51
|
A Review of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in terms of Sources, Applications, Human Exposure, Dietary Intake, Toxicity, Legal Regulation, and Methods of Determination. J CHEM-NY 2019. [DOI: 10.1155/2019/2717528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are widely distributed across the world and are expected to be of concern to human health and the environment. The review focuses on perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and, in particular, on the most frequently discussed perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs) and perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs). In this study, some basic information concerning PFASs is reviewed, focusing mainly on PFAAs (perfluoroalkyl acids). We have made efforts to systemize their division into groups according to chemical structure, describe their basic physicochemical properties, characterize production technologies, and determine potential human exposure routes with particular reference to oral exposure. A variety of possible toxicological effects to human health are also discussed. In response to increasing public concern about the toxicity of PFAAs, an evaluation of dietary intake has been undertaken for two of the most commonly known PFAAs: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). As summarized in this study, PFAAs levels need further assessment due to the science-based TWI standards laid down by the EFSA’s CONTAM Panel regarding the risk to human health posed by the presence of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid in food (tolerable weekly intakes of PFOA and PFOS set up to 6 ng·kg−1·bw·week−1 and 13 ng·kg−1·bw·week−1, respectively). Current legislation, relevant legislation on PFAAs levels in food, and the most popular methods of analysis in food matrices are described.
Collapse
|
52
|
Zhang S, Kang Q, Peng H, Ding M, Zhao F, Zhou Y, Dong Z, Zhang H, Yang M, Tao S, Hu J. Relationship between perfluorooctanoate and perfluorooctane sulfonate blood concentrations in the general population and routine drinking water exposure. ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL 2019; 126:54-60. [PMID: 30776750 DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2018] [Revised: 02/01/2019] [Accepted: 02/02/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
In regions with heavily contaminated drinking water, a significant contribution of drinking water to overall human perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) exposure has been well documented. However, the relationship of PFOA/PFOS blood concentrations in the general population to routine drinking water exposure is not well characterized. This study determined the PFOA and PFOS concentrations in 166 drinking water samples across 28 cities in China. For 13 of the studied cities, PFOA and PFOS concentrations were analyzed in 847 human blood samples which were collected in parallel with the drinking water samples. The geometric mean PFOA and PFOS concentrations in drinking water were 2.5 ± 6.2 ng/L and 0.7 ± 11.7 ng/L, and population-weighted geometric mean blood concentrations were 2.1 ± 1.2 ng/mL and 2.6 ± 1.3 ng/mL, respectively. We found a significant correlation between the PFOA concentration in drinking water and blood (r = 0.87, n = 13, p < 0.001). The total daily intake of PFOA (0.24-2.13 ng/kg/day) and PFOS (0.19-1.87 ng/kg/day) were back-calculated from the blood concentrations with a one-compartment toxicokinetic model. We estimated relative source contributions (RSCs) of drinking water to total daily intake in China of 23 ± 3% for PFOA and 12.7 ± 5.8% for PFOS. Using the mean RSCs, we derived the health advisory values of 85 ng/L for PFOA and 47 ng/L for PFOS in China.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiyi Zhang
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Qiyue Kang
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Hui Peng
- Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Mengyu Ding
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Fanrong Zhao
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Yuyin Zhou
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Zhaomin Dong
- School of Space and Environment, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
| | - Haifeng Zhang
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
| | - Min Yang
- State Key Laboratory of Environmental Aquatic Chemistry, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
| | - Shu Tao
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
| | - Jianying Hu
- MOE Laboratory for Earth Surface Process, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China.
| |
Collapse
|
53
|
Do conventional cooking methods alter concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in seafood? Food Chem Toxicol 2019; 127:280-287. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.03.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2019] [Revised: 03/17/2019] [Accepted: 03/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|