Internal Relative Potency Factors for the Risk Assessment of Mixtures of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Human Biomonitoring.
Journal
Environmental health perspectives
ISSN: 1552-9924
Titre abrégé: Environ Health Perspect
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0330411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
entrez:
26
7
2022
pubmed:
27
7
2022
medline:
29
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In human biomonitoring, blood is often used as a matrix to measure exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Because the toxicokinetics of a substance (determining the steady-state blood concentration) may affect the toxic potency, the difference in toxicokinetics among PFAS has to be accounted for when blood concentrations are used in mixture risk assessment. This research focuses on deriving relative potency factors (RPFs) at the blood serum level. These RPFs can be applied to PFAS concentrations in human blood, thereby facilitating mixture risk assessment with primary input from human biomonitoring studies. Toxicokinetic models are generated for 10 PFAS to estimate the internal exposure in the male rat at the blood serum level over time. By applying dose-response modeling, these internal exposures are used to derive quantitative internal RPFs based on liver effects. Internal RPFs were successfully obtained for nine PFAS. Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA, or GenX) were found to be more potent than perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at the blood serum level in terms of relative liver weight increase, whereas perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were found to be less potent. The practical implementation of these internal RPFs is illustrated using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) biomonitoring data of 2017-2018. It is recommended to assess the health risk resulting from exposure to PFAS as combined, aggregate exposure to the extent feasible. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10009.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In human biomonitoring, blood is often used as a matrix to measure exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Because the toxicokinetics of a substance (determining the steady-state blood concentration) may affect the toxic potency, the difference in toxicokinetics among PFAS has to be accounted for when blood concentrations are used in mixture risk assessment.
OBJECTIVES
This research focuses on deriving relative potency factors (RPFs) at the blood serum level. These RPFs can be applied to PFAS concentrations in human blood, thereby facilitating mixture risk assessment with primary input from human biomonitoring studies.
METHODS
Toxicokinetic models are generated for 10 PFAS to estimate the internal exposure in the male rat at the blood serum level over time. By applying dose-response modeling, these internal exposures are used to derive quantitative internal RPFs based on liver effects.
RESULTS
Internal RPFs were successfully obtained for nine PFAS. Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid (HFPO-DA, or GenX) were found to be more potent than perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) at the blood serum level in terms of relative liver weight increase, whereas perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) were found to be less potent. The practical implementation of these internal RPFs is illustrated using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) biomonitoring data of 2017-2018.
DISCUSSION
It is recommended to assess the health risk resulting from exposure to PFAS as combined, aggregate exposure to the extent feasible. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10009.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35881550
