Next Article in Journal
Characteristics, Sources of Atmospheric VOCs and Their Impacts on O3 and Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation in Ganzhou, Southern China
Previous Article in Journal
Safety Evaluation of Lab-Made Clinoptilolite: 90-Day Repeated Dose Toxicity Study in Sprague Dawley Rats and a Battery of In Vitro and In Vivo Genotoxicity Tests
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Rusizi River System, Burundi: A Multi-Compartment Assessment from Tributaries to Lake Tanganyika

1
ECOSPHERE, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1C, B2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
2
Laboratory of Biodiversity, Ecology and Environment, Research Center for Natural and Environmental Sciences, Department of Biology, University of Burundi, Avenue de l’UNESCO 2, Bujumbura P.O. Box 1550, Burundi
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Toxics 2026, 14(2), 123; https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14020123
Submission received: 6 January 2026 / Revised: 18 January 2026 / Accepted: 27 January 2026 / Published: 28 January 2026

Highlights

What are the main findings?
  • Short-chain and emerging PFASs dominated across the aquatic food web.
  • Fish showed the highest PFAS diversity, particularly in liver tissue.
  • Health risks from fish consumption were mostly below EFSA TWI for regulated PFASs, but a potential concern emerged when PFASs were expressed as PFOA equivalents.
What are the implications of the main findings?
  • Bioaccumulation occurred despite low environmental PFAS levels, highlighting the value of biomonitoring.
  • This study provides novel and essential baseline data for tropical freshwater systems, supporting the need for expanded monitoring and risk assessment in data-poor regions.

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are global pollutants, yet data from tropical freshwater ecosystems remain scarce. This study provides the first assessment of PFAS occurrence in the Rusizi delta (Burundi), from tributaries to Lake Tanganyika, by analyzing water, sediment, macrophytes, and fish, and by evaluating human health risks from fish consumption. In water, only PFOA (<0.60–7.80 ng/L) was detected and showed a uniform spatial distribution. Sediment concentrations were largely below quantification limits, likely reflecting unfavorable sorption conditions. Macrophytes were dominated by short-chain PFAS, particularly PFBS, without consistent species- or site-specific patterns, supporting their potential as biomonitors of cumulative PFAS exposure. Fish exhibited the highest PFAS diversity, with more diverse profiles in liver than muscle, although tissue-specific patterns were often absent. PFBS was dominant across fish species, and emerging PFAS (e.g., PFBS and NaDONA) were frequently detected. Human health risks from fish consumption were, except for children, mostly below EFSA tolerable weekly intake values for regulated PFAS, but potential concern for adolescents and adults emerged when PFAS were expressed as PFOA equivalents. This study provides essential baseline data for tropical freshwater systems and highlights the need for expanded PFAS monitoring and risk assessment in data-poor regions.

1. Introduction

A large variety of chemical pollutants have been discharged and emitted into the environment following global anthropogenic activities [1]. One group of such pollutants is per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are synthetic chemicals containing one or more fluorinated methylene or methyl groups [2]. The strong carbon-fluorine bond imparts unique properties including lipo- and hydrophobicity, and providing PFAS with high thermal and chemical stability, making them suitable for a large number of applications [3]. Following their production and use in consumer products, many PFAS were discharged or emitted into the environment, where their high mobility facilitated their global distribution across environmental compartments and biota, in which PFAS may persist for long periods [4,5,6]. The continuous exposure of organisms to PFAS may lead to their bioaccumulation and even biomagnification in food webs [7,8,9].
The fate of PFAS in aquatic ecosystems is determined by partitioning processes between the abiotic and biotic compartments [10]. The length of the carbon-chain determines their mobility, with PFAS becoming less mobile and more prone to bioaccumulation with increasing carbon-chain length [11,12]. Their persistence and ability to partition across compartments facilitate their widespread contamination and chronic exposure of aquatic organisms, which could lead to adverse effects on development, emergence rate, survival, growth, reproduction, and other life-history traits [13]. As their fate depends on the physicochemical characteristics of the PFAS molecules [12], no single matrix fully reflects their distribution or risks. Therefore, multi-compartment monitoring is essential to capture the complexity of PFAS behavior in aquatic ecosystems.
Despite growing global concern about PFAS contamination, tropical river-lake systems remain underrepresented in current research, particularly in Africa [14]. These ecosystems support biodiversity, fisheries, and drinking water sources, and provide many other ecosystem services, and are therefore of ecological and socio-economic importance [15,16]. Recent studies reported that tropical wetlands can remove large proportions of nutrients and organic pollutants: for example, the Lubigi wetland in Kampala retained ~50–60% of orthophosphate and ~20–40% of ammonium nitrogen despite being subject to both stormwater and sewage overflows [17]. Natural riverine wetlands in Ethiopia have demonstrated reductions on the order of 70–80% in biochemical oxygen demand, total phosphorus, and dissolved inorganic nitrogen, while also supporting higher biodiversity downstream [18]. However, they may be vulnerable to pollution due to increasing urbanization and industrialization. In Burundi, as in many other African countries, limited wastewater treatment, rapid urbanization, and industrial growth further increase the risk of PFAS contamination in aquatic ecosystems [19,20]. Untreated industrial and municipal wastewater, alongside emissions from industries such as the textile industry and waste disposal, represent potential sources of PFAS contamination. As local communities rely heavily on these ecosystems for essential services, these pressures highlight the need to investigate PFAS occurrence and fate in such systems, where monitoring data remain scarce. This is critical to assess potential risks and safeguard ecosystem services.
Despite these pressures, knowledge of PFAS distribution in African freshwater ecosystems remains very limited and scattered across the continent [14]. Existing studies in Sub-Saharan Africa are often restricted to single compartments [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29], which do not provide a full overview of environmental exposure and risks. Multi-compartment approaches have been applied sporadically in Nigeria [30,31], Uganda [32], South Africa [33,34,35,36,37], Tanzania [38], and Ethiopia [39,40], but data remain scarce.
This study investigated, for the first time, PFAS occurrence and distribution in a river-lake system in Burundi, with the objectives to assess their presence across multiple environmental and biological compartments, identify spatial patterns within the system, and evaluate potential human health risks through fish consumption. By generating baseline data for the region, this work contributes novel insights into an underrepresented region and continent, and advances the global understanding of PFAS behavior in tropical freshwater ecosystems.
We hypothesize that PFAS concentrations and profiles will differ among compartments due to their physicochemical properties and resulting partitioning. Specifically, we expect short-chain PFAS to dominate in water and plants, because of their higher mobility and solubility, whereas long-chain PFAS will dominate sediments and fish due to their stronger sorption and bioaccumulation potential. Among biota, fish are anticipated to contain the highest PFAS concentrations due to biomagnification. Despite these patterns, human health risks are expected to be low, reflecting generally low PFAS concentrations in African ecosystems [14] and the absence of known major sources in the study region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Rusizi National Park (Figure 1) is one of the largest protected areas in Burundi, covering about 10,673 hectares north of Lake Tanganyika. The park takes its name from the Rusizi River, which flows across the Rusizi Plain and carries waters from Lake Kivu. At an altitude of around 1000 m, the Rusizi River meanders through a broad plain between Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). These meanders give rise to swamps and lagoons that are characteristic of the region [41]. The river is fed by several important tributaries, including the Ruhwa, Nyakagunda, Nyamagana, Muhira, Kaburantwa, Kagunuzi, Kajeke, and Mpanda Rivers.

2.2. Sampling

In April 2025, surface water, sediment, above-ground vegetative parts of plants (Phragmites mauritianus Kunth, Typha domingensis Pers., and Vossia cuspidata (Roxb.) Griffith) (N = 5 per species; all mature plants, determined by presence of flowers) and fish (Auchenoglanis occidentalis, Oreochromis niloticus, and Protopterus aethiopicus) (N = 5 per species) were collected from the Rusizi River delta in Burundi. Sampling was carried out in the Rusizi National Park in collaboration with staff from the Burundian office for the protection of the environment (OBPE). The sampling authorization was granted at the launch of the project.
All three plant species are highly productive, rhizomatous wetland grasses common in tropical and warm regions. They are the dominant plant species among Rusizi delta vegetation. They can exhibit invasive behavior due to their rapid growth, wide environmental tolerance, and efficient vegetative reproduction. Nonetheless, they all play important roles by stabilizing soils, protecting banks, providing habitat for wetland birds and fish, storing carbon, and improving water quality through accumulation and filtration of nutrients and pollutants [42,43,44,45].
P. aethiopicus is a benthic-dwelling carnivorous-to-omnivorous fish that is ubiquitously present in central and east Africa. Juveniles feed primarily on insects, whereas adults shift their behaviour to molluscs, fish, insects, and occasionally plants [46]. O. niloticus is native to central and north Africa but has been introduced to many aquatic ecosystems due to its suitability for aquaculture [47]. They occupy a flexible and omnivorous dietary niche shifting from zooplankton and insects as juveniles to a primarily plant-based (phytoplankton, macrophytes, detritus) as adults. Their dietary range is site-specific and may vary among seasons [47]. A. occidentalis is present in many shallow lakes and large rivers across Africa. It occupies a predominantly omnivorous dietary niche and is an adaptive generalist feeder with strong insectivorous preference. However, as is also true for the other species, its diet and feeding habit can vary substantially depending on local food availability [48].
Nine sampling sites along the Rusizi River, its tributaries, and Lake Tanganyika were selected for the abiotic samples (Figure 1; Table S1). Plants were collected by hand (±15 cm from the topsoil) within the Rusizi delta wetland and in the Bujumbura region, whereas fish were caught in Lake Tanganyika by local fishermen from the town Gatumba.
Water was sampled from a boat (lake samples) or from a bridge (river samples). At each site, triplicate unfiltered water samples were collected and stored at −18 °C in 50 mL polypropylene (PP) tubes (Greiner Bio One, Vilvoorde, Belgium), which are typically used in PFAS studies on water due to limited adsorption of PFAS compared to some other types of containers [49,50,51], for PFAS analysis. A fourth water sample was filtered (0.45 µm nitrocellulose Chromafil syringe filters (A-45/25)) (Macherey-Nagel GmbH, Düren, Germany) into new bottles. After determining multiple physicochemical characteristics in situ (see Section 2.3), the water was acidified with 20 µL of hydrochloric acid (HCl; target pH < 2), and stored at 4 °C for subsequent physicochemical analyses (see Section 2.3).
Sediment was sampled from a boat (lake samples) or from a bridge (river samples) using a Van Veen grab sampler (Eijkelkamp Royal, Giesbeek, The Netherlands) up to a depth of approximately 10 cm. At each site, three replicate samples were collected (except at site 2, where two samples were lost) and stored at 5 °C in 50 mL tubes for grain size and organic matter analyses. Afterwards, they were stored at −18 °C for PFAS analysis.
After removal of flowers and rinsing with tap water, the plant material (i.e., stem and leaves combined) was oven-dried at 70 °C and subsequently ground mechanically to a fine powder. Fish were euthanized by freezing (24 h). After thawing, fish were dissected and their muscle and liver tissues were stored in 3 mL Eppendorf tubes (Eppendorf Belgium N.V.-S.A., Aarschot, Belgium) at −18 °C for PFAS analysis.

