Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Sep 20.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Jun 10;30(33):80643–80654. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-27880-8

PFAS soil concentrations surrounding a hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, an environmental justice community

Kaitlin Vollet Martin 1,2, Timothy J Hilbert 3, Michael Reilly 4, W Jay Christian 1, Anna Hoover 1, Kelly G Pennell 5, Qunxing Ding 6, Erin N Haynes 1
PMCID: PMC10510938  NIHMSID: NIHMS1924327  PMID: 37300732

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic compounds widely used in industrial and consumer products. While PFAS provide product durability, these chemicals are ubiquitous, persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic. These characteristics make the ultimate disposal of PFAS a challenge. One current disposal method is incineration; however, little research has been conducted on the safety and effectiveness of PFAS incineration. The characteristics of communities with hazardous waste incinerators that have received PFAS shipments indicate that more individuals with lower incomes and individuals with less education than the US average are at higher risk of exposure, which presents important environmental justice and health equity concerns of PFAS incineration. Situated in eastern Ohio, East Liverpool is an Appalachian community that is home to a large hazardous-waste incinerator, operated by Heritage WTI, that began accepting PFAS in 2019. Residents are concerned that the disposal lacks the research necessary to assure safety for the residents. Due to both community interest and data gaps regarding PFAS incineration, our research team conducted a pilot study to examine the distribution and concentration of PFAS in soil samples surrounding the incinerator. All 35 soil samples had measurable amounts of PFAS including perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA)/GenX. PFOS was measured in the majority of soil samples (97%) with a range of 50–8,300 ng/kg. PFOA was measured in 94% of soil samples with a range of 51 ng/kg to 1300 ng/kg. HFPO-DA/GenX was measurable in 12 soil samples with concentrations of ranging from 150 ng/kg to 1500 ng/kg. Further research on PFAS disposal will advance knowledge and action related to regulatory requirements and exposure prevention, ultimately improving individual and community protections and health equity.

Keywords: PFAS, PFAS incineration, Environmental justice, AFFF

Introduction

Often referred to as “forever chemicals,” per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic compounds that have recently become recognized as a global health threat (Environmental Protection Agency 2021f). Since the 1940s, PFAS have been widely used in industrial and consumer products. Due to water, oil, and heat-resistant characteristics, potential PFAS exposure stems from a wide range of products such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, waterproof materials, food packaging, and aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) or firefighting foam. There are thousands of PFAS compounds in use such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA or the tradename, GenX). While PFAS provides product durability, these man-made chemicals are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (Goodrow et al. 2020).

PFAS molecules are composed of carbon–fluorine bonds, which are very short and strong, making PFAS highly resistant to degradation (Lindstrom et al. 2011). Due to a long history of use and persistence, PFAS is found in waterways, soil, groundwater, dust, animals, and humans. Based on current scientific research, humans are exposed largely through the ingestion of PFAS-containing food and water. PFAS drinking water contamination is particularly prevalent in communities surrounding military bases where AFFF was used (Anderko & Pennea 2020). A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 97 percent of the United States (US) population had detectable levels of PFAS in their blood (Lewis et al. 2015); however, safe exposure levels are widely debated. Bioaccumulation has been linked with a vast array of health effects such as those involving fertility (Ding et al. 2020; Tarapore & Ouyang 2021), fetal growth (Xiao et al. 2020), metabolic outcomes (Shih et al. 2021), lipids, and thyroid disease (Jain & Ducatman 2019; Melzer et al. 2010).

Increasing regulatory attention has led to several PFAS, namely, PFOA and PFOS, being phased out of production in the US. However, the proper disposal of these legacy substances is hotly debated due to the volatility, persistence, and ubiquitous nature of PFAS. In 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded contracts to nine facilities to dispose of AFFF through incineration in states including Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas (Crunden 2020). To our knowledge, very little peer-reviewed research has been conducted on the efficacy of PFAS incineration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) note that few experiments have been conducted that represent field-scale incineration and its effectiveness to destroy PFAS compounds; additionally, the formation of byproducts is not well understood (Environmental Protection Agency 2020). In addition to these questions, the DoD has acknowledged that limited air emission data exists (Sullivan 2019). Both the US EPA and DoD are currently investigating optimal PFAS disposal methods (Environmental Protection Agency 2021f).

With both the effectiveness and safety of PFAS incineration in question, communities with incinerators receiving these compounds are at risk. Demographic characteristics of communities with hazardous waste incinerators that regularly receive PFAS shipments (Environmental Protection Agency 2021d) indicate that potential exposures resulting from incineration may affect individuals residing in communities with lower incomes and less education than the US average (Table 1). In addition to existing health disparities arising from these socioeconomic social determinants of health (P. Braveman et al. 2011), these communities face additional vulnerability related to the unknown hazards associated with PFAS incineration. Specifically, Appalachian communities often are environmentally exploited, which increases the potential for contaminant exposures contributing to health disparities (Haynes et al. 2010; Kozlowski & Perkins 2016). Situated in eastern Ohio (OH), East Liverpool is an Appalachian community that is home to a large hazardous-waste incinerator, which began accepting PFAS in 2019. Local residents are concerned that insufficient scientific evidence about PFAS disposal exists to assure community safety (Environmental Protection Agency 2021b; Ujhelyi 2020). In order to address the community’s concern and research data gaps regarding PFAS incineration, our research team conducted a pilot study to examine the distribution and concentration of PFAS in soil and surface water surrounding the hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, OH.

Table I.

