Scientists have invented a method to break down 'forever chemicals' in our drinking water. Here’s how
Scientists have invented a method to break down 'forever chemicals' in our drinking water. Here’s how
Kate Berges
News Article: Link or https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/forever-chemicals-pfas-drinking-water/
Journal: Link or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653523000097
Background:
As we have previously established in this class, polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are found commercially in water & stainproof fabrics, nonstick coatings and firefighting materials. While the greatest risk is to children, they show risks to the entire population.We have not discussed why they are considered ‘forever chemicals’ within the broad umbrella of organic pollutants, and why they last practically forever in the environment. The C-F bond in PFAS is incredibly strong, requiring some sort of catalysis to break down and has not currently been done on a large scale. This C-F bonds are extremely rare in nature, and therefore there are few natural degradation pathways. I found this research article interesting as it attempts to use electrochemical methods to elucidate the kinetics and thermodynamics of PFAS degradation.(1) It has recently come to public attention that PFAS are practically omnipresent, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) describes the methods developed by Zeidabadi et al. as the end of public exposure to PFAS.
Original Article:
The first thing I notice is that the introduction feels disjointed. PFAS are referenced long before polyfluorinated alkyl substances are cited. Then the negative effects of PFAS are glossed over, and the article cites that PFAS cannot be broken down, but that UBC can. Then the meat of the article explains what PFAs are, how they are removed, their health impacts, and legislation regarding PFAS, in helpfuly structured headings.
I believe that the article’s intended audience is for a layperson that does not have experience with PFAs.
I think a strength of the article is that that they intend to cover the full background of PFAS as well as propose a solution to them. They do a good job of listing where a reader might find PFAS, the aqueous route of exposure and listing costs to society of PFAs in comparison to manufacturer’s profits, however these three thoughts feel disjointed in the article. The article unfortunately only spends four sentences discussing the science of Zeidabadi et al. They do describe an electro and photo chemical absorbing media, but do not get into any specifics. The last sentence in the section regarding the paper - a direct quote from another (earlier published) article from the lead researcher – is not cited. (2) While the paper uses a figure, it is not from either article discussed in the paper, and when clicked yields an error message.(3) The figure uses a series of unexplained abbreviations and is never directly discussed in the paper.
Reviewed Article:
The peer reviewed article describes a bench top method for capture and de-fluorination of PFAs. Concentrations of PFAS were monitored via uHPLC/MS.(4) They screened conditions for degradation in an electrochemical cell, testing stirring, density, electrode distance, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen. The group was ultimately ale to access ~70% deflourination, which is currently unprecedented (see figure 1).
Figure 1: PFA degradation over time. A) shows consumption of stating material, whereas b) displays percent defluorinated material. C shows a variety of PFA degradation over thee conditions within 120 minutes.
The articles don't have much to agree or disagree upon, as for as much background and title is included in the news article, there is only four sentences of true content, and the included figure is not from any of the papers discussed in the news article. This is a frustrating oversimplification that leaves me questioning the validity or goals of the author.
My Opinion: Score 4/10
When judging the communication efficacy of a news article, I typically decide weather I would send the news article to my family as an explanation of a natural phenomena. I would be deeply hesitant to share this article with a family member as an introduction to PFAS. It is incredibly disjointed, glosses between and over key points, and uses a sort of click-baitey headline. The headline and article make it sound as if water is about to be forever cured of PFAS and does not acknowledge that this treatment is energy intensive. Walking away from the article, one would think that this treatment will be available in homes soon, when it appears that this treatment will take place in water treatment facilities.
Looking at the article itself, I am left with questions of what the compounds are degraded into in comparison to byproducts formed, as this is not fully characterized. I am also left with questions on the immediate applicability of the article.
(1) US EPA, O. Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS. https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas (accessed 2024-11-24).
(2) New UBC water treatment zaps ‘forever chemicals’ for good. UBC News. https://news.ubc.ca/2023/03/new-ubc-water-treatment-zaps-forever-chemicals-for-good/ (accessed 2024-11-23).
(3) Scientists have invented a method to break down “forever chemicals” in our drinking water. Here’s how. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/forever-chemicals-pfas-drinking-water/ (accessed 2024-11-23).
(4) Asadi Zeidabadi, F.; Banayan Esfahani, E.; McBeath, S. T.; Dubrawski, K. L.; Mohseni, M. Electrochemical Degradation of PFOA and Its Common Alternatives: Assessment of Key Parameters, Roles of Active Species, and Transformation Pathway. Chemosphere 2023, 315, 137743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137743.