2.3. Determination of Water Physicochemical Characteristics

In situ measurements of temperature (°C), electrical conductivity (µS/cm), salinity (mg/L), and oxygen (mg/L and %) were taken using a WTW MultiLine® Multi 3620 IDS SET KS1 portable meter (Fisher Scientific, Merelbeke-Melle, Belgium). A HI98713 ISO Portable Turbidity meter (Hanna Instruments B.V., Temse, Belgium) was used to determine the turbidity (FNU).
Concentrations of total dissolved nitrogen (NH4+ + NO3 + NO2), phosphate (PO43−), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and dissolved silicon (DSi) were determined with a SAN++ segmented flow analyzer (Skalar Holding B.V., Breda, The Netherlands) [52]. Concentrations of suspended particulate matter (SPM, mg/L) were quantified through filtration (nitrocellulose 0.45 µm; Porafil membrane filter, Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany) of water samples [53]. Filters were pre-weighed, oven-dried for 72 h at 70 °C, and reweighed. They were subsequently analyzed for biogenic Si concentration (expressed as mg/L water and mg/g SPM) using alkaline extraction in 0.5 M NaOH [54]. Results are presented in Table S2.

2.4. Sediment Physicochemical Characteristics

2.4.1. Grain Size Distribution

Sediment grain size distribution was determined using a laser diffraction protocol previously described [55], which reflects our laboratory’s standard procedure. Approximately 1 g of homogenized sediment was added to a glass flask, followed by 10 mL HCl and 15 mL hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to remove organic compounds and disperse aggregates during overnight incubation. Subsequently, 25 mL of H2O2 was transferred into the flask, which was placed on a hot plate to boil the samples and enhance the reaction. Following cooling down to room temperature and sieving (1 mm), the samples were analyzed using a Mastersizer 2000 and Hydro 2000 G (Malvern Panalytical B.V., Brussels, Belgium) unit to determine the proportions of sand (>63 μm), silt (<2–63 μm), and clay (<2 μm) (Table S3).

2.4.2. Organic Carbon Content (Corg)

The loss on ignition method [56] was used to determined organic carbon contents. Oven-dried (105 °C, 2 h) and pre-weighed samples were incinerated (550 °C, 5 h) and weighed. The organic carbon content was then calculated through the difference between both measurements.

2.5. PFAS Extraction

Macrophytes and sediment samples were oven-dried (60 °C), and fish tissues were crushed using a Tissuelyser LT and stainless-steel beads (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The water samples were extracted without any pretreatment.
Abiotic and biotic samples were extracted using different protocols, both used as standard protocols in our laboratory, described by Groffen et al. [57] and Powley et al. [58], respectively. The initial steps are the same for both protocols. After weighing the samples (337 ± 110 mg of dried sediment, 237 ± 61 mg of dried plants, 199 ± 67 mg of liver, 237 ± 93 mg of muscle, and 10 mL of water), 10 ng of internal standard (ISTD, MPFAC-MXA, Wellington Laboratories, Guelph, ON, Canada) was added, followed by 10 mL of HPLC gradient grade acetonitrile (ACN; Acros Organics BVBA, Geel, Belgium). No ACN was added to the water samples. Subsequently, the samples were mixed, sonicated in an ultrasonic bath (3 × 10 min; Branson 2510, VWR International, Leuven, Belgium) and shaken overnight (GFL 3020, VWR International, Leuven, Belgium) at 135 rpm and room temperature. After centrifugation (4 °C, 10 min, 1037× g; Eppendorf centrifuge 5804R, Eppendorf Belgium N.V.-S.A., Aarschot, Belgium) the biotic and abiotic extracts were treated differently, with abiotic extracts being cleaned up using weak anion exchange solid phase extraction [57] and biota samples being cleaned up using graphitized carbon powder [58].
Abiotic extracts were loaded onto preconditioned (5 mL of ACN and 5 mL of Milli-Q) Chromabond HR-XAW SPE cartridges (Macherey-Nagel, Düren, Germany). The cartridges were rinsed with 5 mL of a 25 mM ammonium acetate solution (dissolved in Milli-Q) and 2 mL of ACN, and PFAS were eluted using 2 × 1 mL of a 2% ammonium hydroxide solution (Thermo Scientific, Merelbeke-Melle, Belgium; dissolved in ACN). The eluent was dried completely under vacuum [57].
Biotic extracts were dried to approximately 0.5 mL under vacuum (30 °C, Martin Christ RVC 2-25) and transferred to Eppendorf tubes containing 0.1 g of graphitized carbon powder (Supelclean ENVI-Carb, Sigma-Aldrich, Belgium) soaked for at least 15 min in 50 μL of glacial acetic acid (Fisher Scientific, Belgium). The tubes that contained the original samples were flushed twice with 250 μL of ACN, which was also added to the carbon powder. Following vortex mixing (1 min) and centrifugation (4 °C, 10 min, 9279.4× g; Eppendorf centrifuge 5415R, Eppendorf Belgium N.V.-S.A., Aarschot, Belgium), supernatants were dried completely under vacuum [58].
The samples were reconstituted with 200 μL of a 2% ammonium hydroxide solution (diluted in ACN), mixed, and filtered (Ion Chromatography 13 mm syringe filter with 0.2 μm Supor polyethersulfone membrane; VWR International, Leuven, Belgium) into PP auto-injector vials [57,58]. Procedural blanks (10 mL of Milli-Q for water, 10 mL of ACN for the other matrices) followed the same procedures.

2.6. Instrumental Analysis (UPLC-MS/MS)

PFAS were analyzed using ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS, ACQUITY TQD, Waters, Milford, MA, USA) operated in negative electrospray ionization mode. Separation was achieved on an ACQUITY BEH C18 column (2.1 × 50 mm; 1.7 μm, Waters, Milford, MA, USA), preceded by an ACQUITY BEH C18 pre-column (2.1 × 30 mm; 1.7 μm, Waters, Milford, MA, USA), inserted between the solvent mixer and injector, to minimize system-derived PFAS contamination. The mobile phase consisted of solvent A (0.1% formic acid in water (HPLC grade, VWR International, Leuven, Belgium)) and solvent B (0.1% formic acid in ACN (LC/MS grade, Fisher Chemical, Merelbeke-Melle, Belgium)). A flow rate of 450 μL/min and an injection volume of 6 μL were applied. The solvent gradient started at 65% A, went to 100% B in 3.4 min, and back to 65% A at 4.7 min. Quantification and confirmation of the 29 target PFAS were performed using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) (Table S4 [57,59]). Detailed MS/MS conditions (cone voltages, collision energies, and ISTD used for quantification) are provided in Table S4. Retention time (RT) was used as criterion for compound confirmation, with a tolerance of 0.1 min. Ion ratios were not applied for confirmation in this study, as unextracted standards were not analyzed to allow comparison between sample and standard ion ratios.
Quality assurance procedures included the analysis of one procedural blank for every set of 15 samples to evaluate potential contamination introduced during extraction or measurement. None of the target PFAS were detected in these blanks. Instrumental blanks consisted of 100% ACN and were run regularly to minimize carry-over between injections. No field or trip blanks were collected. Therefore, potential contamination during sampling cannot be completely excluded. Limits of quantification (LOQ) for each compound were determined in the sample matrix as the lowest concentration producing a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 and are summarized in Table S5. Calibration was performed using isotopically labelled internal standards as described in Groffen et al. [57], with the response expressed as the log of the analyte-to-ISTD area ratio versus the log of the analyte-to-ISTD concentration ratio. Linearity was verified in the current study for all target PFAS (R2 > 0.98). Recoveries of the isotopically labelled internal standards were within an acceptable range of 84% (PFHxS) to 99% (PFOS). Recoveries of the native analytes were not directly determined. Compound identity was confirmed based on retention time matching to internal standards (where available), or compared to unextracted native standards. Ion ratio acceptance criteria were not applied, but blanks and retention time matching provided sufficient confidence in compound identification.