Demographics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Incinerators regularly receiving PFAS for Incineration in 2019–2021

El Dorado, Arkansas Cottage Grove, Minnesota Kimball, Nebraska East Liverpool, Ohio Grafton, Ohio Port Arthur, Texas La Porte, Texas Grantsville, Utah United States
Incinerator Clean Harbors El Dorado LLC 3 M Company Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc. Heritage Thermal Services Inc. Ross Incineration Services Veolia ES Technical Solutions Cleans Harbors Deer Park, LLC Clean Harbors Aragonite LLC
Demographic Characteristics
Total Population 17,756 38,839 3,434 9,958 5,895 56,039 35,124 12,064 331,449,281
Population under 18 years 26.0% 28.1% 21.1% 24.9% 6.7% 27.1% 22.4% 38.8% 22.3%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent 48.6% 84.0% 93.4% 86.8% 65.4% 50.0% 83.8% 92.8% 76.3%
Black or African American alone 47.5% 5.0% 0.4% 4.1% 27.9% 38.2% 6.2% 0.5% 13.4%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.5% 0.3% 2.3% 0.0% 1.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6% 1.3%
Asian alone 1.0% 6.9% 1.0% 0.5% 0.2% 7.3% 1.2% 1.8% 5.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, alone 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.4% 0.2%
Two or more races 1.2% 2.9% 2.9% 6.2% 4.1% 1.6% 4.1% 2.4% 2.8%
Hispanic or Latino 5.7% 4.5% 9.3% 3.0% 4.5% 34.5% 34.8% 6.3% 18.5%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 43.5% 80.9% 85.4% 86.5% 63.3% 18.7% 55.3% 88.4% 60.1%
Education
High school degree or higher 81.6% 95.9% 88.7% 83.9% 82.7% 73.4% 87.7% 93.0% 88.0%
Bachelor’s degree or higher 23.5% 36.3% 16.1% 9.4% 9.8% 11.7% 15.9% 27.0% 32.1%
Health
% with a disability, under the age 65; 2015–2019 11.2% 5.6% 8.3% 17.8% 10.8% 9.7% 11.2% 7.5% 8.6%
Persons without health insurance, under age 65 10.8% 2.4% 12.3% 8.9% 6.4% 32.9% 15.7% 6.4% 10.2%
Income
Median Household Income $42,595 $102,039 $53,403 $32,119 $61,042 $36,557 $75,262 $72,378 $62, 843
% Below the Poverty Line 23.7% 2.3% 15.7% 27.9% 7.8% 27.2% 9.9% 5.3% 11.4%
Number of PFAS Shipments Received from 2019– 2021 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2021) 172 shipments 225 shipments 51 shipments 271 shipments 30 shipments 109 shipments 50 shipments 49 shipments
Open in a new tab

“Regularly receiving PFAS” shipments is defined as receiving more than 25 shipments (Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). All data were obtained and reported exactly as it was from the US Census Bureau 2020 (Bureau, 2020). The authors did not redefine the terms, rather the same terms are used as the original source data.

Methods

Soil sampling

A certified industrial hygienist (CIH) and a field technician traveled to East Liverpool, OH, to conduct environmental surface soil sampling for analysis of 28 PFAS at locations surrounding the Heritage WTI waste incinerator facility. A professional geologist offered guidance in the preparation and execution of the sampling. The first round of soil sampling occurred on January 30, 2021. A second round of soil sampling occurred on December 29, 2021. Surface soil sample locations were identified in partnership with input from local residents, academic, and the technician. Surface soil samples were obtained at locations adjacent to and further from the Heritage Thermal Services waste incinerator facility located in East Liverpool, OH. Soil sampling locations were chosen in the field by the field technicians based on accessible and vacant public lands with the majority of samples collected within a two-mile radius of the facility. In addition, Google Maps was utilized in the field to identify potential sampling locations. To avoid potential PFAS cross-contamination associated with sampling in relation to the site, areas further from the site were sampled prior to locations closer to the site. The upwind direction was based on the predominant southwest to northeast wind that historically traverses the facility. Actual wind direction observed during the day of the sampling was not considered during the environmental sampling activities.

In total, 35 surface soil samples were collected in the lands surrounding the facility, 15 were collected in January 2021, and 20 were collected in December 2021. The 15 soil samples collected in January 2021 were comprised five samples obtained in East Liverpool, OH, eight samples obtained in Chester, West Virginia, one sample obtained in Ohioville, Pennsylvania, and one sample obtained in Georgetown, Pennsylvania. On the day of sampling in January 2021, the temperature ranged from 8 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit, the relative humidity was 56–80%, and the observed wind speed/direction was 3 to 10 miles per hour Southeast. The 20 soil samples collected in December 2021 included eight samples obtained in East Liverpool, Ohio, five samples obtained in Chester, West Virginia, three samples from Ohioville, Pennsylvania, one sample was collected in Glasgow, Pennsylvania, and two samples were obtained in Georgetown, Pennsylvania. Additionally, one equipment blank was collected in the field. On the day of sampling in December 2021, the temperature ranged from 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, the relative humidity was 80–90%, and the observed wind speed/direction was 0 to 10 miles per hour Southwest.

The onsite field technician obtained environmental soil samples in accordance with current US EPA methods/protocols for sampling PFAS in surface soil. Samples were shipped to the analytical laboratory (ALS Environmental, Holland, MI) on ice (convenience store ice bagged in 1-gallon Ziploc® bags) in coolers provided by the analytical laboratory. The soil samples were analyzed by a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry mass spectrometry (LC tandem MS, LC–MS/MS) compliant with Table B-15 of U.S. DoD’s Q Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.3.

We used QGIS version 3.16 to create a map of the study region using cartographic boundary files and other spatial data from the U.S. Census (Bureau 2021). On Fig. 1, we plotted the locations of the soil sampling sites and used pie charts to visualize the relative concentrations of all quantifiable PFAS chemicals in the soil at each site.

Figure I.

Figure I

Open in a new tab

Map of PFAS concentrations at soil sampling sites in East Liverpool, Ohio

Water sampling

On January 30, 2021 and February 03, 2021, nineteen surface water samples were collected in the Ohio River, as well as creeks and streams surrounding the facility. The nineteen samples comprised nine samples obtained in East Liverpool, Ohio, eight samples obtained in Chester, West Virginia, one sample obtained in Ohioville, Pennsylvania, and one sample obtained in Georgetown, Pennsylvania. One field blank was collected on January 30, 2021.

