SciPi 353: Grouping of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) for Human Health Risk Assessment
What type of information best informs potential human health exposure information for PFAS?
Results
(11 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Analytical informationExpert 3
Analytic results that a chemical occurs with more or less frequency in environmental media is the most immediate and relevant type of information on potential sources of human exposure. Biomonitoring (with all its complications) is the more immediate indication of internal human dose.
- Analytical informationExpert 1
I'm not sure I understand the question (human health exposure). I'll assume the question refers to human exposure, in which case monitoring is clearly a paramount step to determine the distribution and magnitude of PFAS contamination in drinking water. It isn't clear whether production/use predicts human exposure.
- Analytical informationExpert 8
Information such as NHANES data, drinking water occurrence data, market basket data, etc. are the most useful. Use and production data, as well as assessments by regulatory authorities may also provide useful information.
- Other (please explain)Expert 6
The question is slightly ambiguous. If the intent is to capture information on potential health EFFECTS, a broader variety of information sources will be needed. If the intent is to simply capture information of potential human EXPOSURES, analytical data is probably the prime source, supplemented by information from the other two sources.
- Analytical informationExpert 9
Production/use information is nearly always incomplete or protected by confidential business information and currently will be inadequate for human health exposures. Regulatory dossiers also do not contain sufficient information, especially with respect to byproducts that may be unidentified but still exist in the environment and in living organisms. Analytical approaches currently offer the most comprehensive approaches for identifying and quantifying human exposures to PFAS.
- Other (please explain)Expert 7
None of them.
Human exposure pathways need to be quantified and would be different for PFAS of different physical chemical properties. Since often considered as POPs, food consumption and in addition, drinking water would be major pathways. However, the toxicity has to be included and the health effects defined. Paracelsus principle applies and if one of either dose or exposure is (close to) zero, then, potential will be low and can be excluded. - Other (please explain)Expert 11
All three types could be useful. I am not able to predict which is the most important. Production and use data on a chemical (and if relevant its precursors) can be used to exclude chemicals from concern since PFAS do not occur naturally. I am assuming that "analytical information" involves empirical measurement in monitoring samples. Such data are very helpful but need a context to be properly understood- modeling can help on this point. Regulatory dossiers are secondary sources and aid in the identification of data, but an assessment should be based on the collection and examination of primary sources.
- Regulatory dossiers such as EU REACH/USEPA TSCAExpert 5
Regulatory dossiers should collect and present exposure assessments, which rely on analytical information - so I am somewhat confused by the inclusion of "analytical information". If analytical information is meant to include determined serum concentrations a la NHANES, then this information may be a real contender. However, without also presenting information regarding the exposure (duration between exposure and collection, whether single exposure or continuous exposure, etc), then the mere presentation of data NHANES-style will be of marginal value - they will be more qualitatively valuable than quantitatively valuable.
- Analytical informationExpert 4
Analytical data for the exposure media (air, water, soil, food, products) and associated exposure rates would provide the best human health exposure information for current PFAS, and would provide useful information for PFAS that may be proposed for commercial use in the future.
- Analytical informationExpert 2
Analytic data are the best to inform exposures (accurately and precisely). In the absence of analytic data, production/use data and usage can be helpful in predicting exposure. I think enough resources and analytic methods be made available for the assessment of exposure to PFAS subgroups.
- Analytical informationExpert 10
Levels of PFAS in key external exposure media (e.g. food, drinking water, air, dust, etc.) and/or human serum are the best source of exposure information.
Expert 4
10/22/2021 07:49My original comment shares Expert 7's concern about exposures via media other than drinking water. However, I think these important data needs can be filled, to a degree, with analytical information. Again, the deveil's in the details: "to a degree" depends on how much time and money you're willing to spend getting data vs making assumptions. Also important that analytical data not only reduces uncertainty, but also allows an understanding of variability.
Expert 5
10/24/2021 18:26Interesting array of responses. I assumed "health" was a throw-away word, and focused on human exposures. Analytical measurements are the gold standard, like personal biomonitoring. I had not considered production and use data as a "rule-out" tool, but that offers an appealing way to de-prioritize certain chemicals, but for those living near the hypothetical only production facility in the US won't feel well-represented. TSCA exposure analyses, job analyses and non-user analyses can be pretty solid estimates of exposure, though they sometimes prompt contemporary exposure analyses, often using updated methods and models. The use of "best" seems to ignore practicality, and may have prompted some us to differently consider "likelihood of success" in exposure evaluation. Analytic sensitivity relative to environmental contamination levels seems to be a limitation to success in detecting contaminant levels.
Expert 6
10/24/2021 21:58I like the comment from Expert 11, that seems similar to my initial response. It recognises, as do most of the comments, that analytical data on various types of samples provides the best information on potential exposures, but that it could be supplemented by information from other sources.
Expert 7
10/26/2021 13:18Good analytical data seem to be the basis but they need good interpretation; the pure numbers (with the units) are not sufficient and a value can be seen in many different ways.