Emerging Contaminants in the Cape Fear Region: University Collaborations on Environmental, Drinking Water Supply and Human Health Effects Proceedings of the May 31, 2019 Forum

Compiled by the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory

Hosted by the North Carolina Coastal Federation at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington

1

Background In June 2017, the discovery of GenX in the Cape Fear River came to the forefront of public discussion. This chemical is not produced in the area, and was traced back to the Chemours Company facility in Fayetteville, NC, about 100 miles away from the sampling site. The breaking of this report led to significant public discourse, not only the health effects of GenX, but other chemicals within the PFAS family. These chemicals have been produced for decades for use in carpets, food packaging, outdoor gear, apparel, non-stick cookware, firefighting foam, and many others. Given these concerns, SL 2018-5 was passed in June 2018 stating:

“The General Assembly finds that the profound, extensive, and nationally recognized faculty expertise, technology, and instrumentation existing within the Universities of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and

Wilmington, North Carolina State University, North Carolina A&T State University, Duke University, and other public and private institutions of higher education located throughout the State should be

maximally utilized to address the occurrence of PFAS, including GenX, in drinking water resources . . . to conduct the following research (i) develop quantitative models to predict which private wells are most at

risk of contamination from the discharge of PFAS, including GenX; (ii) test the performance of relevant technologies in removing such compounds; and (iii) study the air emissions and atmospheric deposition

of PFAS, including GenX. In addition, Collaboratory may, using relevant faculty expertise, technology, and instrumentation existing throughout institutions identified, evaluate other research opportunities and

conduct such research for improved water quality sampling and analyses techniques, data interpretation, and potential mitigation measures that may be necessary, with respect to the discharge

of PFAS, including GenX.” Over 5 million dollars were allocated to the project, establishing the Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Testing Network (PFAST Network), involving the efforts of researchers from seven North Carolina universities. In addition to those named in the legislation, East Carolina University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte are a part of the PFAST Network.

2

The Emerging Contaminants Forum On May 31st, 2019, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (Coastal Federation) hosted a public forum at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNC-W) entitled: Emerging Contaminants in the Cape Fear Region: University Collaborations on Environmental, Drinking Water Supply and Human Health Effects. At this forum, the PFAST Network presented methods, results, and future objectives of its research to an audience of over two hundred participants. The welcome and opening remarks for the forum were given by Stuart Borret (UNC-W) and Kerri Allen (Coastal Federation). Additionally, an introduction and overview of the NC Policy Collaboratory was provided by Brad Ives. Prior to the research presentations, Dr. Detlef Knappe briefly discussed the definition of PFAS and the history of PFAS contamination in North Carolina. This was followed by Dr. Jason Surrat, who outlined the specific objectives and organization of the PFAST Network as shown below.

This purpose of this document is to provide an overview of each team’s research presentation. The presentation slides were collected by the Coastal Federation and can be found at https://www.nccoast.org/2019-pfast-forum-presentations/. Additionally, a recording of the forum is available at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDQXGeaSx6mqp9BUT8ThjM7H8opscY-sl. It is important to note that the information presented here represents a snapshot of the ongoing efforts of the PFAST Network. Current updates on the PFAST Network’s findings and future objectives can be found at http://ncpfastnetwork.com/.

3

Team 1: PFAS Sampling and Analysis Presenter: Dr. Detlef Knappe (NCSU) Where and What The PFAS Sampling and Analysis team is responsible for sampling all sources of municipal surface and well water sources. Dr. Knappe laid out a plan to sample 340 sites, and repeat the process once all sites had been sampled once.* At the time of the forum, 58 sites had been sampled. The current EPA sampling method allows for the reliable measurement of 18 PFAS, including GenX, yet there are over 5,000 commercially registered PFAS. Team 1 is currently targeting 55 PFAS, including the 18 measured by the EPA, and has compiled a watch list of 5,177 PFAS for a non-targeted analyses of drinking water samples that goes far beyond current EPA sampling methods. Sample Analysis Each contaminant has a unique mass due to its unique chemical makeup. Using mass spectrometry, Team 1 can divide sample components up by mass and then check the watch list of PFAS to see what contaminant has that specific mass. Since the device is capable of splitting up the contaminants, it can also tell the researcher the amount present of each in the original sample. The benefit of high resolution mass spectrometry lies in its extreme precision. These devices are not typically used in routine water sampling as they are much more expensive and exceed the requirements for identifying the levels of known contaminants. For example, low resolution mass spectrometers used in routine sampling are able to tell the levels of targeted PFAS, but would be unable to fully distinguish PFAS that were on the watch list from one another. High resolution mass spectrometry provides that definition. *The number of sample sites has since increased to 405 and is outlined in Progress Report #4.

