Skip to main content
Applied Biological Chemistry
Download PDF

The dietary risk assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorosulfonic acid (PFOS) in the root crops from the survey of the residue in agricultural soil and the crops

Applied Biological Chemistry volume 65, Article number: 60 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) are persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that are prohibited from being produced and used. However, they remain in the agricultural environment and are transferred to crops. In addition, PFOA is classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans. To fully understand the exposure and risk of PFOA and PFOS for human in crops, a residue survey and estimation of dietary exposure assessment are needed. Therefore, we investigated the residues of PFOA and PFOS in upland soil and cultivated root crops. The average residues of PFOA and PFOS in the soil were < 0.054–0.541 μg kg–1 and 0.024–0.111 μg kg–1, and 0.067–0.193 μg kg–1 and < 0.02 μg kg–1 in the crops, respectively. The average PFOA residues were higher than PFOS in the soil and crops. The estimated daily intakes of PFOA and PFOS in the crops were 0.284 ng kgbw–1 day–1 and 0.023 ng kgbw–1 day–1, and the estimated hazard quotients were 0.355 and 0.013, respectively. In addition, the excess cancer risk of PFOA was calculated to be 1.99 × 10–8. Thus, the non–carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks of PFOA and PFOS were not notable from the surveyed residues in the crops. However, the risks may be higher when the residues in other food crops are considered.

Introduction

Perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) are a group of synthetic perfluorinated compounds that have been extensively used in the fabric, paper, electronics, and many other industries since the end of the twentieth century [1,2,3]. However, they are listed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by the Stockholm Convention owing to their high stability, bioaccumulation factor, and the potential toxicity of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in humans and wildlife [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. PFOA and PFOS released from different products into the environment contaminate the air, soil, and water, and can remain in the environment for over a decade [6, 12,13,14,15]. In South Korea, PFOA and PFOS residues in the environment, including the agricultural environment, are surveyed and monitored under the POPs Control Act; the levels of these residues are reportedly below a part-per-billion [16,17,18,19]. Further, as environmental residues can be transferred and accumulated into crops, they should be controlled to keep them from entering the human food web [19,20,21,22,23].

Recently, the bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of PFOA and PFOS have been reported for various crops and animals. The factors were low (below 10) for crops; however, PFOA and PFOS were frequently detected in various crops [17, 19, 22,23,24,25]. The dietary exposure to PFOA and PFOS has not yet been fully estimated because of the lack of information on their residues in food crops [2, 21, 26].

The first reference doses (RfDs) of PFOA and PFOS were announced to be 1500 and 150 ng kg–1 day–1 in 2008 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and then revised to 0.8 and 1.8 ng kg–1 day–1 in 2018 [21]. In addition, PFOA is classified into Group 2B as a possible carcinogen for humans [27, 28]. Based on the revised RfDs of PFOA and PFOS, dietary exposure risk assessments have been performed on some food crops. However, the exposure risks have not been considered for root crops, which typically have higher residue levels than leafy and fruit vegetables because of their high BCFs [18, 29, 30]. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the residues of PFOA and PFOS in upland soil and cultivated root crops, and perform a dietary risk assessment based on a residue survey focusing on upland soil during 2018–2019.

Materials and methods

Standards and reagents

PFOA and PFOS analytical standard solutions of native and isotope-labeled (13C4− and 13C8−) were purchased from Wellington Laboratories, Inc. (ON, Canada). All solvents (acetonitrile, methanol, tetrahydrofuran, and water) and reagents (acetic acid and ammonium acetate) were used a high–performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade from Merck (Germany). Hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (HLB) cartridges (0.5 g, 6 mL, Oasis, Waters Co., Ireland), powdered ENVI-Carb™ (Supelco, PA, USA), and membrane filter and syringe filter (nylon, Silicycle, Quebec, Canada) were purchased.

