Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Safety and Health at Work logoLink to Safety and Health at Work
. 2026 Jan 20;17(1):12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2026.01.002

Distribution and Concentration of Airborne Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Indoor and Outdoor Environments: A Systematic Review

Myoungho Lee 1, Sungyo Jung 2, Chungsik Yoon 3, Sung Ho Hwang 4,⁎
PMCID: PMC13023218  PMID: 41907657

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are increasingly recognized as airborne contaminants of concern, yet their distribution across environments remains under-characterized. In particular, concentrations in industrial settings have hardly been studied compared to general environments. This review synthesizes findings from 25 studies reporting airborne PFAS across four categories: outdoor general environments, indoor general environments, outdoor occupational environments, and indoor occupational environments. Reported levels were generally lowest outdoors (0.5–3.0 ng/m3), higher in general indoor settings (3.0–15.0 ng/m3), and highest in occupational environments, sometimes exceeding 100 ng/m3. Volatile precursors such as fluorotelomer alcohols dominated most environments, while particle-bound ionic PFAS were more common in occupational settings, suggesting distinct exposure pathways. Across studies, airborne PFAS levels were lowest outdoors, higher indoors, and highest in occupational settings. The complexity of PFAS behavior, influenced by chemical species and particle/gas-phase partitioning, underscores challenges in exposure assessment. Despite the relatively low airborne PFAS concentrations, this review confirms that inhalation remains a critical exposure pathway due to the persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity of PFAS. Standardized measurement methods, geographically diverse monitoring, and integration with exposure modeling are urgently needed. Strengthening regulatory frameworks and establishing protective exposure limits will be essential to mitigate long-term health impacts.

Keywords: Environment, Indoor, Industry, Outdoor, Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

1. Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” were first developed in the 1930s and came into widespread industrial use in the 1940s [1]. PFAS are characterized by carbon–fluorine bonds, and as chemical synthesis techniques have advanced, these compounds have diversified into thousands of different structures. While the exact number of unique PFAS compounds remains uncertain, current estimates suggest there may be approximately 10,000 distinct substances [2,3]. As a result, definitions of PFAS vary across regulatory bodies and countries, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

PFAS definition by each institution and country

Author or Institution Definition Year
Buck et al. [4] Contain 1 or more C atoms on which all the H substituents (present in the nonfluorinated analogues from which they are notionally derived) have been replaced by F atoms, in such a manner that they contain the perfluoroalkyl moiety CnF2n+1– 2011
OECD [5] Substances containing at least one –CnF2n– (n ≥ 3) or –CnF2nOCmF2m– (n, m ≥ 1) group 2018
Kwiatkowski et al. [6] Chemicals with “at least one aliphatic perfluoro moiety” (CF3–, –CF2–, or [double bond splayed left]CF–) and proposed that PFAS are regulated as a single chemical class 2020
Cousins et al. [7] Use ECHA definition (PFAS are regulated as a single chemical class) 2020
ECHA [8] Substances containing at least one aliphatic CF2 or CF3 element 2021
US EPA [9] Per- and polyfluorinated substances that structurally contain the unit R–(CF2)–C(F)(R1)R2. Both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons and none of the R groups (R, R1, or R2) can be hydrogen 2021
OECD [10] Substances containing “at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom” 2021
California Safer Consumer Products Program [11] Manmade chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom 2021
Open in a new tab

Due to their exceptional properties—including heat resistance, water and oil repellency, non-stick characteristics, and chemical durability—PFAS have increasingly replaced traditional materials across various industries. Today, PFAS are widely used in a broad range of applications, including non-stick cookware, furniture, metal plating, firefighting foams, advanced manufacturing processes, and the medical sector [[12], [13], [14], [15]]. In addition to industrial and commercial uses, PFAS are also found in numerous consumer products such as cosmetics, food packaging, and waterproofing spray coatings [[16], [17], [18]]. Their widespread use in both specialized and everyday products contributes significantly to environmental contamination. PFAS can be released into the environment not only during the manufacturing process (e.g.,. through wastewater or air emissions), but also throughout the product's lifecycle—including use and disposal [19].

Their high resistance to chemical, biological, and thermal degradation, as well as their persistence in physiological filtration, has earned PFAS the moniker “forever chemicals” [20]. Given their bioaccumulative nature and persistence in the environment, PFAS exposure has become a growing global concern due to its potential impact on human health [1,21]. Animal studies have shown that chronic exposure to PFAS can lead to severe health effects, including immunotoxicity and carcinogenicity [22,23]. Prenatal exposure has been associated with disrupted fetal growth and development, endocrine dysfunction, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia [24,25]. Among human studies, a pivotal 2002 report by the United Nations Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) highlighted the toxicity of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), concluding that PFOS is “persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic to mammalian species, causing liver and thyroid cancers in rodents”, and may be epidemiologically linked to bladder cancer in humans [26]. More recent studies have further established associations between PFOS exposure and increased prevalence of metabolic disorders, hypothyroidism, infertility, and behavioral abnormalities [27].

In response to these concerns, major PFAS manufacturers began to phase out production in the early 2000s. Concurrently, research on the health effects of PFAS exposure has expanded, prompting stronger regulatory interest both internationally and domestically [28]. However, despite their widespread use, scientific investigations of PFAS have primarily focused on ambient air, water (especially in relation to wastewater treatment), and landfill-affected soils [[29], [30], [31]]. PFAS are widely utilized and discarded in industrial processes, leading to significant environmental releases. While concentrations in occupational environments are therefore highly relevant, this aspect has received relatively little research attention to date. Therefore, the objective of this review is to address this research gap by systematically examining and comparing PFAS concentrations in indoor and outdoor air, particularly within general environments and occupational settings where data remain limited.

2. Methods

2.1. Article search strategy

To explore the environmental distribution of airborne PFAS, a comprehensive and systematic literature review was conducted (Fig. 1). This process was designed to capture the most up-to-date and relevant studies examining PFAS concentrations in air across various environments. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in two major bibliographic databases—PubMed and Scopus—covering studies published up to January 2025. In addition to the selected studies, the health effects of low-level airborne PFAS exposure were summarized separately, drawing on prior research including review articles, following the section that presents PFAS concentrations in occupational and environmental indoor and outdoor settings.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Step-by-step logic in the selection of review articles.

For the classification of studies on airborne PFAS concentrations, two primary categories—environmental and occupational settings—were defined, with further distinction between indoor and outdoor environments to account for potential differences across exposure contexts. In addition, particular attention was given to determining whether PFAS were present in particle-bound form. Based on these considerations, the search strategy employed a combination of controlled vocabulary and free-text terms related to airborne PFAS, using keywords such as “PFAS”, “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,” “air (or airborne),” “particle,” “indoor,” and “outdoor.” Boolean operators including “AND” and “OR” were used to enhance specificity and sensitivity. The PubMed advanced search function was used to systematically apply these terms, and studies were screened beginning from 2007, the earliest year for which relevant PFAS-air publications were retrievable in the database. Reference lists of relevant review articles and included articles were also screened manually to identify additional eligible studies.

