2021
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4405
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Strategic resources for assessing PFAS ecological risks at AFFF sites

Abstract: The use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) in the United States has caused concern about the potential effects of per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on ecological resources. Moreover, the limited availability of scientific information and a lack of guidance have collectively resulted in significant challenges for ecological risk assessors supporting site‐specific investigations and management decisions at PFAS‐impacted sites. To address these needs, the environmental science and technology program of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The LC50 for PFOS in the present study, 2.49 µg/L, is in the range of previously published 5% hazard concentrations (HC5s) for PFOS including those by Giesy et al (2010; 5.1 µg/L); Qi et al (2011; 6.66 µg/L), Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018; 6.8 µg/L), and Conder et al (2020; 6 µg/L). Our LC50 of 2.49 µg/L is even closer to the HC5 of Salice et al (2018; 1.12 µg/L).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The LC50 for PFOS in the present study, 2.49 µg/L, is in the range of previously published 5% hazard concentrations (HC5s) for PFOS including those by Giesy et al (2010; 5.1 µg/L); Qi et al (2011; 6.66 µg/L), Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018; 6.8 µg/L), and Conder et al (2020; 6 µg/L). Our LC50 of 2.49 µg/L is even closer to the HC5 of Salice et al (2018; 1.12 µg/L).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Because of their widespread occurrence and relatively high concentrations compared to other PFAS (East et al 2020), PFOS, followed by PFOA, has been the primary focus of toxicity studies (Conder et al 2020; Divine et al 2020). Also, PFOS has been shown to be the most toxic to the broadest range of species compared to other PFAS, including PFOA (see Li 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different PFAS partition into and are enriched in abiotic environmental matrices based on chemical‐, media‐, and site‐specific attributes. For example, some PFAS are highly mobile in water, with most mass transported in the aqueous phase including leaching from soil to groundwater and surface water (Ahrens and Bundschuh 2014; Conder et al 2019; Interstate Technology Regulatory Council 2020b). Others are insoluble in water, thus limiting any exposure via this route.…”
Section: Current Knowledge About Ecological Exposures To Pfasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many monitoring programs, such as those downstream of AFFF sites at US Air Force bases, include 18 or fewer PFAS (Anderson et al, 2016). Although two common PFAS, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have been studied more than other PFAS, the understanding of the environmental toxicology of PFAS also remains underdeveloped (Conder et al, 2020; Divine et al, 2020). Further, most PFAS toxicity studies have been conducted with single‐chemical exposures or constructed mixtures that reflect just a portion of the mixtures present in the environment (Table S6.1 of Ankley et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%