Surface water samples were obtained utilizing three 200 ml (ml) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers provided by the analytical laboratory. The HDPE containers did not have a preservative. The field technician obtained surface water samples from the shoreline of the Ohio River, creeks, and streams, occasionally wading into the waterway to obtain moving water. Efforts were made to sample at the middle of the water column, as well as sampling downstream locations prior to sampling upstream. The field technician opened each individual 200 ml sampling container underwater and capped the sample underwater after the container filled. The three containers were then labeled, bagged, and placed in the sampling cooler over ice in preparation for shipment to the analytical laboratory. Field blanks for surface water samples were obtained in the field by pouring PFAS-free DI water provided by the analytical laboratory into three 200 ml HDPE blank containers. The blanks were capped and processed as described above. The surface water samples were analyzed by a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry mass spectrometry (LCMSMS) compliant with Table B-15 of U.S. DoD’s Q Quality Systems Manual (QSM) 5.3.

We used QGIS version 3.16 to create a map (Supplemental Fig. 1) of the study region using cartographic boundary files and other spatial data from the U.S. Census (Bureau 2021). On the map, we plotted the locations of the surface water sampling sites and used pie charts to visualize the relative concentrations of all quantifiable PFAS chemicals in the water at each site.

Results and discussion

Soil concentrations of PFOS and PFOA

All 35 soil samples had measurable amounts of PFAS (Table 2); however, due to the study design, we cannot directly link the observed PFAS levels in our study to the hazardous waste incinerator. Concentrations of PFOS and PFOA were quantifiable in the majority (97% and 94%, respectively) of the soil samples. As depicted in Fig. 1, Table 2, and Supplemental Table 1, the quantifiable PFOS concentrations were higher than PFOA. The average concentration of PFOS was 1225 ng/kg with a range of 50–8,300 ng/kg. Site C had the highest PFOS concentration (8,300 ng/kg). Interestingly, site C is located over one kilometer upwind of the incinerator. This location is located in a residential area along the Ohio River with no known source of PFAS. A recent pilot study of water and soil samples completed by faculty and students at Bennington College in Vermont described a similar trend with PFOS soil concentrations being higher than PFOA levels in sampling sites surrounding a plant incinerating AFFF (Bond and Enck 2020). The study found a maximum PFOS concentration of 1.2 ng/g in soil located adjacent (250 m) to the plant (Bond and Enck 2020). In our study, we detected even higher PFOS concentrations at 7 of our sampling locations, sites C, H, and J1. Interestingly, each of these sites is upwind of the incinerator making it unlikely to have stemmed from the incinerator. At site H, which is located closest to the incinerator, we detected a PFOS concentration approximately 7 times higher than the maximum observed in New York. A review study investigating global background concentrations of PFOA and PFOS observed median maximum concentrations of 2,700 ng/kg for both PFOS and PFOA among the included studies (Brusseau et al. 2020). The PFOS and PFOA levels detected in our study are within the range detected in several studies investigating PFOS soil deposition near PFAS releasing sources (Conservation 2021; Zhu et al. 2019); however, our mean PFOS level of 1,225 ng/kg was greater than the hypothesized background PFOS level of approximately 610 ng/kg in a study near an industrial source in the northeastern US (Schroeder et al. 2021). We cannot link the observed PFOS and PFOA levels in our study to the hazardous waste incinerator. It is possible that there are other sources of PFAS in the area that have not been reported, similar to the observations made in nearby Wooster, OH (Pike et al. 2021).

Table II.

