You are here:
PFAS Exposure Assessment Finds and Follow-up Environmental Sampling
Citation:
Minucci, J., K. Scruton, B. Goodwin, R. Rogers, P. Kowalski, A. Pomales, W. Jones, M. Zeager, K. Thomas, AND E. Cohen-Hubal. PFAS Exposure Assessment Finds and Follow-up Environmental Sampling. Society of Toxicology 62nd Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, March 19 - 23, 2023.
Impact/Purpose:
In 2018 CDC/ATSDR conducted statistically based biomonitoring exposure assessments (EAs) at eight impacted communities near military installations (and two pilot study communities) that have or have had documented exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. The intention of the EAs was to determine how exposure to PFAS in drinking water in communities near the military installations may have impacted levels of PFAS in serum and urine. In addition to serum and urine testing, tap water and indoor dust were also sampled in a subset of homes. A Cooperative Interagency Agreement between EPA and ATSDR was established in 2020 with funding to further evaluate potential non-drinking water exposure in EA participants. Under this IAA, ATSDR and EPA researchers are cooperating to analyze results from the EA sites. Additionally, intensive multimedia exposure investigations have been conducted in partnership in MA and DE to further evaluate potential non-drinking water exposures to PFAS, and this data is in the process of being analyzed by ATSDR and EPA.
Description:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted eight exposure assessments (EAs) in communities near military installations that have documented exposures to PFAS in drinking water. In all cases, exposure to PFAS in drinking water was mitigated prior to initiation of the biomonitoring efforts. These EAs built upon two pilot investigations conducted by state health departments. In total, EAs were conducted in ten communities, including sites in MA, WV, DE, WA, TX, AK, CO, PA and NY (2 sites), to determine the distribution of PFAS serum concentrations in communities with recent or past exposure to PFAS in drinking water. A random sampling approach was conducted, where appropriate, to allow the results of the EAs to be generalizable. PFAS were measured in urine samples from a subset of participants and in indoor dust and tap water from a subset of participating households at all eight EA sites and one of the pilot sites. The following PFAS were present in serum above the national average (2017-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), after adjusting for the age of participants in each community: · PFHxS (10 communities) · PFOS (8 communities) · PFOA (7 communities) Relationships between historical concentrations of PFAS in drinking water at the sites and serum PFAS concentrations will be presented and evaluated based on age, sex, residency duration, historical drinking water PFAS levels, and use of filtration. Overall, higher PFAS serum levels were found in participants that were older, male, had lived in the community for a longer period of time and had higher PFAS levels in their water source. Lower PFAS levels were associated with participants who used filtration devices or reported not drinking tap water. This presentation will include associations for the combined data set and differences observed among the sites. Following completion of the EAs, ATSDR teamed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete sampling and analysis of PFAS and PFAS precursors in non-drinking water media at two of the EA sites: Westfield MA and New Castle DE. The goals of the exposure investigation were to sample environmental media located both inside and outside the home to evaluate: 1) the presence or absence of PFAS in each medium; 2) if present, the detectable levels of PFAS in each medium; and 3) whether PFAS detected in the medium may be associated with the existing measured body burden levels of PFAS identified during the EA. Samples in indoor media (filtered and bulk dust, surface wipes, air) and outdoor media (air, soil) were collected along with samples of locally-grown produce. Silicone wristbands were also worn by participants to evaluate personal exposure. The results are being analyzed by ATSDR and EPA. The findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry or the Environmental Protection Agency and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.