2.7. Human Health Risks Associated with Consumption of PFAS-Contaminated Fish

The tolerable weekly intake (TWI) established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was used to calculate the maximum edible amount (MEA) of fish (Equation (1)) that can be consumed per person per week, without posing a health risk. This TWI is expressed for the intake of the sum of four PFAS (PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFOS) and equals 4.4 ng/kg bw/week [60].
MEA = TWI (ng/kg bw/week) × BW (kg)/C (ng/kg)
where MEA = maximum edible amount of fish muscle (kg/week; fresh weight), TWI = tolerable weekly intake of PFAS (4.4 ng/kg bw/week), BW = average body weight, and C = PFAS concentration in fish muscle (ng/kg).
These calculations were based on a per capita national average fish consumption of 0.04 kg/week (data from 2019) [61,62]. This value is considerably lower than the reported African average of 0.18 kg/week and may underestimate exposure in the study area, as fisheries from Lake Tanganyika contribute 25–40% of the local population’s protein intake [62], suggesting higher fish consumption than the national average. However, no specific data were available for local communities along Lake Tanganyika.
To address these uncertainties, a scenario-based approach was applied. Since data on per capita minimum and maximum fish consumption are absent, a lower- and upper-bound approach was applied by dividing or multiplying the average fish consumption of 0.04 kg/week by a factor of 3. Body weight was varied continuously from 0 to 100 kg to cover a broad range of potential consumer profiles. For each of the three consumption scenarios (i.e., lower-bound, average scenario, and upper-bound), maximum edible amounts (MEA, g/week) were calculated for each fish species.
To account for the combined toxicity of multiple PFAS, concentrations were also converted into PFOA-equivalents (PEQ) using relative potency factors (RPF) derived from liver toxicity data [63]. Concentrations in PEQ were then applied in Equation (1) to determine the MEA. This approach allows the evaluation of mixture toxicity by expressing PFAS effects relative to PFOA. However, results must be interpreted with caution, since the EFSA TWI is based on impaired immune response in humans [60], while the RPFs are based on liver toxicity in rats [63]. Therefore, the comparison between EFSA TWI and PEQ-based risk estimates should be regarded as exploratory rather than definitive.
All calculations were performed under two scenarios: (1) using average concentrations in fish tissue, with values below the LOQ imputed by maximum likelihood estimation [63], and (2) a scenario using maximum concentrations (corresponding to a worst-case scenario), with values below the LOQ replaced by the LOQ itself. FBSA, 11Cl-PF3OUdS, 9Cl-PF3ONS, PFEESA, PF4OPeA, PF5OHxA, and 3,6-OPFHpA were omitted from these calculations because of the absence of RPFs for these PFAS.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out in R Studio (version 2024.12.1+563) using R version 4.3.3. A significance threshold of p ≤ 0.05 was applied. Table S6 reports the frequency of detection of the targeted PFAS in each of the matrices. Prior to analysis, non-detects were replaced by estimated values using the maximum likelihood estimation method described by Villanueva [64]. Unlike simple substitution approaches such as LOQ/2, which assign arbitrary fixed values to censored data, MLE estimates censored values based on the statistical distribution of detected measurements, providing unbiased estimates of mean, variance, and other statistics. This approach is considered more robust and appropriate for datasets with censored values [64].
For PFAS compositional profiles only, non-detects were assigned a value of zero. These profiles were calculated as the percentage contribution of each individual compound to their sum concentration, corrected for molecular weight, and subsequently averaged across replicate samples within each matrix and/or species. Substitution methods, including MLE, rely on the LOQ of each compound and can artificially inflate the apparent contribution of compounds with high LOQs. Furthermore, substituting PFAS that were never detected in any of the samples would artificially introduce them into the compositional profiles, suggesting contributions where there was no evidence of their presence. To assess the sensitivity of this approach, the compositional profiles of the macrophytes, determined with values below the LOQ substituted by zero, were compared to profiles with values below the LOQ substituted by the MLE method. In both cases, PFAS that were never detected were omitted. Both profiles (Figure S1 shows them side by side) exhibit a high degree of resemblance, confirming that the main conclusions of the compositional profiles based on substitution by zero are robust.
Differences in PFAS concentrations among sampling locations or species were assessed using ANOVA, with post hoc comparisons performed using Tukey’s honest significant difference test. In case of non-normality, non-parametric alternatives were used. Spearman rank correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between PFAS concentrations in liver and muscle, as well as between accumulated levels in the fish tissues and each fish’s length and weight. Only compounds detected in at least 30% of the samples were included, either in both tissues when correlating tissues, or in the respective tissue when correlating with fish size and weight.
The high proportion of non-detects in water and sediment (see Section 3.1) prevented us from correlating water and sediment physicochemical properties with PFAS concentrations in the abiotic environment.

3. Results

3.1. Spatial Distribution and Concentrations in the Abiotic Environment

PFOA was the sole compound detected in water (Figure 2; Table S2 for descriptive statistics (i.e., median, minimum, and maximum concentrations)). It was present in all water samples, except at site 9, where it was detected in two out of three samples. No significant differences in PFOA concentrations were observed among the sampling sites (p = 0.315).
Some sampling sites showed high variability among parallel samples, reflecting heterogeneity in PFAS distribution in both water and sediment. All replicates were retained and no analytical errors were detected.
In sediment, PFOA was detected in only one of three samples from sites 4, 5, and 7, with average concentrations remaining below the LOQ. PFDoDA was also detected at site 2 (0.514 ng/g dw; N = 1) and in one of three samples from sites 7 and 9, though average concentrations at these sites were also <LOQ. Median, minimum, and maximum concentrations are provided in Table S3. The large amount of non-detects in sediment limits statistical interpretation but indicates generally low environmental PFAS burdens in sediments.

3.2. Accumulation in Plants

Although plants were collected from different sampling sites, the descriptive statistics are listed in Table S7 irrespective of the sampling site. PFBA, PFPeA, PFOA, PFDoDA, PFBS, PFOS, 4:2 FTS, and 6:2 FTS were each detected in at least one plant sample, with PFBS showing the highest concentrations (Figure 3A). While detection frequencies—and consequently PFAS accumulation profiles (Figure 3B)—varied notably between plant species, Kruskal–Wallis tests (and ANOVA for PFBS) indicated only a significantly higher PFPeA concentration in T. domingensis compared to the other plant species (p = 0.009).
Table S8 differentiates between the Rusizi delta wetland (sites C–E; Figure 1) and the Bujumbura region (sites A and B; Figure 1). A descriptive comparison of mean concentrations indicates slightly higher concentrations of PFPeA in T. domingensis, PFBS in P. mauritianus and T. domingensis, and 4:2 FTS concentrations in P. mauritianus and V. cuspidata from the Bujumbura region. However, higher PFBS concentrations in V. cuspidata, higher PFOS concentrations in P. mauritianus, and higher 4:2 FTS concentrations in T. domingensis were observed in the wetland.

3.3. Accumulation in Fish

Compared to plants, a greater variety of PFAS was detected in fish tissues, with 12 compounds found in muscle and 14 in liver (Figure 4; Table S9 lists descriptive statistics). PFNA and PFTrDA were detected exclusively in liver. PFHpA concentrations were significantly higher in the livers of O. niloticus than in other species (p < 0.05; Figure 4C). The livers of O. niloticus also contained higher NaDONA concentrations than those of P. aethiopicus (p = 0.031; Figure 4C), with a similar trend relative to A. occidentalis (p = 0.080; Figure 4C). Finally, a trend was also observed for PFOS, with higher concentrations in the livers of P. aethiopicus compared to A. occidentalis (p = 0.096; Figure 4C). No other interspecific differences were significant.
For tissue-specific comparisons, the only significant differences were higher PFHpA concentrations in the liver than in the muscle of O. niloticus (p = 0.044), and higher PFOS concentrations in the liver than in the muscle of P. aethiopicus (p = 0.012). No other significant differences between liver and muscle were observed. PFAS concentrations were not correlated between muscle and liver (p > 0.05; Table S10). The length and weight (Table S11) of the fish were negatively correlated (p < 0.05; Table S12) with concentrations of PFHxA, and 6:2 FTS in the liver, as well as PFOS and NaDONA in the muscle.
The composition profiles for muscle (Figure 4B) and liver (Figure 4D) were consistently dominated by PFBS across all species. Although minor interspecific differences were observed, the overall profiles were highly similar both among species and between the two tissue types.

3.4. Human Health Risks Associated with Consumption of PFAS-Contaminated Fish

Maximum edible amounts (MEA) of fish muscle tissue were calculated for three fish species from Lake Tanganyika, considering both the average and maximum PFAS concentration to account for typical and worst-case exposure scenarios. The MEA was assessed using two approaches: (1) the EFSA TWI for four PFAS (i.e., PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFOS), and (2) an RPF method to express most PFAS as PEQ.
Results (Figure 5) indicate that particularly young children are at risk through fish consumption. Risk patterns differed substantially between the EFSA- and PEQ-based approaches. Under the EFSA-based approaches, exceedances of health-based guidance values occurred primarily at low body weights and was therefore most relevant for children, largely independent of the assumed weekly fish consumption rate. Using the upper-bound consumption scenario of 120 g/week, risks are expected for individuals weighing approximately 20 kg or less based on average PFAS concentrations, and for individuals weighing 39 kg or less based on maximum PFAS concentrations (Figure 5).
In contrast, the PEQ-based approaches showed substantially more risks for heavier individuals. Under both average and worst-case PEQ scenarios, risks were expected for all individuals across the evaluated body weight range (0–100 kg) when applying the national average or upper-bound consumption scenarios. One exception was observed for A. occidentalis under the PEQ average scenario, for which a risk was only expected for individuals weighing 63 kg or less. Even under lower-bound approaches, PEQ-based results indicated several risks (Figure 5).
Among the species, the lowest MEA values were observed for O. niloticus and the highest for A. occidentalis. The reduced MEA based on the PEQ approach is primarily driven by 6:2 FTS, PFDA, and PFDoDA (Figure S2), which are all not included in the EFSA TWI, highlighting additional risk contributions from these compounds. Additionally, the worst-case scenario is substantially influenced by some PFAS that have relatively high LOQ values compared to others (e.g., PFHxS in the EFSA method, and 8:2 FTS in the PEQ method).