PFAS Concentrations in Soil (ng/Kg) near the WTI Incinerator

PFAS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Perfluorobutanesulfonic Acid (PFBS) Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA or GenX) Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA) N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic Acid Perfluorodecanesulfonic Acid (PFDS) Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA) Perfluorododecanoic Acid (PFDoA) Perfluorononanesulfonic Acid (PFNS) Perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA) Perfluoropentanoic Acid (PFPeA) Perfluoroundecanoic Acid (PFUnA) Perfluorobutanoic Acid (PFBA) Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHXA) Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHPA) Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTRIA) Total PFAS (ng/kg)
Collected January 30, 2021 Site A 300 110 43 < 210 60 < 210 < 43 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 43 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 513
Site B1 460 200 < 48 < 240 85 < 240 < 48 < 240 < 240 < 240 < 48 < 240 < 240 < 240 < 240 < 240 < 240 745
Site B2 490 250 < 49 < 250 79 < 250 < 49 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 49 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 < 250 819
Site C 8,300 210 39 < 180 180 230 < 35 620 240 620 69 220 180 < 180 < 180 < 180 < 180 10908
Site D 1,000 570 < 38 < 190 190 < 190 < 38 < 190 < 190 < 190 < 38 < 190 < 190 < 190 < 190 < 190 < 190 1760
Site E 580 170 < 37 < 180 120 < 180 < 37 ND < 180 < 180 < 37 < 180 < 180 < 180 < 180 < 180 < 180 870
Site F 220 < 41 < 41 < 210 < 41 < 210 < 41 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 41 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 < 210 220
Site G 110 150 < 45 < 220 100 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 45 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 220 < 220 360
Site H 4,600 970 < 31 < 150 360 < 150 < 31 160 < 150 < 150 < 31 < 150 < 150 < 150 < 150 < 150 < 150 6090
Site I 700 86 < 52 < 260 91 < 260 < 52 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 52 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 < 260 877
Site J1 2,000 320 < 55 < 280 230 < 280 65 320 < 280 < 280 < 55 < 280 < 280 < 280 < 280 < 280 < 280 2935
Site J2 1,100 120 < 35 < 170 150 < 170 < 35 200 < 170 < 170 < 35 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 1570
Site K 110 51 < 32 < 160 35 < 160 < 32 < 160 < 160 < 160 < 32 < 160 < 160 < 160 < 160 < 160 < 160 196
Site L 160 76 < 33 470 48 < 170 < 33 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 33 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 < 170 754
Site M 890 230 < 59 1,100 110 < 300 60 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 59 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 < 300 2390
Collected December 29, 2021 Site N < 12 < 14 < 20 < 120 < 15 < 37 < 16 < 23 < 32 < 26 < 10 < 20 < 26 61 49 < 20 < 34 110
Site O 530 200 41 150 120 < 44 21 71 < 38 < 31 13 81 98 370 94 110 < 41 1899
Site P 620 400 < 27 < 160 270 < 49 < 21 190 < 42 < 34 < 13 78 210 460 120 120 < 45 2468
Site Q 3900 500 55 < 150 270 < 47 < 20 240 86 < 33 28 130 120 330 200 190 < 44 6049
Site R 720 1300 46 < 160 190 < 50 < 21 62 < 43 < 35 < 14 150 74 470 190 140 < 46 3342
Site S 3000 180 36 < 180 130 < 55 < 23 65 < 47 < 39 35 36 110 210 87 56 < 51 3945
Site T 200 82 < 26 < 160 67 < 48 < 20 63 < 41 < 34 < 13 31 43 140 71 44 < 44 741
Site U 200 250 < 28 < 170 82 < 51 < 22 56 < 44 < 36 16 29 69 130 83 49 < 47 964
Site V 1000 460 41 600 220 < 52 < 22 290 88 < 37 28 92 200 370 130 180 56 3755
Site W 810 610 33 170 150 < 47 < 20 82 < 40 < 33 < 13 160 200 430 170 160 < 43 2975
Site X 2300 880 39 390 250 < 46 < 20 240 63 < 33 < 13 230 140 580 290 220 < 43 5622
Site Y 2800 720 39 280 200 < 45 < 19 160 61 < 32 35 110 91 250 150 100 45 5041
Site Z 750 280 < 22 < 130 110 < 40 65 96 41 < 28 12 31 67 120 110 60 < 37 1742
Site AA 1200 430 < 28 350 310 < 51 < 22 230 87 < 36 < 14 120 240 490 110 160 64 3791
Site BB 50 130 < 24 < 140 39 < 44 < 19 37 < 38 < 31 < 12 43 46 170 64 51 < 41 630
Site CC 350 170 < 24 < 150 140 < 44 < 19 140 42 < 31 12 74 110 210 81 54 < 41 1383
Site DD 560 380 27 230 190 < 40 < 17 130 76 < 28 12 76 140 330 100 96 58 2405
Site EE 690 1100 46 850 360 < 51 < 22 190 46 < 36 < 14 120 140 590 190 230 < 48 4552
Site FF 330 390 < 23 190 120 < 42 < 18 47 < 36 < 30 12 43 58 170 100 62 < 39 1522
Site GG 630 540 < 25 1500 270 < 45 < 19 200 60 < 32 < 12 130 160 340 160 160 < 42 4150
Open in a new tab
*

Detection limits varied.

*

Perfluorotetradecanoic Acid, Perfluoropentanesulfonic Acid, Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid, Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acid 4:2, Fluorotelomer Sulphonic Acid 8:2, N-Ethylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic Acid, and 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic Acid were not detected in any soil samples.

The US EPA has listed both PFOS and PFOA as emerging contaminants of concern (Environmental Protection Agency 2017) and in 2016 established a chronic reference dose (RfD) for PFOA of 0.00002 mg/kg-day and a chronic RfD for PFOS of 0.00002 mg/kg-day. These RfDs are currently under reevaluation with the US EPA and may be updated in the future (Environmental Protection Agency 2021c). Due to the documented human health effects associated with PFOA and PFOS exposure, the bioaccumulation of the chemicals, and environmental persistence, these long-chain PFAS have been phased out of production in the United States; however, industry has shifted to producing short-chain PFAS as replacements with limited data to support safety. Additionally, despite the fact that PFOS and PFOA are being phased out of production in the US, these substances are ubiquitous in the environment, making safe and effective disposal a challenge.

Soil levels of replacement PFAS including GenX

In East Liverpool, OH, we detected quantifiable perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) levels in 12 of our soil samples. In 2002, the production of PFOS was phased out and replaced by PFBS due to its shorter carbon chain length and, thus, subsequent shorter half-life in human serum (approximately 44 days vs. approximately 1,200 days) (Li et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2020). In addition to PFBS-containing products, PFBS may also be a byproduct of the degradation of longer-chain PFAS. Notably, previous research suggests that PFBS does not readily adsorb to soil; therefore, concentrations are more likely to be detected in water (Norwegian Geotechnical Institute 2018). While there is limited health data on PFBS, animal studies suggest that PFBS is associated with adverse fetal, reproductive, renal, hepatic, and endocrine health outcomes (Bogdan 2019; Environmental Protection Agency 2018). Questions surrounding the carcinogenicity of PFBS remain. Although the current literature suggests that PFBS is less toxic than PFOA and PFOS, the US EPA has established a RfD of 0.0003 mg/kg-day for PFBS based on oral exposure (Environmental Protection Agency 2021e).

