies would provide a powerful method to empirically estimate PFAS leaching from field sites.

References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Anderson, R.H., Feild, J.B., Dieffenbach-Carle, H., Elsharnouby, O., Krebs, R.K., 2022. Assessment of PFAS in Collocated Soil and Porewater Samples at an AFFF-Impacted Source Zone: Field-Scale Validation of Suction Lysimeters. Chemosphere, 308(1), Article 136247. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136247
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2022. PFAS Concentrations in Soil versus Soil Porewater: Mass Distributions and the Impact of Adsorption at Air-Water Interfaces. Chemosphere, 302, Article 134938. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134938  Open Access Manuscript
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Costanza, J., Clabaugh, C.D., Leibli, C., Ferreira, J., Wilkin, R.T., 2025. Using Suction Lysimeters for Determining the Potential of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances to Leach from Soil to Groundwater: A Review. Environmental Science and Technology, 59(9), pp. 4215-4229. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c10246
  4. ^ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Meissner, R., Rupp, H., Haselow, L., 2020. Use of Lysimeters for Monitoring Soil Water Balance Parameters and Nutrient Leaching. In: Climate Change and Soil Interactions. Elsevier, pp. 171-205. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00007-2
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D., Fang, Y., Gonda, N., Zhang, C., Shea, S., Higgins, C.P., 2024. PFAS Porewater Concentrations in Unsaturated Soil: Field and Laboratory Comparisons Inform on PFAS Accumulation at Air-Water Interfaces. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 264, Article 104359. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104359  Open Access Manuscript
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 Goss, M.J., Ehlers, W., 2009. The Role of Lysimeters in the Development of Our Understanding of Soil Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Ecosystems. Soil Use and Management, 25(3), pp. 213–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00230.x
  7. ^ Pütz, T., Fank, J., Flury, M., 2018. Lysimeters in Vadose Zone Research. Vadose Zone Journal, 17 (1), pp. 1-4. doi: 10.2136/vzj2018.02.0035  Open Access Article
  8. ^ Bergström, L., 1990. Use of Lysimeters to Estimate Leaching of Pesticides in Agricultural Soils. Environmental Pollution, 67 (4), 325–347. doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(90)90070-S
  9. ^ Dabrowska, D., Rykala, W., 2021. A Review of Lysimeter Experiments Carried Out on Municipal Landfill Waste. Toxics, 9(2), Article 26. doi: 10.3390/toxics9020026  Open Access Article
  10. ^ Fernando, S.U., Galagedara, L., Krishnapillai, M., Cuss, C.W., 2023. Lysimeter Sampling System for Optimal Determination of Trace Elements in Soil Solutions. Water, 15(18), Article 3277. doi: 10.3390/w15183277  Open Access Article
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Rogers, R.D., McConnell, J.W. Jr., 1993. Lysimeter Literature Review, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report Numbers: NUREG/CR--6073, EGG--2706. [1] ID: 10183270. doi: 10.2172/10183270  Open Access Article
  12. ^ Sołtysiak, M., Rakoczy, M., 2019. An Overview of the Experimental Research Use of Lysimeters. Environmental and Socio-Economic Studies, 7(2), pp. 49-56. doi: 10.2478/environ-2019-0012  Open Access Article
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 Stannard, D.I., 1992. Tensiometers—Theory, Construction, and Use. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 15(1), pp. 48-58. doi: 10.1520/GTJ10224J
  14. ^ 14.0 14.1 Winton, K., Weber, J.B., 1996. A Review of Field Lysimeter Studies to Describe the Environmental Fate of Pesticides. Weed Technology, 10(1), pp. 202-209. doi: 10.1017/S0890037X00045929
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Anderson, R.H., 2021. The Case for Direct Measures of Soil-to-Groundwater Contaminant Mass Discharge at AFFF-Impacted Sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 55(10), pp. 6580-6583. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c01543
