ReviewArchives of toxicology2026
Estimating safe doses of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS): an international collaboration.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in follicular fluid and human granulosa cell dysfunction: a physiologically based toxicokinetic model translation of long-term low-levelHuman reproduction open · 2026Article
- Outsmarting generic legislation: 4 years into the cat-and-mouse game of the synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonist market since the Chinese ban in 2021.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Multi-Organ Toxicity of Combined PFOS/PS Exposure and Its Application in Network Toxicology.Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a safe dose (aka a "reference dose," [RfD]) for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Notably, these agencies have derived safe doses that vary over at least 600-fold range. The range is larger still if one includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) current science-policy position under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is that the only safe dose of PFOS is zero. This wide range in safe dose-estimates is surprising, since PFOS is a relatively well-studied, and ubiquitous, chemical. The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) called for health-scientists interested in attempting to understand and, if possible, narrow this range of estimates. An advisory committee of eight scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three teams comprised of 24 scientists from nine countries. Each team independently reviewed toxicologic and epidemiologic data, and developed PFOS safe dose-estimates. All three teams concluded that currently available epidemiologic data could not form a reliable basis for PFOS safe dose-assessments. In contrast, results of bioassays of PFOS in laboratory monkeys and rats did provide usable bases from which serum-concentration-based "points of departure" were derived. After applying several, necessarily imprecise, uncertainty factors, the three groups derived PFOS safe dose-estimates that ranged, narrowly, from 20 to 100 nanograms (ng) of PFOS/kg body weight/day. In contrast, USEPA's current (United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2024) Human health toxicity assessment for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and Related Salts. EPA Document No. 815R24007.) estimate of the safe dose is 0.1 ng of PFOS/kg-day.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.