4. Discussion

4.1. PFAS Detection and Concentrations in the Abiotic Environment

In water samples, only PFOA was detected, showing a relatively uniform distribution across the study area. This pattern suggests the absence of distinct point sources and indicates more diffuse sources of PFOA. Potential contributors include the atmospheric transport and deposition, as well as the degradation of PFOA and its precursors [65,66]. Furthermore, the lack of significant differences among sites indicates that the presence of a wetland between sites 1 and 5 does not appear to influence PFOA concentrations compared with a similar riverine transect between sites 3 and 4. This suggests limited localized retention or removal of PFOA in the studied hydrological contexts. However, given the snapshot sampling design and high proportion of non-detects, any conclusions regarding wetland filtering capacity remain uncertain and require further investigation. Although wetlands have the potential to mitigate PFOA concentrations through increased sorption to sediment and bioaccumulation in wetland plants [55,67,68,69], their efficiency depends on specific environmental conditions and wetland characteristics [55,67,68]. It is, however, important to note that PFOA has one of the lowest LOQs among PFAS in water, meaning that its detection could in part reflect analytical sensitivity.
The PFOA concentrations detected in the Rusizi River system surface waters (average range 2.15–4.16 ng/L) fall within the lower range of values reported across Africa. For example, PFOA concentrations reached up to 11.7 ng/L in Lake Victoria [27] and spanned between 1.78 ng/L and 321 ng/L in Ghanaian rivers [23]. In South Africa, reported values include 12.8–62.6 ng/L in the Plankenburg River [33], 0.6–4.6 ng/L in the Vaal River [35], 1.7–314 ng/L in the Diep River [36], 0.7–390 ng/L in the Salt River [36], and 3.4–146 ng/L in the Eerste River [36]. Estuarine sites in South Africa contained higher levels of PFOA, including 416–1089 ng/L in the uMvoti estuary and 142–310 ng/L in the aMatikulu estuary [34]. Globally, surface water PFOA concentrations vary by several orders of magnitude depending on local sources of contamination. For instance, a large-scale study across the northern hemisphere reported PFOA concentrations ranging from 0.15 to 52.8 ng/L in aquatic ecosystems of China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Sweden [70]. These comparisons indicate that PFOA concentrations in the Rusizi River system are relatively low and do not suggest the influence of a major point source.
Our initial hypothesis that long-chain PFAS would dominate sediments was only partially supported. Although some long-chain PFAS (e.g., PFOA and PFDoDA) were detected, most sediment samples showed a predominance of non-detects, which were distributed relatively uniformly across the study area and did not correspond to specific sampling locations. While long-chain PFAS are known to preferentially sorb to organic matter and fine mineral fractions, the consistently low clay content and variable, often low, organic carbon contents across all sampling sites likely limit the formation of organo-mineral complexes that typically retain long-chain PFAS [71,72,73,74] Consequently, both electrostatic interactions with mineral surfaces and hydrophobic interactions with organo-mineral complexes are restricted, leading to lower PFAS sorption to sediments [72,73,74]. The low adsorption potential may favor PFAS partitioning to the water column, where concentrations may be reduced by dilution or transport, which could, together with the analytical sensitivity in water, explain why they were not detected in water. This might explain why PFDoDA, a hydrophobic PFAS that strongly partitions to organic carbon and mineral surfaces and has a much higher LOQ in water than in sediment (Table S5), was only detected in a few sediment samples while remaining <LOQ in water.
Additionally, low adsorption to sediments could also promote leaching to deeper sediment layers. However, as our study relied on snapshot sampling of both water and sediment, we cannot draw conclusions about temporal fluxes or partitioning. Future work should include temporal sampling, sediment core sampling to assess vertical distribution of PFAS, and more detailed characterization of organic carbon composition and mineralogy to better understand PFAS retention mechanisms.

4.2. PFAS Accumulation in Macrophytes

A range of PFAS were detected in all macrophyte species, with PFBS reaching the highest concentrations. The dominance of short-chain PFAS such as PFBS, PFBA, and PFPeA is consistent with their higher solubility and mobility, which facilitates their passage through root cell walls and membranes into the xylem via water transpiration [75]. In contrast, long-chain PFAS are more strongly adsorbed to sediments, restricting their movement mainly to the root rhizosphere. This enhanced sorption to sediments generally reduces their bioavailability to plants [76]. However, as discussed in Section 4.1, sediment concentrations were low and the sediment properties were not favorable for PFAS sorption, suggesting that even long-chain PFAS may remain bioavailable to plants in the study area.
The overall absence of species-specific differences suggests that PFAS uptake is driven primarily by PFAS properties and environmental availability rather than plant traits. Nonetheless, minor differences in morphology or physiology (e.g., protein and lipid content) may still influence the compositional profiles [75]. Regional comparison between the Bujumbura region and the Rusizi delta wetland showed minor, but inconsistent, differences between regions. Although they may reflect distinct contamination sources, with urban inputs affecting the plants at Bujumbura, the limited sample sizes precluded robust statistical analysis, and the results should therefore be interpreted with caution.
Literature on PFAS bioaccumulation in macrophytes in Africa is scarce and shows considerable variation depending on region and sources. In South Africa, PFOA concentrations in riparian wetland plants ranged from 11.7 to 38 ng/g dw [37]. In Uganda’s Nakivubo wetland, sum PFAS (26 analytes) concentrations were reported at 0.36 ng/g dw in yam root, 0.35 ng/g dw in sugarcane stem, and 0.20 ng/g dw in maize cobs [32]. Similar to surface waters, PFAS concentrations in macrophytes from the present study (on average <LOQ—3.50 ng/g dw) are relatively low compared to those in the northern hemisphere, where much higher concentrations have been documented, especially near hotspots. For instance, macrophytes collected around a contaminated site in Belgium contained PFAS ranging from 0.133 ng/g dw to 3411 ng/g dw depending on the plant species and type of PFAS [77].
Overall, the consistent detection of PFAS across species and sites, even where environmental concentrations were relatively low, demonstrates the use of macrophytes as biomonitors. Macrophytes provide insights into cumulative contamination that may not be apparent from snapshot environmental monitoring. Although hypothetical and requiring further investigation, wetlands may act as natural filters that reduce PFAS concentrations in surface water and pore water, thereby lowering bioavailability and uptake by fish in Lake Tanganyika and ultimately reducing potential human health risks through fish consumption.

4.3. PFAS Accumulation in Fish

The greatest diversity of PFAS was found in fish, followed by plants and then the environmental samples, confirming the role of fish as important bioaccumulators of PFAS within aquatic food webs. This pattern shows that fish integrate exposure from multiple sources and can store both legacy and emerging PFAS in their tissues. Within fish, the liver contained a greater diversity of PFAS than muscle, possibly due to its role in xenobiotic metabolism and storage. Multiple studies reported that liver is one of the primary tissues for PFAS accumulation [35,78,79,80,81]. PFAS, particularly long-chain compounds, are proteinophilic and show a higher affinity to liver fatty acid-binding proteins and albumin [82], which may explain their greater diversity in the liver. Nonetheless, this apparent preference was not reflected in the concentrations and compositional profiles, as only few significant tissue-specific differences were observed, and liver and muscle concentrations were often uncorrelated. This suggests a relatively uniform PFAS distribution between liver and muscle, which may reflect homogeneity in environmental exposure.
In contrast to our initial hypothesis that long-chain PFAS would dominate compositional profiles in fish, PFBS was the dominant PFAS in both fish tissues. Although long-chain PFAS generally dominate fish PFAS profiles [35,40,77,83], short-chain PFAS such as PFBS can become dominant under chronic exposure conditions when uptake rates exceed elimination rates [84].
Bioaccumulation data for PFBS are limited and highly variable, with bioaccumulation factors ranging up to 1736 L/kg for freshwater fish [85]. The increasing detection of short-chain PFAS, such as PFBS, is consistent with the global shift from legacy long-chain PFAS toward short-chain alternatives. The dominance of PFBS in the present study may therefore be the result of both its more recent use and its high environmental mobility, suggesting continuous environmental input and exposure. Although short-chain PFAS are generally considered less bioaccumulative [79,86], the persistence, mobility, and high detection frequency of PFBS highlight the potential for chronic risks to aquatic ecosystems and human consumers of fish, underscoring the importance of including short-chain PFAS in risk assessments.
Species-specific differences in PFAS concentrations were limited, with broadly similar compositional profiles observed across species. The minor differences observed may be related to interspecific differences in feeding ecology, habitat use, or physiology. Due to trophic transfer, carnivorous species typically exhibit higher PFAS concentrations than omnivores [87]. Contrary to expectations, our results indicated higher concentrations of NaDONA and PFHpA in O. niloticus, which is, like A. occidentalis, an omnivorous species, whereas P. aethiopicus is carnivorous. However, O. niloticus is known for its dietary plasticity, and a more carnivorous diet has been reported in juveniles [47,88]. Although speculative, it could be possible that the specimen used in the present study also exhibited a carnivorous diet. In terms of habitat use, O. niloticus is primarily pelagic, whereas the other species are more benthic. Regardless of the trophic position, benthic species typically exhibit higher PFAS concentrations due to sediment exposure [89,90,91], although lower levels have also been reported [92]. Differences between benthic and pelagic species in the present study may be related to water-sediment partitioning and the low detection of PFAS in sediments in the Rusizi River system may help explain why PFAS concentrations were typically lower in the benthic species. Nonetheless, the broadly similar PFAS profiles across species suggest that local exposure conditions are the dominant drivers of bioaccumulation in the Rusizi River system.
Finally, negative correlations between some PFAS concentrations and fish length or weight were observed, suggesting possible growth dilution effects or differences in life history traits (e.g., age or sex). Larger individuals may have reduced concentrations due to growth dilution [93], or alternatively, they may occupy ecological niches with lower PFAS exposure. For example, as was mentioned previously, the diet of O. niloticus may shift during maturation from carnivorous to omnivorous [47,88], which may affect their exposure and thus accumulation. Furthermore, size- or age-related differences in metabolism are known to occur in fish [94,95], which may also help explain the observed correlations. The observed size-related patterns may complicate biomonitoring approaches and exposure assessments. Additionally, these findings imply that smaller fish could pose higher health risks per unit weight consumed if they carry relatively higher PFAS burdens.
PFAS occurrence in fish across the African continent generally ranges from low to moderate levels, although concentrations are highly variable depending on the type of PFAS, fish species, and country [20]. Regardless of the fish species, tissue, and type of PFAS, the concentrations observed in the present study are overall comparable to those of other African countries such as Tanzania [38], Ethiopia [39,40], Tunisia [96], Zambia [97], and Uganda [98]. Compared to fish from South Africa, however, concentrations in the present study are often lower [22,26,29,34,35]. On a global scale, concentrations are also highly variable depending on the region and fish species. For example, PFAS concentrations in the present study were comparable to those reported in Tampa Bay, USA [99], and muscle concentrations were similar to those reported in fish from Taihu Lake, China [100]. Liver concentrations, on the other hand, were lower than those reported in Taihu Lake [100], and concentrations of both muscle and liver were lower than those observed in fish from the Jiulong River, China [101]. These findings show that meaningful cross-country comparisons are challenging due to differences in fish species, trophic levels, tissues analyzed, and local emission sources that strongly influence reported concentrations. Despite this variability, our findings contribute important baseline data from Burundi, filling a critical geographic gap and providing context for understanding PFAS contamination in freshwater ecosystems at regional and global scales.
Overall, our findings illustrate that fish are key accumulators of multiple PFAS, with PFBS emerging as a dominant compound of concern. The detection of emerging PFAS such as NaDONA highlights the need to include both legacy and emerging PFAS in monitoring and risk assessment frameworks, particularly given their differences in bioaccumulation and toxicity.

