Cited by 168Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFluoride Effects and Removal

Perfluorinated Compounds in the Cape Fear Drainage Basin in North Carolina

Nakayama, Shoji, Strynar, Mark J., Helfant, Laurence, Egeghy, Peter, Ye, Xibiao, Lindstrom, Andrew B.·2007·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Concern over perfluorinated organic compounds (PFCs), e.g., perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), is due to a number of recent studies which show that the PFCs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic in animals. Despite sustained interest in this topic, little information is available concerning the environmental distributions of the compounds. In this study, a new method was developed for the analysis of 10 target PFCs and its performance was examined in a systematic evaluation of surface water in the Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina. One hundred samples from 80 different locations were collected during the spring of 2006. Detectable levels of the target PFCs were found in all samples, and were comparable to values reported previously, with maximum PFOS at 132 ng/L, PFOA at 287 ng/L, perfluorononanoic acid (C9) at 194 ng/L, and perfluoroheptanoic acid (C7) at 329 ng/L. In general, the lowest concentrations of the PFCs were found in the smallest tributaries while the highest levels were found in middle reaches of the Drainage Basin. Variability of PFC concentrations suggests a series of source inputs throughout the Basin. Seventeen sample sites (22%) had PFOS concentrations greater than 43 ng/L, a conservative safe water concentration estimated to be protective of avian life. In addition, a total of 26 sites (32%) had PFOA concentrations above 40 ng/L.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es070792y

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nakayama, S., Strynar, M. J., Helfant, L., Egeghy, P., Ye, X., & Lindstrom, A. B.
Affiliations
Environmental Protection Agency (US)
Corresponding author
Lindstrom, Andrew B.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2007-07-04
Volume
41
Issue
15
Pages
5271-5276
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1982093919
Cited by
168
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Office of Research and Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Fluoride Effects and Removal
Keywords
perfluorinated organic compounds, PFOS, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorononanoic acid, PFHpA, surface water contamination, Cape Fear River Basin, persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances
MeSH terms
Animals, Caprylates, Environmental Exposure, Fluorocarbons, Geography, North Carolina, Reproducibility of Results, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Rivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review