Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37642300›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2023

Assessing Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: A Decade of Method Development and Practical Application.

Gerald T Ankley, Steven R Corsi, Christine M Custer, Drew R Ekman, Stephanie L Hummel, Kimani L Kimbrough, Heiko L Schoenfuss, Daniel L Villeneuve

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gerald T AnkleyGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-9937-615X
Steven R CorsiUpper Midwest Water Science Center, US Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin.
Christine M CusterUpper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, US Geological Survey, La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Drew R EkmanEcosystem Processes Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia.
Stephanie L HummelGreat Lakes Regional Office, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota.
Kimani L KimbroughNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Heiko L SchoenfussAquatic Toxicology Laboratory, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5464-992X
Daniel L VilleneuveGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, US Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0003-2801-0203
Environmental Protection Agency · USUnited States Geological Survey · USNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · USSt. Cloud State University · USUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing the ecological risk of contaminants in the field typically involves consideration of a complex mixture of compounds which may or may not be detected via instrumental analyses. Further, there are insufficient data to predict the potential biological effects of many detected compounds, leading to their being characterized as contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). Over the past several years, advances in chemistry, toxicology, and bioinformatics have resulted in a variety of concepts and tools that can enhance the pragmatic assessment of the ecological risk of CECs. The present Focus article describes a 10+- year multiagency effort supported through the U.S. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to assess the occurrence and implications of CECs in the North American Great Lakes. State-of-the-science methods and models were used to evaluate more than 700 sites in about approximately 200 tributaries across lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior, sometimes on multiple occasions. Studies featured measurement of up to 500 different target analytes in different environmental matrices, coupled with evaluation of biological effects in resident species, animals from in situ and laboratory exposures, and in vitro systems. Experimental taxa included birds, fish, and a variety of invertebrates, and measured endpoints ranged from molecular to apical responses. Data were integrated and evaluated using a diversity of curated knowledgebases and models with the goal of producing actionable insights for risk assessors and managers charged with evaluating and mitigating the effects of CECs in the Great Lakes. This overview is based on research and data captured in approximately about 90 peer-reviewed journal articles and reports, including approximately about 30 appearing in a virtual issue comprised of highlighted papers published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry or Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:2506-2518. © 2023 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsEcosystemEtoposideGreat Lakes RegionHumansLakesMichiganEtoposideWater Pollutants, ChemicalContaminantsEcological riskGreat LakesMixturesReview

Identifiers

PMID37642300
PMCPMC10935577
OpenAlexW4386255462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.