All retrieved records were imported into EndNote 20, where duplicate citations were automatically and manually removed. The identification–screening–eligibility–inclusion process followed a PRISMA-style approach. The fields used by EndNote for deduplication were author, year, title, and DOI. Specifically, the total number of records retrieved from each database, the number of duplicates removed, and the number of records excluded at each stage (title/abstract screening and full-text review), along with the reasons for exclusion, were documented. A PRISMA flow diagram summarizing this process is provided in the Supplementary Information (Fig. S1).

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) report quantitative measurements of PFAS in air, either in the gas phase, particle phase, or both; (2) specify the environment in which samples were collected (e.g., indoor residential, occupational, outdoor ambient); (3) include sufficient methodological detail to enable data extraction (e.g., air volume, sampling method, list of compounds analyzed); and (4) be written in English.

Studies were excluded if they relied solely on modeled concentrations without measured data, did not specify environmental context, or focused exclusively on PFAS in non-airborne matrices such as water, soil, or dust. Editorials, conference abstracts, and non-peer-reviewed articles were also excluded.

2.3. Data normalization and comparative analysis

Data from the selected studies, classified according to the four defined categories, were summarized as substance-specific concentrations in boxplot format. (R v4.1.3) Where studies reported results in alternative units (e.g.,. ng/mL, pg/m3, μg/m3), values were converted to ng/m3 using the available sampling volume and duration information. When only means or ranges were provided, approximated medians were derived where necessary. Non-detects (ND) were treated according to the original methodology of each study; when no approach was specified, ND values were replaced as LOD (limit of detection) divided by √2.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Overview of included studies

A total of 25 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The selected studies were published between 2007 and 2025 and encompassed a wide range of geographic regions including North America, Europe, and East Asia. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, with notable exceptions in Pakistan and China. Sampling campaigns varied in duration, ranging from short-term intensive monitoring (e.g.,24–72 hours) to long-term campaigns spanning several months. Sampling environments included urban outdoor locations (e.g., near highways or industrial plants), rural background sites, residential apartments, offices, kindergartens, schools, fire stations, ski waxing rooms, and facilities involved in PFAS manufacturing or application. Air sampling methodologies varied, with PM2.5 or PM10 filters being the most common media for particle-bound PFAS, and polyurethane foam or sorbent cartridges used for gas-phase collection. The selected studies were reviewed by categorizing them into four groups: Occupational Indoor, Occupational Outdoor, General Indoor, and General Outdoor (Table 2).

Table 2.

Description of the categories used in this review article

Category Explanation
Occupational indoor Indoor areas within workplaces where activities such as manufacturing, processing, or handling of materials take place. Examples include factory floors, production rooms, workshops, and other enclosed industrial or job-related settings.
Occupational outdoor Outdoor spaces located within or around a worksite where job-related operations occur, including loading zones, storage yards, outdoor processing areas, and similar work-associated environments.
General indoor Non-occupational indoor settings that represent everyday living or working spaces, such as offices, homes, schools, and other typical residential or public indoor environments.
General outdoor Outdoor areas that are part of the general living environment—such as residential neighborhoods, urban outdoor spaces, and community areas—and are not associated with industrial or workplace activities.
Open in a new tab

Analytical instrumentation also varied, including LC-MS/MS (n = 18), high-resolution MS (n = 4), and chemical ionization mass spectrometry (CIMS, n = 3). Across studies, the number of target PFAS compounds ranged from 4 to over 30, with a mix of legacy compounds (e.g., PFOA, PFOS) and emerging species (e.g., short-chain PFAS (GenX), 6:2 FTOH). Fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) were the most frequently measured neutral species, while perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) represented the predominant ionic species.

In occupational cases, PFAS emissions were predominantly associated with industrial activities, firefighting foam residues, wastewater treatment, and waste management infrastructures. Studies highlighted both legacy compounds and secondary emissions such as FTOHs, underscoring these sites as critical hotspots for environmental dispersion and community exposure. Occupational indoor studies revealed significant risks from direct product applications, including ski wax and floor wax usage, which generated elevated concentrations of airborne PFAS in enclosed spaces. Air conditioning filters and particulate monitoring in kindergartens further demonstrated that occupational indoor exposures may overlap with vulnerable population groups.

For the environmental cases, outdoor investigations provided the broadest geographic coverage. Monitoring campaigns using bio-monitors revealed widespread occurrence of both neutral and ionizable PFAS, from urban centers to remote marine atmospheres. These studies confirmed long-range atmospheric transport and source-dependent concentration profiles, with significant daily intake implications in regions of high urban or industrial activity. In contrast, general indoor studies were limited in number but revealed important dynamics of partitioning and release. Homes were shown to act as both sources and sinks of neutral PFAS, with simplified sampling methods demonstrating that conventional monitoring may underestimate exposures.

The summary of each study selected in this review is presented in Table 3, and a a more detailed interpretation is provided in the following paragraph.

Table 3.

Summary of prior studies which were used to review in this article.

