Although the ingestion of vanadium (V) in drinking water may have possible adverse health effects, there have been relatively few studies of V in groundwater. Given the importance of groundwater as a source of drinking water in many areas of the world, this study examines the potential sources and geochemical processes that control the distribution of V in groundwater on a regional scale. Potential sources of V to groundwater include dissolution of V rich rocks, and waste streams from industrial processes. Geochemical processes such as adsorption/desorption, precipitation/dissolution, and chemical transformations control V concentrations in groundwater. Based on thermodynamic data and laboratory studies, V concentrations are expected to be highest in samples collected from oxic and alkaline groundwater. However, the extent to which thermodynamic data and laboratory results apply to the actual distribution of V in groundwater is not well understood. More than 8400 groundwater samples collected in California were used in this study. Of these samples, high (> or =50 microg/L) and moderate (25 to 49 microg/L) V concentrations were most frequently detected in regions where both source rock and favorable geochemical conditions occurred. The distribution of V concentrations in groundwater samples suggests that significant sources of V are mafic and andesitic rock. Anthropogenic activities do not appear to be a significant contributor of V to groundwater in this study. High V concentrations in groundwater samples analyzed in this study were almost always associated with oxic and alkaline groundwater conditions, which is consistent with predictions based on thermodynamic data.

BackgroundIn health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research.MethodsWe identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies.ResultsFrom 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits.ConclusionsThis review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Action research has been characterised as systematic enquiry into practice, undertaken by those involved, with the aim changing and improving that practice: an approach designed to have impact. Whilst much has been written about the process and practice of 'researching', historically 'impact' has been somewhat taken for granted. In recent years, however, the impact of all forms of research has become the focus of interest with many funding bodies now demanding that researchers not only articulate the prospective impact of their work, but what kinds of evidence will be proffered to demonstrate that impact. This has raised questions for action researchers, not about whether their work has an impact, but what form that impact takes, how it is recognised and by whom. This paper focuses on difficulties researchers find in both articulating the impact of participatory research and demonstrating links between such forms of research and impact. We draw on discussions about the notion of impact with authors that have self-reported and published their work as participatory. These discussions revealed that not only were there difficulties in clarifying the participatory dimension of their research but that whilst authors were able to discuss particular impacts of their work, articulating and evidencing that impact was often absent from their published papers. This paper offers insights into some of issues and barriers those who undertake participatory research face in explicating, for the external audience (and indeed sometimes for ourselves), the impact of this action-based form of enquiry.