Cited by 9Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchAgricultural safety and regulationsToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

Commentary: Cumulative Risk Assessment of Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylic Acids and Perfluoralkyl Sulfonic Acids: What Is the Scientific Support for Deriving Tolerable Exposures by Assembling 27 PFAS into 1 Common Assessment Group?

Colnot, Thomas, Dekant, Wolfgang·2022·Archives of Toxicology

Abstract

This commentary proposes an approach to risk assessment of mixtures of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) as EFSA was tasked to derive a tolerable intake for a group of 27 PFAS. The 27 PFAS to be considered contain different functional groups and have widely variable physicochemical (PC) properties and toxicokinetics and thus should not treated as one group based on regulatory guidance for risk assessment of mixtures. The proposed approach to grouping is to split the 27 PFAS into two groups, perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, and apply a relative potency factor approach (as proposed by RIVM) to obtain two separate group TDIs based on liver toxicity in rodents since liver toxicity is a sensitive response of rodents to PFAS. Short chain PFAS and other PFAS structures should not be included in the groups due to their low potency and rapid elimination. This approach is in better agreement with scientific and regulatory guidance for mixture risk assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00204-022-03336-9

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Colnot and Dekant (2022) proposed a classification strategy for PFAS that divides them into two distinct groups: PFCA and PFSA; they concluded that PFAS with short chains or non-linear structures should not be included in either group because of their low toxicological potency and rapid elimination.

    “To overcome the problems associated with estimating TEFs, Colnot and Dekant (2022) proposed a classification strategy for PFAS that divides them into two distinct groups: PFCA and PFSA. The authors concluded that PFAS with short chains or non-linear structures should not be included in either group because of their low toxicological potency and rapid elimination [51].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Colnot, T., & Dekant, W.
Affiliations
University of Würzburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Dekant, Wolfgang
Venue
Archives of Toxicology
Published
2022-08-17
Volume
96
Issue
11
Pages
3127-3139
ISSN
  • 0340-5761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0738
OpenAlex
W4292291335
Cited by
9
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
3M
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS mixtures, cumulative risk assessment, tolerable daily intake, chemical grouping, perfluorinated carboxylic acids, perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids, relative potency factors, hepatotoxicity, toxicokinetics, EFSA
MeSH terms
Carboxylic Acids, Fluorocarbons, Sulfonic Acids, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review