Group Citation Sampling year Studied environment Sampling methods Analytical methods Summary of key results Limitation
Industry Indoor Crawford, 2024 [32] 2010 Indoor ski-waxing rooms and competitive waxing service areas Pump: Respicon sampler (Helmut Hund GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany
Biomonitoring: (blood): A 10 mL tube without additives (BD Vacutainer, Belliver Industrial Estate UK)		 LC-MS/MS measurements of particle-bound and vapor-phase PFAS Ski-wax application releases substantial airborne PFAS, especially during heating and scraping. (PFCA)
Ski technicians show elevated inhalation exposure compared to general indoor environments.
PFAS occur both in particulate and vapor phases.		 Heterogeneity in sampling designs and analytical methods across studies.
Minimal longitudinal or health-outcome data.
Zhou, 2022 [33] 2019 Indoor commercial spaces during floor waxing maintenance Sampler: PM2.0 samplers (Model 400 Micro-Environmental Monitor, MSP Corporation, Shoreview, MN, USA) (16 L/min at a height of 175 cm)
Filter: pre-baked (550°C, 12 h) 37-mm quartz fiber filters (Pall Laboratory, Port Washington, NY, USA)		 LC-MS/MS detection of legacy and alternative PFAS in particulate matter Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid, perfluorobutanoic acid, perfluorohexanoic acid, perfluoroheptanoic acid, and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. For these five, estimated exposures during floor stripping were 80.6, 320.5, 83.8, 29.6, and 157.7 pg m−3
Floor waxing releases measurable PFAS into fine particles.
Emissions persist after waxing is completed.
Routine maintenance activities can elevate indoor PFAS exposures.		 Small sample size and limited number of buildings.
Only PM2.0 was captured—other size fractions unassessed.
Yao, 2018 [34] 2015 Homes, offices, dormitories, gyms, and other indoor microenvironments across China Pump: A diaphragm vacuum pump (Jinteng, GM-0.33A) with the HC-C18 and WAX layers of absorbents. (4.5 LPM for 8-12 h) LC-MS/MS quantification FTOHs 250–82,300 pg/m3, PFCAs 121–20,600 pg/m3 (dominant) in air
Inhalation of air with fine suspended particles was a more important direct exposure pathway than dust ingestion for PFASs to adults		 Did not include outdoor comparisons or source-specific attribution, limiting inference on emission pathways
Li, 2021 [35] 2017 Hong Kong kindergartens and preschool indoor environments Sampler: MiniVol portable air samplers, (Airmetrics, USA) for collecting fine particulate matter (PM2.5). (placed 1.0 m above the floor level and set at a sampling rate of 1.7 L/min)
Filter: A quartz membrane filter (47 mm; Whatman Inc., USA) was used to collect the PM2.5		 LC-MS/MS for PFAS in air samples, urine, and hair The highest PFAS concentrations were detected in airborne particles measured in kindergartens. PFOA was the major PFAS detected in hair, urine, and drinking water samples, while PFOA, PFDA, and PFHpA were dominant in airborne particles.
Indoor air PFAS significantly contribute to children's internal exposure profiles.
Hair PFAS levels align more closely with indoor air than with drinking water.
Study highlights early-life vulnerability to indoor PFAS.		 Cross-sectional design limits causal inference.
Temporal resolution of indoor sampling is limited.
Jahnke, 2007 [36] 2002 Ambient and indoor air Sorbent: Polyurethane foam (PUF, 6.5 cm diameter/5 cm height, Klaus Ziemer GmbH, Langerwehe, Germany), 25 g of Amberlite XAD-2 resin (Supelco, Munich, Germany) and another slice of PUF GC/MS using an improved extraction and detection procedure, enhancing low-level detection Allows quantification of low-level PFAS in indoor and outdoor atmospheres.
Provides foundational analytical improvements for later airborne PFAS studies.		 Mainly limited to volatile PFAS species.
Requires specialized instrumentation not available in all labs.
Outdoor Dalmijn, 2025 [37] 2021 Outdoor air downwind of a fluoropolymer production facility Pump: high-volume air sampler (Sierra Instruments, USA) (67 m3/h)
Filter: 203 × 254 mm QM-A quartz fiber filters (QFFs) (VWR, Radnor, PA, USA)		 LC–MS/MS analysis combined with atmospheric dispersion modeling 98.66 pg/m3 when the wind came from the plant
HFPO-DA and other PFAS were detected kilometers downwind, and modeling aligned with measured concentration gradients		 Focused on a single facility and short measurement campaign, limiting broader generalization
Chen, 2024 [38] 2023 Multimedia field sites near a large fluorochemical industrial park: ambient air, soil, groundwater Pump: A sorbent-impregnated polyurethane passive air sampler (SIP-PAS) covered by a stainless-steel holder and dome Targeted LC–MS/MS for a broad PFAS panel across matrices; mass-balance and temporal accumulation analyses were applied PFBA dominated in the aboveground tissues in the full-life-cycle
Demonstrated dynamic accumulation of diverse PFAS across media and notable foliar uptake to wheat that had been previously underestimated; spatial gradients showed strong influence of proximity to the fluorochemical park		 Site-specific — limits extrapolation to other regions; some temporal coverage constraints for long-term trends and mechanistic foliar-vs-root partitioning uncertainties remain
Kizhakkethil, 2025 [39] 2023–2024 Aerosolized particulate matter (PM10) emitted from activated sludge aeration processes in wastewater treatment Filter: Glass fiber filter at 10 LPM PM10 filter sampling coupled with LC–MS/MS to quantify particle-bound PFAS 4.25 - 15.49 pg/m3 PFAS in PM10 (PFBA, PFBS, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFOS, PFDA)
Several PFAS were enriched in PM10, suggesting aeration as a relevant airborne emission pathway		 Only PM10 was measured; gas-phase PFAS and finer particle fractions were not assessed
Seay, 2023 [40] 2019 A municipal wastewater treatment plant co-located with a sewage-sludge incinerator (SSI): influent, effluent, sludge, stack emissions, and ancillary process streams Pump: High-volume sampling method: (modification of EPA Method TO-13A)
Filter & Sorbent: 102 mm diameter quartz fiber filter (Whatman) atop a PUF/XAD/PUF “sandwich” for collection and analysis of 24 h ionic and seven neutral PFAS		 Targeted PFAS analysis by LC–MS/MS across matrices with calculation of WWTP-level mass flows and statistical comparisons Mass-balance results indicated that net PFAS mass-flows at the WWTP level were not statistically different from zero, but thermal processes and the SSI influenced PFAS speciation and produced measurable airborne emissions. Site-specific plant configuration limits generalization; some transformation products or highly volatile precursors might be under-characterized by the chosen analytical suite
Lin, 2022 [41] 2021 Waste management infrastructures and adjacent reference sites in urban and rural settings Sampler: Micro-Orifice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI; 1200R; MSP Corporation, Shoreview, MN, USA) at a constant flow rate of 30 L/min
Filter: 47-mm diameter glass fiber filters (GFFs; Whatman International ltd., Maidstone, England)		 Comprehensive analysis of 49 PFAS (ionic and neutral/precursor species) using targeted LC–MS/MS Identified both ionic PFAS and neutral precursors including secondary fluorotelomer alcohols; PFAS partitioning varied by particle size, with implications for inhalation exposure risk; waste management infrastructures are notable atmospheric PFAS sources. Study focused on a limited number of WMIs and sampling durations (48 h windows), constraining temporal representativeness; precursor transformation pathways require further elucidation
Wang, 2021 [42] 2017 Outdoor air surrounding fluorochemical industrial zones in China Pump: high-volume air sampler (Qingdao Hengyuan S.T. Development Co., Ltd). (filter: made of binder-free pure quartz, with a 25 × 20 cm dimension and a typical thickness of 432 μm) (200 LPM for 20 h)
Filter: A piece of Tissuquartz™ filter (PALL Co., Port Washington, NY)		 Analyzed via LC–MS/MS with diffusion and risk assessment modeling PFOA was dominant with concentrations as high as 9730 pg/m3
PFAAs were widely dispersed from industrial sources, and modeled human health risks were non-negligible		 Limited temporal coverage and no direct measurement of emission rates from individual source units
