Cited by 93Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology

Developmental Toxicity of Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and Its Chlorinated Polyfluoroalkyl Ether Sulfonate Alternative F-53B in the Domestic Chicken

Open access
Briels, Nathalie, Ciesielski, Tomasz M., Herzke, Dorte, Jaspers, Veerle L. B.·2018·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

The chlorinated polyfluoroalkyl ether sulfonate F-53B is used as a mist suppressant in the Chinese electroplating industry. Because of the regulations on perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), its use is expected to increase. Until now, F-53B toxicity data have been scarce and are, to our knowledge, lacking for birds. This study therefore investigated the effects of PFOS and F-53B, separately and as mixtures, on the development of the chicken ( Gallus gallus domesticus). Compounds were injected in ovo, before incubation, at 150 and 1500 ng/g egg. At embryonic day 20, a significantly lower heart rate was observed in all treated groups compared to the control group and hatchlings exposed to the high dose of F-53B had a significantly enlarged liver (8%). Embryonic survival was not affected and no significant effects on hatchling body mass or oxidative stress parameters were found. Our results suggest that these compounds likely have different toxicity thresholds for the investigated endpoints, and/or different modes of action. This study thereby underlines the potential developmental toxicity of PFOS and F-53B at environmentally relevant concentrations. Assessment of PFOS alternatives should therefore continue, preferably prior to their large scale use, as they should be ensured to be less harmful than PFOS itself.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.8b04749

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Briels, N., Ciesielski, T. M., Herzke, D., & Jaspers, V. L. B.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • The FRAM Centre (NO)
Corresponding author
Briels, Nathalie
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2018-10-10
Volume
52
Issue
21
Pages
12859-12867
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2897307424
Cited by
93
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Norges Forskningsr?d (230465/F20)
  • Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Keywords
PFOS, PFOS alternatives, F-53B, developmental toxicity, chickens, in ovo injection, embryonic development, heart rate, hepatomegaly, oxidative stress, toxic equivalents
MeSH terms
Animals, Chickens, Ether, Fluorocarbons, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Zebrafish, Alkanesulfonic Acids

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