College of Food Science and Engineering, Hubei Key Laboratory for Processing and Transformation of Agricultural Products, Wuhan Polytechnic University, Wuhan 430023, China.
Research Unit of Food Safety, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (No. 2019RU014), NHC Key Laboratory of Food Safety Risk Assessment, China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment (CFSA), Beijing 100021, China.
Environ Sci Technol. 2023 Aug 8;57(31):11489-11498. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c03952. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
Growing toxicologic evidence suggests that emerging perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), like chlorinated polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonate (Cl-PFESA), may be as toxic or more toxic than perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). However, further investigations are needed in terms of the human health risk assessment. This study examined the effects of emerging and legacy PFAS exposure on newborn thyroid homeostasis and compared the thyroid disruption caused by 6:2 Cl-PFESA and PFOS using a benchmark dose approach. The health effects of mixture and individual exposure were estimated using the partial least-squares (PLS) model and linear regression, respectively. A Bayesian benchmark dose (BMD) analysis determined the BMD value for adverse effect comparison between 6:2 Cl-PFESA and PFOS. The median (interquartile range) concentrations of 6:2 Cl-PFESA (0.573 [0.351-0.872] ng/mL), PFOS (0.674 [0.462-1.007] ng/mL), and PFOA (1.457 [1.034, 2.405] ng/mL) were found to be similar. The PLS model ranked the PFAS variables' importance in projection (VIP) scores as follows: 6:2 Cl-PFESA > PFOS > PFOA. Linear regression showed that 6:2 Cl-PFESA had a positive association with free triiodothyronine (FT3, = 0.006) and triiodothyronine (T3, = 0.014), while PFOS had a marginally significant positive association with FT3 alone ( = 0.042). The BMD analysis indicated that the estimated BMD for 6:2 Cl-PFESA (1.01 ng/mL) was lower than that for PFOS (1.66 ng/mL) in relation to a 10% increase in FT3. These findings suggest that 6:2 Cl-PFESA, an alternative to PFOS, has a more pronounced impact on newborns' thyroid homeostasis compared to PFOS and other legacy PFASs.
越来越多的毒理学证据表明,新兴的全氟烷基物质(PFAS),如氯代多氟烷基亚硫酸酯(Cl-PFESA),可能与全氟辛烷磺酸(PFOS)和全氟辛酸(PFOA)一样有毒或更有毒。然而,在人类健康风险评估方面还需要进一步的研究。本研究考察了新兴和传统 PFAS 暴露对新生儿甲状腺内稳态的影响,并使用基准剂量方法比较了 6:2 Cl-PFESA 和 PFOS 引起的甲状腺破坏。使用偏最小二乘(PLS)模型和线性回归分别估计了混合物和个体暴露的健康影响。贝叶斯基准剂量(BMD)分析确定了 6:2 Cl-PFESA 和 PFOS 之间不良效应比较的 BMD 值。6:2 Cl-PFESA(0.573 [0.351-0.872]ng/mL)、PFOS(0.674 [0.462-1.007]ng/mL)和 PFOA(1.457 [1.034, 2.405]ng/mL)的中位数(四分位距)浓度相似。PLS 模型将 PFAS 变量在投影中的重要性(VIP)得分排序如下:6:2 Cl-PFESA > PFOS > PFOA。线性回归显示,6:2 Cl-PFESA 与游离三碘甲状腺原氨酸(FT3, = 0.006)和三碘甲状腺原氨酸(T3, = 0.014)呈正相关,而 PFOS 与 FT3 呈正相关( = 0.042)。BMD 分析表明,与 FT3 增加 10%相比,6:2 Cl-PFESA(1.01ng/mL)的估计 BMD 低于 PFOS(1.66ng/mL)。这些发现表明,6:2 Cl-PFESA 作为 PFOS 的替代品,对新生儿甲状腺内稳态的影响比 PFOS 和其他传统 PFAS 更为明显。