4 ms·

That article's only citation is a review paper, and it doesn't answer my question or substantiate your claim. It only covers how much PFAS is found in rainwater

That article's only citation is a review paper, and it doesn't answer my question or substantiate your claim. It only covers how much PFAS is found in rainwater, and not how it got there. The sources cited includes https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116685 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116685, which is paywalled, but the snippet of the conclusion that is shown indicates that a possible major cause is industrial emissions: > As local sources were determined to be significant, the results imply that local action can have an impact on PFAS contamination in precipitation. A three-way ANOVA model determined that functional group, chain length, and location were significant predictors of PFAS concentrations If you can get the full text I'd be very interested in reading about it.

titzer 1y ago
There's a journal paper (i.e. already reviewed and accepted) linked at the bottom: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 That paper alone has 61 references. There are plenty of papers to go read.
vel0city 1y ago
Sure, its probably at its highest concentrations right where its being manufactured or used heavily, but in the end its migrating just about everywhere. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 > n Figure 1B, the levels of PFOS in rainwater are shown to often exceed the US EPA drinking water health advisory for PFOS, except for two studies conducted in remote regions (in Tibet and Antarctica). I don't think there are a lot of industrial emissions in Antarctica.