Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) are emerging contaminants of concern as they persist in natural environments due to their unique chemical structures. This paper critically reviewed the adsorption of PFOA and PFOS, depending on their chemical structure, by different adsorbents as well as soil. Adsorption of PFOS generally surpasses that of PFOA across various adsorbents. Despite having the same number of carbons, PFOS exhibits greater hydrophobicity due to two major structural differences: firstly, it has one extra CF₂ unit and secondly, the sulfonate group in PFOS, being a relatively hard base, readily adsorbs on oxide surfaces, enhancing its adsorption compared to the carboxylate group in PFOA. While comparing activated carbon (AC) adsorption performance, powdered activated carbon (PAC) demonstrates higher adsorption capacity than granular activated carbon (GAC) for PFOS and PFOA. Anion exchange resin (AER) outperforms other adsorbents, with a maximum adsorption capacity for PFOS twice that of PFOA. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) exhibit two-fold higher adsorption for PFOS compared to PFOA, with single-walled CNTs showing a distinct advantage. Overall, the removal of PFOS and PFOA under similar conditions on different adsorbents is observed to be in the following order: AER > single-walled CNTs > AC. Moreover, AER, single-walled CNTs, and AC exhibited higher adsorption capacities for PFOS than PFOA. In situ remediation studies of PFOA/S-contaminated soil using colloidal activated carbon show a reduction in concentration to below acceptable limits within 12–24 months. The theoretical and experimental studies cited in this review highlight the role of air–water interfacial adsorption in retaining PFOA and PFOS as a function of their charged head groups during their transport in unsaturated porous media.

Introduction: E-cigarettes are becoming increasingly popular in Australia, especially amongst the younger population. The synthetic cooling molecules WS-3 and WS-23 have been identified in e-cigarette products from the United States and Europe. The extent of inclusion of these synthetic coolants in Australian e-liquids is unknown, particularly in newer disposable e-cigarettes. Aims and Methods: E-cigarettes and e-liquids were purchased within Australia and anonymously donated by Australian users. Nicotine, WS-3, WS-23, and menthol were quantified in the e-liquids using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Results: WS-23 and nicotine were detected in all of the disposable e-cigarettes with WS-23 often present in high concentrations. There was no correlation between cooling terms in the flavor name and the inclusion of cooling agents. Only three bottled e-liquids were found to contain WS-23 while none contained WS-3 above the limit of detection. Conclusions: Synthetic coolants were a common addition in disposable e-cigarettes while rarely added to e-liquid bottle refills. Their inclusion in these products is reflective of trends observed in United States and European e-cigarette products. Implications: The increase in synthetic cooling agents as components of e-liquids, particularly disposable e-cigarette devices, has been observed within Australian samples across a range of brands and flavors. WS-23 was present in every disposable e-cigarette analyzed in this study, often in relatively high concentrations. Its inhalational toxicology should be considered when evaluating the safety of these products.