4.4. Human Health Risks

When applying the EFSA TWI for the four PFAS, estimated risks were strongly dependent on body weight. Under this regulatory framework, risks are primarily expected at low body weight, indicating that children represent the most vulnerable group, while most adults remained below the risk thresholds even at high fish consumption rates. In contrast, exceedances were consistently observed across all body weights when concentrations were expressed in PEQ, both for average and maximum PFAS concentrations, suggesting a potential health risk under this alternative, exploratory approach. These effects on humans may include altered immune and thyroid function, kidney and liver disease, cancer, and developmental and reproductive effects [102].
These findings suggest that limiting health risk assessments to the four EFSA-regulated PFAS may underestimate total exposure, since other PFAS with relatively high potency, such as PFDA and PFDoDA, are not included in the current TWI value. However, the comparison between PEQ-based results and the EFSA TWI should be interpreted cautiously, because the RPF values are derived from rat studies focusing on hepatotoxicity [63], whereas the EFSA TWI value is based on immunological effects [60]. Since the relative potency of PFAS may differ depending on the endpoint considered, a comparison of PEQ values with the EFSA TWI is not entirely appropriate. Accordingly, the comparison between both approaches is best viewed as exploratory. This raises questions about the consistency of toxicity assessments across different health outcomes and highlights the need for further research to refine and expand the use of RPF values. In addition, our results emphasize the importance of broadening regulatory frameworks, such as TWI values, to include a wider range of PFAS.

