An evaluation and risk assessment of children’s exposures to water-soluble per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances through winter gloves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter gloves are often treated with fluoroacrylic surface coatings containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to enhance water resistance. Concern over exposure to water-soluble PFAS, those with the greatest toxicological and regulatory relevance, has grown, particularly for children, who may experience higher relative body burdens due to lower body weight and frequent hand-to-mouth behaviors. In this study, we characterized the PFAS content and migration potential of winter gloves and conducted a screening-level risk assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) glove exposures in children aged 2–6, considering both hand-to-mouth transfer and dermal absorption. Experimental data were generated through total fluorine analysis, liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS), and leachate testing of individual glove components across eight glove brands. Three fluorotelomer compounds were detected above the limits of detection in 6 out of 173 components, spanning 3 of the 8 brands. No PFAS were detected in leachate samples, suggesting negligible migration under simulated use conditions. The calculated oral, dermal, and cumulative hazard indices, based on conservative, low-exposure scenarios using estimated concentrations below the detection limit, were all well below 0.001. This study contributes to the evidence base for PFAS risk assessment in consumer products and demonstrates that detectable PFAS residues do not necessarily translate to meaningful exposure or health risk. These findings support the use of risk-based regulatory approaches that incorporate realistic exposure scenarios in the evaluation of PFAS in treated textiles. • Children’s exposures to water-soluble PFAS from consumer products is a growing concern. • Study results demonstrated low PFAS detections without measurable migration results following leachate with artificial sebum. • Modeled oral, dermal, and cumulative risk assessment hazard quotients were far below concern thresholds. • Detectable PFAS in consumer textiles do not inherently indicate health risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".