PFAS Contamination in New Jersey: Key Insights for Water Professionals

A recent 182-page scientific study provides one of the most comprehensive assessments to date of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in New Jersey’s soil and water. The analysis spans all 21 counties and offers critical insights into PFAS distribution, sources of contamination, and implications for drinking water quality and public health.

Key Takeaways

• PFAS levels are higher in New Jersey’s urban areas, particularly along the New York–Philadelphia corridor.
• Frequently detected compounds include PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxA, with detection rates often exceeding 50%.
• Known contamination sources include New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)-identified PFNA, PFOA, and PFOS sites, superfund sites, and potable wells; presumptive sources include fire stations, airports, military bases, landfills, and industrial facilities.
• Soil samples generally showed low leaching potential, but PFOS demonstrated moderate sorption, suggesting persistence in soils.
• GIS mapping provided spatial analysis of PFAS concentrations and contamination sources across all 21 counties.
• Methodological limitations — such as high non-detect rates, low sampling density, and evolving analytical methods — underscore the need for ongoing monitoring and research.
• Findings can support risk assessment, regulatory compliance, treatment development, and public health protection.

PFAS distribution across urban and rural areas

The study found that PFAS concentrations are consistently higher in urban environments compared to rural areas. Elevated levels of compounds such as PFOS, PFDA, and PFTeDA were especially prominent along the New York–Philadelphia corridor, where industrial activity and population density are greatest. Detection frequencies for common PFAS compounds — including PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxA — often exceeded 50%, underscoring their widespread presence in both soil and water samples.

Sources of contamination

Known sources include New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)-identified PFNA, PFOA, and PFOS sites, along with superfund sites, public drinking water wells, and private wells. Presumptive sources, such as fire stations, airports, military installations, landfills, and certain industries, were also mapped using North American Industry Classification System Code (NAICS/SIC) codes. These findings highlight the complex mix of legacy contamination and ongoing inputs influencing PFAS levels statewide.

Mobility and leachability

While most soil samples exhibited low leaching potential, meaning concentrations were below site-specific remediation standards for migration to groundwater, distribution coefficient (Kd) values suggest that compounds such as PFOS demonstrate moderate sorption potential. This has direct implications for understanding the long-term persistence and mobility of PFAS in New Jersey soils.

Spatial analysis using GIS

Geographic Information System (GIS) tools were used to map PFAS concentrations and suspected sources, providing a valuable resource for identifying regional contamination patterns. These visualizations support more effective decision-making for monitoring, remediation, and regulatory planning.

Study methodology

The study applied rigorous sampling and analytical methods:

• Soil and water samples were collected statewide, representing both urban and rural settings.
• PFAS concentrations were measured using USEPA Method 1633 (LC-MS/MS) for 40 – 47 compounds.
• Leachability was assessed through the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP).
• Data validation adhered to EPA guidelines, with blanks, calibration checks, and recovery controls incorporated.
• Statistical analysis employed descriptive measures and non-parametric tests (e.g., Wilcoxon rank test) to evaluate differences across regions.

Sampling sites were carefully selected to reduce bias, with buffers placed around known contamination points. However, the study acknowledges that the density of sampling — approximately one site per 55 square miles — may not fully capture local variability.

Limitations

Several challenges were noted:

• High non-detect rates limited statistical interpretation for certain compounds.
• Detection limits varied, with some PFAS frequently below the method detection limit.
• Data represents a single snapshot in time and does not reflect seasonal or long-term changes.
• United Staes Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 1633 remains in draft form, and potential adsorption during Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) testing may have underestimated leachate concentrations.
• The study did not attempt to directly attribute contamination to specific activities or facilities.

Implications for the Water Sector

For water professionals, this research offers actionable insights:

• Risk Assessment: Areas of elevated PFAS can be prioritized for monitoring and remediation.
• Regulatory Compliance: Findings support alignment with evolving state and federal PFAS standards.
• Source Identification: Mapping of known and presumptive sources can guide targeted investigations.
• Treatment Development: Data on PFAS mobility and persistence informs technology innovation for both water and soil.
• Public Health Protection: Understanding PFAS distribution is critical to assessing exposure risks and protecting vulnerable communities.

Conclusion

This statewide study marks a significant step forward in characterizing PFAS in New Jersey’s environment. While methodological and data limitations remain, the work provides an essential foundation for future monitoring, research, and treatment efforts. For water industry professionals, the findings underscore the urgency of continued investment in PFAS mitigation strategies to safeguard drinking water supplies and public health.

Read the full study.

This piece was created with the help of generative AI tools and edited by our content team for clarity and accuracy.