Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35852176›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2022

Prioritizing Pharmaceutical Contaminants in Great Lakes Tributaries Using Risk-Based Screening Techniques.

Matthew A Pronschinske, Steven R Corsi, Laura A DeCicco, Edward T Furlong, Gerald T Ankley, Brett R Blackwell, Daniel L Villeneuve, Peter L Lenaker, Michelle A Nott

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew A PronschinskeUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9787-4545
Steven R CorsiUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Laura A DeCiccoUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Edward T FurlongLaboratory & Analytical Services Division, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Gerald T AnkleyGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.
Brett R BlackwellGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1296-4539
Daniel L VilleneuveGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-0203
Peter L LenakerUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Michelle A NottUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3968-7586
United States Geological Survey · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a study of 44 diverse sampling sites across 16 Great Lakes tributaries, 110 pharmaceuticals were detected of 257 monitored. The present study evaluated the ecological relevance of detected chemicals and identified heavily impacted areas to help inform resource managers and guide future investigations. Ten pharmaceuticals (caffeine, nicotine, albuterol, sulfamethoxazole, venlafaxine, acetaminophen, carbamazepine, gemfibrozil, metoprolol, and thiabendazole) were distinguished as having the greatest potential for biological effects based on comparison to screening-level benchmarks derived using information from two biological effects databases, the ECOTOX Knowledgebase and the ToxCast database. Available evidence did not suggest substantial concern for 75% of the monitored pharmaceuticals, including 147 undetected pharmaceuticals and 49 pharmaceuticals with screening-level alternative benchmarks. However, because of a lack of biological effects information, screening values were not available for 51 detected pharmaceuticals. Samples containing the greatest pharmaceutical concentrations and having the highest detection frequencies were from Lake Erie, southern Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron tributaries. Samples collected during low-flow periods had higher pharmaceutical concentrations than those collected during increased-flow periods. The wastewater-treatment plant effluent content in streams correlated positively with pharmaceutical concentrations. However, deviation from this correlation demonstrated that secondary factors, such as multiple pharmaceutical sources, were likely present at some sites. Further research could investigate high-priority pharmaceuticals as well as those for which alternative benchmarks could not be developed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:2221-2239. Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Indexed as

LakesWater Pollutants, ChemicalEnvironmental MonitoringPharmaceutical PreparationsRiversPharmaceutical PreparationsWater Pollutants, ChemicalContaminants of emerging concernEcological risk assessmentEcotoxicologyPharmaceuticalsWater quality

Identifiers

PMID35852176
PMCPMC9542422
OpenAlexW4285798969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.