4.8 Article

Pine Needles for the Screening of Perfluorinated Alkylated Substances (PFASs) along Ski Tracks

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 17, Pages 9487-9496

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02264

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. EEA
  2. Programme of the European Territorial Cooperation Slovak Republic, Czech Republic [CZ/FMP.16/0379]
  3. National Sustainability Programme of the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports [LO1214]
  4. RECETOX [LM2015051]
  5. [CZ07]
  6. [NF-CZ07-INP-4-218-2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Perfluorinated alkylated substances (PFASs) are today considered persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative contaminants. Perfluorooctansulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are currently listed as priority substances under the UNEP global convention for the regulation of POPs. A previous study reported higher levels of PFASs in pine needles near ski areas. Their application as stain repellents in modern outdoor clothes and in ski waxes is assumed to be a potential source. Pine trees (Pinus mugo in Slovakia and Pinus sylvestris in Norway) were chosen for sampling in ski resorts. Relative distributions, overall concentrations, trend estimates, elevation patterns, and distance from primary sources were assessed. PFOA was the predominant PFAS constituent in pine needles from Slovakia (8-93%). In Norway, the most-abundant PFAS was perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA: 3-66%). A difference in product composition (particularly in ski waxes) and differences in Norwegian and Slovakian regulations are considered to be the primary reason for these differences. Open application of PFOA in industry and products has been banned in Norway since 2011. The replacement of PFOA with short-chain substitutes is thus considered the reason for the observed pattern differences in the analyzed pine needles. Regular monitoring and screening programs are recommended.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available