4.8 Article

Vertical Profiles, Sources, and Transport of PFASs in the Arctic Ocean

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 12, Pages 6735-6744

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00788

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSF's Office of Polar Programs [ARC 1203486, 1203496]
  2. Canada Foundation for Innovation: Advanced Laboratory for Fluorinated and Other New Substances in the Environment (ALFONSE)
  3. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1203496] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The relative importance of atmospheric versus oceanic transport for poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) reaching the Arctic Ocean is not well understood. Vertical profiles from the Central Arctic Ocean and shelf water, snow and meltwater samples were collected in 2012; 13 PFASs (C6-C12 PFCAs; C6, 8, 10 PFSAs; MeFOSAA and EtFOSAA; and FOSA) were routinely detected (range: <5-343 pg/L). PFASs were only detectable above 150 m depth in the polar mixed layer (PML) and halocline. Enhanced concentrations were observed in snow and meltpond samples, implying atmospheric deposition as an important source of PFASs. Model results suggested atmospheric inputs to account for 34-59% (similar to 11-19 pg/L) of measured PFOA concentrations in the PML (mean 32 +/- 15 pg/L). Modeled surface and halocline measurements for PFOS based on North Atlantic inflow (11-36 pg/L) agreed with measurements (mean, 17, range <5-41 pg/L). Modeled deep water concentrations below 200 m (5-15 pg/L) were slightly higher than measurements (<5 pg/L), suggesting the lower bound of PFAS emissions estimates from wastewater and rivers may provide the best estimate of inputs to the Arctic. Despite low concentrations in deep water, this reservoir is expected to contain most of the PFOS mass in the Arctic (63-180 Mg) and is projected to continue increasing to 2038.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available