4.7 Article

Profiles of perfluoroalkyl substances in the liver and serum of patients with liver cancer and cirrhosis in Australia

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 96, Issue -, Pages 139-146

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.06.006

Keywords

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; Cancer; Human liver; Serum; Cirrhosis

Funding

  1. National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present cross-sectional study investigated 12 perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in serum (n=79) and liver (n=66) samples from patients who had undergone liver transplantation for a range of conditions, such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C viral infection (HCV), both HCC and HCV, amyloidosis or acute liver failure. PFAS data from patients were compared to those in control serum (n=25) samples from liver donors with no known liver disease and to those in control liver (n=9) tissues collected during liver resection surgery. All samples showed detectable PFOS (serum: 0.621-126 ng/mL; liver: 0.375-42.5 ng/g wet wt) and PFOA (serum: 0.437-45.5 ng/mL; liver: 0.101-2.25 ng/g wet wt) concentrations. In general, in paired serum and liver samples, serum had higher PFOS, PFHxS, PFDA, PFNA, and PFOA concentrations than those in explanted livers from patients. These findings also suggest that pathological changes in diseased livers alter the distribution of PFASs between liver and serum. The results from control serum (2007-2008) suggested that PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA, and PFNA concentrations were lower than those previously reported from Australia for 2002-2003, and 2006-2007. The present study demonstrates, for the first time, the detection and comparison of a range of PFASs in the liver of patients with liver cancer and/or liver cirrhosis. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available