  16. ^ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Schaum, A., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2023. Leaching of Perfluoroalkyl Acids During Unsaturated Zone Flushing at a Field Site Impacted with Aqueous Film Forming Foam. Environmental Science and Technology, 57(5), pp. 1940-1948. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c06903
  17. ^ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Schaefer, C.E., Lavorgna, G.M., Lippincott, D.R., Nguyen, D., Christie, E., Shea, S., O’Hare, S., Lemes, M.C.S., Higgins, C.P., Field, J., 2022. A Field Study to Assess the Role of Air-Water Interfacial Sorption on PFAS Leaching in an AFFF Source Area. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 248, Article 104001. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2022.104001  Open Access Manuscript
  18. ^ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Quinnan, J., Rossi, M., Curry, P., Lupo, M., Miller, M., Korb, H., Orth, C., Hasbrouck, K., 2021. Application of PFAS-Mobile Lab to Support Adaptive Characterization and Flux-Based Conceptual Site Models at AFFF Releases. Remediation, 31(3), pp. 7-26. doi: 10.1002/rem.21680
  19. ^ 19.0 19.1 Brusseau, M.L., Anderson, R.H., Guo, B., 2020. PFAS Concentrations in Soils: Background Levels versus Contaminated Sites. Science of The Total Environment, 740, Article 140017. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 Bigler, M.C., Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., Jones, S.L., Pritchard, J.C., Higgins, C.P., Hatton, J., 2024. High-Resolution Depth-Discrete Analysis of PFAS Distribution and Leaching for a Vadose-Zone Source at an AFFF-Impacted Site. Environmental Science and Technology, 58(22), pp. 9863-9874. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c01615
  21. ^ Nickerson, A., Maizel, A.C., Kulkarni, P.R., Adamson, D.T., Kornuc, J. J., Higgins, C.P., 2020. Enhanced Extraction of AFFF-Associated PFASs from Source Zone Soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 54(8), pp. 4952-4962. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00792
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Nguyen, D., Real, I., Hao, S., Guelfo, J.L., 2024. Air-Water Interfacial Collapse and Rate-Limited Solid Desorption Control Perfluoroalkyl Acid Leaching from the Vadose Zone. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 265, Article 104382. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2024.104382  Open Access Manuscript
  23. ^ Stults, J.F., Choi, Y.J., Rockwell, C., Schaefer, C.E., Nguyen, D.D., Knappe, D.R.U., Illangasekare, T.H., Higgins, C.P., 2023. Predicting Concentration- and Ionic-Strength-Dependent Air–Water Interfacial Partitioning Parameters of PFASs Using Quantitative Structure–Property Relationships (QSPRs). Environmental Science and Technology, 57(13), pp. 5203-5215. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c07316
  24. ^ Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 1999. Determination of Perfluorocarboxylates in Groundwater Impacted by Fire-Fighting Activity. Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2800-2806. doi: 10.1021/es981355+
  25. ^ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Moody, C.A., Field, J.A., 2000. Perfluorinated Surfactants and the Environmental Implications of Their Use in Fire-Fighting Foams. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(18), pp. 3864-3870. doi: 10.1021/es991359u
  26. ^ 26.0 26.1 Glüge, J., Scheringer, M., Cousins, I.T., DeWitt, J.C., Goldenman, G., Herzke, D., Lohmann, R., Ng, C.A., Trier, X., Wang, Z., 2020. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, 22(12), pp. 2345-2373. doi: 10.1039/D0EM00291G  Open Access Article
  27. ^ 27.0 27.1 Brusseau, M.L., 2018. Assessing the Potential Contributions of Additional Retention Processes to PFAS Retardation in the Subsurface. Science of The Total Environment, 613-614, pp. 176-185. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.065  Open Access Manuscript
  28. ^ Dave, N., Joshi, T., 2017. A Concise Review on Surfactants and Its Significance. International Journal of Applied Chemistry, 13(3), pp. 663-672. doi: 10.37622/IJAC/13.3.2017.663-672  Open Access Article
