Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28953889›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Contaminants of emerging concern in tributaries to the Laurentian Great Lakes: I. Patterns of occurrence.

Sarah M Elliott, Mark E Brigham, Kathy E Lee, Jo A Banda, Steven J Choy, Daniel J Gefell, Thomas A Minarik, Jeremy N Moore, Zachary G Jorgenson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pesticides in surface freshwater: a critical review.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah M ElliottU.S. Geological Survey, Mounds View, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1414-3024
Mark E BrighamU.S. Geological Survey, Mounds View, Minnesota, United States of America.
Kathy E LeeU.S. Geological Survey, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, United States of America.
Jo A BandaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Steven J ChoyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
Daniel J GefellU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cortland, New York, United States of America.
Thomas A MinarikMetropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Cicero, IL, United States of America.
Jeremy N MooreU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chubbuck, Idaho, United States of America.
Zachary G JorgensonDepartment of Biology, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, United States of America.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service · USUnited States Geological Survey · USUnited States Bureau of Reclamation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human activities introduce a variety of chemicals to the Laurentian Great Lakes including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, plasticizers, and solvents (collectively referred to as contaminants of emerging concern or CECs) potentially threatening the vitality of these valuable ecosystems. We conducted a basin-wide study to identify the presence of CECs and other chemicals of interest in 12 U.S. tributaries to the Laurentian Great Lakes during 2013 and 2014. A total of 292 surface-water and 80 sediment samples were collected and analyzed for approximately 200 chemicals. A total of 32 and 28 chemicals were detected in at least 30% of water and sediment samples, respectively. Concentrations ranged from 0.0284 (indole) to 72.2 (cholesterol) μg/L in water and 1.75 (diphenhydramine) to 20,800 μg/kg (fluoranthene) in sediment. Cluster analyses revealed chemicals that frequently co-occurred such as pharmaceuticals and flame retardants at sites receiving similar inputs such as wastewater treatment plant effluent. Comparison of environmental concentrations to water and sediment-quality benchmarks revealed that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations often exceeded benchmarks in both water and sediment. Additionally, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and dichlorvos concentrations exceeded water-quality benchmarks in several rivers. Results from this study can be used to understand organism exposure, prioritize river basins for future management efforts, and guide detailed assessments of factors influencing transport and fate of CECs in the Great Lakes Basin.

Indexed as

Cluster AnalysisEnvironmental MonitoringLakesUnited StatesWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID28953889
PMCPMC5617142
OpenAlexW2760088574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.