Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40108340›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2025

Retrospective stepwise prioritization of chemicals detected in Great Lakes tributaries (2008-2018).

Erin M Maloney, Steven R Corsi, Matthew A Pronschinske, Laura A DeCicco, John R Frisch, Neil Fuller, Austin K Baldwin, Kimani Kimbrough, Michael Edwards, Stephanie L Hummel and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Erin M MaloneySwenson College of Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN, United States.
Steven R CorsiUpper Midwest Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI, United States.
Matthew A PronschinskeUpper Midwest Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI, United States.
Laura A DeCiccoUpper Midwest Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, WI, United States.
John R FrischGeneral Dynamics Information Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth MN, United States.
Neil FullerConsolidated Safety Services (CSS Inc), Fairfax, VA, United States.
Austin K BaldwinIdaho Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Boise, ID, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6027-3823
Kimani KimbroughNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Michael EdwardsNational Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, NOAA National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Stephanie L HummelEcological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, MN, United States.
Natalia G VinasU.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Centre, Vicksburg, MS, United States.
Daniel L VilleneuveGreat Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Duluth, MN, United States.

Funding

Great Lakes Restoration InitiativeIntramural EPA EPA999999University of Minnesota-DuluthU.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Assessment CR83940001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Through the U.S. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a 10-year, multiagency chemical monitoring effort was undertaken across the Great Lakes. In this effort, 586 chemicals were monitored and 334 were detected in grab/composite water samples. To help inform potential future actions, a stepwise prioritization framework was used to identify compounds for which publicly accessible water quality guidelines or effects information suggested there was potential aquatic ecotoxicity. Because water quality guidelines were only available for some chemicals, this framework used apical toxicity data collated from publicly accessible databases (e.g., the ECOTOXicology Knowledgebase) and alternative data, including literature-derived non-apical effect concentrations, in vitro bioactivities from high-throughput screening, and modeled ecotoxicity. To account for the diverse levels of confidence in these data, chemicals were prioritized within specific action categories, which suggested potential management or experimental activities that may be considered based on the types of data available for each compound. Overall, 11 detected chemicals were identified as high priority in different action categories. This included four chemicals prioritized for environmental management or targeted risk assessment, three chemicals prioritized for effects-based monitoring, one chemical prioritized for apical effects assessment, and three chemicals targeted for non-apical effects evaluation. This framework also identified 164 low-priority chemicals, among which more than 50% were prioritized based on water quality guidelines or apical effect concentrations (thus could be considered low priority for future risk assessment or management activities). Results aim to help regulatory agencies, environmental managers, and other stakeholders focus available resources on carrying out monitoring, experimental, and risk assessments for the chemicals that display the greatest potential to adversely impact Great Lakes ecosystems.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringLakesWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnimalsGreat Lakes RegionWater QualityWater Pollutants, Chemicalaquatic toxicitycontaminants of emerging concernlegacy contaminantsrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40108340
PMCPMC13137062

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.