doi: 10.1289/EHP10009
pmc: PMC9320915
doi:
Substances chimiques
Alkanesulfonic Acids
0
Environmental Pollutants
0
Fluorocarbons
0
Sulfonic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
77005Références
Toxicol Rep. 2019 Jun 28;6:645-655
pubmed: 31334035
Toxicol Sci. 2002 Apr;66(2):298-312
pubmed: 11896297
Chemosphere. 2020 Mar;242:125250
pubmed: 31896205
Environ Sci Technol. 2018 Jul 17;52(14):8005-8015
pubmed: 29927593
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Jul;128(7):77004
pubmed: 32648786
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019 Oct 30;182:109402
pubmed: 31280095
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Jun;222(5):727-737
pubmed: 31176761
Toxicology. 2020 Aug;441:152522
pubmed: 32534104
Arch Toxicol. 2009 Oct;83(10):909-24
pubmed: 19544052
Environ Int. 2020 Dec;145:106123
pubmed: 32949877
Environ Int. 2021 Jan;146:106204
pubmed: 33126064
EFSA J. 2019 Mar 25;17(3):e05634
pubmed: 32626259
EFSA J. 2020 Sep 17;18(9):e06223
pubmed: 32994824
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Feb;59(1):64-80
pubmed: 20875479
Toxicol Sci. 2003 Aug;74(2):369-81
pubmed: 12773773
Endocrinology. 2021 Dec 1;162(12):
pubmed: 34480479
Environ Health. 2020 Mar 14;19(1):33
pubmed: 32169067
Toxicol Sci. 2017 Jun 1;157(2):421-428
pubmed: 28402547
Reprod Toxicol. 2012 Jul;33(4):441-451
pubmed: 21856411
Environ Health Perspect. 2019 Mar;127(3):37008
pubmed: 30920876
Reprod Toxicol. 2009 Jun;27(3-4):331-341
pubmed: 19429404
Xenobiotica. 2020 Jun;50(6):722-732
pubmed: 31680603
J Occup Health. 2015;57(1):1-12
pubmed: 25422127
Chemosphere. 2013 Nov;93(10):2419-25
pubmed: 24050716
Arch Toxicol. 2018 Jan;92(1):83-119
pubmed: 29197930
Environ Sci Technol. 2018 Nov 6;52(21):12809-12818
pubmed: 30256107
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2020 Oct 1;22(10):2023-2030
pubmed: 32940316
Chem Res Toxicol. 2004 Jun;17(6):767-75
pubmed: 15206897
Environ Int. 2015 Feb;75:172-9
pubmed: 25461427
Reprod Toxicol. 2012 Jul;33(4):513-530
pubmed: 21878386
Environ Int. 2021 Jan;146:106082
pubmed: 33227583
Toxicology. 2011 Apr 28;283(1):55-62
pubmed: 21349313
Sci Total Environ. 2022 May 10;820:153281
pubmed: 35066053
Toxicol Lett. 2018 Dec 1;298:186-193
pubmed: 30217717
Nature. 1968 Mar 16;217(5133):1050-1
pubmed: 4171201
Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Apr 1;36(7):146A-152A
pubmed: 11999053
Environ Int. 2018 Apr;113:1-9
pubmed: 29421396
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):235-243
pubmed: 27743851
PPAR Res. 2010;2010:
pubmed: 20936102
Environ Health Perspect. 2019 Jan;127(1):14501
pubmed: 30632786
Toxicology. 2011 Mar 15;281(1-3):48-55
pubmed: 21237237
Int J Toxicol. 2010 Jul;29(4):358-71
pubmed: 20519691
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021 Mar;40(3):606-630
pubmed: 33017053
Reprod Toxicol. 2015 Jan;51:133-44
pubmed: 25543169
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2020 Dec 1;22(12):2345-2373
pubmed: 33125022
Toxicology. 2012 Mar 11;293(1-3):1-15
pubmed: 22266392
Toxicology. 2009 Feb 4;256(1-2):65-74
pubmed: 19059455
Toxicol Rep. 2015 Jun 30;2:939-949
pubmed: 28962433
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Apr;220(2 Pt B):455-460
pubmed: 28073630
Environ Sci Technol. 2001 Apr 1;35(7):154A-160A
pubmed: 11348100
Toxicol Lett. 2020 Oct 15;333:13-21
pubmed: 32659468
Toxicol Sci. 2003 Aug;74(2):382-92
pubmed: 12773772
Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1989 Apr;12(3):442-8
pubmed: 2731659
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Jul;54(2):124-33
pubmed: 19303907
Chemosphere. 2019 Oct;232:415-423
pubmed: 31158636
Environ Sci Technol. 2019 Apr 2;53(7):3929-3937
pubmed: 30865431
Arch Toxicol. 2020 Jun;94(6):2131-2147
pubmed: 32227269
Toxicology. 2009 Oct 1;264(1-2):32-44
pubmed: 19632293
Vital Health Stat 2. 2020 Apr;(184):1-35
pubmed: 33663649
