Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Environ Int ; 190: 108850, 2024 Jun 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38941944

RESUMO

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine recommends per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) blood testing for patients with risk of elevated exposure, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) suggests PFAS blood testing based on exposure. Barriers to PFAS blood testing include cost, access to labs, and evolving laboratory methods. We quantify water and serum PFAS levels among a highly-exposed cohort in an area with groundwater contaminated by historical agricultural biosolid application. We compare the gold standard PFAS serum test with a commercial test and results from a one-compartment toxicokinetic model. Participants were adults (n = 30) whose household (n = 19) water had levels of the sum of six PFAS > 500 ng/L. Serum PFAS were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Demographic and water consumption data were collected via telephone. Serum PFAS results from the commercial test were accessed via medical record. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and bivariate plots of serum levels. Perfluorohexanoic acid, perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid, perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) were detected in 19 wells, and PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, perfluorodecanoic acid, perfluoroundecanoic acid, PFHxS, and PFOS were detected in at least 19 participants' serum. In well water, PFOA and PFOS levels had geometric means (GMs) of 1749 ng/L (geometric standard deviation [GSD] 2.4) and 887 ng/L (GSD 19.7), respectively. In serum, PFOA and PFOS had GMs of 116.2 µg/L (GSD 13.5) and 58.3 µg/L (GSD 13.8), respectively. Our results are comparable with and had a wider mix of PFAS than other high-exposure cohorts. There was good agreement between the commercial and gold standard tests for PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS, and mixed agreement between the gold standard test and modeled predictions, suggesting water-based toxicokinetic models of serum PFAS may be inadequate for assessing exposure in this population.

2.
Sci Total Environ ; 544: 701-10, 2016 Feb 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26674699

RESUMO

There is little published literature on the efficacy of strategies to reduce exposure to residential well water arsenic. The objectives of our study were to: 1) determine if water arsenic remained a significant exposure source in households using bottled water or point-of-use treatment systems; and 2) evaluate the major sources and routes of any remaining arsenic exposure. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 167 households in Maine using one of these two strategies to prevent exposure to arsenic. Most households included one adult and at least one child. Untreated well water arsenic concentrations ranged from <10 µg/L to 640 µg/L. Urine samples, water samples, daily diet and bathing diaries, and household dietary and water use habit surveys were collected. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the relationship between urinary arsenic and untreated well water arsenic concentration, while accounting for documented consumption of untreated water and dietary sources. If mitigation strategies were fully effective, there should be no relationship between urinary arsenic and well water arsenic. To the contrary, we found that untreated arsenic water concentration remained a significant (p ≤ 0.001) predictor of urinary arsenic levels. When untreated water arsenic concentrations were <40 µg/L, untreated water arsenic was no longer a significant predictor of urinary arsenic. Time spent bathing (alone or in combination with water arsenic concentration) was not associated with urinary arsenic. A predictive analysis of the average study participant suggested that when untreated water arsenic ranged from 100 to 500 µg/L, elimination of any untreated water use would result in an 8%-32% reduction in urinary arsenic for young children, and a 14%-59% reduction for adults. These results demonstrate the importance of complying with a point-of-use or bottled water exposure reduction strategy. However, there remained unexplained, water-related routes of exposure.


Assuntos
Arsênio/análise , Água Potável/química , Exposição Ambiental/estatística & dados numéricos , Poluentes Químicos da Água/análise , Poços de Água , Monitoramento Ambiental , Características da Família , Humanos , Maine , Purificação da Água
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...