HUMAN PRACTICES

Perhaps one of our most important discussions occurred with Dr. Conejo-Garcia. With our project being heavily inspired by his work on antibody engineering interactions, we found it crucial to meet with him to learn more about the details of his work and to present our project ideas and receive his feedback as an expert. When considering the best mode to remove PFAS from the body, we learned that only proteins transcytosis into the gastrointestinal tract are known to be excreted, thus, our goal after protein-PFAS binding became to transport the complex into the gastrointestinal tract. Secondly, while we entered the meeting intending to design a full antibody complex that would bind and transcytose PFAS, after discussion with Dr. Conejo-Garcia, we concluded that we do not need a full complex. A protein domain that can bind PFAS and trigger transcytosis is sufficient and more feasible in the scope of our project.

Wanting to expand our understanding of the process surrounding PFAS regulation, we met with Ms. Libby Robinson who works at the non-for-profit Research Triangle Institute in Raleigh, NC. The goal of her organization is to conduct research, typically statistical, to improve the human condition. Ms. Robinson’s specific division focuses on research in water quality and air quality, with a main client of her group being the EPA for the implementation of grant programs. From her, we learned that the development of environmental regulation is a ~3-year process that consists of bill development and enactment, the establishment of regulation policies, and the establishment of policies written implementing the regulation policies. An important aspect of this process we learned is the opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the EPA’s draft proposals. Such feedback gets reviewed by the EPA with the chance of being incorporated into the proposal. Once a proposal gets passed and becomes law, it can also get changed through litigation against it or changes in the national administration. Our group meeting with Ms. Robinson and learning about the environmental legislation process provided insight into the challenges surrounding it and shed light as to how PFAS regulation requires much effort.

Wanting to better understand the nuances of PFAS pollution, especially on a local scale, we reached out to Dana Sargent, the executive director of the Cape Fear River Watch nonprofit based in North Carolina. Her group was of particular relevance to our project given that it strongly advocates for PFAS regulation and initiated a consent order against a PFAS-production company in NC: Chemours. Along with her group’s daily work of ensuring that Chemours is upholding its requirements under the Consent Order, her group conducts research on PFAS toxicity, advocates for PFAS regulations, and regularly hosts outreach events and meetings to inform the public about PFAS pollution. From Ms. Sargent, we also learned more about how PFAS infiltrates various aspects of our lives. Specifically, she mentioned that municipal utilities could become a PFAS discharger if the PFAS accumulates in the water discarded from filtration. She also added that many municipalities aren’t equipped to remove enough PFAS from their water. When asked what she thought the idea solution was for addressing PFAS pollution, Ms. Sargent shared that PFAS-alternatives should be investigated and that PFOS-discharging companies should be required to filter PFAS before it can be discharged into the environment. She did also share that in the meantime, she finds value in the litigation efforts, like the ones initiated by her nonprofit, being taken to regulate PFAS for the people who have high levels of PFAS in their water receiving filters. The information we got from this meeting really gave us insight into how large-scale efforts for PFAS regulation should come through regulation, but that in the meantime, projects like ours can make a current impact for addressing PFAS pollution.

We took the initiative to engage with various scientific communities, experts, and research institutions to deepen our understanding of PFAS exposure and its impact on human health. By attending meetings with professionals in the field, such as Dr. Jame DeWitt at ECU, we were able to delve into the bioenergetic pathways affected by PFAS and their connection to immunotoxicity. These discussions allowed us to explore how PFAS reduces B cell antibody production and disrupts metabolic processes, particularly within the liver. We learned that PFAS bioaccumulation varies based on geographic location, such as elevated levels in Wilmington, NC, due to proximity to the Chemours plant. Furthermore, the research revealed that PFAS interferes with metabolism during both wakefulness and sleep, diminishing the body’s capacity to use energy effectively, much like a diluted fuel tank. We were also introduced to the newest development in technologies capable of testing for PFAS variants, emphasizing the need for better transparency between government bodies and companies in addressing PFAS contamination.

As we were looking to expand our understanding of PFAS toxicity and the biological challenges of using a protein to remove it from the bloodstream, we reached out to individuals like Dr. Jamie Dewitt a PFAS researcher at ECU. There, she leads a lab studying the immunotoxicological and developmental effects of PFAS. Her work already found that PFAS hurts the immune system. Some more information we learned about her work is that she’s trying to develop methods to look at more PFAS at a time and investigate the toxicity of different kinds of PFAS in mouse models. She also talks to people living in PFAS-affected communities. When asked about her thoughts on the state of PFAS regulation, she mentioned that not enough regulation is being done to address PFAS and that action is slow. However, an important part of her work to us is that it’s funded by a governmental institution that uses the information to add weight to regulations to limit PFAS.