Sampling site and sampling

Soil and root crops (carrot, garlic, onion, potato, radish, and sweet potato) were collected from 176 different agricultural sites (6 provinces, 38 cities) in South Korea between April 2018 and November 2019. The soil samples were collected about 3 kg, to a depth of 0.15 m using an auger and placed in polypropylene (PP) bags. The soil samples were collected in triplicates in each farmland, and a composite representative for each site was obtained by mixing equal weights. The soil samples were dried at room temperature for 5 days in a fume hood, after passed through a 2 mm sieve, and stored at − 20 °C until analysis. In this study, the selected root crops were carrot, garlic, onion, potato, radish, and sweet potato. The Korean diet consists mainly of crops, and the intake of root crops selected in this study is high among the daily intake crops. Each crop sample was collected 3 kg on the farm with three replications. The sampled crops were ground with dry ice and stored at – 20 ℃ until analysis.

Analytical sample preparation for residual PFAAs in soil

The analytical method of residual PFAAs in soil was reported by Choi et al. [18] with slight modification. One gram of soil was extracted with 1.0% aqueous acetic acid (10 mL) with sonication for 20 min and mechanical shaking for an hour. The extracts were centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min, and supernatants were collected in a new PP tube. The original soil was re–extracted with a mixture solvent with methanol and 1.0% aqueous acetic acid (9/1, v/v) (10 mL), and the extraction was repeated three times. The soil extract was concentrated to 15 mL under N2 gas on Hurricane–Eagle (Chungmin-Tech Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and diluted with deionized water (DW) to 50 mL. HLB SPE cartridge was preconditioned with 10 mL of methanol, followed by 10 mL of DW, and the diluted sample was loaded at a rate of 1.3–1.6 mL min–1. The cartridge was washed with 5 mL of 30% methanol and was eluent with 10 mL of methanol. The eluent was concentrated and re–dissolved with 1 mL of methanol. The extract was cleaned up with 20 mg of powdered ENVI-Carb™ and then vortexed and filtered using a syringe filter then isotope-labeled internal standards were added to the filtrate.

Analytical sample preparation for residual PFAAs in crops

The analytical method of residual PFAAs in crops was reported by Choi et al. [18] with slight modification. Briefly, the crops were washed under running water to remove soil, and the samples were ground with dry ice. Ten gram of sample was extracted with 75% methanol with sonication for 20 min and mechanical shaking for an hour. The extract was centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min, and the supernatant was collected. The extracted crop was re–extracted using 75% of aqueous tetrahydrofuran (10 mL), and the extraction was repeated three times. All extracts were combined and concentrated to 10 mL under a nitrogen stream. As described above, the extract was diluted with DW to 50 mL and then extracted with HLB SPE. The eluent was concentrated and re–dissolved with 1 mL methanol. The extract was cleaned up with 20 mg of powdered ENVI–Carb™. The mixture was vortexed and filtered using a syringe filter then isotope–labeled internal standards were added to the filtrate.

Instrumental analysis

The LC-QTOF-MS system consisted of a Dionex UltiMate 3000 Quaternary Analytical LC high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) system and a Bruker Impact II TM Ultra-High Resolution Qq-Time-Of-Flight (UHR-QqTOF, Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA). The separations of PFOA and PFOS in soil and crops matrix were used in an ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (1.7 µm, 100 mm × 2.1 mm, Waters, Milford, MA, USA), while a Luna C18 column (3 µm, 50 mm × 2.0 mm, Phenomenex. Inc., Torrance, CA, USA) as a pre-column was placed after pump exit to delay solvent impurity. The elute and detailed instrumental conditions were described in Additional file 1: Table S1.