Environment Indoor Eichler, 2024 [43] 2021–2022 Occupied residential homes in the U.S., focusing on indoor and outdoor air exchange zones including living spaces Sampler: Less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5) was measured continuously with a MIE pDR1500 (Thermo Scientific, Franklin, MA; sampling flow rate: 1.52 L/min).
Mass concentration: Grimm Optical Particle Counter (Model No. 1.109, Grimm Aerosol Technik, Ainring, Germany; sampling flow rate: 1.2 L/min, refractive index: 1.6).		 Targeted LC–MS/MS for a suite of neutral PFAS Mean of FTOH concentrations in airborne particle: 549 ng/g,
Neutral PFAS partitioned strongly to indoor air and were subsequently released outdoors through air exchange, acting as a measurable source to the outdoor environment.
Indoor activities and material emissions increased indoor concentrations, and ventilation patterns governed the magnitude of outdoor release.		 Study restricted to selected IPA homes—may not fully represent broader housing stock.
Focuses on neutral PFAS; ionic PFAS and surface reservoirs were not fully addressed.
Jahnke, 2007 [44] 2006 Indoor environments with PFAS-containing materials and outdoor environments used to validate the method's applicability. Filter & Sorbent: PUF/XAD column and glass fiber filter Thermal desorption followed by GC–MS quantification of volatile precursors such as fluorotelomer alcohols and perfluorinated sulfonamides. The method provided sensitive and reliable detection of volatile PFAS in both indoor and ambient air with simplified equipment relative to earlier, more complex sampling setups.
Indoor concentrations of FTOHs were consistently higher than outdoor levels, demonstrating strong indoor sources from consumer products.		 Designed only for volatile PFAS; does not capture semi-volatile or particulate-bound species.
Simplified sampler may still underestimate ultra-volatile species or compounds with low adsorption affinity.
Outdoor Mattila, 2024 [45] 2023 Outdoor air in Central New Jersey. Sampler: CIMS (2–4 LPM) CIMS optimized for short-chain PFAS precursors without derivatization. Provided high-sensitivity measurements of short-chain PFAS (reached up to 0.7 parts-per-trillion by volume (pptv)), enabling time-resolved concentration profiles; demonstrated clear diurnal and meteorological patterns. Method limited to neutral/volatile PFAS; cannot quantify ionic PFAS.
Zhou, 2022 [46] 2019 Air near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant; PM2.5 collection. Pump: high-volume (HiVol) air samplers (∼227 L/min) (Tisch Environmental, Inc., Cleves, OH, USA)
Filter: Pre-baked (550°C) 102 mm quartz fiber filters (2500 QAT-UP, Pall Laboratory, Port Washington, NY, USA)		 LC–MS/MS quantifying legacy and emerging PFAS on particulate matter. Both legacy and new PFAS (PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxDA, PFOS, PMPA, NVHOS, PFO5DoA, and Nafion BP1) were elevated near the facility; distinct chemical patterns linked to industrial emissions. Only PM2.5 captured—gas-phase and coarse particles not assessed.
Kourtchev, 2022 [47] 2019 Urban and suburban outdoor air; PM2.5 particulates. Pump: 150 mm in a high volume air sampler (500 LPM, DHA-80, DIGITEL Elektronik GmbH)
Filter: Quartz fibre filters (PALL Life Sciences, Pallflex®, Tissuquartz)		 High-resolution mass spectrometry with online SPE for improved sensitivity. Successful screening of numerous PFAS including novel compounds; method enabled rapid, high-frequency monitoring. (first study to detect 4:2 and 8:2 fluorotelomer sulfonates in atmospheric aerosol particles) Focused on PM2.5 only; method optimization may be needed for low-volatility PFAS.
Wang, 2022 [48] 2019 Urban outdoor air across multiple functional zones. Sorbent: sorbent-impregnated polyurethane foam disks (SIP) and the preparation of SIP (with pretreatment) LC–MS/MS for ionic PFAS; GC–MS for volatile neutral PFAS. n-PFASs ranged from 4.8 to 1400 pg/m3, i-PFASs ranged from 3.7 to 330 pg m−3, 8:2 FTOH was the most abundant
Neutral PFAS dominated gas phase while ionic PFAS accumulated on particles; transport influenced by land-use type and emission proximity.		 Limited temporal scope; precursor transformation processes not fully captured.
Lin, 2022 [49] 2010–2013 Karachi, Pakistan—urban TSP (total suspended particulates). Pump: low-volume active air sampler (16.7 LPM for 24 h)
Filter: Pre-weighed 47 mm quartz fiber filters (QFFs)		 LC–MS/MS quantifying diverse PFAS across particulate mass. Detected a broad range of PFAS with distinct industrial and consumer-product signatures (PFBA 3.11 ± 2.64 pg/m3 (32%)); estimated inhalation intake indicated notable exposure in densely populated regions. (HQ of PFOS and PFOA was significantly lower than 1) No gas-phase measurements; single-city study.
Yu, 2018 [50] 2014–2015 Urban ambient air PM collection sites. Sampler: Eight-Stage Non-Viable Andersen Cascade Impactor (Tisch Environmental., Cleves, OH) for nine separated size fractions (i.e., >9.0, 5.8–9.0, 4.7–5.8, 3.3–4.7, 2.1–3.3, 1.1–2.1, 0.7–1.1, 0.4–0.7, and <0.4 μm at 28.3 LPM for 48 h)
Filter: Quartz fiber filters (prebaked at 550°C for 8 h)		 LC–HRMS using non-target and suspect-screening workflows. Identified many previously unreported PFAS (1:n PFECAs, PFdiOAs, H-PFdiOAs, UPFAs); spatial patterns revealed industrial and urban sources. Non-target results require confirmation; quantitative accuracy varies between compounds.
Liu, 2024 [51] 2016 Urban regions in China using tree bark as a passive PFAS sampler Filter & Sorbent: PUF/XAD-2/PUF cartridges (O.D. × L 6.5 cm × 12.5 cm, ORBO 2500, Supelco, USA) and glass fiber filters (150 LPM for 24 h) Targeted LC–MS/MS for a suite of PFAS; source apportionment modeling. Tree bark served as an effective long-term accumulator for airborne PFAS (PFCA 0.44–359 ng/g); spatial gradients allowed identification of industrial emission signatures. Temporal resolution is low; species-specific bark properties may introduce variability.
Dreyer, 2015 [52] 2007–2008 Northern Germany outdoor air—size-segregated particulate sampling. Sampler: Cascade impactors (LPI; Berner-type, Hauke KG, Austria)
Filter: glass fibre filters (glass fibre prefilter 13440-24q, Satorius, Germany)		 LC–MS/MS quantifying PFAS in each particulate size bin. Most PFAS found in fine particles (<1 μm), indicating efficient atmospheric transport. Gas-phase PFAS not captured.
Beser, 2011 [53] 2010 Urban outdoor air in Spain. Pump: high-volume sampler
Filter: quartz fiber filters (QFF) of 150 mm in diameter (30 m3/h for 24 h)		 Microwave-assisted extraction + LC–MS/MS. Detected multiple perfluorinated sulfonates and carboxylates in PM, establishing early baseline levels for Spain. (PFBA, PFPeA, PFHxS, 6:2 FTS, PFOA, PFNA, PFOS and PFDA were detected (1.4 to 34.3 pg/m3)) No gas-phase assessment; limited spatial coverage.
Jahnke, 2007 [54] 2005 Marine atmosphere Pump: High-volume air samplers
Filter & Sorbent: glass fiber filter and polyurethane foam (PUF)/XAD-2/PUF columns		 LC–MS/MS for neutral and ionic PFAS. Observed clear latitudinal gradients with lower PFAS toward the Southern Hemisphere (8:2 FTOH 190 pg/m3, PFOS 2.5 pg/m3, PFOA 2.0 pg/m3); confirmed long-range atmospheric transport. Temporal variability not captured; offshore industrial impacts not separated.
Barber, 2007 [55] 2005–2006 Coastal and inland air masses in Northern Europe. Pump: High-volume air samplers
Filter & Sorbent: glass fiber filters and glass columns with a PUF–XAD-2–PUF		 LC–MS/MS and GC–MS for various PFAS classes. Detected widespread PFAS including FTOHs and PFSAs; coastal–inland differences indicated marine vs industrial influence. (PFOA 1–818 pg/m3, 6:2 FTOH 5–243 pg/m3, 8:2 FTOH 5–189 pg/m3, n/i-PFAS 1–125 pg/m3) Limited seasonal resolution; diverse national sites complicate harmonization.
Jahnke, 2007 [56] 2005 Urban vs remote/rural German locations. Filter & Sorbent: PUF/XAD column and glass fiber filter of 15 cm diameter GC–MS for FTOHs and other volatile PFAS; LC–MS/MS for ionic PFAS. Urban sites showed much higher FTOH levels, reflecting strong consumer-product sources; remote sites still had detectable concentrations, confirming long-range transport. (ΣFOSA + FOSE concentrations: 12-54 pg/m3 (remote) and 29-151 pg/m3 (urban)) No seasonal coverage; focused primarily on volatile precursors.
Open in a new tab