Quantifiable levels of HFPO-DA (GenX) were detected in 12 of the sampling locations (range: 150 ng/kg and 1100 ng/kg). The majority of the soil samples with quantifiable GenX concentrations were to the east of the incinerator. According to the US EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), no facilities located near these sampling locations (Beaver County, Pennsylvania; Columbiana County, Ohio; and Hancock County, West Virginia) have reported GenX releases due to the self-report nature and recent addition of PFAS to the TRI (EPA Toxic Release Inventory 2021). GenX was developed to be a safer alternative to replace the longer-chain PFOA. GenX can be generated as a byproduct of manufacturing processes. The concentrations observed in East Liverpool, OH, are similar to the 2018 GenX levels (1.00 ng/g and 1.20 ng/g) measured in soil near Veto Lake in Washington County, OH, located approximately 8 km from a fluorochemical facility (Galloway et al. 2020). However, it is important to note that the emissions near Veto Lake were attributed to the use of GenX in the manufacturing process. While data on human exposure to GenX is lacking, animal studies have linked GenX exposure with adverse health outcomes similar to those observed with PFOA and PFOS exposure such as gestational (Blake Bevin et al. 2020), developmental (Conley et al. 2021), gut microbiota (Xie et al. 2021), hepatic, renal, hematologic, and immune health effects (Environmental Protection Agency 2018, 2021c). In 2021, the US EPA established a subchronic (0.00003 mg/kg-day) and chronic (0.000003 mg/kg-day) RfD for GenX chemicals (Environmental Protection Agency 2021c). The RfD for GenX is lower than the RfDs established in 2016 for PFOS and PFOS. Markedly, the chronic RfD for GenX is 100 times lower than the established RfD for PFBS (Environmental Protection Agency 2021c). Interestingly, GenX is not known to be a component of AFFF. GenX is produced by Chemours in Fayetteville, NC. We are unable to determine the source of GenX at the sampling sites; it is possible that aside from AFFF, other sources of PFAS are being incinerated at Heritage WTI. Additionally, there may be other GenX sources such as waste disposal sites or other PFAS-releasing industrial sites; however, our research team has been unable to identify other potential PFAS sources (EPA Toxic Release Inventory 2021).

Concentrations of “other quanitifiable PFAS”

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) was quantifiable in 33 of the 35 soil samples collected in our study. Additional PFAS compounds were quantifiable in our soil sampling and are indicated by the gray shading in Fig. 1. Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) was detected in 23 of the 35 sampling sites. Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) was quantifiable at 4 samplings sites. Detectable concentrations of n-methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA), perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA), perfluorononanesulfonic acid (PFNS), perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA), perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA), and perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) were observed in several locations.

The epidemiologic literature regarding these PFAS is limited. A cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data described an association between PFNA serum concentrations and cholesterol levels (Nelson et al. 2010). Moreover, animal studies suggest a relationship between PFNA and immune response (Fang et al. 2008). The US EPA is in the process of conducting human health toxicity assessments for PFNA and PFDA (Environmental Protection Agency 2019). NMeFOSAA, PFDoA, PFNS, PFOSA, PFPeA, PFUnA, and PFDS are currently included on the US EPA’s working list of PFAS chemicals with research interest (Environmental Protection Agency 2019, 2021e). Over 4,700 PFAS currently exist, with this number growing as industry generates new substances (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), creating a burdensome challenge for epidemiologic research.

Surface water concentrations of PFAS

In our study, we collected surface water samples in addition to soil samples. The majority of the surface water samples had quantifiable levels of PFOS and PFOA (Supplemental Table 2 and Supplemental Fig. 1). Quantifiable PFOS concentrations ranged from 4.5 ng/L to 19 ng/L, and quantifiable PFOA concentrations ranged from 2.1 ng/L to 11 ng/L. We also detected quantifiable levels of PFHxS at site W-5 at a concentration of 8.8 ng/L. No other PFAS were detected in the surface water samples. Overall, the PFOS concentrations were higher than the PFOA concentrations. Previous research examining surface waters near US Air Force Installations with histories of AFFF use suggests that PFOS is the most critical PFAS related to AFFF (East et al. 2021). The PFOS levels in our study are similar to those observed in a recent study investigating PFAS in surface water collected from the Truckee River near Reno, Nevada (range: not detectable to 17.4 ng/L) (Bai & Son 2021). Notably, in our study, we more readily detected quantifiable levels of PFAS in soil than in surface water samples. This finding aligns with previous research that has demonstrated that PFAS are more prominent in soil when compared to other media such as surface water (Abunada et al. 2020).

Challenges with PFAS incineration

Properties such as high thermal stability and persistence that make PFAS ideal for use also make PFAS disposal an extremely complex issue. An investigation into three Chinese municipal solid waste incineration plants found low concentrations of PFAS present in fly ash and bottom ash and higher levels in the leachates (Liu et al. 2021). Interestingly, short chain PFAS comprised the majority of the PFAS in the leachate. This study concluded that while incineration destroyed the majority of the PFAS, incomplete incineration resulted in the production of byproducts. Among the incinerators, PFAS concentrations were correlated with site-specific conditions such as the type of incinerator, temperature, and time. A study in Sweden found that ash from municipality incineration facilities contained PFAS and may be a source of environmental pollution (Wohlin 2020). While we detected PFAS concentrations near a hazardous waste incinerator, our study did not directly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of PFAS incineration. More research is needed to address the concerns surrounding PFAS incineration including the formation of products of incomplete combustion, incineration ash containing PFAS, and the emission of air pollutants such as greenhouse gasses (Environmental Protection Agency 2020; Stoiber et al. 2020).

Hazardous waste incineration and environmental justice

Poverty rates are greater than the US average for half of the communities with hazardous waste incinerators receiving PFAS for incineration (Table 1). Three of which have poverty rates more than two times greater than the national average. Seven of the eight communities have populations with a lower educational attainment (< Bachelor’s degree) than the US estimate. 62 percent of the communities have a higher disability rate compared to the US. The populations of all of the included communities are 50 percent or more White, and three (37.5%) of the communities have populations between 30 and 50 percent Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC).

