Bayesian evaluation of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to characterize the interspecies uncertainty between mice, rats, monkeys, and humans: Development and performance verification
Open accessAbstract
A challenge in the risk assessment of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) is the large interspecies differences in its toxicokinetics that results in substantial uncertainty in the dosimetry and toxicity extrapolation from animals to humans. To address this challenge, the objective of this study was to develop an open-source physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model accounting for species-specific toxicokinetic parameters of PFOS. Considering available knowledge about the toxicokinetic properties of PFOS, a PBPK model for PFOS in mice, rats, monkeys, and humans after intravenous and oral administrations was created. Available species-specific toxicokinetic data were used for model calibration and optimization, and independent datasets were used for model evaluation. Bayesian statistical analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation was performed to optimize the model and to characterize the uncertainty and interspecies variability of chemical-specific parameters. The model predictions well correlated with the majority of datasets for all four species, and the model was validated with independent data in rats, monkeys, and humans. The model was applied to predict human equivalent doses (HEDs) based on reported points of departure in selected critical toxicity studies in rats and monkeys following U.S. EPA's guidelines. The lower bounds of the model-derived HEDs were overall lower than the HEDs estimated by U.S. EPA (e.g., 0.2 vs. 1.3 μg/kg/day based on the rat plasma data). This integrated and comparative analysis provides an important step towards improving interspecies extrapolation and quantitative risk assessment of PFOS, and this open-source model provides a foundation for developing models for other perfluoroalkyl substances.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Knowledge of the various mechanisms of PFAS toxicokinetics in humans, such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, is still limited, as most available studies have been carried out in animals and have shown high interspecies differences in absorption and elimination pathways.
“Knowledge of the various mechanisms of PFAS toxicokinetics in humans, such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion is still limited, as most available studies have been carried out in animals and have shown high interspecies differences in absorption and elimination pathways (Chou and Lin, 2019; Pizzurro et al., 2019; Drew et al., 2022).”
From Estimation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) half-lives in human studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Chou and Lin, 2019
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 83 · Cited by 98
- Authors
- Chou, W.-C., & Lin, Z.
- Affiliations
- Kansas State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lin, Zhoumeng
- Venue
- Environment International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-08
- Volume
- 129
- Pages
- 408-422
- ISSN
- 0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2947469636
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 3.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environment International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Kansas State University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
- Keywords
- PFOS, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, interspecies extrapolation, toxicokinetics, human equivalent dose, Bayesian calibration, Markov chain Monte Carlo, model validation, perfluorinated compounds, quantitative risk assessment, dosimetry, mice, rats, monkeys, human
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Haplorhini, Bayes Theorem, Calibration, Environmental Pollutants, Fluorocarbons, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Monte Carlo Method, Species Specificity, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Risk Assessment, Mice, Rats, Toxicokinetics
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