Abstract
Information on the occurrence of PFAS in aquatic matrices of countries with no PFAS manufacturing, e.g., New Zealand, is limited. Also, the fingerprint of PFAS along an urban water cycle, following water path from wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent to treated drinking water has not been widely assessed. Hence, 38 long-, short-, ultrashort-chain PFAS and fluorinated alternatives (including precursors) were monitored in this study by collecting composite samples from two urban WWTPs of New Zealand and grab samples from the water bodies receiving the WWTPs’ effluents and a drinking water treatment plant, whose source water received the effluent of one of the studied WWTPs. ∑PFAS at concentrations 0.1 – 13 ng/L were detected in all wastewater samples, including influents and different treatment stages of the two WWTPs (WW1 and WW2). The fate of most PFAS was similar in the two WWTPs, despite large differences in WWTPs’ PFAS loads in the influents, serving populations (1.6 vs 0.16 million), total capacities (300 vs 54 million liters per day), and designs (aerobic and anoxic secondary treatment vs aerobic only). The fate of PFAS in WWTPs appeared to be driven by a range of processes. For instance, a simultaneous increase (41.6%) in short-chain perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) concentrations and decrease (49.7%) in precursor 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS) concentrations after secondary biological treatment suggested possible transformation of 6:2 FTS into PFHxA during the treatment. In contrast, the reason behind an average decrease of 35% in ultrashort-chain perfluoropropionic acid (PFPrA) concentrations after treatment was unclear, and further studies are recommended. The concentrations of a linear isomer of long-chain perfluorosulfonic acid (PFOS-L) decreased (48%) in the effluent, possibly due to its partitioning to sludge. Although the concentrations of PFAS in coastal waters suggested that the WW1 effluent is a potential source of PFAS, earlier dispersion model and no detection of PFAS in the receiving waters of WW2 implied that other sources, such as septic systems, peripheral industries, and the airport, could also be contributing to PFAS in coastal waters. The source of ultrashort-chain PFPrA (5.5 ng/L) detected in the treated drinking water produced from that river was unclear. The monitoring results confirm incomplete removal of PFAS in WWTPs, indicate a possible transformation of unknown precursors present in wastewater into short-chain perfluoroalkylcarboxylic acids (PFCAs) during biological treatment, and reveal a possible accumulation of perfluoroalkylsulfonic acids (PFSAs) in the sludge, overall suggesting the circulation of PFAS in urban water systems.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
