8282020 Occupational predictors of serum perfluoroalkyl substance concentrations in a national biomonitoring survey of adults in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) are two perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) widespread in industrial applications and consumer products. However, evidence substantiating occupations with elevated exposure is limited. The recent IARC classification of PFOA as carcinogenic has prompted concern about occupational exposure to PFAS for cancer prevention, particularly among women. We investigated the association of occupation and industry of employment with serum PFOA and PFOS biomarker concentrations in a national survey of Canadian adults, with a specific focus on exposure in female workers. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of 5,795 participants in four cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey between 2007-2011 and 2016-2019. Linear regression models adjusted for demographic, diet, and environmental factors were used to estimate predicted geometric means (GM) and geometric mean ratios (GMR) of PFOA and PFOS concentrations among workers in 137 occupation and industry groups, overall and stratified by sex. Results PFOA and PFOS concentrations were higher among participants who were older, male, East/Southeast Asian, urban residents or seafood consumers. Concentrations declined in successive CHMS cycles. By occupation, PFOA was elevated among workers in health services (GMR-PFOA 1.25; 95%CI: 1.10–1.43); labourers in processing and manufacturing; front-line protection services; and harvesting and landscaping labourers. Among women, predicted PFOA levels were also elevated in electrical and construction trades; and technical health occupations. For PFOS, aside from health-related occupations, results were similar. By industry, concentrations were elevated among workers in ambulatory care services (GMR-PFOA 1.12; 95%CI: 1.02–1.24) and clothing manufacturing (GMR-PFOS 2.22; 95%CI: 1.39–3.57). Conclusion Occupational and sex-based differences in PFOA and PFOS exposure are evident, with elevated exposure identified for workers in specific occupations, including health and manufacturing. Further research will examine exposure to other PFAS as well as associations with cancer risk. This research was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".