Surface (green circle) and groundwater (blue square) sampling sites for drinking water sources to be analyzed for PFAS compounds.

4

Early Findings Dr. Knappe assured the audience that results showing higher concentrations of PFAS than the health advisory of the EPA would have a speedy release to the affected area. This is the case of Maysville, NC, where town leadership has been notified by the PFAST Network that their water supply contains elevated levels of PFAS. Based on the types of PFAS found, firefighting foam was suggested to be a source. Team 2: Modeling PFAS in Private Wells Presenter: Dr. Jackie MacDonald-Gibson (UNC-CH) Private Water In North Carolina, over 2.3 million people utilize private wells as their primary source of drinking water. The need to protect these water sources in addition to public utility supplies is clear. However, with such a large number of wells, taking samples and testing each individual well for PFAS is infeasible. Instead, Team 2 is focused on developing a risk prediction model. Building the Model The team is using artificial intelligence (AI) to examine patterns present in enormous datasets specific to the area around the Chemours facility in Fayetteville. According to Dr. MacDonald-Gibson, the use of AI is relatively new to the field of environmental science, but is currently in use by medical professionals for diagnostic purposes. In the medical field, doctors will input patient symptoms and test results, and the AI system will return the most likely diagnosis for the given data. Similarly, the AI used by Team 2 would use known data about well PFAS content and return the likelihood of other wells containing PFAS.

As a base for the model, Dr. Roostaei (UNC-CH) has compiled a comprehensive dataset of 803 wells surrounding the Chemours plant, including measured GenX concentrations, land cover (such as tree cover, and impervious surfaces), soil type, distance from various potential sources of PFAS (not just the plant, but waste sites, landfills, and septic systems), information from well permits, and 76 additional factors thought to contribute to well PFAS content. Preliminary Results Predictions from the preliminary model suggest that the distance of the well from the Chemours plant, wind direction, elevation of the well site, amount of urban development and amount of impervious surface area around the well are the major influencers on likelihood of a well containing PFAS.

Heat map of private wells contaminated with GenX surrounding the Chemours facility.

5

These influencers can be used to predict elevated levels with high accuracy, but with the caveat of also having a high chance of predicting PFAS in wells where levels were negligible. It is possible to reduce the chance of a false positive with the current model, but there is a corresponding sacrifice in prediction accuracy. Team 2 has also created a prototype simulator for untested wells in the vicinity of the Chemours plant. The website allows users to select their well distance from the plant, location relative to wind direction, elevation, amount of impervious surface area, and level of urban land in the township and provides a probability that their well contains elevated levels of GenX. Next Steps Moving forward, Team 2 plans on increasing the accuracy of their model and reducing the false positive percentage by collecting more extensive data on well characteristics of the 803 sampled wells such as depth, construction type, and age. Also, the team plans to make the model available online, and answer the question on how long it will take for these contaminants to leave groundwater systems. Team 3: PFAS Removal Performance Testing Presenter: Dr. Heather Stapleton (Duke) Removal Candidates One of the major concerns of the public when GenX came to the public eye was that water treatment plants were unable to effectively remove the contaminant from the water supply. Team 3 seeks to investigate what commercial methods could be adapted to address this concern, in addition to developing novel PFAS removal methods. These methods are under investigation by the following researchers: • Membrane Filters – Dr. Orlando Coronell (UNC-CH) • Activated Carbon Filters – Dr. Detlef Knappe (NCSU) • Ion Exchange Extraction – Dr. Frank Leibfarth (UNC-CH) • Electrochemical Mineralization – Dr. Mei Sun (UNC-C)

Various filtration methods including activated carbon, fluorogels and membrane filters (left to right).

