4.7 Article

Temporal trends in PFAS concentrations in livers of a terrestrial raptor (common buzzard; Buteo buteo) collected in Belgium during the period 2000-2005 and in 2021

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
卷 216, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114644

关键词

Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances; Raptor; Temporal variation; PFOS; Terrestrial environment; Biomonitoring; Toxicological implications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study in Belgium found that the overall concentrations of PFAS in the livers of common buzzards remained similar over a 20-year period, despite regulations and phase-out efforts. However, the dominant types of PFAS varied between different time periods.
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are anthropogenic chemicals that have been globally distributed. Biological time series data suggest variation in temporal PFAS concentrations due to regulations and the phase-out of multiple PFAS analytes. Nonetheless, biomonitoring temporal trends of PFAS concentrations in raptors has only been done sporadically in Europe at a national scale. In the present study, we examined the concentrations of 28 PFAS in livers of common buzzard (Buteo buteo) collected in Belgium in the period 2000-2005 and in 2021. Despite the regulations and phase-out, the sigma PFAS concentrations remained similar in the livers over the past 20 years. However, over time the abundance of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), dominant in livers collected in 2000-2005, to the sigma PFAS concentration decreased from 46% to 27%, whereas the abundance of per-fluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeDA), dominant in 2021, increased from 19% to 43%. The PFOS concentrations in the present study did not exceed the Toxicity Reference Values (TRVs), which were determined in liver on the characteristics of an avian top predator. The absence of temporal changes in PFAS concentrations is hypothesized to be due to a lagged response in environmental concentrations compared to atmospheric concentrations.

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

4.7
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