3.2. Industrial sector

Studies investigating occupational indoor settings consistently identified elevated airborne PFAS concentrations associated with the use of fluorinated products in confined spaces (Fig. 2). During ski wax application, concentrations of highly fluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), were measured in the range of 50–200 ng/m3, highlighting the potential for acute inhalation exposure in poorly ventilated environments [32]. Similarly, floor waxing activities produced PM2.5 containing total PFAS concentrations of 30–150 ng/m3, with fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and perfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs) contributing substantially to the particle-bound fraction [33]. Indoor air and dust from Chinese environments contained airborne PFAS concentrations up to 1,680 pg/m3 and 3,860 ng/g in dust, indicating substantial exposure potential indoors [34]. Notably, investigations in kindergartens revealed PFAS in both airborne dust and biological samples (urine and hair) of children, suggesting that occupational indoor activities can generate secondary exposure pathways affecting vulnerable populations [35]. Analytical improvements for volatile PFAS demonstrated the presence of neutral and semi-volatile species at 5–20 ng/m3, emphasizing that conventional monitoring may underestimate total indoor PFAS burden [36]. Collectively, these findings indicate that occupational indoor environments are characterized by episodic but high-concentration emissions, largely driven by direct product application and limited ventilation, with particle-bound compounds posing a significant inhalation risk.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Airborne PFAS concentrations reported in occupational case studies. (a) indoor (ng/m3) and (b) outdoor (pg/m3).

Occupational outdoor studies focused on industrial operations, firefighting activities, and waste management facilities, identifying substantial PFAS emissions and deposition patterns. Air sampled downwind of a Dutch fluoropolymer plant showed hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) concentrations reaching 12 ng/m3 at 1 km from the facility, decreasing by roughly 80% within 5 km according to measurements and dispersion modeling [37]. In areas surrounding fluorochemical industrial parks, total airborne PFAS concentrations in ambient air ranged from 20–300 ng/m3, with short-chain PFAS such as perfluorobutanoate (PFBA) and perfluorohexanoate (PFHxA) dominating, reflecting recent industrial usage and emission control technologies [38]. PM10 emitted from activated sludge aeration contained particle-bound PFAS up to 150 pg/m3, with certain PFAAs enriched more than 2 to 5 times compared to background levels [39]. Wastewater treatment plants with sludge incineration processes were identified as sources of both particle-bound and gaseous PFAS, including FTOHs and perfluorooctyl phosphate compounds, with measured air concentrations of 50–250 ng/m3 [40]. Air monitoring around waste management infrastructures revealed elevated levels of secondary FTOHs (60–200 ng/m3), highlighting the role of thermal transformation in PFAS generation [41]. Air surrounding a fluorochemical industrial area exhibited perfluoroalkyl acids up to 220 pg/m3, and modeled diffusion indicated potential human intake levels approaching 10−6–10−5 risk ranges for long-term exposure [42]. Compared to indoor occupational settings, outdoor industrial sites exhibited broader compound diversity, higher peak concentrations near emission sources, and evidence of secondary environmental transfer, underscoring the complex interplay between point-source emissions, atmospheric transport, and deposition.

Overall, occupational indoor PFAS exposures are dominated by episodic, high-concentration events linked to direct product use, whereas outdoor occupational exposures reflect both legacy and contemporary industrial emissions, with significant potential for environmental dispersion. Particle-bound PFAS are prevalent in both settings, with short-chain and semi-volatile species contributing to chronic exposure potential. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has proposed guideline values for perfluoroisobutylene (Ceiling: 0.08 mg/m3) and ammonium perfluorooctanoate (8-hour TWA TLV: 0.01 mg/m3); however, these are not legally enforceable and do not cover the majority of PFAS compounds, representing a notable limitation [57]. In summary, comparisons of indoor versus outdoor measurements indicate that ventilation, emission intensity, and proximity to sources strongly influence airborne PFAS concentrations, emphasizing the need for targeted monitoring (or personal monitoring) and mitigation strategies in occupational settings.

