Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39004957›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental quality

Surveillance of PFAS in sludge and biosolids at 12 water resource recovery facilities.

Shubhashini Oza, Katherine Y Bell, Zhiliang Xu, Yifei Wang, Martha J M Wells, John W Norton, Lloyd J Winchell, Qingguo Huang, Hui Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Fate of biosolids-bound PFAS through pyrolysis coupled with thermal oxidation for air emissions control.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Shubhashini OzaBrown and Caldwell, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-1330
Katherine Y BellBrown and Caldwell, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Zhiliang XuDepartment of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Yifei WangDepartment of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5989-7911
Martha J M WellsEnviroChem Services, Cookeville, Tennessee, USA.
John W NortonGreat Lakes Water Authority, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Lloyd J WinchellBrown and Caldwell, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
Qingguo HuangDepartment of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Griffin, Georgia, USA.
Hui LiDepartment of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.

Funding

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 84025201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are refractory anthropogenic chemicals and current treatment processes at municipal water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) cannot efficiently degrade them, hence, these chemicals cycle through the environment. Certain PFAS can be concentrated in biosolids from WRRFs and are commonly land applied for beneficial reuse. Given recent advances in measurement of PFAS, documentation of the range of concentrations in pre-stabilized sludge and stabilized biosolids is critical to evaluating treatment best practices and assessing potential human health and ecological risks. In this study, pre-stabilized sludge and post-stabilized biosolids samples were collected from 12 major WRRFs across the United States. PFAS were analyzed using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method SW846-3500C/537.1, and Draft EPA Method 1633, by one commercial laboratory and two university research laboratories, respectively. Results comparison among laboratories demonstrated statistical differences in PFAS concentrations among split samples. For example, 5:3 FTCA (fluorotelomer carboxylic acid) concentrations in post-stabilized sludge at Lab 1 were measured at 21 ng/g (dry), while they were detected at 151 ng/g (dry) in Lab 3. Further, higher PFAS concentrations were observed in post-stabilized biosolids compared to pre-stabilized sludges, regardless of the laboratory or analysis method, even when solids destruction through solids stabilization was considered. Further research is required to refine methods for analyses of PFAS in sludge and biosolids samples from WRRFs prior to being used for development of regulatory actions as well as understanding how various treatment protocols could impact concentrations of PFAS in land-applied biosolids.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringFluorocarbonsSewageWater Pollutants, ChemicalUnited StatesWaste Disposal, FluidWater ResourcesFluorocarbonsSewageWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID39004957
PMCPMC11718139

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.