Something I noticed about the news article was that it was originally published on April 11, 2023 but then later updated in April 17th, 2024. I know that it's not uncommon for news articles to be published then updated a few days after but this seems really strange for such a late update if the updated date was actually in 2024 and not a typo. If they did update a year later, what do you think they could've updated? The article later includes a figure that highlights pollution as one of the top ten global risks and tries to connect PFAS exposure as a symptom of pollution rather than as a consequence of being present in common items mentioned earlier in the article. Do you think that linking PFAS exposure to pollution underlines the message better or does it detract from the overall discussion?
ReplyDeleteI think that the author is looking to write an already closed case- a sort of "here's the problem AND the solution" and in the process oversimplified the research. I think that in the context of the research, PFAS are being treated as organic pollutants, and the researchers are trying to reduce them as such. Therefore it makes sense that they are called pollutants, however, listing them as the 10th most pressing problem to humanity makes it sound like we have much bigger fish to fry rather than worry about the organic pollutants. Given that the audience to this paper probably contains policy writers (and people deciding to fund science), this is not the main takeaway that we want them to have!
DeleteGreat post! I found this article interesting, I'm glad you picked it. Overall, I think you make good points, and I understand why you gave the news article a fairly low score. I'm curious on your thoughts of the video in the news article? Did this improve the overall score you gave the article, decrease the score, or not play a factor? Also, I can see that the news article definitely takes a very hopeful outlook and understand why you said it sounds as if water is about to be forever cured of PFAS. Do you think there is a place in journalism for this kind of optimism in writing that is not an opinion piece? Or do you think they should have been more thorough in their discussion of the peer-reviewed publication and instead left the decisions on how hopeful to be about the results of the study to the reader?
ReplyDeleteI skipped the video entirely when I read the article, as I assumed it was simply an advertisement. I thought it demonstrated the current scale of the science well and humanized the researchers. I'm glad you pointed it out!
DeleteOn a separate note, I do think there are a lot of spaces to be hopeful in science journalism! In no way am I advocating for exclusively doom and gloom reporting. I do, however, think they have been more clear about how far out from implementation this work is, and been realistic that while it works on a benchtop scale, scale-up may prove the project to be not viable on a large-scale implementation. Even if it is viable, the chemical engineering required will take a significant time to employ this new tactic. This does not make the possibility of the work less exciting.
At first I was confused as to why the World Economic Forum was reporting on a PFAS filtration process when the original paper by Mohseni et al was studying PFAS degradation in an electrochemical cell. I assumed the news article was reporting on the research by Mohseni et al in 2023, but they didn’t link the Chemosphere paper. Instead, they linked a news article from UBC that described the filtration process made possible through the electrochemical studies. It seemed to me that the World Economic Forum summarized this secondary source instead of making an attempt to understand the original research. There is no mention in the Chemosphere paper about a silica based filter. I think this gives a watered-down report of the research. However, I would not expect the writers at the World Economic Forum to include a detailed explanation of the science. The majority of the article was concerned with the economic impacts, health impacts, and legislative impacts globally. In my opinion, the article would have been more cohesive if they left out the scientific progress and just focused on the aforementioned aspects of the PFAS pollution relevant to the World Economic Forum and its readers. I wish they had made a more specific connection between the research by Mohseni et al and the PFAS problem.
ReplyDeleteYes - the secondary news citation is an interesting way to water down the science. I found the UBC news article more adherent to the paper than the summary of it in this article. This pathway can even be compared to a third article (that I can't seem to find now) I read from a science aggregator about the same paper in which the contents of the article adhered the most to the original publication. I think the World Economic Forum included this paper as a sort of "here's a problem and here is the immediate solution" statement, and in the process oversimplified the research.
DeleteThe title and the content of this article feel mismatched. After reading the title, you're lead to believe the article will give an in-depth explanation of a new scientific method for removing 'forever chemicals' from drinking water. However, as you mentioned, the article gives a measly four sentence explanation of the actual research being reported on. I recognize that it's a relatively complex scientific method, but the news article gave no indication how this technology would be applied in the real world, what it's disadvantaged are, and why it isn't being used more widely. I also thought it was a weird decision to bring up an entirely separate PFAS-removal technology instead of actually explaining how the electrochemical method works/could be implemented. Do you think this article could have been somewhat saved by a more accurate title?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I was not a fan of the figures they chose to include. First, they have a figure showing decreasing PFAS levels in US blood samples since 2000, which almost makes it seem like we don't have to worry about them anymore. Then, they include a list of the top 10 threats to the world and discuss the graph as if general 'pollution' is the same thing as PFAS. I don't think either of these figures added to the article in a meaningful way and may confuse readers.
