Communities of color disproportionately exposed to PFAS in drinking water, study says
Mia Kauffman!
News Article: Communities of color disproportionately exposed to PFAS in drinking water, study says
Peer-reviewed Article: Sociodemographic Factors Are Associated with the Abundance of PFAS Sources and Detection in U.S. Community Water Systems
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c07255
Abbreviations
PFAS - per- & poly-fluoroalkyl substances
PFOA - perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS - perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
PFNA - perfluorononanoic acid
PFHxS - perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
PFBS - perfluorobutanesulfonic acid
CWS - community water samples (PWS that supply water to the same population year-round)
PWS - public water systems
MFTAs - military fire training areas
WWTP - waste water treatment plants
Per- & poly-fluoroalkyl substances or PFAS are harmful and long-lasting chemicals utilized in several industrial processes and consumer products. The presence of PFAS in the air, soil and water, detected by the EPA, raises many public health concerns because PFAS can cause several environmental and health related problems. On April 10, 2024, the EPA set a federal maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for PFAS in drinking water.
Peer-reviewed article
Liddie et al. aimed to (1) examine the relationship between PFAS source locations & PFAS contamination in drinking water from sample community water samples (CWS) and (2) the relationship between PFAS sources and county-level sociodemographic factors (socioeconomically & racial/ethical composition).
Collected from publicly available sources, 44,111 PFAS data monitoring samples were obtained between January 2016-August 2022 from 18 different states and 7,873 CWSs. CWS locations were gathered by geocoding their zip codes provided by the U.S. EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) & sociodemographic factors from the 5-year American Community Survey (ACS). This study only focused on five PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS) and determined 5ng/L as the conservative uniform detection limit due to various reported detection limits. They utilized multivariable logistic regression models throughout the study.
In 18 states, the study found 1 out of 4 individuals “experience at least 1 of the PFAS above the uniform detection limit” (7903). In correlation with previous studies, they also found PFAS contamination in CWS watersheds increases with the presence of the following PFAS sources: MFTAS, civilian airports, WWTP and landfills. They reported a strong association between PFAS sources & concentrations with non-Hispanic Black & Hispanic/Latino CWS residents compared to CWS that do not have concentrations above the uniform detection limit (5ng/L). Lastly, they found a positive correlation with PFAS contamination with residents under the federal poverty line in rural areas. Finally, they created an interactive map that displays the relationship between PFAs contamination in drinking water to county-level sociodemographic factors.
The study concludes with a call to action to consider environmentally injustices that impact minority populations when making decisions about mitigation strategies for water contamination.
News/Online Article
Knutson reports this study in Axios, a left-leaning news website. Knutson guides readers with a very labeled format & utilizes concise wording and sentence structure. In the beginning, the article reports the main finding of the paper (the relationship between PFAS pollution and county-level racial composition), what PFAS are, their uses, and their environmental and health risks. Later on, Knutson addresses the rest of the findings of the study in bullet points. Knutson did not include that the study found a positive correlation between PFAS contamination and residents under the federal poverty line in rural areas. Knutson also did not include many methodology information nor that the study focused on CWS and that only five PFAS were included in the study. However, Knutson does include a link to the spatial interactive map created by the authors. The picture included for the online article does not originate from the peer-reviewed article but still contributes to the overall topic.
Shortcomings of online article
(1) Firstly, Knutson does not include any figures from the scientific article. I don’t think this is a bad idea considering many of the figures were spatial regression models; however, I think it would’ve been engaging to take screenshots of the interactive map. Readers can clearly see not all 50 states were included in this study which might spark interest and movement to advocate for more research and funding towards cleaning our drinking water. (2) Lastly, I was disappointed Knutson did not include any information about PFAS source sitting-related disparities among Hispanic and non-Hispanic black communities. I really enjoyed that the peer-reviewed paper addressed some of explanations regarding the disparities observed between racial groups neighborhoods/locations: historical segregation, selective migration of people of color, “path of least resistance”, reduced access to information and education, etc. (Liddie et al 7908). Why couldn’t Knutson include some of these in the news article?
Overall opinion & rating
I would rate this online article a 6/10 because I think Knutson organizes & addresses the main points, but he could’ve written the article in a more impactful and engaging manner for readers. I thought he adopted a very scientific and fact-based perspective which I believe is good when reporting on scientific findings; however, I believe when you’re also reporting on racial & environmental injustices, the writer needs to at least emphasize or mention the structural & social issues that might explain the data we observe on the graphs.
Food for thought
- Do you think Knutson’s format was effective in communicating the main points of the peer-reviewed article?
- How do you think Knutson’s identity influenced his writing?
- Do you think in the peer-reviewed article they avoided to use the word ‘white’ or ‘white-dominated communities’ throughout their study?
