{"title":"Correction to “Modeling and Evaluation of PFOS Retention in the Unsaturated Zone above the Water Table”","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/gwmr.12697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Hort, H.M., E.B. Stockwell, C.J. Newell, J. Scalia IV, and S. Panday. 2024. Modeling and evaluation of PFOS retention in the unsaturated zone above the water table. <i>Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation</i> 44: 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12662</p><p>In page 3 of the “<i>Based on Newell et al. (2020), a retardation factor of 6.0 (at density = 2.6 g/cm<sup>3</sup> and solid-liquid partition coefficient = 0.077 L/kg) was employed to account for PFOS sorption to the sand</i>.”, retardation factor of 6.0 was not implemented here but instead, we used retardation factor of 2.0 in saturated zone. The text should appear as follows:</p><p>“<i>Saturated zone retardation factor of 2.0 was used in the model to account for PFOS hydrophobic sorption. In unsaturated soils the retardation factor varies depending on the soil moisture</i>.”</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":55081,"journal":{"name":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","volume":"45 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gwmr.12697","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://ngwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gwmr.12697","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"WATER RESOURCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Hort, H.M., E.B. Stockwell, C.J. Newell, J. Scalia IV, and S. Panday. 2024. Modeling and evaluation of PFOS retention in the unsaturated zone above the water table. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 44: 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwmr.12662
In page 3 of the “Based on Newell et al. (2020), a retardation factor of 6.0 (at density = 2.6 g/cm3 and solid-liquid partition coefficient = 0.077 L/kg) was employed to account for PFOS sorption to the sand.”, retardation factor of 6.0 was not implemented here but instead, we used retardation factor of 2.0 in saturated zone. The text should appear as follows:
“Saturated zone retardation factor of 2.0 was used in the model to account for PFOS hydrophobic sorption. In unsaturated soils the retardation factor varies depending on the soil moisture.”
期刊介绍：
Since its inception in 1981, Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation® has been a resource for researchers and practitioners in the field. It is a quarterly journal that offers the best in application oriented, peer-reviewed papers together with insightful articles from the practitioner''s perspective. Each issue features papers containing cutting-edge information on treatment technology, columns by industry experts, news briefs, and equipment news. GWMR plays a unique role in advancing the practice of the groundwater monitoring and remediation field by providing forward-thinking research with practical solutions.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