3.3. Environmental sector

Airborne PFAS in general indoor environments are predominantly composed of neutral compounds, particularly FTOHs (C6–C10), with measured concentrations ranging from 5–200 ng/m3, depending on indoor activities and ventilation (Fig. 3). PFOA and PFOS were typically detected at lower concentrations, averaging 1–15 ng/m3, often associated with particle-bound fractions in dust and HVAC filters [43]. Semi-volatile PFAS species such as polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs) were also present, with indoor air levels of 10–60 ng/m3 in spaces with extensive use of fluorinated cleaning products or treated surfaces. Indoor air concentrations were elevated in poorly ventilated homes and in areas with frequent cleaning or product use, while well-ventilated residences exhibited up to a twofold lower PFAS load [44]. Dust-associated PFAS levels mirrored airborne concentrations, with FTOHs reaching 50–150 ng/g in settled dust, suggesting continuous emission and accumulation. Compared to occupational indoor settings, general indoor environments showed lower peak concentrations but chronic exposure potential, especially for vulnerable populations such as children.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Airborne PFAS concentrations reported in environmental case studies. (a) indoor (pg/m3) and (b) outdoor (pg/m3).

Outdoor airborne PFAS concentrations demonstrate greater variability due to regional transport, urban emissions, and proximity to industrial sources. PFBA was frequently the dominant compound, with outdoor PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 20–120 ng/m3 [45,46]. PFOA and PFOS were detected in the range of 5–50 ng/m3, with higher values observed near urban or industrial areas [47]. Emerging PFAS, including perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and FTOHs, were measured at 10–70 ng/m3, indicating ongoing industrial and product emissions [48,49]. Fine and ultrafine particles (<2.5 μm) preferentially carried PFASs, emphasizing inhalation as a key exposure route [50]. Passive samplers and tree-bark analyses revealed long-term atmospheric accumulation, with total PFAS deposition ranging from 50–350 ng/m2/day, reflecting regional differences in industrial activity and emission intensity [[51], [52], [53]]. Urban areas consistently exhibited 2–5 times higher concentrations of PFASs compared to remote locations, highlighting the significance of anthropogenic sources and atmospheric transport in shaping environmental distribution [[54], [55], [56]].

Across general environments, FTOHs are the most prevalent airborne PFAS species indoors, while PFBA dominates outdoor air, often accompanied by legacy PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS. Indoor environments show particle-bound PFAS fractions up to 150 ng/g in dust and airborne levels up to 200 ng/m3, whereas outdoor concentrations span 5–120 ng/m3 for major compounds, depending on proximity to emission sources. The distribution reflects source-specific emission patterns, physicochemical properties, and environmental dynamics, with indoor accumulation driven by household products and poor ventilation, and outdoor variability shaped by urban emissions, industrial facilities, and long-range transport. These data underscore the importance of both context-specific monitoring and compound-specific assessments when evaluating human exposure and environmental fate of airborne PFAS.

3.4. Differences in airborne PFAS composition and level in industrial and environmental sectors

Significant differences in PFAS composition and concentrations were observed depending on industrial versus general settings and indoor versus outdoor conditions. Notably, PFAS concentrations in occupational indoor environments were over 1,000 times higher than in other conditions and were therefore highlighted separately as Fig. 4(b). This finding underscores the critical importance of ventilation in workplaces and indicates the potential for continuous exposure among workers in these environments. Furthermore, several occupational studies have reported that particulate-phase PFAS accounted for more than 50% of total airborne PFAS, suggesting that inhalation exposure in such environments could be substantially underestimated if only gas-phase sampling is performed. The detection of ultrashort-chain PFCAs (e.g., PFBA) and emerging fluorinated ethers in some occupational settings further indicates the presence of alternative chemicals that have not yet been fully characterized in exposure assessments.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Comparison of concentrations of common PFAS compounds across different conditions. (a) For general (environmental) indoor, outdoor case and industry outdoor case (pg/m3), (b) for industry indoor case (ng/m3).

Under general environmental conditions and in outdoor areas of industrial sites, PFAS concentrations were lower, yet a diverse range of compounds was detected. Among these, perfluorooctane sulfonamidoethanol (N-EtFOSE), N-Methylperfluoro-1-octanesulfonamide (N-MeFOSA), and N-Methylperfluorooctanesulfonamidoethanol (N-MeFOSE) exhibited the highest concentrations, likely reflecting their relatively high volatility, low water solubility, and capacity for long-range atmospheric transport. Additionally, the detection of these compounds as PFOS precursors in air implies that they may undergo transformation into other substances that could subsequently impact human health.

4. Conclusion

Across studies, airborne PFAS concentrations consistently tended to increase from outdoor environments to general indoor settings and then to occupational indoor environments. The complexity of PFAS behavior, driven by variations in chemical species and particle/gas-phase partitioning, highlights the challenges in accurately assessing exposure. Despite often occurring at low concentrations, the persistence, bioaccumulation, and potential toxicity of PFAS underscore the importance of inhalation as a critical exposure pathway. Standardized measurement methods, geographically diverse monitoring, and integration with exposure modeling and risk assessment are urgently needed. Moreover, greater attention should be given to vulnerable populations, such as workers and children, who may experience higher cumulative risks. Given the current lack of global regulations on airborne PFAS, individual precautions—including the use of personal protective equipment and the implementation of adequate ventilation systems—are necessary. From a policy perspective, strengthening regulatory frameworks and establishing protective exposure limits will be essential to mitigate long-term health impacts. Ultimately, advancing the understanding of airborne PFAS dynamics will be critical for the development of effective interventions, informed policies, and sustainable strategies to safeguard public health and the environment.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Myoungho Lee: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. Sungyo Jung: Formal analysis, Data curation. Chungsik Yoon: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Methodology. Sung Ho Hwang: Supervision.

Statement on the Use of AI Tools

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used ChatGPT in order to improve the English language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Conflicts of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (RS-2024-00409979) and by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (BK21 FOUR 5199990214126).

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2026.01.002.

Contributor Information

Myoungho Lee, Email: myoungho425@snu.ac.kr.

Sungyo Jung, Email: shoessun@snu.ac.kr.

Chungsik Yoon, Email: csyoon@snu.ac.kr.

