4.8 Article

Comparative Hepatotoxicity of Novel PFOA Alternatives (Perfluoropolyether Carboxylic Acids) on Male Mice

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 53, 期 7, 页码 3929-3937

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00148

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21737004]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB14040202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As novel alternatives to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoropolyether carboxylic acids (multiether PFECAs, CF3(OCF2)(n)COO-, n = 2-4) have been detected in various environmental matrices; however, public information regarding their toxicities remains unavailable. To compare the hepatotoxicity of multiether PFECAs (e.g., PFO2HxA, PFO3OA, and PFO4DA) with PFOA, male mice were exposed to 0.4, 2, or 10 mg/kg/d of each chemical for 28 d, respectively. Results demonstrated that PFO2HxA and PFO3OA exposure did not induce marked increases in relative liver weight; whereas 2 and 10 mg/kg/d of PFO4DA significantly increased relative liver weight. Furthermore, PFO2HxA and PFO3OA demonstrated almost no accumulation in the liver or serum; whereas PFO4DA was accumulated but with weaker potential than PFOA. Exposure to 10 mg/kg/d of PFO4DA led to 198 differentially expressed liver genes (56 down-regulated, 142 up-regulated), with bioinformatics analysis highlighting the urea cycle disorder. Like PFOA, 10 mg/kg/d of PFO4DA decreased the urea cycle-related enzyme protein levels (e.g., carbamoyl phosphate synthetase 1) and serum ammonia content in a dose-dependent manner. Both PFOA and PFO4DA treatment (highest concentration) caused a decrease in glutamate content and increase in both glutamine synthetase activity and aquaporin protein levels in the brain. Thus, we concluded that PFO4DA caused hepatotoxicity, as indicated by hepatomegaly and karyolysis, though to a lesser degree than PFOA, and induced urea cycle disorder, which may contribute to the observed toxic effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据