I completely agree with your 4/10 rating. Because the news article didn’t focus on the peer-reviewed article very much and kept going off on different tangents, I believe the news article left many readers confused regarding the findings of the news article. I do like the “Countries to enforce legislation on forever chemicals” section, even if it does not relate to the peer-reviewed journal because I think it’s important information that the public should be aware of regarding the actionable things occurring to eliminate PFAS in drinking water. While it is unrelated to the peer-reviewed article, do you think this should be included in the news article? Or should the journalist only include information from the peer-reviewed article? Do you think this section strengthened the argument?
ReplyDeleteI thought that a direct link to policy is a productive call to action - especially when many of the readers of this news source are politically engaged. The reader's most direct impact is probably not to the science itself but rather on policy, and therefore, a briefing on the current political climate is useful. I think that the parts of the article discussing the peer-reviewed paper need to be clearly delimited, but that synthesis with related topics is useful in a news article.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of the news article. I personally think that this researchers work could be separated into two parts- PFAS removal and PFAS electrochemical breakdown. I think the news article could have highlighted this unique dual approach to both removing AND destroying PFAS. It would have been interesting to compare PFAS removal of this researchers system to other systems present and I think the news source would have benefitted from including this information. Additionally, I think the news article should mention how much this system costs, to show how this research could potentially be applied to the consumer market. I would assume that this process is expensive, so I wish that the author of the news article mentioned other remediation methods that are more affordable.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I agree that the World Economic Forum article was generally pretty lacking. One thing that stood out to me, which other comments have also pointed out, was that they describe the UBC group using a silica filter to capture PFAS, though this is mentioned nowhere in the Chemosphere article or UBC press release- have you been able to find where this is coming from? It is also odd to me that they spend <1 sentence discussing the electrochemical degradation of PFOA; while I'd expect a news article to be more than just a summary of an academic article, this content seems exceptionally low.
ReplyDeleteI also dislike how they frame Zeidabadi et al.'s work as the first way to electrochemically degrade PFAS, rather than a [major] improvement on previous studies by looking at combined factor effects. To me, this feels like a misrepresentation of what makes Zeidabadi et al.'s work novel while also neglecting the numerous foundational studies that also use electrochemical processes to degrade PFAS.
One thing I think the World Economic Forum did well though was not using any inaccurate or clickbait-y terms to describe the technologies. We've seen many articles that try to over-simplify scientific work to a point of inaccuracy (e.g. describing sorbent nanomaterials as "kitchen sponges"), while this article kept things in simple, but still scientifically correct terms.
A rating of 4/10 makes sense, WEF isn't really a news source, it is the publication arm of a think tank funded by the super rich. It is honestly hard to determine the purpose for why this article was written, because it acknowledges the hard that industry has caused by leaching PFAS everywhere, while mostly focusing on the economic damages of PFAS. I feel like the intended take away is that it is more profitable if globally we stopped production and eliminate PFAS. It mentions Canadas ban and America's water detection laws, so I think they are angling at promoting laws and regulations that focus on PFAS to make the economy better, so that the rich can make more money.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Kate! We've talked a lot in class about the merits and drawbacks of using scientific figures in news articles, and this one certainly highlights the drawbacks. The second figure, ranking global risks in both the long and short term, felt incredibly out of place to me. Only pollution was relevant to this article, which was at the bottom of both rankings, minimizing its severity in the eyes of readers. The graphic was sourced from the World Economic Forum, the publisher of this article, so I assume it was intended to draw clicks to other places on their website.
ReplyDeleteThe explanation of the science was indeed lackluster, and it was very easy to forget/not realize that this article was meant to be reporting on a scientific paper. I appreciate the exploration of PFAS-related risks using sources from outside the scientific paper, but the paper seems to take a backseat in the article, which is not ideal. I would agree with your ranking.
The news article doesn't do a good jobs describing the work in Zeidabadi et al. and the electrochemical parameters assessed. Like other's have said, they focused more on the filters than the degradation process. I agree, the news article is bad, but I'm also hesitant to say that I wish they'd included more about spin speed, initial concentrations, temperature, acidity, etc. I'm not sure that would captivate the reader and leave them thinking PFAS are bad but everything will be okay because there are some smart people working on it.