In Cohoes, New York, a designated environmental justice area by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Norlite Hazardous Waste Incinerator is located within 400 feet from public housing (Bennington College 2021). Due to unknown risks and vocal public concern, the city of Cohoes banned the incineration of AFFF in 2020 (Times Union 2020). Several months later, the state of New York followed suit, citing environmental health concerns (Times Union 2020). Due to this success, the Norlite Incinerator has received few shipments of PFAS; therefore, the city is not included in Table 1. Other communities have expressed similar concerns surrounding potential PFAS contamination stemming from incineration (Flaherty 2020). While these facilities have received PFAS shipments intended for incineration (Environmental Protection Agency 2021d), the amount that has been incinerated at each site is unknown.

East Liverpool residents have raised concern about the environmental health risks associated with the hazardous waste incinerator since its inception in 1982, as well as expressing concerns about a local warehouse facility that emits air pollutants, primarily manganese (Haynes et al. 2018). The poverty rate in East Liverpool, OH, is more than 2 times that of the US (27.9% vs. 11.4%) and the local median income level is nearly half of the US estimate ($32,119 vs. $62,843). It has been well-established that poverty is associated with health inequities such as increased risk of chronic disease (Braveman et al. 2010) and reduced life-expectancy (Chetty et al. 2016). In East Liverpool, approximately 2,500 children are under the age of 18 years. Two schools are located within two kilometers of the incinerator, and many houses are located even closer. Children are especially vulnerable to environmental insults (Landrigan et al. 2004), and PFAS exposure has been associated with pediatric asthma, early puberty onset, neurodevelopmental effects, decreased vaccine response, and cardiometabolic outcomes (Rappazzo et al. 2017). In a nearby community in Appalachian Ohio, the introduction of unconventional natural gas development, an industry with similar uncertain environmental health impacts, has been linked with heightened psychological and social stress among the residents (Fisher et al. 2018). It is important to examine how the compounding effects of environmental and socioeconomic inequities in communities such as East Liverpool contribute to heightened health and psychosocial impacts.

PFAS legislation

The US House of Representatives passed the PFAS Action Act of 2021, a comprehensive initiative aimed at limiting the use of PFAS and remediating contamination. This legislation would require the US EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS chemicals as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA or the Superfund law within one year of enactment of the legislation (PFAS Action Act of 2021 (H.R. 2467)). Within five years of enactment of the legislation, the agency would have to determine whether to designate all other PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances. The US EPA would be required to determine if PFAS are toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act and/or considered hazardous air pollutants. Additionally, the Agency would regulate the disposal of all products containing PFAS. Further, in October 2021, the US EPA proposed plans to add PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and GenX as hazardous waste under the Resource and Conservation and Recovery Act (Environmental Protection Agency 2021a). Thus, research is needed to determine the efficacy of burning PFAS and the extent to which communities are at risk of exposure to unburned PFAS or other chemicals resulting from the incineration or partial incineration process.

Limitations

While quantifiable levels of PFAS were detected in every soil sample in our pilot study, we are unable to pinpoint the direct source of contamination. In 2020, the US EPA Toxics Release Inventory was updated to include the reporting of 172 PFAS (Gillespie 2020); thus, industrial sources of PFAS releases will be more apparent in the future. Therefore, it is possible that the PFAS concentrations quanitified in our study may be attributed to other pollution sources such as wastewater discharges or other industrial sites. Additionally, we were unable to collect soil samples before the incinerator began accepting AFFF; therefore, we do not have comparison samples.. Future research is critical to investigate timely research questions related to PFAS distribution in the environment as a result of attempted incineration.

Conclusions

In summary, all soil samples in our study had measurable amounts of PFAS, including PFBS, PFNA, PFOS, PFOA, and GenX. The concentrations of PFOS were the highest in our soil samples. It is noteworthy that GenX was found in nearly half of our soil samples. More research is necessary to determine the source of the GenX. Critical and timely research on the disposal of PFAS could contribute to informed policy determinations about its safety. Specifically, the US EPA has stated the need to evaluate the effectiveness of PFAS disposal (Gillespie 2020). Importantly, if PFAS are determined to be hazardous in the PFAS Action Act of 2021, further research on disposal safety could increase knowledge about potential risks and inform the evolution of regulatory requirements, ultimately expanding opportunities to protect vulnerable individuals and communities from PFAS exposure.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Table II. Surface Water PFAS Concentrations
Supplemental Table I.
Supplemental Figure I. Map of Surface Water

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Samantha Cassol, RN of Michael Reilly Environmental, Health & Safety Services, Inc. and Richard Moore, PG of Tetra Tech, Inc.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences/the National Institute of Health grant P42ES007380, P30 ES026529 and R24ES030904. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health.

Footnotes

Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27880-8.

Declarations

Ethical approval Not applicable.

Consent to participate Not applicable.

Consent for publication All of the authors have read and approved the paper and it has not been published previously nor is it being considered by any other peer-reviewed journal. All authors provide their consent to publish.

