Research study on PFAS in the Great Lakes exposes constant concentrations from precipitation throughout all lakes, with variable removal rates influencing their perseverance. These findings come amidst regulative modifications by the EPA classifying particular PFAS as harmful compounds, highlighting the importance of the Great Lakes as a freshwater source and highlighting the need for ongoing tracking and regulation to alleviate pollution.A research study on PFAS in the Great Lakes reveals consistent pollution levels from precipitation and differing rates of chemical elimination throughout the lakes, stressing the requirement for enhanced regulatory measures.Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS), typically referred to as “forever chemicals,” are enduring ecological pollutants found in air, soil, and water. Their chemical stability enables them to distribute through the water cycle, infiltrating sources of drinking water and precipitation. Research reported in the American Chemical Societys journal Environmental Science & & Technology shows that precipitation deposits roughly equal amounts of PFAS into each of the Great Lakes; however, the lakes eliminate the chemicals at different rates.Consuming PFAS has been linked to negative health results. And in April 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated two permanently chemicals– PFOS and PFOA– as hazardous compounds, positioning limitations on their concentrations in drinking water. The Great Lakes are a major freshwater source for both the U.S. and Canada, and the EPA reports that the surrounding basin location is home to roughly 10% and 30% of each nations population, respectively. Previous research studies demonstrated that these lakes contain PFAS. Marta Venier at Indiana University and associates from the U.S. and Canada wanted to understand where the compounds come from and where they go.Research Methodology and FindingsBetween 2021 and 2022, 207 precipitation samples and 60 air samples were taken from five sites surrounding the Great Lakes in the U.S.: Chicago; Cleveland; Sturgeon Point, N.Y.; Eagle Harbor, Mich.; and Sleeping Bear Dunes, Mich. Throughout the very same period, 87 various water samples were collected from the five Great Lakes. The group analyzed all the samples for 41 types of PFAS and discovered: In rainfall samples, PFAS concentrations mostly remained the very same across websites, recommending that the substances exist at comparable levels regardless of population density.In air samples, Cleveland had the highest mean concentration of PFAS and Sleeping Bear Dunes the most affordable, suggesting a strong connection between population density and air-borne PFAS.In the lake water samples, the greatest concentration of PFAS remained in Lake Ontario, followed by Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Lake Superior.The concentration of PFOS and PFOA in lake water decreased compared to information from previous studies as far back as 2005, but the concentration of a replacement PFAS referred to as PFBA remained high, suggesting that additional policy efforts might be needed.The group calculated that air-borne deposition from rainfall is mainly how PFAS get into the lakes, while theyre gotten rid of by sedimentation, connecting to particles as they settle to the lakebed or streaming out through connecting channels. Overall, their computations showed that the northern most lakes (Superior, Michigan, and Huron) are generally building up PFAS. Further south, Lake Ontario is normally removing the substances, and levels in Lake Erie stay at a steady state. The scientists say that this work might assist inform future actions and policies aimed at mitigating PFAS presence in the Great Lakes.Reference: “The Ins and Outs of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Great Lakes: The Role of Atmospheric Deposition” by Chunjie Xia, Staci L. Capozzi, Kevin A. Romanak, Daniel C. Lehman, Alice Dove, Violeta Richardson, Tracie Greenberg, Daryl McGoldrick and Marta Venier, 16 May 2024, Environmental Science & & Technology.DOI: 10.1021/ acs.est.3 c10098The authors acknowledge financing from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Great Lakes National Program Office.
