4.5 Article

Ticks as novel sentinels to monitor environmental levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 1301-1307

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1em00209k

关键词

-

资金

  1. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1U01CK000510-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated environmental PFAS levels using ticks as a sentinel model. Analysis of four tick species in two states showed varying concentrations of PFAS, with the lowest levels at Newburgh and the highest at Sweetwater. This underscores the potential for ticks to serve as effective sentinels for monitoring PFAS contamination.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are environmentally persistent, ubiquitous pollutants. It is important to continuously monitor the presence of PFAS contamination, utilizing both legacy and new sentinels. In this study, environmental PFAS levels were evaluated using ticks as a sentinel model due to their world-wide distribution, hematophagous nature, and ease of collection and sampling. Hematophagy in discrete blood meals, from a suite of vertebrates, allows ticks to sample dozens of species of consumers and bioaccumulation across communities. Four different species of ticks, across two states (NY, n = 28 in mid-April of 2020 and FL, n = 32 between 2015 and 2020) with two sampling sites in each state were analyzed for the presence of 53 PFAS. The total PFAS concentration in ticks was the lowest at Newburgh (NY), a site that has been undergoing remediation efforts, while the highest total PFAS concentrations were measured in ticks at the Sweetwater site, a wastewater treatment wetland. Detection of PFAS and the potential for variation between tick species and between locations are necessary to establish the utility of ticks as sentinels, in addition to assessing additional environmental factors, such as other wildlife, water, or soil.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据