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Abunada Z, Alazaiza MYD, Bashir MJK (2020) An overview of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the environment: source, fate. risk and regulations. Water 12(12):3590. 10.3390/w12123590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderko L, Pennea E (2020) Exposures to Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): potential risks to reproductive and children’s health. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care 50(2):100760. 10.1016/j.cppeds.2020.100760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bai X, Son Y (2021) Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in surface water and sediments from two urban watersheds in Nevada, USA. Sci-Total Environ 751:141622. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennington College (2021) Understanding PFOA | Bennington College https://www.bennington.edu/center-advancement-of-publicaction/environment-and-public-action/understanding-pfoa
  5. Blake Bevin E, Cope Harlie A, Hall Samantha M, Keys Robert D, Mahler Beth W, McCord J, Fenton Suzanne E (2020) Evaluation of maternal, embryo, and placental effects in CD-1 mice following gestational exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA or GenX). Environ Health Perspect 128(2):027006. 10.1289/EHP6233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bogdan D (2019) Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) chemistry, production, uses, and environmental fate in Michigan. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/PFAS-Response/Workgroups/Groundwater/Report-2019-09-23-PFBS-Chemistry-Production-Uses-Fate.pdf?rev=c8b3f17030a0459ca02366df9c712648
  7. Bond D, Enck J (2020) First in the nation testing reveals toxic contamination in soil and water near Norlite incinerator. Press Release and Fact Sheet
  8. Braveman P, Egerter S, Williams DR (2011) The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health 32:381–398. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Williams DR, Pamuk E (2010) Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us. Am J Public Health 100(Suppl 1):S186–S196. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.166082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brusseau ML, Anderson RH, Guo B (2020) PFAS concentrations in soils: background levels versus contaminated sites. Sci Total Environ 740:140017. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bureau USC (2021) TIGER Data Products Guide
  12. Chetty R, Stepner M, Abraham S, Lin S, Scuderi B, Turner N, Bergeron A, Cutler D (2016) The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014. JAMA 315(16):1750–66. 10.1001/jama.2016.4226. Erratum in: JAMA. 2017 Jan 3;317(1):90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Conley JM, Lambright CS, Evans N, McCord J, Strynar MJ, Hill D, Gray LE (2021) Hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA or GenX) alters maternal and fetal glucose and lipid metabolism and produces neonatal mortality, low birthweight, and hepatomegaly in the Sprague-Dawley rat. Environ Int 146:106204. 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106204 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Conservation NYSDoE (2021) Norlite environmental sampling report https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/norlitesamplingfull0321.pdf
  15. Crunden EA (2020) PFAS incineration in New York spurs legislation, loss of federal contracts. WASTEDIVE https://www.wastedive.com/news/pfas-cohoes-incinerator-congress-concerns/577699/
  16. Ding N, Harlow SD, Randolph JF, Loch-Caruso R, Park SK (2020) Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and their effects on the ovary. Hum Reprod Update 10.1093/humupd/dmaa018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. East A, Anderson RH, Salice CJ (2021) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in surface water near US Air Force Bases: prioritizing individual chemicals and mixtures for toxicity testing and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 40(3):859–870. 10.1002/etc.4893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Technical fact sheet – Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P10141RO.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2016+Thru+2020&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C16thru20%5CTxt%5C00000028%5CP10141RO.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
  19. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) Fact sheet: draft toxicity assessments for GenX chemicals and PFBS https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/documents/factsheet_pfbs-genx-toxicity_values_11.14.2018.pdf
  20. Environmental Protection Agency (2019) Working list of PFAS chemicals with research interest and ongoing work by EPA https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/working-list-pfas-chemicals-research-interest-and-ongoing-work-epa
  21. Environmental Protection Agency (2020) Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): incineration to manage PFAS waste streams https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/technical-brief-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-incineration-manage-pfas
  22. Environmental Protection Agency (2021a) EPA responds to New Mexico Governor and acts to address PFAS under hazardous waste law https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-responds-new-mexico-governor-and-acts-address-pfas-under-hazardous-waste-law
  23. Environmental Protection Agency (2021b) EPA to hold public hearings on proposed hazardous waste permit for Heritage Thermal Services Inc. in East Liverpool, Ohio. News Releases from Region 05 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-hold-public-hearings-proposed-hazardous-waste-permit-heritage-thermal-services-inc
  24. Environmental Protection Agency (2021c) Fact sheet: human health toxicity assessment for GenX chemicals https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/GenX-Toxicity-Assessment-factsheet-March-2023-update.pdf
  25. Environmental Protection Agency (2021d) Final disposition, Request EPA-R5–2022–000407
  26. Environmental Protection Agency (2021e) PFAS|EPA: toxicity assessments https://www.epa.gov/pfas
  27. Environmental Protection Agency (2021f) US EPA PFAS strategic roadmap https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-strategic-roadmap-epas-commitments-action-2021-2024
  28. EPA Toxic Release Inventory (2021) TRI facility information searched chemical name: beginning with: hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid [Google Scholar]
  29. Fang X, Zhang L, Feng Y, Zhao Y, Dai J (2008) Immunotoxic effects of perfluorononanoic acid on BALB/c mice. Toxicol Sci 105(2):312–321. 10.1093/toxsci/kfn127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fisher MP, Mayer A, Vollet K, Hill EL, Haynes EN (2018) Psychosocial implications of unconventional natural gas development: quality of life in Ohio’s Guernsey and Noble Counties. J Environ Psychol 55:90–98. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.12.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Flaherty J (2020) Military waste burned in state despite contamination fear. Arkansas Democrat Gazette https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/apr/05/military-waste-burned-state-despite-
  32. Galloway JE, Moreno AVP, Lindstrom AB, Strynar MJ, Newton S, May AA, Weavers LK (2020) Evidence of air dispersion: HFPO-DA and PFOA in Ohio and West Virginia surface water and soil near a fluoropolymer production facility. Environ Sci Technol 54(12):7175–7184. 10.1021/acs.est.9b07384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gillespie A (2020) US EPA’s science-based approach to understanding and managing environmental risk from PFAS. March 12, 2020. Presentation https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/documents/bosc_pfas_rd_overview.pdf
