Next generation per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances: Status and trends, aquatic toxicity, and risk assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread application of poly- and per-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has resulted in some substances being ubiquitous in environmental matrices. That and their resistance to degradation have allowed them to accumulate in wildlife and humans with potential for toxic effects. While specific substances of concern have been phased-out or banned, other PFAS that are emerging as alternative substances are still produced and are being released into the environment. This review focuses on describing three emerging, replacement PFAS: perfluoroethylcyclohexane sulphonate (PFECHS), 6:2 chlorinated polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonate (6:2 Cl-PFAES), and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA). By summarizing their physicochemical properties, environmental fate and transport, and toxic potencies in comparison to other PFAS compounds, this review offers insight into the viabilities of these chemicals as replacement substances. Using the chemical scoring and ranking assessment model, the relative hazards, uncertainties, and data gaps for each chemical were quantified and related to perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) based on their chemical and uncertainty scores. The substances were ranked PFOS > 6:2 Cl-PFAES > PFOA > HFPO-DA > PFECHS according to their potential toxicity and PFECHS > HFPO-DA > 6:2 Cl-PFAES > PFOS > PFOA according to their need for future research. Since future uses of PFAS remain uncertain in the face of governmental regulations and production bans, replacement PFAS will continue to emerge on the world market and in the environment, raising concerns about their general lack of information on mechanisms and toxic potencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".