5. Conclusions

This study provides the first comprehensive investigation of PFAS occurrence and distribution in a river-lake system in Burundi, covering both environmental and biological compartments in the Rusizi delta. By establishing baseline data, it provides novel insights from an underrepresented region of Africa and contributes to a broader global understanding of PFAS fate and behavior in tropical freshwater ecosystems. Collectively, our findings highlight the value of biomonitoring compared to environmental monitoring, which detected fewer PFAS. Future research should incorporate longitudinal sampling to capture temporal variability in PFAS transport and fate under changing hydrological conditions (e.g., due to rainfalls or extreme weather events). Moreover, the potential filtering role of wetlands, which could mitigate PFAS exposure to higher trophic levels and reduce human health risks, warrants further investigation. Overall, our study highlights the need and relevance of biomonitoring and ecological research on PFAS in tropical freshwater ecosystems, where data remain scarce but the potential risks to ecosystems and human health can be substantial.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics14020123/s1, Table S1: Overview of the sample locations and coordinates; Table S2: Physicochemical properties of the water and PFOA concentrations (ng/L) at each of the sampling sites. PFOA concentrations represent median values and ranges (min–max; between brackets; N = 3 per site). No other PFAS were detected in the water. Table S3: Average ± standard deviation of the physicochemical properties of the sediment (i.e., moisture content (%), organic carbon content (Corg; mg/g), and granulometry (contents of clay, silt and sand (%)), and median, minimum, and maximum PFOA and PFDoDA concentrations (ng/g dw) at each of the sampling sites (N = 3 per site, except for site 2 where N = 1). Minimum and maximum concentrations are shown between brackets. No other PFAS were detected in the sediment. No range is given when the detection frequency was 0%. Table S4: MRM transitions, internal standards (ISTDs), cone voltages (V), and collision energy (eV) for the target perfluoroalkyl substances. Table adapted from (Groffen et al. [57,59]). Blank cells indicate that no second diagnostic product ion was used (and thus no collision energy and cone voltage could be reported). Table S5: Limits of quantification (LOQ) per PFAS analyte and per matrix. LOQs were determined in matrix as the concentration corresponding to a S/N-ratio of 10. Table S6: Frequency of detection (%) of targeted PFAS in water, sediment, and biota. For water and sediment, no distinction was made between locations as site-specific detection relative to the LOQ is presented in Figure 2. Only PFAS detected in at least one matrix are included and compounds not detected in any sample are omitted. N = 5 per species for the plants and fish. N = 27 for water and N = 25 for sediment. Table S7: Mean, median, minimum, and maximum concentrations of PFAS (ng/g dw) that were detected in at least one plant sample (N = 5 per species). No range is shown if the analyte was not detected in any of the replicates. No other PFAS were detected in the plant samples. Table S8: Mean concentrations of PFAS (ng/g dw) in plants collected at the Bujumbura region (sites A and B; Figure 1) and the Rusizi delta wetland (sites C–E; Figure 1). N = 2 per species for Bujumbura, N = 3 per species for the Rusizi delta wetland. PFBA, PFOA, PFDoDA, and 6:2 FTS were omitted as mean concentrations were always <LOQ. Table S9: Mean, median, minimum, and maximum concentrations of PFAS (ng/g ww) that were detected in at least one fish sample (N = 5 per species). No range is shown if the analyte was not detected in any of the replicates. No other PFAS were detected in the fish samples. Table S10: p- and rho-values (between brackets) of the correlations between PFAS concentrations in liver and muscle of the three fish species (N = 15 per correlation). Only PFAS that were detected in at least 30% of both fish tissues were included in the analysis (i.e., PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFTrDA, PFTeDA, and PFPeS were omitted). Table S11: Average ± st. dev. weight (g) and length (cm) of the fish. N = 5 per species. Table S12: p- and rho-values (between brackets) of the correlations between PFAS concentrations in liver or muscle and the length and weight of the fish (N = 15 per correlation). Significant correlations are displayed in bold. Only PFAS that were detected in at least 30% of liver or muscle were included in the analyses. Figure S1: Side-by-side comparison of PFAS compositional profiles in macrophytes obtained using two different substitution treatments (substitution by zero vs. MLE substitution), with PFAS that were not detected in any of the samples omitted in both cases. The figures show strong similarity and support the robustness of the zero-substitution approach for compositional profiles. Figure S2: Contribution of individual PFAS to maximum edible amounts (MEA) for each fish species, shown for both average and maximum (worst-case scenario; WCS) concentrations and calculated using the EFSA TWI (PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, PFNA) or the RPF approach (expressed as PFOA equivalents; PEQ). Values below the LOQ were either imputed following a maximum likelihood estimation method (Villanueva [64]) (average scenario) or by the LOQ itself (WCS). LOQ values are listed in Table S5.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.G. and J.S.; Methodology, T.G.; Investigation, G.L., S.B., L.N. (Léopold Nduwimana), L.N. (Lambert Niyoyitungiye) and J.S.; Formal analysis: T.G.; Writing—original draft preparation: T.G., G.L. and J.S.; Writing—review and editing: J.N., S.B., L.N. (Léopold Nduwimana) and L.N. (Lambert Niyoyitungiye); Visualization: T.G. and G.L.; Funding acquisition: T.G., J.N. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by VLIR-UOS through the Short Initiative RUBICOM—Biodiversity and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Rusizi Plain (awarded to J.S. and J.N.), and by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) through the Scientific Research Network Zoogeochemistry, Alchemists of the Wild (project no. W001522N, awarded to J.S.). TG is a senior postdoctoral researcher funded by FWO (grant no. 1205724N), and G.L. is a PhD fellow supported by FWO (grant no. 1109925N).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The fish samples used in this study were obtained by local fishermen who caught them for sale at the local fish markets. No animals were captured, handled, or sacrificed specifically for research purposes. All samples originated from routine commercial fishing intended for human consumption. Therefore, no experimental procedures involving live animals were conducted, and no institutional ethical approval was required.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the staff of the Burundian Office for the Environment Protection of (OBPE) for providing the investigators transportation by boat on the Rusizi River and Lake Tanganyika during the sampling period. We thank Tim Willems for the UPLC-MS/MS analyses, Lauren van Nimmen for the grainsize analyses, and Anne Cools, Anke De Boeck, and Steven Joosen for the physicochemical analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Financial support was provided by Research Foundation Flanders to T.G., G.L. and J.S., as well as by the VLIR-UOS to J.S. and J.N. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Naidu, R.; Biswas, B.; Willett, I.R.; Cribb, J.; Kumar Singh, B.; Paula Nathanail, C.; Coulon, F.; Semple, K.T.; Jones, K.C.; Barclay, A.; et al. Chemical pollution: A growing peril and potential catastrophic risk to humanity. Environ. Int. 2021, 156, 106616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wang, Z.; Buser, A.M.; Cousins, I.T.; Demattio, S.; Drost, W.; Johansson, O.; Ohno, K.; Patlewicz, G.; Richard, A.M.; Walker, G.W.; et al. A New OECD Definition for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 55, 15575–15578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Glüge, J.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I.T.; DeWitt, J.C.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C.A.; Trier, X.; Wang, Z. An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2345–2373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ackerman Grunfeld, D.; Gilbert, D.; Hou, J.; Jones, A.M.; Lee, M.J.; Kibbey, T.C.G.; O’Carroll, D.M. Underestimated burden of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in global surface waters and groundwaters. Nat. Geosci. 2024, 17, 340–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brunn, H.; Arnold, G.; Körner, W.; Rippen, G.; Steinhäuser, K.G.; Valentin, I. PFAS: Forever chemicals—Persistent, bioaccumulative and mobile. Reviewing the status and the need for their phase out and remediation of contaminated sites. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cousins, I.T.; DeWitt, J.C.; Glüge, J.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C.A.; Scheringer, M.; Wang, Z. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22, 2307–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cheng, H.; Lv, C.; Li, J.; Wu, D.; Zhan, X.; Song, Y.; Zhao, N.; Jin, H. Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of emerging poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in marine organisms. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Savoca, D.; Pace, A. Bioaccumulation, Biodistribution, Toxicology and Biomonitoring of Organofluorine Compounds in Aquatic Organisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, C.; Magnuson, J.T.; Zheng, C.; Qiu, W. Incidence of pollution, bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and toxic effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aquatic ecosystems: A review. Aquat. Toxicol. 2025, 286, 107469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ahrens, L.; Bundschuh, M. Fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33, 1921–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahrens, L. Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic environment: A review of their occurrence and fate. J. Environ. Monit. 2011, 13, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ohoro, C.R.; Amaku, J.F.; Conradie, J.; Olisah, C.; Akpomie, K.G.; Malloum, A.; Akpotu, S.O.; Adegoke, K.A.; Okeke, E.S.; Omotola, E.O. Effect of physicochemical parameters on the occurrence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in aquatic environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2024, 208, 117040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ankley, G.T.; Cureton, P.; Hoke, R.A.; Houde, M.; Kumar, A.; Kurias, J.; Lanno, R.; McCarthy, C.; Newsted, J.; Salice, C.J.; et al. Assessing the Ecological Risks of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Current State-of-the Science and a Proposed Path Forward. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 40, 564–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kasambala, H.R.; Rwiza, M.J.; Mpumi, N.; Mwema, M.F.; Machunda, R.; Mtei, K.; Njau, K.N. A comprehensive review on the distribution of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances in the environment across Sub-Saharan Africa revealed significant variation in their concentrations. Environ. Chall. 2024, 16, 100975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Langan, C.; Farmer, J.; Rivington, M.; Smith, J.U. Tropical wetland ecosystem service assessments in East Africa; A review of approaches and challenges. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 102, 260–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pettinotti, L.; De Ayala, A.; Ojea, E. Benefits from Water Related Ecosystem Services in Africa and Climate Change. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 149, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Byekwaso, F.; Weigelhofer, G.; Kaggwa, R.; Kansiime, F.; Langergraber, G.; Hein, T. Tropical Wetlands as Nature-Based Solutions to Remove Nutrient and Organic Inputs from Stormwater Discharge and Wastewater Effluent in Urban Environments. Water 2025, 17, 1821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sileshi, A.; Awoke, A.; Beyene, A.; Stiers, I.; Triest, L. Water Purifying Capacity of Natural Riverine Wetlands in Relation to Their Ecological Quality. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Groffen, T.; Nkuba, B.; Wepener, V.; Bervoets, L. Risks posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on the African continent, emphasizing aquatic ecosystems. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2021, 17, 726–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Miiro, A.; Odume, O.N.; Nyakairu, G.W.; Odongo, S.; Matovu, H.; Drago Kato, C.; Špánik, I.; Sillanpaä, M.; Mubiru, E.; Ssebugere, P. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances in aquatic ecosystems and wastewater treatment works in Africa: Occurrence, ecological implications, and future perspectives. Chemosphere 2024, 367, 143590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arinaitwe, K.; Keltsch, N.; Taabu-Munyaho, A.; Reemtsma, T.; Berger, U. Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria: Spatial distribution, catchment release and public exposure risk via municipal water consumption. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bangma, J.T.; Reiner, J.L.; Botha, H.; Cantu, T.M.; Gouws, M.A.; Guillette, M.P.; Koelmel, J.P.; Luus-Powell, W.J.; Myburgh, J.; Rynders, O.; et al. Tissue distribution of perfluoroalkyl acids and health status in wild Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) from Loskop Dam, Mpumalanga, South Africa. J. Environ. Sci. 2017, 61, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Essumang, D.K.; Eshun, A.; Hogarh, J.N.; Bentum, J.K.; Adjei, J.K.; Negishi, J.; Nakamichi, S.; Habibullah-Al-Mamun, M.; Masunaga, S. Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in the Pra and Kakum River basins and associated tap water in Ghana. