Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922083›Full record

ArticleToxics2024

Non-Targeted PFAS Suspect Screening and Quantification of Drinking Water Samples Collected through Community Engaged Research in North Carolina's Cape Fear River Basin.

Rebecca A Weed, Grace Campbell, Lacey Brown, Katlyn May, Dana Sargent, Emily Sutton, Kemp Burdette, Wayne Rider, Erin S Baker, Jeffrey R Enders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Feasibility of IR-MALDESI Mass Spectrometry Imaging of PFAS.Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS · 2025
    Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Rebecca A WeedMolecular Education, Technology and Research Innovation Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4051-4685
Grace CampbellCenter for Environmental and Health Effects of PFAS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.
Lacey BrownCenter for Environmental and Health Effects of PFAS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-8949-3262
Katlyn MayCenter for Environmental and Health Effects of PFAS, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9542-4583
Dana SargentCape Fear River Watch, Wilmington, NC 28401, USA.
Emily SuttonHaw River Assembly, Pittsboro, NC 27312, USA.
Kemp BurdetteCape Fear River Watch, Wilmington, NC 28401, USA.
Wayne RiderSustainable Sandhills, Fayetteville, NC 28303, USA.
Erin S BakerDepartment of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5246-2213
Jeffrey R EndersMolecular Education, Technology and Research Innovation Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1224-1664

Funding

Uncovering the Mechanisms of PFAS-induced ImmunotoxicityP42ES031009 · NIEHS · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI PLANCHART, ANTONIO J. · 2020 to 2024
$9.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES031009NIEHS NIH HHS P42ES031009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A community engaged research (CER) approach was used to provide an exposure assessment of poly- and perfluorinated (PFAS) compounds in North Carolina residential drinking water. Working in concert with community partners, who acted as liaisons to local residents, samples were collected by North Carolina residents from three different locations along the Cape Fear River basin: upper, middle, and lower areas of the river. Residents collected either drinking water samples from their homes or recreational water samples from near their residence that were then submitted by the community partners for PFAS analysis. All samples were processed using weak anion exchange (WAX) solid phase extraction and analyzed using a non-targeted suspect screening approach as well as a quantitative approach that included a panel of 45 PFAS analytes, several of which are specific to chemical industries near the collection site locations. The non-targeted approach, which utilized a suspect screening list (obtained from EPA CompTox database) identified several PFAS compounds at a level two confidence rating (Schymanski scale); compounds identified included a fluorinated insecticide, a fluorinated herbicide, a PFAS used in polymer chemistry, and another that is used in battery production. Notably, at several locations, PFOA (39.8 ng/L) and PFOS (205.3 ng/L) were at levels that exceeded the mandatory EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 ng/L. Additionally, several sites had detectable levels of PFAS that are unique to a local chemical manufacturer. These findings were communicated back to the community partners who then disseminated this information to the local residents to help empower and aid in making decisions for reducing their PFAS exposure.

Indexed as

communitymass spectrometrynon-targeted analysisparticipatory researchPFAS

Identifiers

PMID38922083
PMCPMC11209479

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.