Evaluation of the validity of a perfluorooctane sulfonic acid exposure reconstruction using a measured serum concentration among workers with a wide range of exposure.
IF 1.8 4区 医学Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jerry L Campbell, Matthew W Linakis, Anna K Porter, Emma M Rosen, Perry W Logan, Sarah E Kleinschmidt, Kara L Andres, Sue Chang, Oyebode A Taiwo, Geary W Olsen, Harvey J Clewell, Matthew P Longnecker
{"title":"Evaluation of the validity of a perfluorooctane sulfonic acid exposure reconstruction using a measured serum concentration among workers with a wide range of exposure.","authors":"Jerry L Campbell, Matthew W Linakis, Anna K Porter, Emma M Rosen, Perry W Logan, Sarah E Kleinschmidt, Kara L Andres, Sue Chang, Oyebode A Taiwo, Geary W Olsen, Harvey J Clewell, Matthew P Longnecker","doi":"10.1093/annweh/wxae099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies among workers with a wide range of exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances inform risk assessments. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, was recently examined in relation to mortality and cancer incidence in an occupationally exposed population by Alexander et al. in 2024. In that study, cumulative occupational exposure (mg/m3 PFOS-equivalents in air) was reconstructed using a job-exposure matrix and individual work history. While the exposure reconstruction had good face validity, an assessment of its performance in relation to serum PFOS levels would allow improved interpretation of the occupational epidemiology findings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the exposure reconstruction used by Alexander et al. (2024).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A previous study by Olsen et al. (2003) measured serum PFOS levels in 1998 for 260 workers and because these workers were included in the epidemiologic study by Alexander et al. (2024), the study reported herein compared serum PFOS levels to those predicted using a simple compartmental pharmacokinetic model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed and pharmacokinetic model-predicted serum PFOS concentration was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.84). The median ratio of predicted to observed serum concentrations was 12 (i.e. actual exposure was significantly less than predicted). The predicted serum PFOS concentrations were not sensitive to the parameters used in the pharmacokinetic model other than exposure concentration or absorption.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The model did not predict absolute exposure well, probably because of personal protective equipment use not being accounted for and absorption of PFOS or precursors being lower than modeled. On the other hand, the model did a reasonably good job of ranking the workers' exposure, thus classification of workers according to relative amount of cumulative PFOS-equivalents was reasonably accurate in the study by Alexander et al. (2024) when validated using the measured serum PFOS data.</p>","PeriodicalId":8362,"journal":{"name":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals Of Work Exposures and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxae099","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Studies among workers with a wide range of exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances inform risk assessments. Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a ubiquitous environmental contaminant, was recently examined in relation to mortality and cancer incidence in an occupationally exposed population by Alexander et al. in 2024. In that study, cumulative occupational exposure (mg/m3 PFOS-equivalents in air) was reconstructed using a job-exposure matrix and individual work history. While the exposure reconstruction had good face validity, an assessment of its performance in relation to serum PFOS levels would allow improved interpretation of the occupational epidemiology findings.
Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the exposure reconstruction used by Alexander et al. (2024).
Methods: A previous study by Olsen et al. (2003) measured serum PFOS levels in 1998 for 260 workers and because these workers were included in the epidemiologic study by Alexander et al. (2024), the study reported herein compared serum PFOS levels to those predicted using a simple compartmental pharmacokinetic model.
Results: The Pearson correlation coefficient between the observed and pharmacokinetic model-predicted serum PFOS concentration was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.84). The median ratio of predicted to observed serum concentrations was 12 (i.e. actual exposure was significantly less than predicted). The predicted serum PFOS concentrations were not sensitive to the parameters used in the pharmacokinetic model other than exposure concentration or absorption.
Conclusions: The model did not predict absolute exposure well, probably because of personal protective equipment use not being accounted for and absorption of PFOS or precursors being lower than modeled. On the other hand, the model did a reasonably good job of ranking the workers' exposure, thus classification of workers according to relative amount of cumulative PFOS-equivalents was reasonably accurate in the study by Alexander et al. (2024) when validated using the measured serum PFOS data.
期刊介绍：
About the Journal
Annals of Work Exposures and Health is dedicated to presenting advances in exposure science supporting the recognition, quantification, and control of exposures at work, and epidemiological studies on their effects on human health and well-being. A key question we apply to submission is, "Is this paper going to help readers better understand, quantify, and control conditions at work that adversely or positively affect health and well-being?"
We are interested in high quality scientific research addressing:
the quantification of work exposures, including chemical, biological, physical, biomechanical, and psychosocial, and the elements of work organization giving rise to such exposures;
the relationship between these exposures and the acute and chronic health consequences for those exposed and their families and communities;
populations at special risk of work-related exposures including women, under-represented minorities, immigrants, and other vulnerable groups such as temporary, contingent and informal sector workers;
the effectiveness of interventions addressing exposure and risk including production technologies, work process engineering, and personal protective systems;
policies and management approaches to reduce risk and improve health and well-being among workers, their families or communities;
methodologies and mechanisms that underlie the quantification and/or control of exposure and risk.
There is heavy pressure on space in the journal, and the above interests mean that we do not usually publish papers that simply report local conditions without generalizable results. We are also unlikely to publish reports on human health and well-being without information on the work exposure characteristics giving rise to the effects. We particularly welcome contributions from scientists based in, or addressing conditions in, developing economies that fall within the above scope.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
