Maternal exposure to perfluorinated acids and fetal growth

Abstract

The widespread detection of perfluorinated acids (PFAs) in humans and known developmental toxicity in animals has raised concern about their potential effects on human reproductive health. Our objective was to determine whether increasing maternal exposure to PFAs is associated with adverse effects on fetal growth and length of gestation in women giving birth in Alberta, Canada. We examined the concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), and perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) in a cohort of 252 pregnant women who gave birth to live singletons. Each of the women had undergone an early second trimester prenatal screen, and her serum was analyzed for PFA concentrations. Data on infant and maternal variables were collected from the delivery record completed at birth. Adjusted changes in birth weight per natural log (ng/ml) of PFOA (median 1.5 ng/ml), PFHxS (median 0.97 ng/ml), and PFOS (median 7.8 ng/ml) were -37.4 g (95% confidence interval (CI): -86.0 to 11.2 g), 21.9 g (-23.4 to 67.2 g), and 31.3 g (-43.3 to 105.9 g), respectively. Mean birth weight z-score, standardized for gestational age and gender, length of gestation, and risk of preterm birth did not appear to be influenced by maternal PFA exposure. When PFA concentrations were divided into tertiles, similar patterns were observed. These results suggest that maternal PFA exposure has no substantial effect on fetal weight and length of gestation at the concentrations observed in this population.

Per- and polyfluorinated substances in the Nordic Countries

“…Also a British study found that girls born to mothers with maternal serum concentrations of PFOA in the upper tertile weighed less (130 g (95%CI: -237, -30)) at birth compared with girls born to mothers with serum concentrations in the lower tertile (Maisonet et al, 2012). Contrary to the above findings, 2 smaller Canadian studies found no evidence of decreased birth weight and maternal PFOA levels (Monroy et al, 2008;Hamm et al, 2010). In summary, in general Nordic and British studies suggest that PFOA affects the foetal growth negatively, whereas smaller Canadian studies did not see this effect.…”

“…Two other smaller Canadian studies did not find any associations between maternal PFHxS levels and fetal weight and length of gestation (Hamm et al, 2010;Monroy et al, 2008). A study examined the association between PFCs and ADHD among children in the US (Hoffman et al, 2010).…”

“…The most extensive set of studies has examined foetal growth, birth weight, duration of gestation, and related indices of in utero development (Apelberg et al, 2007;Fei et al, , 2008Hamm et al, 2010;Hoffman et al, 2010;Monroy et al, 2008;So et al, 2006;Washino et al, 2009;Maisonet et al, 2012). In the Danish National Birth Cohort study (DNBC) (n = 1,400 mother/child), Fei et al investigated the possible correlations between the concentration of PFOA (and PFOS) in the maternal blood during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy and the birth weight and risk of premature birth .…”

“…In contrast, in the Danish National Birth Cohort study (DNBC) (n = 1,400 mother/child), maternal PFOS was not associated with birth weight and risk of premature birth , and suggested that the associations might be related to PFOA. Two other smaller Canadian studies did also not find any association between maternal PFOS and fetal weight and length of gestation (Hamm et al, 2010;Monroy et al, 2008). Developmental milestones of children were examined in the substudy of the Danish National Birth Cohort (n = 1,400).…”

PFAS in Paper and Board for Food Contact

“…PFOS, PFOA, PFNA and PFHxS, and indices of foetal growth/development, including birth weight, birth length, ponderal index, gestational age, and pre-term birth, have been conflicting. Some have shown increased levels to be inversely related (Andersen et al, 2010;Apelberg et al, 2007;Fei et al, 2007;Wu et al, 2012;Darrow et al, 2013, Maisonet et al, 2012Wang et al, 2011), whereas others have reported no effect or an opposite association (Fei et al, 2008b, Hamm et al, 2010Olsen et al, 2009).…”