» Articles » PMID: 37184865

Plasma Protein Binding Evaluations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances for Category-Based Toxicokinetic Assessment

Overview
Specialty Toxicology
Date 2023 May 15
PMID 37184865
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

New approach methodologies (NAMs) that make use of in vitro screening and in silico approaches to inform chemical evaluations rely on in vitro toxicokinetic (TK) data to translate in vitro bioactive concentrations to exposure metrics reflective of administered dose. With 1364 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) identified as of interest under Section 8 of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and concern over the lack of knowledge regarding environmental persistence, human health, and ecological effects, the utility of NAMs to understand potential toxicities and toxicokinetics across these data-poor compounds is being evaluated. To address the TK data deficiency, 71 PFAS selected to span a wide range of functional groups and physico-chemical properties were evaluated for in vitro human plasma protein binding (PPB) by ultracentrifugation with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis. For the 67 PFAS successfully evaluated by ultracentrifugation, fraction unbound in plasma () ranged from less than 0.0001 (pentadecafluorooctanoyl chloride) to 0.7302 (tetrafluorosuccinic acid), with over half of the PFAS showing PPB exceeding 99.5% ( < 0.005). Category-based evaluations revealed that perfluoroalkanoyl chlorides and perfluorinated carboxylates (PFCAs) with 6-10 carbons were the highest bound, with similar median values for alkyl, ether, and polyether PFCAs. Interestingly, binding was lower for the PFCAs with a carbon chain length of ≥11. Lower binding also was noted for fluorotelomer carboxylic acids when compared to their carbon-equivalent perfluoroalkyl acids. Comparisons of the value derived using two PPB methods, ultracentrifugation or rapid equilibrium dialysis (RED), revealed RED failure for a subset of PFAS of high mass and/or predicted octanol-water partition coefficients exceeding 4 due to failure to achieve equilibrium. Bayesian modeling was used to provide uncertainty bounds around point estimates for incorporation into TK modeling. This PFAS PPB evaluation and grouping exercise across 67 structures greatly expand our current knowledge and will aid in PFAS NAM development.

Citing Articles

Food packaging solutions in the post-per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and microplastics era: A review of functions, materials, and bio-based alternatives.

Yashwanth A, Huang R, Iepure M, Mu M, Zhou W, Kunadu A Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2024; 24(1):e70079.

PMID: 39680570 PMC: 11649155. DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.70079.


In Vitro Hepatic Clearance Evaluations of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) across Multiple Structural Categories.

Crizer D, Rice J, Smeltz M, Lavrich K, Ravindra K, Wambaugh J Toxics. 2024; 12(9).

PMID: 39330600 PMC: 11435625. DOI: 10.3390/toxics12090672.


An in vitro and machine learning framework for quantifying serum albumin binding of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Starnes H, Green A, Reif D, Belcher S Toxicol Sci. 2024; 203(1):67-78.

PMID: 39298512 PMC: 11664106. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfae124.


Characterizing PFAS hazards and risks: a human population-based in vitro cardiotoxicity assessment strategy.

Ford L, Lin H, Zhou Y, Wright F, Gombar V, Sedykh A Hum Genomics. 2024; 18(1):92.

PMID: 39218963 PMC: 11368000. DOI: 10.1186/s40246-024-00665-x.


Unbound Fractions of PFAS in Human and Rodent Tissues: Rat Liver a Suitable Proxy for Evaluating Emerging PFAS?.

Ryu S, Burchett W, Zhang S, Jia X, Modaresi S, Agudelo Areiza J Environ Sci Technol. 2024; 58(33):14641-14650.

PMID: 39161261 PMC: 11825104. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.4c04050.


References
1.
Ryu S, Riccardi K, Patel R, Zueva L, Burchett W, Di L . Applying Two Orthogonal Methods to Assess Accuracy of Plasma Protein Binding Measurements for Highly Bound Compounds. J Pharm Sci. 2019; 108(11):3745-3749. DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2019.08.004. View

2.
Smeltz M, Clifton M, Henderson W, McMillan L, Wetmore B . Targeted Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) assessments for high throughput screening: Analytical and testing considerations to inform a PFAS stock quality evaluation framework. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2022; 459:116355. PMC: 10367912. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2022.116355. View

3.
Vanden Heuvel J, Kuslikis B, Peterson R . Covalent binding of perfluorinated fatty acids to proteins in the plasma, liver and testes of rats. Chem Biol Interact. 1992; 82(3):317-28. DOI: 10.1016/0009-2797(92)90003-4. View

4.
Wang Z, Cousins I, Scheringer M, Hungerbuehler K . Hazard assessment of fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their precursors: status quo, ongoing challenges and possible solutions. Environ Int. 2014; 75:172-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.013. View

5.
Kieltyka K, McAuliffe B, Cianci C, Drexler D, Shou W, Zhang J . Application of Cassette Ultracentrifugation Using Non-labeled Compounds and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis for High-Throughput Protein Binding Determination. J Pharm Sci. 2016; 105(3):1036-42. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3549(15)00177-X. View