6

Membrane Filters Using 10 different membranes, Dr. Coronell plans to test the removal percentages for 29 types of PFAS prevalent in NC. These membranes are highly specific filters, providing a physical barrier for PFAS. Preliminary data for GenX, PFOA, and PFBA removals shows that commercially available membranes can remove upwards of 75% of these PFAS, with some membranes that were made in the lab removing over 99% of each PFAS. He will further investigate membrane technology by using 3 types of water (groundwater, surface, and pure), to determine if other substances present in the water affect PFAS removal by the membranes. Activated Carbon Filters

The removal of 10 PFAS by granular activated carbon filters of various sizes has been tested so far. What has been found indicates that these filters are capable of removing large percentages of each contaminant, but as these filters are used over time it is possible to completely lose the removal capability of the filter, or even release more than what was introduced to the filter during that trial. This is due to how activated carbon filters loosely bind the contaminant as a thin film instead of blocking them as membranes do. When the activated carbon is mostly or entirely covered, other contaminants can replace the bound PFAS, allowing previously removed PFAS to pass through the filter.

Ion Exchange Extraction Dr. Leibfarth is focused on a type of resin that selectively filters PFAS by tailoring its attractive capabilities to common components of PFAS. Instead of binding every contaminant like an activated carbon filter, these ionic fluorogels would selectively bind PFAS. Each PFAS has a charged component, and a component that contains many fluorine atoms. The resin contains a polymer that selects for both

Removal percentages of PFOA, PFBA and GenX for different membranes. CE was a commercially available membrane, while TFN and SWC4 were manufactured at the Coronell Lab.

Breakthrough (or amount allowed through the filter) percentages for 10 PFAS. As more PFAS was passed through the filter, more was allowed through. Percentages greater than 100% indicate the filter bound other contaminants besides PFAS, which dislodged previously bound PFAS and allowed the introduced sample through entirely.

7

of these components, disregarding most contaminants that do not meet both criteria. Preliminary results of Dr. Leibfarth’s design show about an 80% removal of GenX and PFHxA, and over 95% removal of PFOA after 21 hours of continuous use. Electrochemical Mineralization Instead of filtering out PFAS, electrochemical mineralization is the process of degrading PFAS into smaller pieces using electrical current. Dr. Sun of UNC-C is investigating this topic through electrochemical mineralization. With a setup similar to a battery, Dr. Sun is attempting to degrade PFAS into smaller pieces using electrical current. Using a ruthenium oxide coated titanium electrode, she was able to achieve a 93% removal of PFOA. Efforts are currently being made to identify the products of this degradation process, testing the degradation at lower current densities and with other PFAS, as well as testing a graphene membrane and the commercial material Ebonex Plus. Cost Analysis Each of these investigations has been on the laboratory scale, but Team 3 expects to provide reports concerning incorporation of these technologies into large scale water treatment facilities. Household Filters Focusing on removal methods outside of treatment facilities, Dr. Stapleton has tested the effectiveness of several household filters on removing PFAS. These include activated carbon filters in refrigerators and pitchers and home reverse osmosis systems. By taking samples of both filtered and unfiltered water from individual households, Dr. Stapleton was able to identify a specific removal percentage for each unique household situation.

PFAS Refrigerator Filter

Pitcher Filter

Reverse Osmosis

Filter GenX

56% 46% 100%

PFBA (4 Carbon)

47% 36% 100%

PFHxA (6 Carbon)

60% 43% 100%

PFOA (8 Carbon)

73% 69% 100%

Removal percentages for three PFAS using less specific ionic and fluorous gels and an ionic fluorogels which combined the properties of the other two.

8

It was stated that the results varied greatly from household to household as the same refrigerator filter type could have vastly different removal percentages based on the sample site. She suggested that this was due to what was observed in Dr. Knappe’s work on activated carbon filters, where those that had not been replaced for some time were experiencing a reduced removal capacity. However, it was found that reverse osmosis filters completely removed PFAS. Average removals for four PFAS are shown above, with a trend of emerging short-chain PFAS having smaller removal percentages compared to legacy long-chain PFAS. Team 4: Air Emissions & Atmospheric Deposition Presenter - Dr. Ralph Mead (UNC-W) A Pollutant’s Journey The classic understanding of how materials enter water sources focuses primarily on the flow of water from the dumpsite and seeping of the substance through the soil to underground water sources. However, recent investigations have drawn attention to another major player in how contaminants reach water supplies, aerial deposition. Many PFAS manufacturers, including the Chemours plant, not only dump liquid PFAS waste but also emit them into the air. These emitted contaminants can travel large distances, depositing on any surface they come in contact with as they travel. Dr. Mead is focused on identifying what PFAS are present in NC air due to aerial emission and how this emission contributes to the presence of PFAS in the Cape Fear watershed. To determine PFAS aerial content, three collection methods are being utilized:

• Event-based wet/dry deposition sampling • Integrated gas and particle sampling • Real-time measurement of highly polar gases

Event-based Wet/Dry Deposition

Wet deposition refers to when precipitation forces these contaminants from the air, and dry deposition is the settling of substance particles on their own. The key factor of event-based wet/dry deposition sampling is that it allows researchers to determine when a weather event began, and when it ended. Knowing this temporal information allows researchers to backtrack the air mass from the time of the event to see what emissions sources it may have

interacted with prior to reaching the deposition site. Altogether, this sampling method provides the means to better understand how large an impact aerial emission has on introducing PFAS to water supplies. Sites for event-based wet/dry deposition sampling include Appalachian State University, the Universities of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Charlotte, and Wilmington, ECU, and Bald Head Island.

Team 4’s sample site locations.

9

Data from the early period of GenX investigations collected at UNC-W demonstrates the usefulness of back-tracking air masses after collections. In the span of two weeks, two precipitation events were

measured, one that originated over the ocean, and one that originated from in-state. Researchers were unable to detect GenX in the maritime air mass, but detected over 500 ppt of GenX in the land based system, which was the maximum allowed by their instrumental calibration. Integrated Gas and Particle Sampling Meanwhile, the integrated gas and particle sampling informs researchers of the PFAS content in the air that has not yet been deposited. This information is important to the understanding of human exposure to PFAS through inhalation. Samples will be collected weekly in six day periods for one year in Wilmington, Research Triangle Park, Charlotte, Greenville, and Fayetteville. In both methods, samples are transported back to the lab and analyzed by high and low resolution mass spectrometry to determine concentrations and identity these compounds. Real-time Measurement of Highly Polar Gasses The final measurement of highly polar gasses is more specific than the integrated gas and particle sampling, and will be carried out for one to two weeks over the course of the next year to better grasp any interactions PFAS may undergo while traveling in the air. These interactions with other compounds or sunlight could significantly alter the structure from what was originally emitted, making identification difficult. This final sampling approach allows for on-site mass and structural identification as soon as the apparatus detects a gas, providing an immediate readout of aerial composition.

Previous GenX deposition results showing high levels of deposition when the air mass originates from an area where pollutants are emitted into the air.

10

Collection Timeframes Sampling for wet/dry deposition in Wilmington and gas/particle phase collection has been continuous since December 2018, and collections are continuing through December 2019. Three representative winter samples were taken at other sites between December 2018 and March 2019, with three summer samples to be taken between May 2019 and September 2019. During the same period, the one to two week polar gas sample will be taken. Final Calculations Once these samples are collected and analyzed, a calculation PFAS deposition to the Cape Fear watershed will be produced, as well as a better understanding of the nature of interactions PFAS undergo during aerial transport and how that influences their deposition. Team 5: Applied Research Opportunities Presenter: Dr. Jamie DeWitt (ECU) Areas of Opportunity Unlike the other research teams in the PFAST Network, Team 5 is a group of teams focused on answering related, yet highly specific, questions concerning PFAS. Six different research topics were presented at the forum by Dr. DeWitt. The topics and leaders of each project are listed below:

• PFAS Presence in Landfill Leachate – Dr. Morton Barlaz (NCSU) • Accumulation of PFAS in NC Wildlife – Dr. Scott Belcher (NCSU) • Immunotoxicological Effects of PFAS – Dr. Jamie DeWitt (ECU) • Plant Uptake and Accumulation of PFAS – Dr. Owen Duckworth (NCSU) • Effects on Pregnancy and Placental Health – Dr. Rebecca Fry (UNC-CH) • Predictive PFAS Movement in the Environment and Living Organisms – Dr. Nick Luke (NC A&T)

PFAS Presence in Landfill Leachate With PFAS being so widely incorporated in consumer products, Dr. Barlaz is focused on the contribution of landfills and domestic wastewater to surface water and publically owned treatment works (POTWs). Many landfills are lined with a system that collects water from the landfill that could have picked up any soluble material as it passed through. This leachate is discharged to wastewater treatment facilities and returned to the environment. As products break down in landfills, they could release PFAS into the leachate, and potentially end up in surface water if not removed at a POTW. Furthermore, as PFAS infused consumer products are used in homes, PFAS may be released into domestic wastewater. In addition to determining the importance of these sources to overall levels, Dr. Barlaz plans to estimate how much PFAS is discharged to treatment facilities from landfills, the amount of PFAS entering POTWs in NC from city wastewater, how much PFAS is leaving these POTWs after treatment, and the amount of PFAS released from construction and demolition landfills.