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kaboré, H.A.; Vo Duy, S.; Munoz, G.; Méité, L.; Desrosiers, M.; Liu, J.; Sory, T.K.; Sauvé, S. Worldwide drinking water occurrence and levels of newly-identified perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 1089–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mwakalapa, E.B.; Mmochi, A.J.; Müller, M.H.B.; Mdegela, R.H.; Lyche, J.L.; Polder, A. Occurrence and levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in farmed and wild marine fish from Tanzania. A pilot study. Chemosphere 2018, 191, 438–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ojemaye, C.Y.; Petrik, L. Occurrences, levels and risk assessment studies of emerging pollutants (pharmaceuticals, perfluoroalkyl and endocrine disrupting compounds) in fish samples from Kalk Bay harbour, South Africa. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 252, 562–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Orata, F.; Quinete, N.; Werres, F.; Wilken, R.D. Determination of Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Lake Victoria Gulf Water. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2009, 82, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shafique, U.; Schulze, S.; Slawik, C.; Böhme, A.; Paschke, A.; Schüürmann, G. Perfluoroalkyl acids in aqueous samples from Germany and Kenya. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 11031–11043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Verhaert, V.; Newmark, N.; D’Hollander, W.; Covaci, A.; Vlok, W.; Wepener, V.; Addo-Bediako, A.; Jooste, A.; Teuchies, J.; Blust, R.; et al. Persistent organic pollutants in the Olifants River Basin, South Africa: Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer through a subtropical aquatic food web. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 792–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ololade, I.A. Spatial distribution of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in major rivers in southwest Nigeria. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 2014, 96, 1356–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ololade, I.A.; Oladoja, N.A.; Ololade, O.O.; Oloye, F.F.; Adeola, A.O.; Alabi, A.B.; Ademila, O.; Adanigbo, P.; Owolabi, M.B. Geographical distribution of perfluorooctanesulfonate and perfluorooctanoate in selected rivers from Nigeria. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 4061–4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dalahmeh, S.; Tirgani, S.; Komakech, A.J.; Niwagaba, C.B.; Ahrens, L. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water, soil and plants in wetlands and agricultural areas in Kampala, Uganda. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631–632, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Fagbayigbo, B.O.; Opeolu, B.O.; Fatoki, O.S.; Olatunji, O.S. Validation and determination of nine PFCS in surface water and sediment samples using UPLC-QTOF-MS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fauconier, G.; Groffen, T.; Wepener, V.; Bervoets, L. Perfluorinated compounds in the aquatic food chains of two subtropical estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 719, 135047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Groffen, T.; Wepener, V.; Malherbe, W.; Bervoets, L. Distribution of perfluorinated compounds (PFASs) in the aquatic environment of the industrially polluted Vaal River, South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1334–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mudumbi, J.B.N.; Ntwampe, S.K.O.; Muganza, F.M.; Okonkwo, J.O. Perfluorooctanoate and perfluorooctane sulfonate in South African river water. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mudumbi, J.B.N.; Ntwampe, S.K.O.; Muganza, M.; Okonkwo, J.O. Susceptibility of Riparian Wetland Plants to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Accumulation. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2014, 16, 926–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Groffen, T.; Rijnders, J.; Van Doorn, L.; Jorissen, C.; De Borger, S.M.; Luttikhuis, D.O.; De Deyn, L.; Covaci, A.; Bervoets, L. Preliminary study on the distribution of metals and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including perfluoroalkylated acids (PFAS), in the aquatic environment near Morogoro, Tanzania, and the potential health risks for humans. Environ. Res. 2021, 192, 110299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ahrens, L.; Gashaw, H.; Sjöholm, M.; Gebrehiwot, S.G.; Getahun, A.; Derbe, E.; Bishop, K.; Åkerblom, S. Poly- and perfluoroalkylated substances (PFASs) in water, sediment and fish muscle tissue from Lake Tana, Ethiopia and implications for human exposure. Chemosphere 2016, 165, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Melake, B.A.; Bervoets, L.; Nkuba, B.; Groffen, T. Distribution of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water, sediment, and fish tissue, and the potential human health risks due to fish consumption in Lake Hawassa, Ethiopia. Environ. Res. 2022, 204, 112033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mpawenayo, B. La flore diatomique des rivières de la plaine de la Rusizi au Burundi. Bull. Société R. Bot. Belg. 1985, 118, 141–156. [Google Scholar]
  42. Naidoo, G. Waterlogging tolerance of the common reeds Phragmites mauritianus and P. australis. Afr. J. Ecol. 2021, 59, 1004–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eid, E.M.; Shaltout, K.H.; Asaeda, T. Modeling growth dynamics of Typha domingensis (Pers.) Poir. Ex Steud. in Lake Burullus, Egypt. Ecol. Model. 2012, 243, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Farahat, E.A.; Mahmoud, W.F.; Fahmy, G.M.; Farrag, H.F.; Awad, H.E. Impact of the invasive species Vossia cuspidata (Roxb.) Griff. on the diversity and temporal changes of the native flora of the River Nile in Egypt. Taeckholmia 2021, 41, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ndayishimiye, J.; Mutabazi, A.; Jacobs, S.; Schoelynck, J. Plants Aquatiques de la Lagune du Parc National de la Rusizi, Burundi–Aquatic Plants of the Lagoon in Rusizi National Park, Burundi; Universitas: Schoten, Belgium, 2025; 85p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mlewa, C.M.; Green, J.M. Biology of the marbled lungfish, Protopterus aethiopicus Heckel, in Lake Baringo, Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 2004, 42, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tesfahun, A.; Alebachew, S. Food and feeding habits of the Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) from Ribb reservoir, Lake Tana sub-basin, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2023, 9, 2212457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abobi, S.M.; Oyiadzo, J.W.; Wolff, M. Comparing feeding niche, growth characteristics and exploitation level of the giraffe catfish Auchenoglanis occidentalis (Valenciennes, 1775) in the two largest artificial lakes of northern Ghana. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 44, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lin, Y.; Ruan, T.; Liu, A.; Jiang, G. Identification of novel hydrogen-substituted polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonates in environmental matrices near metal-plating facilities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 11588–11596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nakayama, S.F.; Strynar, M.J.; Reiner, J.L.; Delinsky, A.D.; Lindstrom, A.B. Determination of perfluorinated compounds in the upper Mississippi river basin. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 4103–4109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Strynar, M.; Dagnino, S.; McMahen, R.; Liang, S.; Lindstrom, A.; Andersen, E.; McMillan, L.; Thurman, M.; Ferrer, I.; Ball, C. Identification of novel perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs) and sulfonic acids (PFESAs) in natural waters using accurate mass time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11622–11630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Van Broekhoven, W.; Jansen, H.; Verdegem, M.; Struyf, E.; Troost, K.; Lindeboom, H.; Smaal, A. Nutrient regeneration from feces and pseudofeces of mussel Mytilus edulis spat. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2015, 534, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schoelynck, J.; Subalusky, A.L.; Struyf, E.; Dutton, C.L.; Unzué-Belmonte, D.; Van De Vijver, B.; Post, D.M.; Rosi, E.J.; Meire, P.; Frings, P. Hippos (Hippopotamus amphibius): The animal silicon pump. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaav0395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. DeMaster, D.J. The supply and accumulation of silica in the marine environment. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1981, 45, 1715–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Groffen, T.; Schoutens, K.; Zamora, J.D.; Gourgue, O.; Bervoets, L.; Temmerman, S. Spatial distribution of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in natural and restored intertidal wetlands in the Scheldt estuary. J. Hazard. Mater. 2025, 496, 139247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Heiri, O.; Lotter, A.F.; Lemcke, G. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: Reproducibility and comparability of results. J. Paleolimnol. 2001, 25, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Groffen, T.; Lasters, R.; Lemière, F.; Willems, T.; Eens, M.; Bervoets, L.; Prinsen, E. Development and validation of an extraction method for the analysis of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in environmental and biotic matrices. J. Chromatogr. B 2019, 1116, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Powley, C.R.; George, S.W.; Ryan, T.W.; Buck, R.C. Matrix Effect-Free Analytical Methods for Determination of Perfluorinated Carboxylic Acids in Environmental Matrixes. Anal. Chem. 2005, 77, 6353–6358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Groffen, T.; Bervoets, L.; Jeong, Y.; Willems, T.; Eens, M.; Prinsen, E. A rapid method for the detection and quantification of legacy and emerging per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in bird feathers using UPLC-MS/MS. J. Chromatogr. B 2021, 1172, 122653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (EFSA CONTAM Panel); Schrenk, D.; Bignami, M.; Bodin, L.; Chipman, J.K.; del Mazo, J.; Grasl-Kraupp, B.; Hogstrand, C.; Hoogenboom, L.; LeBlanc, J.; et al. Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Breuil, C.; Grima, D. Baseline Report Burundi. In SmartFish Programme of the Indian Ocean Commission; Fisheries Management FAO Component: Ebene, Mauritius, 2014; p. 24. [Google Scholar]
  62. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profile-Burundi. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/facp/bdi (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  63. Bil, W.; Zeilmaker, M.; Fragki, S.; Lijzen, J.; Verbruggen, E.; Bokkers, B. Risk Assessment of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Mixtures: A Relative Potency Factor Approach. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 40, 859–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Villanueva, P. MLE-Based Procedure for Left-Censored Data Excel Spreadsheet; Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  65. Armitage, J.M.; MacLeod, M.; Cousins, I.T. Modeling the Global Fate and Transport of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFO) Emitted from Direct Sources Using a Multispecies Mass Balance Model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Owens, C.V. Review of Source and Transportation Pathways of Perfluorinated Compounds Through the Air. J. Environ. Health 2021, 83, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Chen, Y.-C.; Lo, S.-L.; Li, N.-H.; Lee, Y.-C.; Kuo, J. Sorption of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) onto wetland soils. Desalination Water Treat. 2013, 51, 7469–7475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Overton, O.C.; Olson, L.H.; Majumder, S.D.; Shwiyyat, H.; Foltz, M.E.; Nairn, R.W. Wetland Removal Mechanisms for Emerging Contaminants. Land 2023, 12, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, T.-T.; Ying, G.-G.; Shi, W.-J.; Zhao, J.-L.; Liu, Y.-S.; Chen, J.; Ma, D.-D.; Xiong, Q. Uptake and Translocation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) by Wetland Plants: Tissue- and Cell-Level Distribution Visualization with Desorption Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (DESI-MS) and Transmission Electron Microscopy Equipped with Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy (TEM-EDS). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 6009–6020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pan, Y.; Zhang, H.; Cui, Q.; Sheng, N.; Yeung, L.W.Y.; Sun, Y.; Guo, Y.; Dai, J. Worldwide Distribution of Novel Perfluoroether Carboxylic and Sulfonic Acids in Surface Water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 7621–7629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, C.; Yu, Z.; Zeng, G.; Jiang, M.; Yang, Z.; Cui, F.; Zhu, M.; Shen, L.; Hu, L. Effects of sediment geochemical properties on heavy metal bioavailability. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, F.; Fang, X.; Zhou, Z.; Liao, X.; Zou, J.; Yuan, B.; Sun, W. Adsorption of perfluorinated acids onto soils: Kinetics, isotherms, and influences of soil properties. