ArticlePLOS water2026
Wildfire mobilization of arsenic into water resources: A scoping review of current literature.
Article in PLOS water, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing wildfire activity poses a threat to water resources via the mobilization of hazardous materials such as arsenic (As). While As contamination of water resources is well studied, the fate and transport of As impacted by wildfire are not well characterized. This literature review synthesizes studies addressing the questions of: (1) Does fuel type influence how As is mobilized by wildfire?; (2) What mobilization pathways are most common for As when impacted by wildfires?; and (3) How are surface and groundwater As concentrations impacted by wildfire mobilization of As? To address this goal, articles were queried using Boolean search strings in Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science and screened for relevance using PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcome) criteria. Twenty articles met the criteria, showing wildfire mobilization of As and changes in concentrations or loading of As to surface or groundwater. The majority of studies (16 of 20) showed an increase or a likely increase in As in waterbodies post-wildfire. Runoff to surface water was by far the dominant pathway. Average values typically did not exceed drinking water standards, although six studies reported instances where this occurred, with one reporting exceedances in treated drinking water itself. The largest value of dissolved As reported across surveyed literature (70 μg/L) was measured downgradient of a legacy mining operation post-wildfire. Higher values were also observed downstream of burned agricultural or urban areas, illustrating how human activities concentrate As, which can then be subsequently mobilized by wildfire. In contrast to surface water, groundwater impacts were inconsistent in the limited literature, with one study showing an increase in post-wildfire As, while the other two studies showed no-change. Overall, these results suggest communities may need to test drinking water supplies for As following wildfire, especially in cases where mining, agricultural, or urbanized areas are burned.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.