Sung Ho Hwang, Email: hsh25@yongin.ac.kr.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (75.9KB, docx)

References

  • 1.Brennan N.M., Evans A.T., Fritz M.K., Peak S.A., von Holst H.E. Trends in the regulation of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): a scoping review. Intern J Environ Res Pub Health. 2021;18(20) doi: 10.3390/ijerph182010900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brendel S., Fetter E., Staude C., Vierke L., Biegel-Engler A. Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids: environmental concerns and a regulatory strategy under REACH. Environ Sci Eur. 2018;30:9. doi: 10.1186/s12302-018-0134-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Simon J.A., Abrams S., Bradburne T., Bryant D., Burns M., Cassidy D., Cherry J., Chiang S., Cox D., Crimi M., Denly E., DiGuiseppi B., Fenstermacher J., Fiorenza S., Guarnaccia J., Hagelin N., Hall L., Hesemann J., Houtz E., Koenigsberg S.S., Lauzon F., Longsworth J., Maher T., Mcgrath A., Naidu R., Newell C.J., Parker B.L., Singh T., Tomiczek P., Wice R. PFAS. Experts Symposium: statements on regulatory policy, chemistry and analytics, toxicology, transport/fate, andremediation for per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination issues. Remediation. 2019;29:31–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Buck R.C., Franklin J., Berger U., Conder J.M., Cousins I.T., de Voogt P., Jensen A.A., Kannan K., Mabury S.A., van Leeuwen S.P.J. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: terminology, classification, and origins. Integr Environ Assess Manage. 2011;7(4):513–541. doi: 10.1002/ieam.258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.OECD . OECD Publishing; Paris: 2018. Toward a new comprehensive global database of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), OECD series on risk management, No. 38. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kwiatkowski C.F., Andrews D.Q., Birnbaum L.S., Bruton T.A., DeWitt J.C., Blum A. Scientific basis for managing PFAS as a chemical class. Environ Sci Technol Letter. 2020;7:532–543. doi: 10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cousins I.T., DeWitt J.C., Glüge J., Goldenman G., Herzke D., Lohmann R., Wang Z. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts. 2020;22:2307–2312. doi: 10.1039/d0em00355g. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.European chemicals agency, ECHA. 2018. https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.308.021 [Google Scholar]
  • 9.U.S. Environmental protection agency. Federal Register. 2021;86(121) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-28/html/2021-13180.htm [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.OECD . OECD Publishing; Paris: 2021. Reconciling terminology of the universe of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: recommendations and practical guidance, OECD series on risk management, No. 61.https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-chemicals/terminology-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bălan S.A., Mathrani V.C., Guo D.F., Algazi A.M. Regulating PFAS as a chemical class under the California Safer Consumer products program. Environ Health Perspect. 2021;129 doi: 10.1289/EHP7431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Savvaides T., Koelmel J.P., Zhou Y., Lin E.Z., Stelben P., Aristizabal-Henao J.J., Godri Pollitt K.J. Prevalence and implications of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in settled dust. Current Environ Health Reports. 2021;8(4):323–335. doi: 10.1007/s40572-021-00326-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hamon N., Roux A., Beyler M., Mulatier J.C., Andraud C., Nguyen C., Tripier R. Pyclen-based Ln (III) complexes as highly luminescent bioprobes for in vitro and in vivo one-and two-photon bioimaging applications. J Am Chem Soc. 2020;142(22):10184–10197. doi: 10.1021/jacs.0c03496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Høisæter Å., Pfaff A., Breedveld G.D. Leaching and transport of PFAS from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) in the unsaturated soil at a firefighting training facility under cold climatic conditions. J Contamin Hydrol. 2019;222:112–122. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2019.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ma D., Zhong H., Lv J., Wang Y., Jiang G. Levels, distributions, and sources of legacy and novel per-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the topsoil of Tianjin, China. J Environ Sci. 2022;112:71–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2021.04.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mousavi S.E., Delgado-Saborit J.M., Godderis L. Exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and premature skin aging. J Hazard. 2021;405 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zabaleta I., Bizkarguenaga E., Bilbao D., Etxebarria N., Prieto A., Zuloaga O. Fast and simple determination of perfluorinated compounds and their potential precursors in different packaging materials. Talanta. 2016;152(Supplement C):353–363. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2016.02.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ojo A.F., Peng C., Ng J.C. Assessing the human health risks of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances: a need for greater focus on their interactions as mixtures. J Hazard Mater. 2021;407 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sunderland E., Hu X., Dassuncao C., Tokranov A., Wagner C., Allen J. A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. J Exp Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2019;29:131–147. doi: 10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sznajder-Katarzynska K., Surma M., Cieslik I.A. Legal Regulation, and Methods of Determination; Washington, DC, USA: 2019. Review of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in terms of sources, applications, human exposure, dietary intake, toxicity. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhou J., Li S., Liang X., Feng X., Wang T., Li Z., Zhu L. First report on the sources, vertical distribution and human health risks of legacy and novel per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in groundwater from the Loess Plateau, China. J Hazard Mater. 2021;404 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Antoniou E., Colnot T., Zeegers M., Dekant W. Immunomodulation and exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances: an overview of the current evidence from animal and human studies. Archiv Toxicol. 2022;96(8):2261–2285. doi: 10.1007/s00204-022-03303-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Temkin A.M., Hocevar B.A., Andrews D.Q., Naidenko O.V., Kamendulis L.M. Application of the key characteristics of carcinogens to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Intern J Environ Res Pub Health. 2020;17(5):1668. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Beale D.J., Nilsson S., Bose U., Bourne N., Stockwell S., Broadbent J.A., Gonzalez-Astudillo V., Braun C., Baddiley B., Limpus D., Walsh T., Vardy S. Bioaccumulation and impact of maternal PFAS offloading on egg biochemistry from wild-caught freshwater turtles (Emydura macquarii macquarii) Sci Total Environ. 2022;817:153019. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Du Z., Deng S., Bei Y., Huang Q., Wang B., Huang J., Yu G. Adsorption behavior and mechanism of perfluorinated compounds on various adsorbents—a review. J Hazard Mater. 2014;274:443–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.04.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Environmental directorate, pesticides, and biotechnology. OECD France; 2002. Co-operation on existing chemicals: hazard assessment of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Saikat S., Kreis I., Davies B., Bridgman S., Kamanyire R. The impact of PFOS on health in the general population: a review. Enviorn Sci Process Impacts. 2013;15:329–335. doi: 10.1039/c2em30698k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Safer States PFAS in food and water. Toxic Chemicals. 2025 https://www.saferstates.com/toxic-chemicals/pfas/ Available online: [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ghisi R., Vamerali T., Manzetti S. Accumulation of perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in agricultural plants: a review. Environ Res. 2019;169:326–341. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hofman J., Baeyens B., Aerts W., Jacobs G., de Carvalho A.R., Van den Bergh G., Otten G. Quantification of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas) in air emissions: an interlaboratory comparison. Chemosphere. 2025;380 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2025.144449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Alameddine M., Liu Z., Sauvé S., Barbeau B. Comparative assessment of powdered versus granular activated carbon for PFAS removal in drinking water treatment plants. ACS ES&T Water. 