Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37990738›Full record

ArticleJournal of hazardous materials letters2023

Revising the EPA Dilution-Attenuation Soil Screening Model for PFAS.

Mark L Brusseau, Bo Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hazardous materials letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mark L BrusseauEnvironmental Science Department, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.
Bo GuoHydrology and Atmospheric Sciences Department, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

Funding

TRANSPORT OF TRACE METALS IN A POLLUTED AQUIFERP42ES004940 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI Bernardo Lemos · 1990 to 2026
$68.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES004940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been shown to be ubiquitous in the environment, and one issue of critical concern is the leaching of PFAS from soil to groundwater. The risk posed by contaminants present in soil is often assessed in terms of the anticipated impact to groundwater through the determination of soil screening levels (SSLs). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a soil screening model for determining SSLs. However, the model does not consider the unique retention properties of PFAS and, consequently, the SSLs established with the model may not represent the actual levels that are protective of groundwater quality. The objective of this work is to revise the standard EPA SSL model to reflect the unique properties and associated retention behavior of PFAS. Specifically, the distribution parameter used to convert soil porewater concentrations to soil concentrations is revised to account for adsorption at the air-water interface. Example calculations conducted for PFOS and PFOA illustrate the contrasting SSLs obtained with the revised and standard models. A comparison of distribution parameters calculated for a series of PFAS of different chain length shows that the significance of air-water interfacial adsorption can vary greatly as a function of the specific PFAS. Therefore, the difference between SSLs calculated with the revised versus standard models will vary as a function of the specific PFAS, with greater differences typically observed for longer-chain PFAS. It is anticipated that this revised model will be useful for developing improved SSLs that can be used to enhance site investigations and management for PFAS-impacted sites.

Indexed as

leachingPFASsoil contaminationtransport and fate

Identifiers

PMID37990738
PMCPMC10662647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.