11

The team had sampled twenty-three POTWs, eleven landfills, and four construction and demolition landfills as of the forum, with two of the POTWs being sampled weekly for four weeks. Analysis of this data is ongoing. Accumulation of PFAS in NC Wildlife Since PFAS has been detected in blood samples of residents who are supplied water from the Cape Fear River, investigators are also concerned with how these chemicals are affecting native wildlife. The goal of Dr. Belcher’s team is to determine how long PFAS remain in an animal’s system and at what levels can adverse health effects be observed. This project focusses on catfish and striped bass from the Cape Fear River and alligators from the Cape Fear River and Wilmington areas. For each, a blood serum sample was taken, and the total PFAS content was compared to samples taken from populations of fish and alligators either grown in the Pamlico Aquaculture Field Lab or caught in an area considered to not have elevated PFAS levels. In the blood analysis of 54 striped bass, the average total PFAS concentration was over 40 times higher than those from the field lab (551 ppb), although the field lab fish were also contaminated (13.6 ppb). A breakdown of the PFAS content in the Caper Fear River samples also showed that 89% of the PFAS content was attributable to PFOS, which has mostly been phased out of US production since 2015. Fewer alligator samples from Wilmington have been sampled, but preliminary results show that there is over 10 times the average amount of PFAS in Wilmington alligator samples (293 ppb) than those

found in Lake Waccamaw (17.7 ppb). There was also a spread of PFAS levels from the reference site, from less than 5 ppb to 40.5 ppb. Dr. DeWitt noted that there was an observable correlation between wildlife sampled from areas with elevated PFAS levels and negative health effects, although specifics of these effects was not discussed. It was also mentioned by the research team that wildlife sampling was a unique chance for community education on the PFAS issue. Passersby would often stop

Dr. Belcher’s team taking an alligator serum sample.

Distribution of PFAS levels found in alligators in Wilmington and Lake Waccamaw. Although considered to be unaffected by PFAS contamination, a large spread PFAS content was found in alligator samples from the area.

12

and ask what the team was doing wrangling an alligator, providing an opportunity to explain the work of the PFAST Network. Immunotoxicological Effects of PFAS While the health effects of some legacy PFAS have been investigated, the impact of emerging PFAS on human health is largely unknown. Dr. DeWitt has investigated the effects of PFMOAA, PFMOPrA, and PFMOBA, each of which were detected in the Cape Fear River in 2018. For PFMOAA, there was a significantly reduced effect on the immune system compared to PFOA. Dr. DeWitt plans to increase the concentration of PFMOAA in order to better understand what an effective dose would be. Similarly, PFMOPrA showed a negligible effect on the immune response, although an abnormal cell count was recorded for reasons yet to be determined. Studies with other emerging PFAS found in the Cape Fear River, Nafion BP2 and PFHxA, as well as a mixture of emerging PFAS are planned. Additionally, further collaborations with other labs for investigations of the effects on the brain and lungs are underway. Plant Uptake and Accumulation of PFAS

Presence of PFAS in agricultural water supplies in Eastern North Carolina could lead to the distribution of PFAS through sale of produce. It is the goal of Dr. Duckworth to investigate where the PFAS taken up by crops accumulate in the plants, and whether or not there is a linkage between uptake and the amount of organic matter found in the soil. Considering that not all parts of a plant

are sold for human consumption, knowing that PFAS only accumulates in the roots and not in the leafy greens of a cabbage plant could save an entire harvest from having to be discarded. Additionally, a better understanding of how organic matter affects PFAS uptake could provide better recommendations for soil management practices that would reduce the need for farmers to find alternative water sources.

Lower levels of enzyme activity were observed in animals given PFMOAA compared to those given PFOA, suggesting a lessened effect on the immune system. It is noted the doses were not the same between PFMOAA and PFOA and could have played a role.

Diagram showing the expected impact of compost on a plant’s uptake of PFAS.