Calculation on estimated daily intake (EDI) of agricultural products for PFAAs

EDIs of PFOA and PFOS were calculated based on the residual concentration of PFOA and PFOS in each crop, an estimate of the daily intake of crops, and average body weight (Eq. 1) [31, 32]. Food intake and average body weight by age were obtained from the 2019 Nation Food & Nutrition Statistics provided by the Korean Health Industry Development Institute (Additional file 1: Tables S2, S3) [33].

$$ {\text{EDI}}\,\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{kg}}_{{{\text{bw}}}}^{{ - 1}} \,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right){ = }\frac{{\left\{ {\left[ {{\text{Daily}}\,{\text{intake}}\,{\text{of crop}}\,{\text{per}}\,{\text{person}}\left( {{\text{g}}\,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)} \right]\,\, \times \,\,\left[ {{\text{Residual concentration}}\,\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{g}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)} \right ]} \right\}\,}}{{{\text{Average}}\,{\text{body}}\,{\text{weight }}\left( {{\text{kg}}} \right)}} $$
(1)

Non–Carcinogen risk assessment of agricultural products for PFAAs

The hazard quotient (HQ) was calculated to evaluate the potential for non–cancer health hazards to occur from exposure to PFOA and PFOS with available non–cancer health guidelines as reference dose (RfD) (Eq. 2) [34]. RfD of PFOA and PFOS were obtained from EFSA [35].

$$ {\text{HQ = }}\frac{{{\text{EDI}}\,\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{kg}}_{{{\text{bw}}}}^{{ - 1}} \,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)}}{{{\text{Reference }}\,{\text{dose}}\,\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{kg}}_{{{\text{bw}}}}^{{ - 1}} \,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)}} $$
(2)

Carcinogen risk assessment of agricultural products for PFOA

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the PFOA as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) [29, 36]. The excess carcinogen risk (ECR) was calculated using the EDI and cancer slope factor (Eq. 3). For PFOA, US. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) estimated a cancer slope factor of 0.07 (mg \({\mathrm{kg}}_{\mathrm{bw}}^{-1}\) day–1)–1 [36].

$$ {\text{ECR = }}\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{kg}}_{{{\text{bw}}}}^{{ - 1}} \,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)\, \times \,\,{\text{Cancer}}\,{\text{slope}}\,{\text{factor}}\,\left[ {\left( {{\text{ng}}\,{\text{kg}}_{{{\text{bw}}}}^{{ - 1}} \,{\text{day}}^{{ - 1}} } \right)^{{ - 1}} } \right] $$
(3)

Results and discussion

Quality assurance

Linearities of PFOA and PFOS were measured in the range of 0.020 and 2.00 µg L–1 and the R2 were > 0.996 (Table 1). The limit of quantitations (LOQs) for PFOA and PFOS were determined to 0.020 µg kg–1 for soil and 0.002 µg kg–1 for crops. The analytical method validation was performed by determining the recoveries associated with the relative standard deviation of PFOA and PFOS. Recovery was measured at 0.050 µg kg–1 with 13C8-PFAAs in spiked soils and the crops. The recoveries of PFOA and PFOS ranged from 70.4 to 81.6% in the soil and root crops. The precision of PFOA and PFOS ranged from 8.7 to 9.2% for soil and 8.9 to 9.6% for crops.

Table 1 Analytical method validation of PFOA and PFOS in soil and crop
Full size table

PFOA and PFOS residues in soil and crops

Residual PFOA and PFOS in the soil environment can be transferred and accumulated in cultivated crops. Thus, a survey of residues in the soil environment is the first step towards understanding crop residues and performing dietary exposure risk assessments for humans or animals. In this study, the residue survey focused on upland soil during 2018–2019. PFOA and PFOS were widely distributed in the agricultural environment and the detection ratios in the soil were ranged on 60–100% (average, 86.6%) and 47–93% (average, 83.8%), respectively (Fig. 1); and the average residues were 0.054–0.541 μg kg–1 for PFOA and 0.024–0.111 μg kg–1 for PFOS in the soil (Table 2). The total residue distributions of PFOA and PFOS in the soil was recorded to exceed 90% in < 0.05 μg kg–1 (Fig. 2) and each of the PFOA and PFOS residues was drastically decreased in comparison with the residues (< 0.05–1.57 μg kg–1 for PFOA and < 0.05–2.16 μg kg–1 for PFOS) in the national survey in 2013 [16]. In addition, the average residue of total PFOA and PFOS was 0.260 μg kg–1 which was four times lower than the downstream area of Nakdong-river in 2013–2017 [18]. This decrease in the soil could be explained by the prohibition of production and use of PFOA and PFOS by the enforcement of the POPs Control Act in Korea; the Act prohibited the production and use of PFOA and PFOS from 2013 [18].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Detection ratios of PFOA and PFOS in the upland soil and the cultivated crops in South Korea

Full size image
Table 2 The residue concentrations (μg kg−1) of PFOA and PFOS in upland soil and crops
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of PFOA (a) and PFOS (b) in the upland soil and the cultivated crops in South Korea

Full size image

In the crops, the detection ratios were 47–100% (average 79.5%) for PFOA and 0–20% (average 6.5%) for PFOS (Fig. 1). For PFOA, the residue distribution ratios in the soil were 29.4% for 0.02–0.1 μg kg–1 and 38.9% for 0.1–0.2 μg kg–1. Similar residue distribution leves of PFOA were observed in the crops (Fig. 2); potato and garlic demonstrated detection ratios of 100%, whereas onion and sweet potato showed detection ratios of > 80% (Table 2). The average residues of PFOA in each root crop were 0.067–0.193 μg kg–1. However, PFOS was not detected in most of the crops (93.3%) despite the residue distribution in the soil being widely identified. For PFOS, carrot, onion, potato, and radish recorded detection ratios < 5% (Table 2), and the detected residue distribution exhibited differently with PFOA (Fig. 2). The average residues of PFOS in each root crop were < 0.020 μg kg–1. The highest detected residue for PFOA was 0.768 μg kg–1 in carrot, whereas this was 0.247 μg kg–1 for PFOS in garlic. These lower detection ratios and average residue levels were expected for PFOS compared with PFOA in crops because of the low BCF in root crops and the immobilization effect of soil minerals in the soil environment [18, 22, 37,38,39]. In the soil environment, PFOA and PFOS are adsorbed to the soil as electrostatic interaction, hydrophobic interaction, ligand, and ion exchange, and hydrogen bonding [37,38,39]. Millinovic et al. reported that PFOS showed both the highest sorption and the lowest sorption reversibility in the soil. In contrast, PFOA showed lower sorption and high reversibility compared with PFOS [37]. This difference would be due to the physicochemical properties such as hydrophobicity and functional group. In addition, Wei et al. reported that PFOS adsorption on soil was a positive correlation with soil physicochemical properties such as Al2O3, soil organic carbon, and Fe2O3 [38]. The sulfonate group in PFOS would be fixed as a metal combined complex with Al or Fe in soil mineral and then it would be immobilized in the soil environment [37,38,39].

Dietary exposure risk assessment of PFOA and PFOS

As dietary exposure route is considered a significant contributing route to PFOA and PFOS for humans, estimating the exposure amount is the first step in the risk assessment of the residues in root crops. The total EDIs of PFOA and PFOS for the root crops were 0.284 and 0.023 ng kgbw–1 day–1, respectively. The EDIs of PFOA and PFOS for each crop ranged from 0.011 to 0.124 ng kgbw–1 day–1 and 0.001 to 0.005 ng kgbw–1 day–1, respectively (Table 3). Onion showed the highest EDI (0.124 ng kgbw–1 day–1), which it was two-fold higher than the previously reported EDI for onion (0.057 ng kgbw–1 day–1) in the downstream of Nakdong River [18]. Based on the reported RfDs, the total calculated HQs were 0.355 for PFOA and 0.013 for PFOS. The total HQ for PFOA was 27-fold higher than for PFOS.

