ArticleScientific reports2026
Serum PFAS levels in UK firefighters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent an emerging concern due to their persistence, bioaccumulation, and emerging associations with different cancers and other diseases. Biomonitoring studies worldwide report elevated PFAS serum concentrations in firefighters compared with other occupations and the general population. The aim of this study was to quantify PFAS serum concentration in current and former firefighters and a general population comparison group in the UK. PFAS serum concentrations were analysed in a total sample of 1224 participants, including 942 firefighters from eight Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) and 282 individuals from the general population. PFAS concentrations varied across tested FRSs, with geometric mean serum levels for some analytes higher than those observed in the general population. These included PFHxS (4.1 times higher), PFOS sum (1.5 times higher) and PFHPS (about 1.6 times higher), compounds that have been historically associated with the use of aqueous film forming firefighting foams. Furthermore, four PFAS (8:2 FTS, FOSA, PFBS, and PFPeS) were detected exclusively in firefighter serum and not in the general population, of which three are commonly detected in firefighter turnout gear. Descriptively, PFAS geometric mean concentrations tended to be higher among older firefighters and those with longer service duration. The general population cohort, drawn from a region which has subsequently been found to have some of the UK's highest PFAS environmental contamination, showed relatively high baseline serum PFAS levels, suggesting the contribution of high background environmental exposure in this cohort. Reported data highlights the need for PFAS monitoring among firefighters, including evaluation of occupational exposure pathways, with attention to likely sources such as firefighting foam types and formulations; the type of chemicals applied to turnout gear; PPE use, frequency and type of decontamination. Further research should also include wider monitoring of the general population, including evaluation of likely sources and pathways of exposure.
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.