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 649, 504–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Li, Y.; Oliver, D.P.; Kookana, R.S. A critical analysis of published data to discern the role of soil and sediment properties in determining sorption of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 628–629, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, Y.; Munir, U.; Huang, Q. Occurrence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in soil: Sources, fate, and remediation. Soil Environ. Health 2023, 1, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Adu, O.; Ma, X.; Sharma, V.K. Bioavailability, phytotoxicity and plant uptake of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2023, 447, 130805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, W.; Rhodes, G.; Ge, J.; Yu, X.; Li, H. Uptake and accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in plants. Chemosphere 2020, 261, 127584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gkika, I.S.; Vonk, A.J.; Ter Laak, T.L.; Van Gestel, C.A.M.; Dijkstra, J.; Groffen, T.; Bervoets, L.; Kraak, M.H.S. Strong bioaccumulation of a wide variety of PFAS in a contaminated terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Environ. Int. 2025, 202, 109629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Falk, S.; Failing, K.; Georgii, S.; Brunn, H.; Stahl, T. Tissue specific uptake and elimination of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in adult rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after dietary exposure. Chemosphere 2015, 129, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Goeritz, I.; Falk, S.; Stahl, T.; Schäfers, C.; Schlechtriem, S. Biomagnification and tissue distribution of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in market-size rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 2078–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Khalid, N.K.; Le Calvez, M.; Lemire, M.; Dinh, Q.T.; Fontaine, J.; Lair, S.; Sauvé, S. Occurrence of 80 per and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in muscle and liver tissues of marine mammals of the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf, Quebec, Canada. Front. Environ. Chem. 2024, 5, 1403728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Soudani, M.; Hegg, L.; Rime, C.; Coquoz, C.; Grosjean, D.B.; Danza, F.; Solcà, N.; Lucarini, F.; Staedler, D. Determination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in six different fish species from Swiss lakes. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2024, 416, 6377–6386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ng, C.A.; Hungerbühler, K. Bioconcentration of Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids: How Important Is Specific Binding? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 7214–7223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Barbo, N.; Stoiber, T.; Naidenko, O.V.; Andrews, D.Q. Locally caught freshwater fish across the United States are likely a significant source of exposure to PFOS and other perfluorinated compounds. Environ. Res. 2023, 220, 115165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huang, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yi, J.; Lai, H.; Sun, L.; Mennigen, J.A.; Tu, W. Concentration-dependent toxicokinetics of novel PFOS alternatives and their chronic combined toxicity in adult zebrafish. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 839, 156388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Campo, J.; Pérez, F.; Masiá, A.; Picó, Y.; la Farré, M.; Barceló, D. Perfluoroalkyl substance contamination of the Llobregat River ecosystem (Mediterranean area, NE Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 503–504, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Brendel, S.; Fetter, É.; Staude, C.; Vierke, L.; Biegel-Engler, A. Short-chain perfluoroalkyl acids: Environmental concerns and a regulatory strategy under REACH. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Guckert, M.; Rupp, J.; Nürenberg, G.; Nödler, K.; Koschorreck, J.; Berger, U.; Drost, W.; Siebert, U.; Wibbelt, G.; Reemtsma, T. Differences in the internal PFAS patterns of herbivores, omnivores and carnivores-lessons learned from target screening and the total oxidizable precursor assay. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 875, 162361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wagaw, S.; Mengistou, S.; Getahun, A. Diet composition and feeding habits of Oreochromis niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) in Lake Shala, Ethiopia. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2022, 25, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gewurtz, S.B.; Bhavsar, S.P.; Petro, S.; Mahon, C.G.; Zhao, X.; Morse, D.; Reiner, E.J.; Tittlemier, S.A.; Braekevelt, E.; Drouillard, K. High levels of perfluoroalkyl acids in sport fish species downstream of a firefighting training facility at Hamilton International Airport, Ontario, Canada. Environ. Int. 2014, 67, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Martin, J.W.; Whittle, D.M.; Muir, D.C.G.; Mabury, S.A. Perfluoroalkyl Contaminants in a Food Web from Lake Ontario. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 5379–5385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yang, L.; Tian, S.; Zhu, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Y. Bioaccumulation and distribution of perfloroalkyl acids in seafood products from Bohai Bay, China. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2012, 31, 1972–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lanza, H.A.; Cochran, R.S.; Mudge, J.F.; Olson, A.D.; Blackwell, B.R.; Maul, J.D.; Salice, C.J.; Anderson, T.A. Temporal monitoring of perfluorooctane sulfonate accumulation in aquatic biota downstream of historical aqueous film forming foam use areas. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 36, 2022–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Miranda, D.A.; Zachritz, A.M.; Whitehead, H.D.; Cressman, S.R.; Peaslee, G.F.; Lamberti, G.A. Occurrence and biomagnification of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Lake Michigan fishes. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 895, 164903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Falk, S.; Gassmann, M.; Stahl, T. Influence of age on the concentrations of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAA) in the tissues of perch (Perca fluviatilis). Environ. Pollut. 2024, 359, 124512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Jones, J.; Hunter, E.; Hambach, B.; Wilding, M.; Trueman, C.N. Individual variation in field metabolic rates of wild living fish have phenotypic and ontogenetic underpinnings: Insights from stable isotope compositions of otoliths. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2023, 11, 1161105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Barhoumi, B.; Sander, S.G.; Driss, M.R.; Tolosa, I. Survey of legacy and emerging per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances in Mediterranean seafood from a North African ecosystem. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 292, 118398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Simukoko, C.K.; Mwakalapa, E.B.; Muzandu, K.; Mutoloki, S.; Eversen, Ø.; Ræder, E.M.; Müller, M.B.; Polder, A.; Lyche, J.L. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in liver from wild and farmed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) from Lake Kariba, Zambia: Levels and geographic trends and considerations in relation to environmental quality standards (EQSs). Environ. Res. 2023, 232, 116226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Arinaitwe, K.; Koch, A.; Taabu-Munyaho, A.; Marien, K.; Reemtsma, T.; Berger, U. Spatial profiles of perfluoroalkyl substances and mercury in fish from northern Lake Victoria, East Africa. Chemosphere 2020, 260, 127536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pulster, E.L.; Rullo, K.; Gilbert, S.; Ash, T.M.; Goetting, B.; Campbell, K.; Markham, S.; Murawski, S.A. Assessing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in sediments and fishes in a large, urbanized estuary and the potential human health implications. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 1046667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chen, M.; Zhu, L.; Wang, Q.; Shan, G. Tissue distribution and bioaccumulation of legacy and emerging per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in edible fishes from Taihu Lake, China. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, S.; Cai, Y.; Ma, L.; Lin, X.; Li, Q.; Li, Y.; Wang, X. Perfluoroalkyl substances in water, sediment, and fish from a subtropical river of China: Environmental behaviors and potential risk. Chemosphere 2022, 288, 132513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Fenton, S.E.; Ducatman, A.; Boobis, A.; DeWitt, J.C.; Lau, C.; Ng, C.; Smith, J.S.; Roberts, S.M. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2020, 40, 606–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Map of the study area and sampling sites. Details on coordinates are provided in Table S1.
Figure 1. Map of the study area and sampling sites. Details on coordinates are provided in Table S1.
Toxics 14 00123 g001
Figure 2. Concentrations of PFOA in water (ng/L), and PFOA and PFDoDA in sediment (ng/g dw) at each of the sampling sites. The dots and squares show individual datapoints, whereas the solid line displays the mean concentration. LOQs of the respective compounds are indicated by the dotted line in the same color. Values below the LOQ represent the substituted values following the MLE approach. Only PFAS that were detected above the LOQ in at least one sample were included. Details on median, minimum, and maximum concentrations are reported in Table S2 for water, and Table S3 for sediment.
Figure 2. Concentrations of PFOA in water (ng/L), and PFOA and PFDoDA in sediment (ng/g dw) at each of the sampling sites. The dots and squares show individual datapoints, whereas the solid line displays the mean concentration. LOQs of the respective compounds are indicated by the dotted line in the same color. Values below the LOQ represent the substituted values following the MLE approach. Only PFAS that were detected above the LOQ in at least one sample were included. Details on median, minimum, and maximum concentrations are reported in Table S2 for water, and Table S3 for sediment.
Toxics 14 00123 g002
Figure 3. (A) PFAS concentrations (ng/g dw) and (B) composition profiles (%) in the plant samples. N = 5 per species. Detailed information about the PFAS analytes and their descriptive statistics are provided in Table S7.
Figure 3. (A) PFAS concentrations (ng/g dw) and (B) composition profiles (%) in the plant samples. N = 5 per species. Detailed information about the PFAS analytes and their descriptive statistics are provided in Table S7.
Toxics 14 00123 g003
Figure 4. (A) PFAS concentrations (ng/g ww) in muscle tissue of the three fish species; (B) compositional PFAS profile (%) in muscle tissue of the three fish species; (C) PFAS concentrations (ng/g ww) in livers of the three fish species; (D) compositional PFAS profile (%) in livers of the three fish species. N = 5 per species. Detailed information on the PFAS analytes and their concentrations can be found in Table S9.
Figure 4. (A) PFAS concentrations (ng/g ww) in muscle tissue of the three fish species; (B) compositional PFAS profile (%) in muscle tissue of the three fish species; (C) PFAS concentrations (ng/g ww) in livers of the three fish species; (D) compositional PFAS profile (%) in livers of the three fish species. N = 5 per species. Detailed information on the PFAS analytes and their concentrations can be found in Table S9.
Toxics 14 00123 g004
Figure 5. Maximum edible amounts (MEA; g fish muscle/week) that can be safely consumed without exceeding the EFSA tolerable weekly intake (TWI), plotted against body weight (0–100 kg) for the three fish species, under three different consumption approaches and four different PFAS concentration scenarios. Consumption scenarios represent the per capita national average consumption rate (40 g/week) and an upper- and lower-bound approach based on 3× and 1/3× the national average, respectively. These three approaches are indicated by the dotted lines. The EFSA scenarios are based on the sum concentrations of PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA, whereas the PEQ scenarios include an extended set of PFAS that were converted into PFOA-equivalents (PEQ) based on their relative potency. In the average EFSA and PEQ scenarios, non-detects were replaced by values estimated using the MLE approach, whereas in the worst-case scenarios non-detects were replaced by the LOQ.
Figure 5. Maximum edible amounts (MEA; g fish muscle/week) that can be safely consumed without exceeding the EFSA tolerable weekly intake (TWI), plotted against body weight (0–100 kg) for the three fish species, under three different consumption approaches and four different PFAS concentration scenarios. Consumption scenarios represent the per capita national average consumption rate (40 g/week) and an upper- and lower-bound approach based on 3× and 1/3× the national average, respectively. These three approaches are indicated by the dotted lines. The EFSA scenarios are based on the sum concentrations of PFHxS, PFOS, PFOA, and PFNA, whereas the PEQ scenarios include an extended set of PFAS that were converted into PFOA-equivalents (PEQ) based on their relative potency. In the average EFSA and PEQ scenarios, non-detects were replaced by values estimated using the MLE approach, whereas in the worst-case scenarios non-detects were replaced by the LOQ.
Toxics 14 00123 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Groffen, T.; Lodi, G.; Ndayishimiye, J.; Buhungu, S.; Nduwimana, L.; Niyoyitungiye, L.; Schoelynck, J. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Rusizi River System, Burundi: A Multi-Compartment Assessment from Tributaries to Lake Tanganyika. Toxics 2026, 14, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14020123

AMA Style

Groffen T, Lodi G, Ndayishimiye J, Buhungu S, Nduwimana L, Niyoyitungiye L, Schoelynck J. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Rusizi River System, Burundi: A Multi-Compartment Assessment from Tributaries to Lake Tanganyika. Toxics. 2026; 14(2):123. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14020123

Chicago/Turabian Style

Groffen, Thimo, Giulia Lodi, Joël Ndayishimiye, Simon Buhungu, Léopold Nduwimana, Lambert Niyoyitungiye, and Jonas Schoelynck. 2026. "Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Rusizi River System, Burundi: A Multi-Compartment Assessment from Tributaries to Lake Tanganyika" Toxics 14, no. 2: 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14020123

APA Style

Groffen, T., Lodi, G., Ndayishimiye, J., Buhungu, S., Nduwimana, L., Niyoyitungiye, L., & Schoelynck, J. (2026). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Rusizi River System, Burundi: A Multi-Compartment Assessment from Tributaries to Lake Tanganyika. Toxics, 14(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics14020123

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop