Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Few studies have characterized per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) exposure in U.S. agricultural communities, despite plausible occupational and environmental sources. In this pilot study within the CHAMACOS cohort (Salinas Valley, California), we measured 42 PFAS in serum (2022–2023) from 20 women (primarily Mexican-born; median age ~49 years) and 48 PFAS in their home tap water (July 2023) and administered a water-use and diet questionnaire. Most women (80%) mainly drank bottled or store-bought (vended) water. In serum, we detected 17 of 42 analytes; GenX and ADONA were not detected, but 9Cl-PF3ONS, the major component of F-53B, was detected at low levels in most women. Geometric mean PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA concentrations (0.58, 0.30, 0.21, and 0.12 ng/ml) were 15%−27% of U.S. general-population values (NHANES 2017–March 2020) and 26%−39% of values for NHANES Mexican American women aged 40–59 years (one-sample tests, all P < 0.001). In tap water, 8 of 48 PFAS were detected in 4 of 20 samples; total PFOS exceeded the U.S. EPA maximum contaminant level (4 ng/L) in 1 sample (10.3 ng/L), from a household that drank bottled water and had below-median serum PFOS. Exploratory comparisons showed no clear differences in serum PFAS by drinking-water source, home filtration, tap-water detection, or diet. To our knowledge, these are the first PFAS biomonitoring data for U.S. women in an agricultural community. PFAS concentrations in tap water (environmental exposure) and serum (internal exposure) were low, but occupational pathways in farmworkers remain unmeasured and could be examined in a larger study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mora et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: