Search

Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) encompass a class of chemically and structurally diverse compounds that are extensively used in industry and detected in the environment. The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap describes national research plans to address the challenge of PFAS. Objectives: Systematic Evidence Map (SEM) methods were used to survey and summarize available epidemiological and mammalian bioassay evidence that could inform human health hazard identification for a set of 345 PFAS that were identified by the US EPA's Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for in vitro toxicity and toxicokinetic assay testing and through interagency discussions on PFAS of interest. This work builds from the 2022 evidence map that collated evidence on a separate set of ~150 PFAS. Like our previous work, this SEM does not include PFAS that are the subject of ongoing or completed assessments at the US EPA. Methods: SEM methods were used to search, screen, and inventory mammalian bioassay and epidemiological literature from peer-reviewed and gray literature sources using manual review and machine-learning software. For each included study, study design details and health end points examined were summarized in interactive web-based literature inventories. Some included studies also underwent study evaluation and detailed extraction of health end point data. All underlying data is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. Results: More than 13,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 121 mammalian bioassay and 111 epidemiological studies that met screening criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 12 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Mammalian bioassay evidence (available for 30 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, whole-body, nervous, and hepatic systems. Overall, 41 PFAS had evidence across mammalian bioassay and epidemiology data streams (roughly 11% of searched chemicals). Discussion: No epidemiological and/or mammalian bioassay evidence were identified for most of the PFAS included in our search. Results from this SEM, our 2022 SEM on ~150 PFAS, and other PFAS assessment products from the US EPA are compiled into a comprehensive PFAS dashboard that provides researchers and regulators an overview of the current PFAS human health landscape including data gaps and can serve as a scoping tool to facilitate prioritization of PFAS-related research and/or risk assessment activities. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13423, Introduction There is a growing need to understand the human health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) because human exposure to these persistent and bioaccumulative compounds is widespread. (1) [...]

Environ Health Perspect. 130(5):056001 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10343 In the originally published article, 6 of the 171 PFAS included in the evidence map were inadvertently omitted in literature search updates for 2020 [...]

Background: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of synthetic (man-made) chemicals widely used in consumer products and industrial processes. Thousands of distinct PFAS exist in commerce. The 2019 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan outlines a multiprogram national research plan to address the challenge of PFAS. One component of this strategy involves the use of systematic evidence map (SEM) approaches to characterize the evidence base for hundreds of PFAS. Objective: SEM methods were used to summarize available epidemiological and animal bioassay evidence for a set of ~ 150 PFAS that were prioritized in 2019 by the U.S. EPA's Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for in vitro toxicity and toxicokinetic assay testing. Methods: Systematic review methods were used to identify and screen literature using manual review and machine-learning software. The Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes (PECO) criteria were kept broad to identify mammalian animal bioassay and epidemiological studies that could inform human hazard identification. A variety of supplemental content was also tracked, including information on in vitro model systems; exposure measurement-only studies in humans; and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). Animal bioassay and epidemiology studies meeting PECO criteria were summarized with respect to study design, and health system(s) were assessed. Because animal bioassay studies with [greater than or equal to]21-d exposure duration (or reproductive/developmental study design) were most useful to CCTE analyses, these studies underwent study evaluation and detailed data extraction. All data extraction is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. Results: More than 40,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 44 animal and 148 epidemiology studies from the peer-reviewed literature and 95 animal and 50 epidemiology studies from gray literature that met PECO criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 15 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Animal evidence (available for 40 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, developmental, urinary, immunological, and hepatic systems. Overall, 45 PFAS had evidence across animal and epidemiology data streams. Discussion: Many of the ~ 150 PFAS were data poor. Epidemiological and animal evidence were lacking for most of the PFAS included in our search. By disseminating this information, we hope to facilitate additional assessment work by providing the initial scoping literature survey and identifying key research needs. Future research on data-poor PFAS will help support a more complete understanding of the potential health effects from PFAS exposures. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10343, Introduction Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of synthetic compounds with widespread presence used in consumer products and industrial processes. The core structure of PFAS consists of [...]

BACKGROUND: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of synthetic (man-made) chemicals widely used in consumer products and industrial processes. Thousands of distinct PFAS exist in commerce. The 2019 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan outlines a multiprogram national research plan to address the challenge of PFAS. One component of this strategy involves the use of systematic evidence map (SEM) approaches to characterize the evidence base for hundreds of PFAS. OBJECTIVE: SEM methods were used to summarize available epidemiological and animal bioassay evidence for a set of ~150 PFAS that were prioritized in 2019 by the U.S. EPA’s Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) for in vitro toxicity and toxicokinetic assay testing. METHODS: Systematic review methods were used to identify and screen literature using manual review and machine-learning software. The Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes (PECO) criteria were kept broad to identify mammalian animal bioassay and epidemiological studies that could inform human hazard identification. A variety of supplemental content was also tracked, including information on in vitro model systems; exposure measurement-only studies in humans; and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). Animal bioassay and epidemiology studies meeting PECO criteria were summarized with respect to study design, and health system(s) were assessed. Because animal bioassay studies with ≥21-d exposure duration (or reproductive/developmental study design) were most useful to CCTE analyses, these studies underwent study evaluation and detailed data extraction. All data extraction is publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. RESULTS: More than 40,000 studies were identified from scientific databases. Screening processes identified 44 animal and 148 epidemiology studies from the peer-reviewed literature and 95 animal and 50 epidemiology studies from gray literature that met PECO criteria. Epidemiological evidence (available for 15 PFAS) mostly assessed the reproductive, endocrine, developmental, metabolic, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Animal evidence (available for 40 PFAS) commonly assessed effects in the reproductive, developmental, urinary, immunological, and hepatic systems. Overall, 45 PFAS had evidence across animal and epidemiology data streams. DISCUSSION: Many of the ~150 PFAS were data poor. Epidemiological and animal evidence were lacking for most of the PFAS included in our search. By disseminating this information, we hope to facilitate additional assessment work by providing the initial scoping literature survey and identifying key research needs. Future research on data-poor PFAS will help support a more complete understanding of the potential health effects from PFAS exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub‐questions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross‐cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub‐questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub‐)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi‐formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and – not covered in this guidance – generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone 'template' for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7349/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]