Occupational exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: a scope review of the literature from 1980-2021.

backgroundPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) comprise a large group of chemicals that have been integrated into a wide variety of industrial processes and consumer products since the 1950s. Due to their profuse usage and high persistence in human serum, understanding workplace exposures to PFAS is critical.

objectiveWe aimed to characterize the PFAS exposure profiles of relevant occupational populations, elucidate trends in the PFAS exposure characterization process, and identify major research gaps that remain within the occupational PFAS exposure literature.

methodsA systematic search of four literature databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 1980 and 2021 on PFAS exposure in occupational settings was conducted.

resultsOf the 2574 articles identified, 92 met the inclusion criteria. Fluorochemical workers were the target population in most early exposure assessment research; however, studies conducted within the last 10 years have evaluated a wider range of occupational populations and settings. The highest exposures were reported in fluorochemical workers, but, in comparison to reference populations, one or more PFAS were elevated in most workers and in most workplaces that were assessed. PFAS was most frequently assessed in worker serum using a discrete analytical panel of PFAS, with earlier studies restricted to a few long-alkyl chain PFAS while more recent studies have included more expansive panels due to more robust methods. SIGNIFICANCE: Characterization of occupational exposure to PFAS is limited but expanding. Current analytical methods are not robust enough to fully capture the potential range of PFAS present across different workers and workplaces. While exposures to PFAS for certain occupational groups have been studied in detail, exposure information for other occupational groups with high potential for exposure are limited. This review highlights substantial findings and major research gaps within the occupational literature.