Table 3 EDIs and HQs of PFOA and PFOS from the sampled crops
Full size table

When the HQ was analyzed by age group, the infant group (1–2 year olds) showed the highest HQs (0.711 for PFOA and 0.065 for PFOS), while the young adult group (19–29 year olds) had the lowest HQs (0.271 for PFOA and 0.021 for PFOS) (Fig. 3). The dietary intake of the food crops per bodyweight was higher in the younger age groups, although the intake amount per person was lower for the younger age groups than the adult groups (Fig. 3a). Further, the exposure risk of PFOA and PFOS for the infant group was three times higher than for the adult group.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Dietary intake amounts of the crops (A) and HQs (B) of PFOA and PFOS (C) by age group

Full size image

As PFOA was classified as a possible carcinogen to humans in Group 2B by the IARC [29], the ECR of PFOA in the root crops was estimated based on the calculated EDI. The calculated ECR for each crop ranged from 7.89 × 10–10 to 8.86 × 10–9 (Table 4), and the total ECR was below the guideline value (1.00 × 10–6). As there is a continuous decrease of the residue of PFOA and PFOS in the agricultural soil environment from the prohibition of use and production of the PFAAs, the residues and the EDIs in the crops were expected to decline slowly with time.

Table 4 The ECR of PFOA in the root crops
Full size table

The dietary exposure risk for PFOA and PFOS was assessed from a residue survey of agricultural soil and cultivated root crops. The risk of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic exposures of PFOA and PFOS in the surveyed crops did not exceed the safety guideline for Koreans. However, we determined that the exposure risk of PFOA in infants was higher than in the other age groups. Furthermore, the estimated total EDIs of PFOA and PFOS in dietary food for the Korean population would be higher than this because this didn’t include the exposure amount from other major dietary sources of PFOA and PFOS such as meat, fish, and dairy. Thus, the risk reduction of PFOA (HQ = 0.711 for infants) would initially need to consider decreasing the residue in crop soil because these crops are an essential source of food and feed in the food chain.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Jian JM, Guo Y, Zeng L, Liang-Ying L, Lu X, Wang F, Zeng EY (2017) Global distribution of perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in potential human exposure source–a review. Environ Int 108:51–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Li P, Oyang X, Zhao Y, Tu T, Tian X, Li L, Zhao Y, Li J, Xiao Z (2019) Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds in agricultural environment, vegetables, and fruits in regions influenced by a fluorine–chemical industrial park in China. Chemosphere 225:659–667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Luo L, Kim MJ, Park JH, Yang HD, Kho YL, Chung MS, Moon BK (2019) Reduction of perfluorinated compound content in fish cake and swimming crab by different cooking methods. Appl Biol Chem 62:44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kudo N, Kawashima Y (2003) Toxicity and toxicokinetics of perfluorooctanoic acid in humans and animals. J Toxicol Sci 28:49–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Klaunig JE, Hocevar BA, Kamendulis LM (2012) Mode of action analysis of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) tumorigenicity and human relevance. Reprod Toxicol 33:410–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Post GB, Cohn PD, Cooper KR (2012) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an emerging drinking water contaminant: a critical review of recent literature. Environ Res 116:93–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi GH, Jeong DK, Lim SJ, Ro JH, Ryu SH, Park BJ, Moon BC, Kim JH (2017) Plant uptake potential of endosulfan from soil by carrot and spinach. J Appl Biol Chem 60:339–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Seong HJ, Kwon SW, Seo DC, Kim JH, Jang YS (2019) Enzymatic defluorination of fluorinated compounds. Appl Biol Chem 62:62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yang L, He L, Xue J, Ma Y, Xie Z, Huang WuL, M, Zhang Z, (2020) Persulfate–based degradation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in aqueous solution: Review on influences, mechanisms and prospective. J Hazard Mater 393:122405

