AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Article Link
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Original Research | Open Access

Oceanographic regime and foraging behaviour structure compound-specific PFAS variability in arctic-atlantic guillemots

Rui Shena( )Ralf EbinghausbDaniel Giddings Vassãoa,cNorman RatcliffedThomas Larsena,e
Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology, Jena, 07745, Germany
Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Helmholtz Zentrum Hereon, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, 07745, Germany
British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK
Institute for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Archaeology, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, 24118, Germany
Show Author Information

Abstract

Current chemical exposures studies characterise chemical risk through mean-based concentrations, treating individual-level variability as statistical noise. However, this variability may carry structured ecological information that mean-based approaches systematically overlook. Here, we propose that individual per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) exposure variability constitutes a structured ecological signal, shaped by habitat use across oceanographic gradients and individual foraging behaviour, one that mean-based approaches are not designed to capture. To test the variability-as-signal hypothesis, we integrated two independent indices of individual stability using two sympatric guillemot species (Uria aalge, n = 67 and Uria lomvia, n = 45) sampled across five Icelandic colonies during the 2018 breeding season. We paired PFAS variability scores, derived from plasma PFAS concentrations, with isotopic consistency scores derived from dual-tissue stable isotopes (δ13C and δ15N in plasma and red blood cells). These consistency scores represent individual foraging stability across the breeding season, enabling a reconstruction of foraging histories and oceanographic habitat use. Our results reveal that PFAS variability is highly structured by compound class, dominated by long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs; 79% of variance) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS; 13%). Cluster analysis identified two main divergent exposure states: constrained PFOS variability versus constrained PFCA variability. Bivariate segmented regression revealed a hierarchical structure to contaminant acquisition: oceanographic regime (proxied by δ13Cconsist) functioned as the primary driver, with PFOS variability intensifying in Atlantic-influenced waters. Within these regimes, trophic sources (proxied by δ15Nconsist) emerged as a secondary, conditional modulator, specifically constraining PFCA variability among high-trophic individuals. At the colony scale, fine-scale niche partitioning, such as vertical foraging strategies and individual specialisation using glacial fjords and ice margins, produced compound-specific patterns that diverged from regional hierarchies. As climate change continues to redistribute Arctic and Atlantic water masses and reshape the food web structures, approaches that treat contaminant variability as ecological signal will be increasingly valuable for anticipating exposure regime shifts.

References

【1】
【1】
 
 
Environmental Science and Ecotechnology

{{item.num}}

Comments on this article

Go to comment

< Back to all reports

Review Status: {{reviewData.commendedNum}} Commended , {{reviewData.revisionRequiredNum}} Revision Required , {{reviewData.notCommendedNum}} Not Commended Under Peer Review

Review Comment

Close
Close
Cite this article:
Shen R, Ebinghaus R, Vassão DG, et al. Oceanographic regime and foraging behaviour structure compound-specific PFAS variability in arctic-atlantic guillemots. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 2026, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2026.100707

4

Views

0

Crossref

0

Web of Science

0

Scopus

Received: 27 March 2025
Revised: 11 May 2026
Accepted: 11 May 2026
Published: 01 May 2026
© 2026 The Authors. Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences.

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).