Seeking to learn more about PFAS contamination in waterways, current treatment and diagnostic methods and governmental regulations, we reached out to Andrew Baumeister, a scientist studying test and treatment options for PFAS. During out meeting we discussed the current regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, with the first enforceable standards being released only this year with a set of federal drinking water standards for six of the known PFAS. Our discussion continued on the struggles of removing and breaking down PFAS. Due to their flouring chain, PFAS are highly stable, requiring a considerable amount of energy for break down raising sustainability concerns. Furthermore, PFAS chemistry allows them to bioaccumulate and persist for extended periods of time in the body, as human metabolism lacks the proper mechanisms. We rounded out our time discussing Andrews work and experience with water diagnostics and assays designed to assess PFAS contamination in water ways. Learning from our discussion, we truly began to see how multi-faceted the issue of PFAS contamination is. While removing PFAS from the body is critical, it is also important to consider how PFAS enters the body and how to break it down once it is out.

In order to understand more about how PFAS levels can be tested in the body and how the public is affected by PFAS contamination, our team met with Erin Baker, a professor of chemistry at our very own University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Baker's research focuses on measuring chemical exposure, one such chemical being PFAS. During our meeting we learned that as of right now the best treatment to mediate PFAS exposure is blood transfusion which can be problematic as the blood banks themselves are likely contaminated. PFAS testing is also via blood test. We learned that there were over 14,000 PFAS that are known to exist which means that for our project we will have to target a part of the chemical that is relatively consistent throughout all of them. During our discussion we also inquired about current United States Environmental Protection Agency regulation,which Dr. Baker clarified focused on testing for PFAS and had a limited focus on changes in industrial manufacturing meaning communities that did not have the funding for extensive testing are still at risk. Finally, we spoke about how to avoid PFAS in our daily lives and discovered that the chemical is unavoidable. Due to the nature of the PFAS, it exists in nearly everything that is grease, fire, water or stain resistant and anything with a shiny coat. After this discussion, we had a deeper understanding of the effect of PFAS in the daily lives of people and began to consider ways to communicate this issue to the public. While contamination is nearly unavoidable, it's important that communities understand how they can be affected and what they can do to protect themselves.

Over the course of our research on PFAS, we wanted to understand more about the work being done around PFAS in our own community so we reached out to Rachylle Hart, program coordinator for the NC PFAS Testing Network. The testing network was begun using funding from the North Carolina General Assembly to study PFAS contamination. The study brings together universities across the state to document the presence of PFAS and understand its impacts on the environment and our health by researching in 5 study areas: water, air, exposure, treatment and applied research. We first discussed the new EPA regulations on PFAS chemicals and we learned that EPA regulations are largely based not only on what is safe for the public but also what is ‘reasonable’ for the testing facility to filter. So basically, as long as it's not considered feasible to completely remove PFAS from water that the EPA is unlikely to expect water facilities to remove the chemical which is why it's essential to create innovative ways to mitigate exposure. Our discussion led us to talking about how we must prioritize targeting source points which are the manufacturers and landfills to eliminate PFAS before it becomes a contaminate. Our biggest takeaway from this meeting is that PFAS contamination is a multifaceted issue that cannot be solved with a single solution. It involves science, policy, business and so much more.

With the informational meetings we had had with the PFAS experts above, our team also wanted to consider how a project like ours could be turned into a true therapeutic and brought to market. For this reason, when we learned about a European PFAS company working on a means to remove PFAS from the body via probiotic tablets, we were happy to meet and discuss our aims and goals. We specifically met with Hitheshi Rathod, a business developer at the company. From the meeting, we learned that the company is based from research from the University of Cambridge and is seeking to launch their product in the U.S. market. Concerning the process of bringing their product to market, we learned some approaches one can take include outsourcing lesser-valuable parts of product operations. We also shared about how certain communities impacted by PFAS may best benefit from their product.

With the informational meetings we had had with the PFAS experts above, our team also wanted to consider more general information on how a project like ours could be turned into a true therapeutic and brought to market. From our meeting with Steve Wilcenski and Mark Edmond, CEO and the Director of Operations, respectively, at Invicta Water, a water treatment startup, we learned that raising funds for a project can be done through non-traditional investment capital. We also learned that it’s important to protect one’s product via a provisional patent and an NDA when communicating with advisors or an organization. In all, this meeting helped us get a better sense of what it takes to turn a project like ours into a reality and accessible to others.