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Oh KY, Choi GH, Bae JY, Lee DY, Lee SW, Kim JH (2020) Effect of soil organic matter content on plant uptake fator of ginseng for endosulfan. J Appl Biol Chem 63:401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee HK, Lee JH, Lee JH, Lee HR, Kim JH (2020) Metabolite profiles of live or dead carp (Cyprinus carpio) exposed to endosulfan sulfate using a targeted GC-MS analysis. Appl Biol Chem 63:11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lee DY, Choi GH, Bae YS, Lee SW, Kim SK, Bae JY, Song AR, Moon BY, Megson D, Oh KY, Kim JH (2021) Fate of endosulfan in ginseng farm and effect of granular biochar treatment on endosulfan accumulation in ginseng. Environ Geochem Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-021-01152-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zareitalabad P, Siemens J, Hamer M, Amelung W (2013) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in surface waters, sediments, soils and wastewater—A review on concentrations and distribution coefficients. Chemosphere 91:725–732

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JH, Ok YS, Choi GH, Park BJ (2015) Residual perfluorochemicals in the biochar from sewage sludge. Chemosphere 134:435–437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Owens CV Jr (2021) Review of source and transportation pathways of perfluorinated compounds through the air. J Environ Health 83(6):20–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi GH, Lee DY, Jeong DK, Kuppusamy S, Lee YB, Park BJ, Kim JH (2017) Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) concentrations in the South Korean agricultural environment: A national survey. J Integr Agric 16:1841–1851

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi GH, Lee DY, Bae JY, Rho JH, Moon BC, Kim JH (2018) Bioconcentration factor of perfluorochemicals for each aerial part of rice. J Appl Biol Chem 61:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Choi GH, Lee DY, Bruce-Vanderpuije P, Song AR, Lee HS, Park SW, Lee JH, Kim JH (2021) Environmental and dietary exposure of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid in the Nakdong River, Korea. Environ Geochem Health 43:347–360

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee DY, Choi GH, Megson D, Oh KY, Choi IW, Seo D, Kim JH (2021) Effect of soil organic matter on the plant uptake of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulphonic acid (PFOS) in lettuce on granular activated carbon–applied soil. Environ Geochem Health 43:2193–2202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Blaine AC, Rich CD, Sedlacko EM, Hundal LS, Kumar K, Lau C, Mills MA, Harris KM, Higgins CP (2014) Perfluoroalkyl acid distribution in various plant compartments of edible crops grown in biosolids–amended soils. Environ Sci Technol 48:7858–7865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiang L, Li YW, Yu PF, Feng NX, Zhao HM, Li H, Cai QY, Mo CH, Li QX (2020) Food safety concerns: crop breeding as a potential strategy to address issues associated with the recently lowered reference doses for perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate. J Agric Food Chem 68:48–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Xiang L, Chen L, Yu LY, Yu PF, Zhao HM, Mo CH, Li YW, Li H, Cai QY, Zhou DM, Wong MH (2018) Genotypic variation and mechanism in uptake and translocation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivars grown in PFOA–polluted soils. Sci Total Environ 636:999–1008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yuan X, Lee JH, Han HJ, Ju BE, Park EY, Shin YH, Lee JH, Kim JH (2021) Translocation of residual ethoprophos and tricyclazole from soil to spinach. Appl Biol Chem 64:47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee DY, Choi GH, Rho JH, Lee HS, Park SW, Oh KY, Kim JH (2020) Comparison of the plant uptake factor of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) from the three different concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in soil to spinach and Welsh onion. J Appl Biol Chem 63:243–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gassmann M, Weidemann E, Stahl T (2021) Combined leaching and plant uptake simulations of PFOA and PFOS under field conditions. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 28:2097–2107

