Prospective cohort study examines PFAS exposure effects on embryo quality and pregnancy in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, indicating notable risks.
Background Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are a group of synthetized industrial pollutants which have been detected worldwide in both environment and humans and gradually raised public health concerns. Previous studies suggested that PFASs had reproductive toxicity and may do harm to pregnancy and children. However, it is still uncertain that whether effect of PFAS exposure on offsprings begins from embryo quality or post-implantation pregnancy outcomes. This study explores the association between exposure to PFASs and embryo quality or pregnancy outcomes to promote maternal–infant health. Methods This study included 246 women who underwent their first in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles from July 2017 to August 2018 and measured concentrations of 23 PFAS congeners of follicular fluid samples. Generalized linear regression model with ln-transformed concentration values was performed to evaluate the association between individual PFAS congener and embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes. Weight quantile sum (WQS) regression and Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) were used to estimate mixed effect of PFAS exposure on the above outcomes. Results PFAS exposure had no significant association with high-quality blastocyst rate. Whereas, PFAS exposure had significantly adverse effect on miscarriage and live birth rate with the predominant risk of perfluoro-n-butanoic acid (PFBA) (For miscarriage, Q4 vs. Q1 OR: 6.44 (95%CI: 1.47, 33.72), Adjusted p = 0.03; For live birth, Q4 vs. Q1 OR: 0.35 (95%CI: 0.14, 0.82), Adjusted p = 0.04). BKMR model also suggested that there was potential joint effect between mixed PFAS chemicals and miscarriage or live birth. Conclusion For women undergoing IVF/ICSI, exposure to PFASs was associated with higher miscarriage and lower live birth rate but had no adverse effect on embryo quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: