Loading…

Depuration kinetics and tissue disposition of PFOA and PFOS in white leghorn chickens (Gallus gallus) administered by subcutaneous implantation

Elimination kinetics and tissue disposition of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in male chickens (Gallus gallus) was determined following exposure by subcutaneous implantation. Chickens were exposed to two levels of PFOA or PFOS for 4wk and then allowed to depurate...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecotoxicology and environmental safety 2009-01, Vol.72 (1), p.26-36
Main Authors: Yoo, Hoon, Guruge, Keerthi S., Yamanaka, Noriko, Sato, Chihiro, Mikami, Osamu, Miyazaki, Shigeru, Yamashita, Nobuyoshi, Giesy, John P.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Elimination kinetics and tissue disposition of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in male chickens (Gallus gallus) was determined following exposure by subcutaneous implantation. Chickens were exposed to two levels of PFOA or PFOS for 4wk and then allowed to depurate for an additional 4wk. These exposures did not cause any statistically significant changes in body index, clinical biochemistry or histology among treatments relative to the controls (p>0.05), except that concentrations of total cholesterol and phospholipids were less in chickens exposed to PFOS. The elimination rate constant for PFOA (0.150±0.010d−1) was approximately six-fold greater than that of PFOS (0.023±0.004d−1). The greatest concentrations of PFOA and PFOS were found in kidney and liver, respectively. The organ to blood ratio of PFOS concentration was increased after the whole experiment, indicating the importance of organ partitioning of PFOS in elimination kinetics. The depuration half-life of PFOA (t1/2=4.6d) and PFOS (t1/2=125d) in chickens was calculated.
ISSN:0147-6513
1090-2414
DOI:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2007.09.007