ReviewEnvironmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)2024
PFAS remediation in soil: An evaluation of carbon-based materials for contaminant sequestration.
Review in Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- A molecular and cellular understanding of PFDA-exposure-associated outcomes on biological assemblies.Environmental research · 2026Article
- Development and optimization of PFAS extraction in soil's headspace followed by multidimensional gas chromatography and mass spectrometry.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Recent advances and challenges of analytical methods for detection of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.RSC advances · 2026Review
- Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): History, Current Concerns, and Future Outlook.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- An Atomic and Molecular Insight into How PFOA Reduces α-Helicity, Compromises Substrate Binding, and Creates Binding Pockets in a Model Globular Protein.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2024Article
- Phytotoxicity and phytoremediation potential ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The presence of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in soils is a global concern as these emerging contaminants are highly resistant to degradation and cause adverse effects on human and environmental health at very low concentrations. Sequestering PFAS in soils using carbon-based materials is a low-cost and effective strategy to minimize pollutant bioavailability and exposure, and may offer potential long-term remediation of PFAS in the environment. This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of current insights on sequestration of PFAS in soil using carbon-based sorbents. Hydrophobic effects originating from fluorinated carbon (C-F) backbone "tail" and electrostatic interactions deriving from functional groups on the molecules' "head" are the two driving forces governing PFAS sorption. Consequently, varying C-F chain lengths and polar functional groups significantly alter PFAS availability and leachability. Furthermore, matrix parameters such as soil organic matter, inorganic minerals, and pH significantly impact PFAS sequestration by sorbent amendments. Materials such as activated carbon, biochar, carbon nanotubes, and their composites are the primary C-based materials used for PFAS adsorption. Importantly, modifying the carbon structural and surface chemistry is essential for increasing the active sorption sites and for strengthening interactions with PFAS. This review evaluates current literature, identifies knowledge gaps in current remediation technologies and addresses future strategies on the sequestration of PFAS in contaminated soil using sustainable novel C-based sorbents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.