  29. ^ García, R.A., Chiaia-Hernández, A.C., Lara-Martin, P.A., Loos, M., Hollender, J., Oetjen, K., Higgins, C.P., Field, J.A., 2019. Suspect Screening of Hydrocarbon Surfactants in Afffs and Afff-Contaminated Groundwater by High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(14), pp. 8068-8077. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b01895
  30. ^ Krafft, M.P., Riess, J.G., 2015. Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFASs): Environmental Challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science, 20(3), pp. 192-212. doi: 10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004
  31. ^ Schaefer, C.E., Culina, V., Nguyen, D., Field, J., 2019. Uptake of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances at the Air–Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology, 53(21), pp. 12442-12448. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.9b04008
  32. ^ Lyu, Y., Brusseau, M.L., Chen, W., Yan, N., Fu, X., Lin, X., 2018. Adsorption of PFOA at the Air–Water Interface during Transport in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, 52(14), pp. 7745-7753. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02348
  33. ^ Costanza, J., Arshadi, M., Abriola, L.M., Pennell, K.D., 2019. Accumulation of PFOA and PFOS at the Air-Water Interface. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 6(8), pp. 487-491. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00355
  34. ^ Li, F., Fang, X., Zhou, Z., Liao, X., Zou, J., Yuan, B., Sun, W., 2019. Adsorption of Perfluorinated Acids onto Soils: Kinetics, Isotherms, and Influences of Soil Properties. Science of The Total Environment, 649, pp. 504-514. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.209
  35. ^ Nguyen, T.M.H., Bräunig, J., Thompson, K., Thompson, J., Kabiri, S., Navarro, D.A., Kookana, R.S., Grimison, C., Barnes, C.M., Higgins, C.P., McLaughlin, M.J., Mueller, J.F., 2020. Influences of Chemical Properties, Soil Properties, and Solution pH on Soil–Water Partitioning Coefficients of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Science and Technology, 54(24), pp. 15883-15892. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05705  Open Access Article
  36. ^ Brusseau, M.L., Yan, N., Van Glubt, S., Wang, Y., Chen, W., Lyu, Y., Dungan, B., Carroll, K.C., Holguin, F.O., 2019. Comprehensive Retention Model for PFAS Transport in Subsurface Systems. Water Research, 148, pp. 41-50. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2018.10.035
  37. ^ 37.0 37.1 37.2 Brusseau, M.L., 2023. Determining Air-Water Interfacial Areas for the Retention and Transport of PFAS and Other Interfacially Active Solutes in Unsaturated Porous Media. Science of The Total Environment, 884, Article 163730. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163730  Open Access Article
  38. ^ van Genuchten, M.Th. , 1980. A Closed‐form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44(5), pp. 892-898. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
  39. ^ Peng, S., Brusseau, M.L., 2012. Air-Water Interfacial Area and Capillary Pressure: Porous-Medium Texture Effects and an Empirical Function. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(7), pp. 829-832. doi: 10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000515
  40. ^ Brusseau, M.L., Peng, S., Schnaar, G., Costanza-Robinson, M.S., 2006. Relationships among Air-Water Interfacial Area, Capillary Pressure, and Water Saturation for a Sandy Porous Medium. Water Resources Research, 42(3), Article W03501, 5 pages. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004058  Free Access Article
  41. ^ Stults, J.F., Schaefer, C.E., MacBeth, T., Fang, Y., Devon, J., Real, I., Liu, F., Kosson, D., Guelfo, J.L., 2025. Laboratory Validation of a Simplified Model for Estimating Equilibrium PFAS Mass Leaching from Unsaturated Soils. Science of The Total Environment, 970, Article 179036. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179036
  42. ^ Smith, J. Brusseau, M.L., Guo, B., 2024. An Integrated Analytical Modeling Framework for Determining Site-Specific Soil Screening Levels for PFAS. Water Research, 252, Article121236. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2024.121236

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Jhurley/sandbox&oldid=17811"