School of Public Health and Social Work, And Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Apr;222(3):387-394. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.03.004. Epub 2019 Mar 18.
Increased public awareness of PFAS contamination in Australia has resulted in serum biomonitoring efforts in individuals in potentially affected communities. However, population-based reference values for assessing whether individual results exceed the typical range in the Australian general population are not currently available.
Estimate population upper bound reference values based on updated serum PFAS concentrations in pooled samples from southeast Queensland, Australia and population variation observed in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) datasets.
We calculated ratios of 95th percentile to arithmetic mean (P95:AM ratios) using data from the NHANES 2013-14 and 2015-16 cycle samples for frequently detected PFASs: PFOA, linear and branched PFOS, perfluorononanoate (PFNA), perfluorodecanoate (PFDA), and perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS). We estimated Australian age-specific means for PFAS using pooled serum samples collected in 2014-15 and 2016-17. We used the P95:AM ratios to estimate 95th percentile concentrations in the Australian population based on the results of the 2016-17 pooled samples.
P95:AM ratios for each PFAS were similar across NHANES cycle and age group, so overall compound-specific ratios were estimated for PFOA (2.1), PFNA (2.4), PFDA (2.7), PFHxS (2.7), and linear (2.4) and summed PFOS (2.3). Australian mean PFAS concentrations continued previously reported declining trends. The estimated P95 values can be used as preliminary substitutes for more rigorous population reference values to identify samples with clearly elevated serum PFAS concentrations in Australian biomonitoring efforts. Given uncertainties and variability inherent in this evaluation, the estimated P95 values should be interpreted with caution. Mean and estimated P95 serum PFAS concentrations in Australia should continue to be monitored to document declining trends in population serum concentrations.
由于公众对澳大利亚 PFAS 污染的认识不断提高，在可能受影响的社区中对个体进行血清生物监测的工作有所增加。然而，目前尚无用于评估个体结果是否超过澳大利亚普通人群典型范围的基于人群的参考值。
根据来自澳大利亚昆士兰州东南部的合并血清样本中更新的 PFAS 浓度和美国国家健康和营养检查调查（NHANES）数据集观察到的人群变异情况，估算人群上限参考值。
我们使用来自 NHANES 2013-14 和 2015-16 周期样本的经常检测到的 PFAS（PFOA、线性和支链 PFOS、全氟壬酸（PFNA）、全氟癸酸（PFDA）和全氟己烷磺酸（PFHxS））的第 95 百分位数与算术平均值之比（P95：AM 比值）计算数据。我们使用 2014-15 年和 2016-17 年收集的合并血清样本估计澳大利亚特定年龄的 PFAS 值。我们使用 P95：AM 比值，根据 2016-17 年合并样本的结果估算澳大利亚人群的第 95 百分位数浓度。
NHANES 周期和年龄组之间每种 PFAS 的 P95：AM 比值相似，因此为 PFOA（2.1）、PFNA（2.4）、PFDA（2.7）、PFHxS（2.7）和线性（2.4）和总和 PFOS（2.3）估算了特定化合物的比值。澳大利亚的平均 PFAS 浓度继续呈现先前报道的下降趋势。估计的 P95 值可作为更严格的人群参考值的初步替代品，以识别澳大利亚生物监测工作中血清 PFAS 浓度明显升高的样本。鉴于这种评估中固有的不确定性和可变性，应谨慎解释估计的 P95 值。澳大利亚的平均和估计的 P95 血清 PFAS 浓度应继续监测，以记录人群血清浓度的下降趋势。
