Cited by 116Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchOccupational Health and PerformanceToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances in a Cohort of Women Firefighters and Office Workers in San Francisco

Open access
Trowbridge, Jessica, Gerona, Roy R., Lin, Thomas, Rudel, Ruthann A., Bessonneau, Vincent, Buren, Heather, Morello-Frosch, Rachel·2020·Environmental Science & Technology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Background Studies in male firefighters have demonstrated increased exposures to carcinogenic compounds and increased rates of certain cancers compared to the general population. Many chemicals related to these occupational exposures have been associated with breast tumor development in animal and human studies, yet, there have been no studies on women firefighters due to their low numbers in most fire departments. To address this data gap, the Women Firefighters Biomonitoring Collaborative (WFBC) created a biological sample archive and analyzed levels of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) among women firefighters and office workers in San Francisco. Methods Active duty women firefighters (n=86) and office workers (n=84) were recruited from the San Francisco Fire Department and the City and County of San Francisco, respectively. Serum samples were collected and analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC MS/MS) to measure and compare PFAS levels between firefighters and office workers. For PFAS congeners detected in at least 70% of our study population, we examined differences in serum PFAS levels controlling for dietary, demographic and other confounders. Among firefighters, we assessed associations between occupational activities and PFAS levels. Results Eight of 12 PFAS congeners were detected at levels above the limit of detection and seven were detected in at least 70% of the study population. Four PFAS were detected in all study participants (PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS). In regression models comparing PFAS levels by occupation and adjusting for potential confounders, firefighters had higher geometric mean (GM) concentrations of PFAS compared to office workers: 2.39 (95%CI = 1.64,3.48), 2.32 (95% CI = 1.17,4.62) and 1.26 (95% CI = 0.99, 1.59) times higher for PFHxS, PFUnDA and PFNA, respectively. In analyses limited to firefighters, PFAS levels varied by assigned position in the fire department—firefighters and officers had higher PFNA, PFOA, PFDA, and PFUnDA compared to drivers. Additionally, firefighters who reported having used firefighting foam had higher concentrations of PFOA compared firefighters who reported never having used foam. Conclusion Our study found ubiquitous exposures to PFAS among WFBC participants, with women firefighters exposed to higher levels of some PFAS compared to office workers, suggesting that some of these exposures may be occupationally related.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.9b05490

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trowbridge, J., Gerona, R. R., Lin, T., Rudel, R. A., Bessonneau, V., Buren, H., & Morello-Frosch, R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Silent Spring Institute (US)
  • United Fire Service Women (US)
Corresponding author
Morello-Frosch, Rachel
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2020-02-26
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
3363-3374
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W3006980152
Cited by
116
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (R01ES027051)
  • California Breast Cancer Research Program (19BB-2900)
  • International Association of Firefighters-Local 798
  • San Francisco Firefighter Cancer Prevention Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
perfluorinated compounds, PFAS exposure, women firefighters, occupational exposure, office workers, serum PFAS levels, PFHxS, perfluoroundecanoic acid, PFNA, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorodecanoic acid, firefighter health, San Francisco
MeSH terms
Chromatography, Liquid, Environmental Pollutants, Female, Fluorocarbons, Humans, Male, San Francisco, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Firefighters

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