13

A small-scale experiment on lettuce planted in 0, 5, 10, and 20% compost and spiked with either 10000 ppt or 100000 ppt of PFAS is currently underway. It is expected that the increased compost concentrations will reduce the amount of PFAS accumulated in the plant as it would act similarly to an activated carbon filter and adsorb some of the incoming PFAS. Effects on Pregnancy and Placental Health One population particularly sensitive to PFAS exposure is pregnant women. Previous studies have linked PFAS exposure to developmental effects, lower birth weights, and increased blood pressure in the mother during pregnancy. Dr. Fry is investigating what specific effects several PFAS have on the genetic expression of placental cells from human subjects that receive their drinking water from wells. Across 12 samples, some combination of 5 of the 14 checked for PFAS were found. Not every PFAS was detected in each sample. Measurement of the PFAS content in maternal blood, serum, and placenta samples are ongoing. In addition to sampled placental cells, Dr. Fry is observing changes in genetic expression of a placental cell line, or a sample of placental cells maintained in the lab, when exposed to PFOA, PFOS or GenX. In each condition, higher concentrations facilitate different gene expression patterns for most of the genes examined. While some similarities were observed in how different PFAS affected a certain gene, the specific genes affected by these chemicals varied greatly, suggesting that water supplies with a PFAS mixture has a very broad impact. Furthermore, the direct toxicity of PFAS on these cells lines is being investigated. PFOA, PFOS, and GenX were all found to be associated with high cell toxicities at high concentrations. For PFOS, a decrease in toxicity was observed in contrast to other results, and is under further review. Predictive PFAS Movement in the Environment and Living Organisms The final team, led by Dr. Luke, is attempting to develop models to predict where PFAS go in the body and how they move throughout the environment. By dividing the body up into a series of compartments, it is possible to take data on concentrations, metabolism, and excretion of chemicals and create a mathematical model of transport. This compartmentalization allows specific interactions to be more closely estimated, such as the transfer of chemicals between the blood and the liver. Using the immunotoxicity and systemic toxicity data, as well as estimates for PFAS half-lives (a measure of chemical degradation), developed by other teams in the PFAST Network, it may be possible to determine how long PFAS will remain in the body and how much of it will build up using the predictive model. Additionally, Dr. Luke will be conducting experiments to quantify the level of exposure adverse effects begin to occur. In other words, the dose of PFAS at which negative health outcomes are observable.

Heat map showing observable changes in the expression of certain genes when exposed to PFAS.

14

Future Directions From sampling water supplies to modeling PFAS movement through the body, the research presented at the Emerging Contaminants Forum covered a wide scope of issues pertaining to PFAS contamination in North Carolina. As much of what was presented was still in the preliminary stages, the audience responded with questions centering around three main ideas:

• What is the likelihood that I will be exposed? • How will PFAS exposure effect my health? • To what extent does PFAS contamination threaten the North Carolina ecosystem?

The specific questions will be available at https://www.nccoast.org/project/genx-and-emerging-industrial-contaminants/ once responses have been received and organized. As set by the original legislation, these projects will finalize their data and report findings to the General Assembly by December 2019. However, ongoing discussions by NC legislators may result in an extension of the project to 2020. In the meantime, researchers submit quarterly reports to the General Assembly and hold public presentations, such as this forum and the Symposium to be held in October 2019. To stay up to date on PFAS research and upcoming events, check the PFAST Network website at http://ncpfastnetwork.com/. This document was authored by Cory Cook of the NC Policy Collaboratory. He graduated from UNC-CH in 2018 with a B.S. in Biochemistry and is currently a student in the Master of Public Health Environmental Sciences and Engineering program at UNC-CH.

15

APPENDIX A – Forum Agenda

16

Appendix B – List of Abbreviations

• AI – Artificial Intelligence • Duke – Duke University • ECU – East Carolina University • EPA – US Environmental Protection Agency • GA – General Assembly • PFAS – Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances • PFAST Network – Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Testing Network • PFBA – Perfluorobutyrate • PFHxA – Perfluorohexanoic acid • PFHxS – Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid • PFMOAA – 2,2-difluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyacetic acid • PFMOBA – Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid • PFMOPrA – Perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid • PFOA – Perfluorooctanoic acid • PFOS – Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid • POTWs – Publically Owned Treatment Works • NC A&T – North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University • NCSU – North Carolina State University • UNC-CH – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • UNC-C – University of North Carolina at Charlotte • UNC-W – University of North Carolina at Wilmington