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Xie LN, Wang XC, Dong XJ, Su LQ, Zhu HJ, Wang C, Zhang DP, Liu FY, Hou SS, Dong B, Shan GQ, Zhang X, Zhu Y (2021) Concentration, spatial distribution, and health risk assessment of PFASs in serum of teenagers, tap water and soil near a Chinese fluorochemical industrial plant. Environ Int 146:106166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bartell SM, Vieira VM (2021) Critical review on PFOA, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 71:663–679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Stevenson ED, Kleinman MT, Bai XL, Barlaz M, Abraczinskas M, Guidry V, Watson J, Chow J (2021) Critical review on PFOA, kidney cancer, and testicular cancer. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 71:1265–1276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Z, Lu Y, Song X, Jones K, Sweetman AJ, Johnson AC, Zhang M, Lu X, Su C (2019) Multiple crop bioaccumulation and human exposure of perfluoroalkyl substances around a mega fluorochemical industrial park, China: Implication for planting optimization and food safety. Environ Int 127:671–684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang M, Wang P, Lu Y, Lu X, Zhang A, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Khan K, Sarvajayakesavalu S (2020) Bioaccumulation and human exposure of perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in vegetables from the largest vegetable production base of China. Environ Int 135:105347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shariatifar N, Moazzen M, Arabameri M, Moazzen M, Khaniki GJ, Sadighara P (2021) Measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in edible mushrooms (raw, grilled and fried) using MSPE-GC/MS method: a risk assessment study. Appl Biol Chem 64:61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Chandrasiri GU, Mahanama KRR, Mahatantila K, Arachchige PSP, Liyanage RCM (2022) An assessment on toxic and essential elements in rice consumed in Colombo. Sri Lanka Appl Biol Chem 65:24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) (2019) Korea national health and nutrition examination survey. Resource document. https://www.khidi.or.kr/kps/dhraStat/result1?menuId=MENU01652&gubun=age1&year=2019Accessed 17 June 2022

  34. Sharifiarab G, Mehraie A, Arabameri M, Shariatifar N, Mortazavian AM, Moazzen M, Sohrabvandi S (2022) Evaluation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in bottled water samples (non-carbonated, mineral, carbonated and carbonated flavored water) in Tehran with MSPE-GC/MS method: a health risk assessment. Appl Biol Chem 65:32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2018) Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid in food. EFSA J 16(12):e05194

    Google Scholar 

  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2016) Drinking water health advisor for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC, USA, pp 9–10

    Google Scholar 

  37. Milinovic J, Lacorte S, Vidal M, Rigol A (2015) Sorption behavior of perfluoroalkyl substances in soil. Sci Total Environ 511:63–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wei C, Song X, Wang Q, Hu Z (2017) Sorption kinetics, isotherm and mechanisms of PFOS on soils with different physicochemical properties. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 142:40–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Li F, Fang X, Zhou Z, Liao X, Zou J, Yuan B, Sun W (2019) Adsorption of perfluorinated acids onto soils: kinetics, isotherms, and influences of soil properties. Sci Total Environ 649:504–514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from “Research Program for Agricultural Science and Technology Development”, National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration (Project No. PJ01332104), Republic of Korea.

Funding

This work was supported by a Grant from “Research Program for Agricultural Science & Technology Development”, National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration (Project No. PJ01332104), Republic of Korea.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Geun-Hyoung Choi and Deuk-Yeong Lee have equally contributed as the first author

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Residue Chemical Assessment Division, Agro-Food Safety and Crop Protection Department, National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, RDA, Wanju, 55365, Korea

    Geun-Hyoung Choi, Deuk-Yeong Lee, A-Reum Song & Bo-Yeon Moon

  2. Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Institute of Agriculture and Life Science (IALS), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, 52828, Korea

    Jin-Hyo Kim

Authors
  1. Geun-Hyoung Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Deuk-Yeong Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A-Reum Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bo-Yeon Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin-Hyo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G–HC, D–YL, A–RS and B–YM performed the sampling of the analysis samples and quantitative analysis; G–HC and D–YL collected and discussed the results; J–HK designed and supervised all the results and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jin-Hyo Kim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file1

: Table S1 The instrumental condition of LC-QTOF-MS/MS for quantitative analysis of PFOA and PFOS. Table S2 The average body weights by age. Table S3 The daily food intakes (g day-1) by age

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, GH., Lee, DY., Song, AR. et al. The dietary risk assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorosulfonic acid (PFOS) in the root crops from the survey of the residue in agricultural soil and the crops. Appl Biol Chem 65, 60 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-022-00728-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-022-00728-4

Keywords