PFAS statewide sampling interactive map. Jahred Liddie, Dr. Laurel Schaider, Dr. Elsie Sunderland.The interactive map below shows PFAS drinking water data, county-level sociodemographic factors, and data on PFAS contamination sources obtained as part of a study cited below.
https://sunderlandlab.github.io/pfas_interactive_maps/PFAS_EJ_interactive_map.html
Hi Mia, great review! I feel like the style of this news article gives a different vibe than what we are used to seeing. Most of the time they follow a similar narrative flow where they give some background, report the findings, discuss the findings and what they could mean in a bigger picture, and usually either end with a call to action or a warning. This article does follow this but for some reason the author chose to use bullet points which in my personal opinion completely ruins the narrative flow. It seems like the author writes with bullet points in all of his articles. There is also no call to action or even a good concluding sentence. Instead at the end he links another one of his articles that has no connection to what this one is about which is strange to me. Especially since it says to "go deeper" but clearly not deeper on this issue.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with your analysis. The bullet point format is very limiting and feels like a check-list rather than an informative news article. I also agree with you that there was no inspiring, concluding paragraph or "call to action" at the end, like the scientific article, which is extremely disappointing. There's always a balance between the amount journalists can input their own opinions into news article; however, Knutson could've just copied & pasted the call to action mentioned in the scientific article. Knutson was not very invested in inspiring audiences and you can tell in his writing.
DeleteI agree with your assessment of 6/10 on this news article. It gets the necessary information across but doesn't do much else. I prefer it when news articles don't put too much of their opinions and biases into fact based reporting, but Knutson only give a bullet point list of some of the data of the paper and nothing else, no opinion, no call to action, nothing, showing the lack of effort that was put into writing this article. The only point of effort is citing other article, mostly ones he has written. While he doesn't explicitly mention the 5 PFAS that were studied, but does talk about how 6 PFAS have been recently regulated. I feel that the news article would have been more clear if he mentioned which ones were studied, but it gets the general point across. I agree with you that he should mentioned the poverty portion of the study, though I feel that it might have been excluded because it was more nuanced compared to how straightforward the data about race was.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you regarding the exclusion of individuals under the federal poverty line potion of the study in the news article and that Knutson still communicates the main and important parts of the study; however, I also feel like Knutson's format (if written well) might be helpful for a wider audience and individuals who have trouble reading large and jargon heavy articles. He does cite himself several times, but we've seen a pattern in class where this is very common. At least he cites the interactive map. Thanks!
DeleteGreat job on your review Mia! I really appreciated that the peer reviewed article looked at the sources of the PFAS as well as the disparities seen in Hispanic, Black, and impoverished communities. The amount of data collected and analyzed was impressive. I think Knutson's formatting was a well thought out progression to help the readers get to the meet of the information from the peer-reviewed article. However I do think it ends up being very pointed in the conclusions to take away from the article. I think the peer-reviewed article already has a leaning and conclusion in terms of societal impacts. But I think the news article could have found another study that corroborates the data or explained more about the limitations of the study for those who did not or will not dive into the numbers. What do you think he could have done differently to showcase more of the human aspects of the study instead of the numbers side?
ReplyDeleteOooo great comment, Emily. As mentioned earlier, I think he could've included some of the explanations related to the PFAS source sitting-related disparities. I really like your idea about bringing in another study to help improve the "human aspect" of the news article. Maybe a study that delves into the structural issues in education many communities of color face and how this ties into housing disparities. I also think previous idea about making the interactive map more accessible and noticeable (instead of just a link), because then that makes PFAS contamination more of a personal problem (rather than a "government problem")
DeleteMia, nice work reporting on these articles! I think your 6/10 rating is very fair for this Axios article. To me, it felt vary bare-bones, almost like an outline to a more complete piece of writing. I took a look at a few other Axios articles and it looks like they all follow this highly labeled, concise, bullet-point format. This seems like an interesting choice for this news outlet to make, as it takes away from any sense of personality, opinion, or call to action from their articles. Why do you think a news outlet would decide to format their articles like this? Something I did appreciate about this article was the inclusion of the link to the PFAS map. While I do think the author could have explained a bit more in depth about the map and why it is important, I thought its inclusion was a nice way to connect the article's content to readers' lived experience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you regarding the inclusion of the interactive map even though I thought he could've done a better job promoting it. I kinda mentioned this in an earlier comment, but I think they used this format to reach larger audiences. It's easier to identify the important & relevant parts of the article without the fluff especially for people who have difficulties tackling a giant paragraph. However, there are several drawbacks to this format because you take away the human connection aspect to inspire & draw the interest of more individuals. The map itself is still kinda confusing to me because I would've thought the darker countries mean larger PFAS contamination, but the darker counties mean a larger Hispanic & non-Hispanic Black population.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your 6/10 rating, Mia. Like other comments mentioned, the news article felt very bare-minimum, not really opting to fully convey the findings of the journal article. I do appreciate the links included, especially the interactive map. I do think the limitations of the actual study were interesting to note, such as the potential discrepancy in geographical location and source of water. I think it would be interesting to map the sources of water that disproportionately affect these communities. While I understand the intention behind writing a semi-informative piece which encourages the reader to pursue the knowledge independently, I agree with other commenters in that I wish there was some overall message or call to action. Adverse health are only one facet of systemic racial and socioeconomic discrimination, but it is one that is arguably not talked about enough, similar to companies dumping toxic waste near marginalized communities.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the 6/10 rating. While I appreciated that the article listed some key statistics, such as that PFAS was detected at levels 250-1250x higher than lifetime health advisories levels, the article itself was in bullet point format and therefore did not seem to have much substance to it. The article could have been much more effective if it contextualized the reasons why people of color are being exposed to PFAS at higher rates, or if it concluded with a call to action sentence like in most of the articles we have seen thus far. Do you think there is any benefit to writing articles in this bullet pointed format? If so, do you think this article could stand alone in this format, or do you think it might benefit from a supplemental article with a more narrative flow?