J Toxicol Sci. 2010 Aug;35(4):527-33
pubmed: 20686339
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2020 Apr 29;22(4):1071-1083
pubmed: 32182307
Toxicology. 2009 May 2;259(1-2):33-45
pubmed: 19428941
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Sep 20;50(18):10216-25
pubmed: 27477586
Int J Toxicol. 2014 May;33(3):219-237
pubmed: 24700568
Environ Int. 2019 Oct;131:105048
pubmed: 31376596
Environ Int. 2013 Jan;51:8-12
pubmed: 23138016
Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1990 Jan;44(1):46-53
pubmed: 2306537
Toxicol Sci. 2006 Apr;90(2):510-8
pubmed: 16415327
Toxicol Rep. 2019 Aug 20;6:924-932
pubmed: 31516843
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2018 Dec 12;20(12):1680-1690
pubmed: 30427048
Pharmacol Toxicol. 1990 Jan;66(1):45-8
pubmed: 2308906
Environ Toxicol. 2015 Nov;30(11):1244-63
pubmed: 24753098
Chemosphere. 2019 Apr;220:493-500
pubmed: 30594801
Toxicology. 2003 Feb 1;183(1-3):117-31
pubmed: 12504346
Toxicol Sci. 2017 Feb;155(2):409-419
pubmed: 27803384
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Feb;128(2):27006
pubmed: 32074459
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Jul;128(7):77005
pubmed: 32697103
J Toxicol Sci. 2017;42(3):301-317
pubmed: 28496036
Toxicol Sci. 2008 Sep;105(1):173-81
pubmed: 18511431
Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser. 2020 May;(598):
pubmed: 33556048
Emerg Contam. 2021;7:219-235
pubmed: 35097227
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2021 Feb;51(2):141-164
pubmed: 33853480
Environ Res. 2007 Feb;103(2):176-84
pubmed: 16893538
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Apr;222(3):387-394
pubmed: 30898527
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021 Mar;40(3):859-870
pubmed: 32729940
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Jul;228:113549
pubmed: 32502942
Drug Chem Toxicol. 2000 Nov;23(4):603-20
pubmed: 11071397
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jul 26;68(29):647-648
pubmed: 31344024
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2020 Jul 1;22(7):1444-1460
pubmed: 32495786
J Hazard Mater. 2021 Jun 5;411:124963
pubmed: 33440278
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1980 Aug;41(8):584-9
pubmed: 7405826
J Occup Health. 2004 Mar;46(2):141-7
pubmed: 15090689
Environ Sci Technol. 2019 Apr 2;53(7):3898-3907
pubmed: 30844262
Toxicology. 2020 Aug;441:152529
pubmed: 32590024
Environ Int. 2020 Jan;134:105244
pubmed: 31711019
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Nov 03;125(11):117001
pubmed: 29135439
J Toxicol Sci. 2008 May;33(2):219-26
pubmed: 18544913
Toxicol Pathol. 2015 Feb;43(2):209-20
pubmed: 25377447
Food Chem Toxicol. 2016 Nov;97:243-255
pubmed: 27637925
Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Sep 5;51(17):9553-9560
pubmed: 28780851
Drug Chem Toxicol. 2004 Nov;27(4):361-78
pubmed: 15573472
Environ Sci Technol. 2004 Jul 1;38(13):3698-704
pubmed: 15296323
Environ Int. 2018 Jan;110:149-159
pubmed: 29108835
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Aug;221(7):1068-1075
pubmed: 30037723
Chemosphere. 2015 Feb;120:328-35
pubmed: 25180935
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2020 Jan;223(1):34-44
pubmed: 31679856
Reprod Toxicol. 2012 Jul;33(4):428-440
pubmed: 21889587
Environ Health Perspect. 2020 Feb;128(2):27007
pubmed: 32068468
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 May;113(5):539-45
pubmed: 15866760
Anal Chem. 2005 Sep 15;77(18):6085-91
pubmed: 16159145
Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Dec;111(16):1892-901
pubmed: 14644663
Toxicology. 2016 Jan 18;340:1-9
pubmed: 26743852
Toxicology. 2012 Mar 11;293(1-3):16-29
pubmed: 22245121
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2014 Mar;44(3):270-97
pubmed: 24252121
J Occup Environ Med. 2003 Mar;45(3):260-70
pubmed: 12661183
Toxicol Sci. 2008 Jul;104(1):40-53
pubmed: 18353799