Table 1. Comparison of this study with reported methods for PFOS degradation.

Method	Conditions	ka (h−1)	EEOb (103 kWh/m3/order)	Reference
Direct UV	[PFOS]: 40 μM	0.0054	18.19	Yamamoto, et al.10
	750 mL
	36–46°C
	LPMLc: 32 W
UV in iso-propanol	[PFOS]: 40 μM	0.039	2.52	Yamamoto, et al.10
	[NaOH]: 68 mM
	750 mL iso-propanol
	38–50°C
	LPMLc: 32 W
UV/KI	[PFOS]: 20 μM	0.18	3.41	Park, et al.19
	[KI]: 10 mM
	30 mL
	ambient temperature
	UV: 8 W
UV/K2S2O8	[PFOS]: 20 μM	0.24	2.56	Park, et al.19
	[K2S2O8]: 10 mM
	30 mL
	ambient temperature
	UV: 8 W
UV/FeCl3	[PFOS]: 20 μM	0.070	1.90	Jin, et al.13
	[FeCl3]: 100 μM
	400 mL
	25°C
	LPMLc: 23 W
Sonolysis	[PFOS]: 20 μM	0.96	8.00	Moriwaki, et al.14
	60 mL
	20°C
	ultrasonic: 200 W, 200 kHz
Plasma bubble	[PFOS]: 100 μM	0.15	3.99	Yasuoka, et al.18
	50 mL
	25°C
	Power: ~13 W (oxygen plasma)
UV with optimization of pH and temperature	[PFOS]: 37.2 μM	0.91	1.27	this work
	PBS: 6.0 mM, pH 11.8
	100°C
	1000 mL
	MPMLd: 500 W

^apseudo-first-order rate constants;

^belectrical energy per order, defined as the number of kilowatt hours of electrical energy required to reduce the concentration of a pollutant by 1 order of magnitude in 1 m³ of contaminated water, proposed as figure-of-merit for removal of pollutant at low concentrations by the Photochemistry Commission of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry³⁴;

^clow pressure mercury lamp;

^dmedium pressure mercury lamp with a low UVC luminous efficiency, which also acted as the heat source.