Current Breast Milk PFAS Levels in the United States and Canada: After All This Time, Why Don’t We Know More?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite 20 y of biomonitoring studies of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in both serum and urine, we have an extremely limited understanding of PFAS concentrations in breast milk of women from the United States and Canada. The lack of robust information on PFAS concentrations in breast milk and implications for breastfed infants and their families were brought to the forefront by communities impacted by PFAS contamination. OBJECTIVES: ) compare measured/estimated milk PFAS concentrations to screening values. METHODS: We used three studies reporting breast milk concentrations in the United States and Canada We also estimated breast milk PFAS concentrations by multiplying publicly available serum concentrations by milk:serum partitioning ratios for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). Measured and estimated breast milk concentrations were compared to children's drinking water screening values. DISCUSSION: Geometric means of estimated breast milk concentrations ranged over approximately two orders of magnitude for the different surveys/communities. All geometric mean and mean estimated and measured breast milk PFOA and PFOS concentrations exceeded drinking water screening values for children, sometimes by more than two orders of magnitude. For PFHxS and PFNA, all measured breast milk levels were below the drinking water screening values for children; the geometric mean estimated breast milk concentrations were close to-or exceeded-the children's drinking water screening values for certain communities. Exceeding a children's drinking water screening value does not indicate that adverse health effects will occur and should not be interpreted as a reason to not breastfeed; it indicates that the situation should be further evaluated. It is past time to have a better understanding of environmental chemical transfer to-and concentrations in-an exceptional source of infant nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10359.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".