4.7 Article

Sorption behaviour of perfluoroalkyl substances in soils

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 511, 期 -, 页码 63-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.017

关键词

Perfluoroalkyl substances; Sorption; Soil; Organic carbon; UPLC-MS/MS

资金

  1. Spanish Government (CICYT) [CTM 2008-01147/TECNO, CTM 2011-27211]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya [2009SGR1188]
  3. Catalan Government [2010FI_B 00513]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sorption behaviour of three perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorobutane sulfonic add (PFBS), was studied in six soils with contrasting characteristics, especially in the organic carbon content. Sorption isotherms were obtained by equilibrating the soil samples with 0.01 mol L-1 CaCl2 solutions spiked with increasing concentrations of the target PFAS. The sorption reversibility of PFASs was also tested for some of the samples. Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry was used to quantify the target PFASs in the solutions. Both the Freundlich and linear models were appropriate to describe the sorption behaviour of PFASs in soils, and enabled us to derive solid-liquid distribution coefficients (K-d) for each compound in each soil. K-d values increased from 19 to 295 mL g(-1) for PFOS, from 22 to 38 mL g(-1) for PFOA and from 0.4 to 6.8 mL g(-1) for PFBS, and were positively correlated with the organic carbon content of the soil. K-oc values obtained from the correlations were 710,96 and 17 mL g(-1) for PFOS, PFOA and PFBS, respectively. Whereas Kd values decreased in the sequence PFOS > PFOA > PFBS, desorption yields were lower than 13% for PFOS, from 24 to 58% for PFOA, and from 32 to 60% for PFBS. This shows that the physicochemical characteristics of PFASs, basically their hydrophobicity, controlled their sorption behaviour in soils, with PFOS being the most irreversibly sorbed PFAS. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据