ReplyDeleteI was disappointed that the article wasn't linked but then remembered Chemosphere isn't entirely open access. What are your thoughts on people reporting on work that the readers may not have access to? Is it enough to link the press release? Also, what are your thoughts on the news article linking to other news sources? I saw they included links to the Guardian, AP, and Smithsonian.
You are right. I probably was too harsh, and need to remember the goals of captivating readers and give them faith in scientists. I wish that the authors had included some more of the paper. It does no favor to the public to assume they are too simple to understand what goes into research, rather than taking the time to even attempt explain the work. Given the economics spin to this news outlet, they certainly are able to understand basic science. It might even empower the readers to realize that they can understand what happens at the bench!
DeleteYes, chemosphere not being linked, even though it is open access, sort of feels like a problem to me. The abstract and figures are still typically open access. I would argue that if you are including direct quotes from an author and trying to describe their work, they probably should include a direct link.
In response to your last question- I find that sometimes, even though it is important to cite where you find information, citing the very first thing on google that you find is a dangerous game. If news sources continuously cite each other, they build almost a cyclic form of citation that might falsely inflate their credibility. Credit where credit is due, but it is also worthwhile to find highly credible sources to cite key information on.
As a couple other people have said, there are certainly parts of this article that are questionable to say the least. This is not a first hand account of the science article and doesn't even link the journal article it is actually talking about, which is a pretty bad start, and the news article uses figures that really don't display the sentiment of the science article. Overall, the news article does not give an honest account of what the science article is saying which is really disappointing because that really is the goal of a news article in this space, to give an accurate summary of a piece of science literature. All said, I actually am not super surprised given the source, World Economic Forum, has some fairly radical views, such as saying "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" which I would argue is a pretty insane statement. The founder, Klaus Schwab, has also previously called for a "Great reset" which is what he believes as the only way to economic recover post Covid-19. Given all of this, I think this article turned out to be exactly what I thought it would be and might even rate it lower than 4/10.
ReplyDeleteHi Kate, I think you did a great job summarizing the article and peer reviewed article. The news article is quite frustrating as it does simplify almost all topics covered in the paper. The good thing it does in my opinion is give a background as to what PFAS are and where they come from. Besides that the article does not really summarize the paper at all. They state what you stated that it can filter out these PFAS but fails to explain how. It does lead the reader on to believe that this technology would be available soon at a mass scale but this is not the case. I agree with you saying this article is written quite poorly.
ReplyDeleteGreat choice of topic Kate! I am so interested in learning more about PFAS. I agree that the article did a very poor job of explaining much of the journal article's findings. I really would be interested to see what the real world applications for this electrooxidation technique of PFAS removal are. I wish the news article drew some connections to how this technology could be implemented. I did like that Wood tried to give multiple solutions and findings by including both studies and linking them to the article. It shows the public that there are many researchers working to remove PFAS using a variety of solutions.
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the post, Kate! I really enjoyed reading it. I completely agree with your point about the use of abbreviations in news articles, where terms are often shortened without explaining what they stand for. I think the first line of the article should explain what PFAS is and include its full form. I also agree with your thoughts on the article’s overall effectiveness in conveying information from the research. While it references the UBC news release, it's a bit frustrating that it doesn’t include citations to the original article. I feel that the focus of the article was not just providing information from the paper; it seemed a bit all over the place. This lack of focus likely explains why the title feels misleading. It suggests a deeper dive into the study of how PFAS will be broken down, but the article doesn’t really explore that in detail. On a positive note, I did like how the article was organized with clear sections and headings; it made it easier to follow the information. I totally agree with your rating.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great blog post. I would have to agree with your low rating, however I'm not sure that I would put it so low. I did appreciate the fact that the article makes an attempt at covering background to help increase interest for the subject matter. I do wonder about the effects of all the figures and extra sections. To me, the article almost felt like I was scrolling through twitter or some other form of social media. I thought the small discover drop down about "What is the World Economic Forum doing about plastic pollution?" was distracting. However, I could see how this "good news" could increase the readers chance of interacting more with the content of the article. On top of this, figure C came before it was mentioned in the article. I wonder if this is purposeful to make you scroll back up to understand, but it seems confusing to me.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic! I thought this was a very interesting topic. I agree with you that the news article did not do a good job of representing the information from the scientific article. Overall, it seems like the article's purpose was generally to provide an overview of PFAS rather than actually conveying any meaningful findings from the journal article. I was wondering how you felt about the figure used in the news article. Do you think a general audience will find the graph beneficial?
ReplyDelete