2025;5(2):851–861. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Crawford K.A., Hartmann N. Respiratory exposure to highly fluorinated chemicals via application of ski wax and related health effects. Current Environ Health Rep. 2024;11(1):39–45. doi: 10.1007/s40572-023-00425-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zhou J., Baumann K., Chang N., Morrison G., Bodnar W., Zhang Z., Atkin J.M., Surratt J.D., Turpin B.J. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in airborne particulate matter (PM2.0) emitted during floor waxing: a pilot study. Atmos Environ. 2022;268:118845. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yao Y., Zhao Y., Sun H., Chang S., Zhu L., Alder A.C., Kannan K. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in indoor air and dust from homes and various microenvironments in China: implications for human exposure. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(5):3156–3166. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b04971. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Li N., Ying G.G., Hong H., Deng W.J. Perfluoroalkyl substances in the urine and hair of preschool children, airborne particles in kindergartens, and drinking water in Hong Kong. Environ Pollut. 2021;270 doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.116219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Jahnke A., Ahrens L., Ebinghaus R., Berger U., Barber J.L., Temme C. An improved method for the analysis of volatile polyfluorinated alkyl substances in environmental air samples. Analytic Bioanalytic Chem. 2007;387(3):965–975. doi: 10.1007/s00216-006-1008-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dalmijn J., Shafer J.J., Benskin J.P., Salter M.E., Johansson J.H., Cousins I.T. HFPO-DA and other PFAS in air downwind of a fluoropolymer production plant in the Netherlands: measurements and modeling. Environ Sci Technol. 2025;59(17):8662–8672. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c13943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chen X., Xu D., Xiao Y., Zuo M., Zhou J., Sun X., Shan G., Zhu L. Multimedia and full-life-cycle monitoring discloses the dynamic accumulation rules of PFAS and underestimated foliar uptake in wheat near a fluorochemical industrial park. Environ Sci Technol. 2024;58(41):18088–18097. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c03525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kizhakkethil J.P., Shi Z., Bogush A., Kourtchev I. Measurement report: per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in particulate matter (PM10) from activated sludge aeration. Atmos Chem Phys. 2025;25(11):5947–5958. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Seay B.A., Dasu K., MacGregor I.C., Austin M.P., Krile R.T., Frank A.J., Fenton G.A., Heiss D.R., Williamson R.J., Buehler S. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances fate and transport at a wastewater treatment plant with a collocated sewage sludge incinerator. Sci Total Environ. 2023;874:162357. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lin H., Lao J.Y., Wang Q., Ruan Y., He Y., Lee P.K.H., Leung K.M.Y., Lam P.K.S. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the atmosphere of waste management infrastructures: uncovering secondary fluorotelomer alcohols, particle size distribution, and human inhalation exposure. Environ Intern. 2022;167:107434. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wang P., Zhang M., Li Q., Lu Y. Atmospheric diffusion of perfluoroalkyl acids emitted from fluorochemical industry and its associated health risks. Environ Intern. 2021;146 doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Eichler C.M., Chang N.Y., Amparo D.E., Cohen Hubal E.A., Surratt J.D., Morrison G.C., Turpin B.J. Partitioning of neutral PFAS in homes and release to the outdoor environment: results from the IPA Campaign. Environ Sci Technol. 2024;58(42):18870–18880. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c05286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jahnke A., Huber S., Temme C., Kylin H., Berger U. Development and application of a simplified sampling method for volatile polyfluorinated alkyl substances in indoor and environmental air. J Chromatograph A. 2007;1164(1–2):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2007.06.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mattila J.M., Offenberg J.H. Measuring short-chain per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in Central New Jersey air using chemical ionization mass spectrometry. J Air Waste Manag Associat. 2024;74(8):531–539. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2024.2366491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhou J., Baumann K., Surratt J.D., Turpin B.J. Legacy and emerging airborne per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) collected on PM 2.5 filters in close proximity to a fluoropolymer manufacturing facility. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts. 2022;24(12):2272–2283. doi: 10.1039/d2em00358a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kourtchev I., Hellebust S., Heffernan E., Wenger J., Towers S., Diapouli E., Eleftheriadis K. A new on-line SPE LC-HRMS method for the analysis of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in PM2. 5 and its application for screening atmospheric particulates from Dublin and Enniscorthy, Ireland. Sci Total Environ. 2022;835:155496. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Wang S., Lin X., Li Q., Liu C., Li Y., Wang X. Neutral and ionizable per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the urban atmosphere: occurrence, sources and transport. Sci Total Environ. 2022;823 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153794. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lin H., Taniyasu S., Yamashita N., Khan M.K., Masood S.S., Saied S., Khwaja H.A. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the atmospheric total suspended particles in Karachi, Pakistan: profiles, potential sources, and daily intake estimates. Chemosphere. 2022;288 doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Yu N., Guo H., Yang J., Jin L., Wang X., Shi W., Zhang X., Yu H., Wei S. Non-target and suspect screening of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances in airborne particulate matter in China. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(15):8205–8214. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b02492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Liu J., Dong L., Zhou L., Yang W., Shi S., Dong S., Zhang H., Zhang X., Gou J., Zhang L. Tree barks for retrospective measurement and source appointment of airborne perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Environ Pollut. 2024;344:123346. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2024.123346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Dreyer A., Kirchgeorg T., Weinberg I., Matthias V. Particle-size distribution of airborne poly-and perfluorinated alkyl substances. Chemosphere. 2015;129:142–149. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.06.069. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Beser M.I., Pardo O., Beltrán J., Yusà V. Determination of per-and polyfluorinated substances in airborne particulate matter by microwave-assisted extraction and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatograph A. 2011;1218(30):4847–4855. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.04.082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Jahnke A., Berger U., Ebinghaus R., Temme C. Latitudinal gradient of airborne polyfluorinated alkyl substances in the marine atmosphere between Germany and South Africa (53 N− 33 S) Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(9):3055–3061. doi: 10.1021/es062389h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Barber J.L., Berger U., Chaemfa C., Huber S., Jahnke A., Temme C. Jones K.C. Analysis of per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances in air samples from Northwest Europe. J Environ Monitor. 2007;9(6):530–541. doi: 10.1039/b701417a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jahnke A., Ahrens L., Ebinghaus R., Temme C. Urban versus remote air concentrations of fluorotelomer alcohols and other polyfluorinated alkyl substances in Germany. Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41(3):745–752. doi: 10.1021/es0619861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.HSE . 2023. Analysis of the most appropriate regulatory management options (RMOA) [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Multimedia component 1
mmc1.docx (75.9KB, docx)

Articles from Safety and Health at Work are provided here courtesy of Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute

RESOURCES