4.7 Article

Investigating recycled water use as a diffuse source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to groundwater in Melbourne, Australia

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 644, Issue -, Pages 1409-1417

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.048

Keywords

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); PFOS; PFOA; Irrigation; Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP); Groundwater; Recycled water

Funding

  1. Australian Contaminated Land Consultants Association (ACLCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

C The purpose of this study was to investigate the contribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to groundwater at a location where recycled water from a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is used to irrigate crops. Groundwater from Werribee South, located west of Melbourne, Australia, was sampled over two campaigns in 2017 and 2018, extracted using solid phase extraction (SPE) and analysed with liquid chromatography-tandemmass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS-QQQ). PFASs were detected in 100% of the groundwater samples. The sum total of twenty PFAS compounds (Sigma(20)PFASs) for all sites in the study ranged from <0.03 to 74 ng/L (n = 28) and the highest levels of which were observed in the centre of the irrigation district. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) was the most detected compound overall (96%) with a mean concentration of 11 ng/L (<0.03-34 ng/L), followed by perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS; 86%, 4.4 ng/L), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA; 82%, 2.2 ng/L) and perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA; 77%, 6.1 ng/L). Concentrations of PFASs found in this study are greater than background levels of PFASs detected in groundwater and are in the range of concentrations typically detected in wastewater effluent. This study presents evidence that the use of recycled water can be a source of PFAS contamination to groundwater. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available