Potential role of sea spray generation in the atmospheric transport of perfluorocarboxylic acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The observed environmental concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its conjugate base (PFO) in remote regions such as the Arctic have been primarily ascribed to the atmospheric transport and degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) and to direct PFO transport in ocean currents. These mechanisms are each capable of only partially explaining observations. Transport within marine aerosols has been proposed and may explain transport over short distances but will contribute little over longer distances. However, PFO(A) has been shown to have a very short half-life in aqueous aerosols and thus sea spray was proposed as a mechanism for the generation of PFOA in the gas phase from PFO in a water body. Using the observed PFO concentrations in oceans of the Northern Hemisphere and estimated spray generation rates, this mechanism is shown to have the potential for contributing large amounts of PFOA to the atmosphere and may therefore contribute significantly to the concentrations observed in remote locations. Specifically, the rate of PFOA release into the gas phase from oceans in the Northern Hemisphere is calculated to be potentially comparable to global stack emissions to the atmosphere. The subsequent potential for atmospheric degradation of PFOA and its global warming potential are considered. Observed isomeric ratios and predicted atmospheric concentrations due to FTOH degradation are used to elucidate the likely relative importance of transport pathways. It is concluded that gas phase PFOA released from oceans may help to explain observed concentrations in remote regions. The model calculations performed in the present study strongly suggest that oceanic aerosol and gas phase field monitoring is of vital importance to obtain a complete understanding of the global dissemination of PFCAs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".