Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparing the toxic potency in vivo of long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids and fluorinated alternatives.

Since 2000, long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their respective precursors have been replaced by numerous fluorinated alternatives. The main rationale for this industrial transition was that these alternatives were considered less bioaccumulative and toxic than their predecessors. In this study, we evaluated to what extent differences in toxicological effect thresholds for PFAAs and fluorinated alternatives, expressed as administered dose, were confounded by differences in their distribution and elimination kinetics. A dynamic one-compartment toxicokinetic (TK) model for male rats was constructed and evaluated using test data from toxicity studies for perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoate (GenX). Dose-response curves of liver enlargement from sub-chronic oral toxicity studies in male rats were converted to internal dose in serum and in liver to examine the toxicity ranking of PFAAs and fluorinated alternatives. Converting administered doses into equivalent serum and liver concentrations reduced the variability in the dose-response curves for PFBA, PFHxA, PFOA and GenX. The toxicity ranking using modeled serum (GenX > PFOA > PFHxA > PFBA) and liver (GenX > PFOA ≈ PFHxA ≈ PFBA) concentrations indicated that some fluorinated alternatives have similar or higher toxic potency than their predecessors when correcting for differences in toxicokinetics. For PFOS and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) the conversion from administered dose to serum concentration equivalents did not change the toxicity ranking. In conclusion, hazard assessment based on internal exposure allows evaluation of toxic potency and bioaccumulation potential independent of kinetics and should be considered when comparing fluorinated alternatives with their predecessors.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app