ReplyDeleteI like your questions. I do think there are both pros and cons to this article format. I think the bullet format might be easier for readers with learning disabilities; however, it does take away the capturing and persuasiveness of the scientific article's call to action (consider & be more aware of environmental injustices when making decisions about mitigation strategies for cleaner drinking water). As mentioned earlier, I think a supplemental article related to the historical nature of segregation and how it is still prevalent in today's society (just in different forms) would've been informative and strengthened the new's article. I think Knutson could've done this with his current format, but he jsut did it poorly.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHi Mia! Great review! I completely agree with your 6/10 rating. I also share Kayleigh and Baker’s perspective that the bullet-point format was a choice, but one that takes away from the narrative depth of the study. While Knutson effectively summarizes the research, his style underplays the magnitude and scale of Liddie et al.'s work. By exploring the sources of PFAS contamination in greater depth and adopting a more narrative style, the article could have conveyed the environmental justice implications more powerfully. I also agree that the lack of methodological details prevents readers from fully understanding the study’s scope and limitations. Additionally, I think the absence of a call to action is a major drawback. A call to action would have been especially fitting here, given the significant disparities in PFAS contamination levels affecting non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latino communities.
As for your "food for thought" questions: it’s difficult to say whether Knutson’s identity specifically influenced the lack of a call to action, as that could simply be a result of the bullet-point format. Regarding the peer-reviewed article, perhaps the lack of an explicit mention of “white communities” is a way to focus on patterns of marginalization that affect communities of color without centering the analysis around white populations. What do you think?
I really enjoyed this article and your review of it. I thought the layout of the article is quite nice and I appreciated how the author shows the different sources of where contamination comes from. I think it is important for the reader to be aware of this different sources. I liked how they also outlined what PFAS are and how they impact health determined by the concentration. I agree with your point that it would be been fruitful to include the data that only 18 states were apart of the study. I also found it interesting that the name of this article starts with communities of color are disproportionately, but in the actual article they do not really go into this data at all minus one single sentence. I think the point would be been more clear if they had really shown more data on this point. Overall I would give this a 7/10 as I did enjoy the summary and layout of the data present.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis Mia! Kind of unpopular but I actually liked Knutson's bullet-point approach to the article; I think this was a really clear way of reporting the key findings from the scientific study without risk of convolution or exaggeration to make them fit in a narrative structure, which we've seen can be problematic. One thing I noticed was that there were a lot of hyperlinks (both to other Axios articles and scientific papers) in the article, and I'm wondering if a different citation format would be useful in citing external data without being too distracting from the main ACS paper.
ReplyDeleteI agree that he should've included a discussion of the historical and sociopolitical factors behind why non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic communities have greater PFAS exposure, as well as a call-to-action in addition to the facts themselves (which can be taken from the ACS article). Including the exposure data for low-income communities would be instrumental at giving a more robust picture, even if the results are more nuanced, and emphasizing the effects of racial disparity and segregation specifically in environmental justice.
Really nice analysis, Mia! I definitely agree with your rating of the article. I think the thing that bothers me most about it is that it feels as though Knutson does not trust their readers to come to their own conclusions. The constant headings, bullet points, and short sections leave the reader no time to think about the information that is actually being presented to them. Instead, one must take the author at their word that this topic is important, for the limited reasons that they say it is. Additionally, there is no appeal to pathos, only cold numbers without any real human connection - they don't even bother to mention the authors, only the organizations they work for. Ultimately, it comes across as though Knutson feels nothing about the topic of their article, nor do they expect you as the reader to feel anything.
ReplyDeleteNice work, Mia. I also agree with your rating and many of the other comments. I am not sure who the typical reader of this news outlet is, but from the bulletpoint format it seems like it would be aimed at people who would just skim/glance at the article rather than be searching for something to read all the way through. I wonder if that is the point, and they are just trying to provide information quickly and clearly without very much value-added by the reporter? I especially agree with the limitation you brought up that the news article does not reference the PFAS source sitting near minority communities.
ReplyDelete