PFAS Exposure Pathways for Humans and Wildlife: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Key Gaps in Understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We synthesize current understanding of the magnitudes and methods for assessing human and wildlife exposures to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Most human exposure assessments have focused on 2 to 5 legacy PFAS, and wildlife assessments are typically limited to targeted PFAS (up to ~30 substances). However, shifts in chemical production are occurring rapidly, and targeted methods for detecting PFAS have not kept pace with these changes. Total fluorine measurements complemented by suspect screening using high-resolution mass spectrometry are thus emerging as essential tools for PFAS exposure assessment. Such methods enable researchers to better understand contributions from precursor compounds that degrade into terminal perfluoroalkyl acids. Available data suggest that diet is the major human exposure pathway for some PFAS, but there is large variability across populations and PFAS compounds. Additional data on total fluorine in exposure media and the fraction of unidentified organofluorine are needed. Drinking water has been established as the major exposure source in contaminated communities. As water supplies are remediated, for the general population, exposures from dust, personal care products, indoor environments, and other sources may be more important. A major challenge for exposure assessments is the lack of statistically representative population surveys. For wildlife, bioaccumulation processes differ substantially between PFAS and neutral lipophilic organic compounds, prompting a reevaluation of traditional bioaccumulation metrics. There is evidence that both phospholipids and proteins are important for the tissue partitioning and accumulation of PFAS. New mechanistic models for PFAS bioaccumulation are being developed that will assist in wildlife risk evaluations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:631-657. © 2020 SETAC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".