  34. Goodrow SM, Ruppel B, Lippincott RL, Post GB, Procopio NA (2020) Investigation of levels of perfluoroalkyl substances in surface water, sediment and fish tissue in New Jersey, USA. Sci Total Environ 729:138839. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Haynes EN, Heckel P, Ryan P, Roda S, Leung YK, Sebastian K, Succop P (2010) Environmental manganese exposure in residents living near a ferromanganese refinery in Southeast Ohio: a pilot study. Neurotoxicology 31(5):468–474. 10.1016/j.neuro.2009.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Haynes EN, Sucharew H, Hilbert TJ, Kuhnell P, Spencer A, Newman NC, Dietrich KN (2018) Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio. Neurotoxicology 64(1872–9711 (Electronic):94–102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jain RB, Ducatman A (2019) Roles of gender and obesity in defining correlations between perfluoroalkyl substances and lipid/lipoproteins. Sci Total Environ 653:74–81. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kozlowski M, Perkins HA (2016) Environmental justice in Appalachia Ohio? An expanded consideration of privilege and the role it plays in defending the contaminated status quo in a white, working-class community. Local Environ 21(10):1288–1304. 10.1080/13549839.2015.1111316 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Landrigan PJ, Kimmel CA, Correa A, Eskenazi B (2004) Children’s health and the environment: public health issues and challenges for risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 112(2):257–265. 10.1289/ehp.6115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lewis RC, Johns LE, Meeker JD (2015) Serum biomarkers of exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances in relation to serum testosterone and measures of thyroid function among adults and adolescents from NHANES 2011–2012. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(6):6098–6114. 10.3390/ijerph120606098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Li Y, Fletcher T, Mucs D, Scott K, Lindh CH, Tallving P, Jakobsson K (2018) Half-lives of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA after end of exposure to contaminated drinking water. J Occup Environ Med 75(1):46–51. 10.1136/oemed-2017-104651 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lindstrom AB, Strynar MJ, Libelo EL (2011) Polyfluorinated compounds: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45(19):7954–7961. 10.1021/es2011622 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu S, Zhao S, Liang Z, Wang F, Sun F, Chen D (2021) Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in leachate, fly ash, and bottom ash from waste incineration plants: implications for the environmental release of PFAS. Sci Total Environ 795:148468. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148468 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Melzer D, Rice N, Depledge MH, Henley WE, Galloway TS (2010) Association between serum perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and thyroid disease in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Environ Health Perspect 118(5):686–692. 10.1289/ehp.0901584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nelson JW, Hatch EE, Webster TF (2010) Exposure to polyfluoroalkyl chemicals and cholesterol, body weight, and insulin resistance in the general U.S. population. Environ Health Perspect 118(2):197–202. 10.1289/ehp.0901165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (2018) PFBS in the environment: monitoring and physical chemical data related to the environmental distribution of perfluorobutanesulfonic acid. Norwegian Environmental Agency Report https://www.miljodirektoratet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/M1122/M1122.pdf
  47. Pike KA, Edmiston PL, Morrison JJ, Faust JA (2021) Correlation analysis of perfluoroalkyl substances in regional U.S. precipitation events. Water Res 190:116685. 10.1016/j.watres.2020.116685 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rappazzo KM, Coffman E, Hines EP (2017) Exposure to Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances and Health Outcomes in Children: A Systematic Review of the Epidemiologic Literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(7):691. 10.3390/ijerph14070691 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schroeder T, Bond D, Foley J (2021) PFAS soil and groundwater contamination via industrial airborne emission and land deposition in SW Vermont and Eastern New York State, USA. Environ Sci Process Impacts 23(2):291–301. 10.1039/D0EM00427H [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Shih Y-H, Blomberg AJ, Jørgensen LH, Weihe P, Grandjean P (2021) Early-life exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances in relation to serum adipokines in a longitudinal birth cohort. Environ Res 204:111905. 10.1016/j.envres.2021.111905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Stoiber T, Evans S, Naidenko OV (2020) Disposal of products and materials containing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): a cyclical problem. Chemosphere 260:127659. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127659 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sullivan M (2019) Briefing to congress on best practices for cleanup technologies and disposal of soils, filters, and aqueous film forming foam containing Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), and required additional research. Department of Defense. Presentation https://www.denix.osd.mil/derp/denix-files/sites/26/2020/01/DoD-Best-Practices-for-Cleanup-Technologies-Briefing-to-Congress_01Nov2019.pdf
  53. Tarapore P, Ouyang B (2021) Perfluoroalkyl Chemicals and Male Reproductive Health: Do PFOA and PFOS Increase Risk for Male Infertility? Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(7):3794. 10.3390/ijerph18073794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Times Union (2020) Cuomo bans foam incineration at Cohoes Norlite plant
  55. Ujhelyi S (2020) Activists sue federal government, heritage over fire-fighter foam disposal. The Review https://www.reviewonline.com/news/local-news/2020/02/activists-sue-federal-government-heritage-over-firefighter-foam-disposal/
  56. Wohlin D (2020) Analysis of PFAS in ash from incineration facilities from Sweden. (Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor) Student thesis), Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-86273DiVAdatabase
  57. Xiao C, Grandjean P, Valvi D, Nielsen F, Jensen TK, Weihe P, Oulhote Y (2020) Associations of Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances With Thyroid Hormone Concentrations and Birth Size. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105(3):735–45. 10.1210/clinem/dgz147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Xie X, Zhou J, Hu L, Shu R, Zhang M, Xiong Z, Fu Z (2021) Exposure to hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) disturbs the gut barrier function and gut microbiota in mice. Environ Pollut 290:117934. 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117934 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Xu Y, Fletcher T, Pineda D, Lindh CH, Nilsson C, Glynn A, Li Y (2020) Serum half-lives for short- and long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids after ceasing exposure from drinking water contaminated by firefighting foam. Environ Health Perspect 128(7):77004. 10.1289/EHP6785 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhu W, Roakes H, Zemba S, Badireddy A (2019) PFAS background in Vermont shallow soils. Final Report https://anrweb.vt.gov/PubDocs/DEC/PFOA/Soil-Background/PFAS-Background-Vermont-Shallow-Soils-03-24-19.pdf

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Table II. Surface Water PFAS Concentrations
NIHMS1924327-supplement-Supplemental_Table_II__Surface_Water_PFAS_Concentrations.docx (23.5KB, docx)
Supplemental Table I.
NIHMS1924327-supplement-Supplemental_Table_I_.docx (24.8KB, docx)
Supplemental Figure I. Map of Surface Water
NIHMS1924327-supplement-Supplemental_Figure_I__Map_of_Surface_Water.docx (110.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

RESOURCES