420
K. Dhangar and M. Kumar
18.5.4 Occurrence of PFOS in Human and Biota
The manufacturing of PFOS and its extensive use in various industrial activities and
domestic products has not only affected the abiotic components but also increased its
exposure to various biotic components including human. PFOS has been detected in
humans, fishes, birds and mammals throughout the world (Bao et al. 2014; Murakami
et al. 2011; Yeung et al. 2009; Houde et al. 2006; Kannan et al. 2004; Giesy and
Kannan 2001). As PFOS is robust to biodegradation, it is persistent in environment
and hence shows bioaccumulative nature among the ecological trophic levels via
food chain. Giesy and Kannan (2001) have reported the global distribution of PFOS
in the tissues of wildlife. The species selected for this study were from urbanized
areas, coastal and marine waters, lake areas and remote areas like Arctic and Pacific
Ocean areas. The species having traces of PFOS concentration included aquatic mammals (ringed seals and other species of seals, otters, mink, dolphins, polar bears and
sea lions), birds (double crested cormorant, gull, albatrosses and bald eagle), fishes
(whitefish, salmon, brown trout and tuna), turtles and frogs (Giesy and Kannan 2001).
Houde et al. (2006) have done excellent review discussing biological monitoring of
PFOS and other PFCs in human and wildlife, comparison of concentrations profiles among various species and their locations, evaluation of bioaccumulation in the
ecosystems and various possible sources of exposure to wildlife.
Various studies have reported PFOS concentration in human tissues such as serum,
plasma and blood. Higher concentrations were detected in blood and serum samples
of people from USA and Canada as compared to those from Southern Hemisphere
Europe and Asia (Houde et al. 2008). Table 18.7 shows reported concentrations of
PFOS in human blood, serum and plasma from various countries. The results indicate
that many people from developed and industrialized countries are exposed to PFOS
significantly, whereas less exposure has happened to people from developing nations.
18.6 PFOS Removal Using Advanced Technologies
Several emerging contaminants and heavy metals has shown promising removal
by many sustainable and economic treatment technologies (Mukherjee et al. 2020;
Shim et al. 2018, 2019a, b; Borah et al. 2018; Kumari et al. 2018a, b; Ahmed
et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2017; Matamoros et al. 2016; Gogoi et al. 2015). But
for PFOS, From the available literature, it is widely accepted that PFOS does not
degrade during conventional biological wastewater treatment processes. There was
no evidence of biodegradation of PFOS compounds (Schultz et al. 2006; Key et al.
1998). It is inert/recalcitrant to most of the conventional treatment too. Instead its
concentration found to be increasing in such treatments due to the degradation of
its precursors (Guerra et al. 2014; Campo et al. 2014; Arvaniti et al. 2012; Yu et al.
K. Dhangar and M. Kumar
18.5.4 Occurrence of PFOS in Human and Biota
The manufacturing of PFOS and its extensive use in various industrial activities and
domestic products has not only affected the abiotic components but also increased its
exposure to various biotic components including human. PFOS has been detected in
humans, fishes, birds and mammals throughout the world (Bao et al. 2014; Murakami
et al. 2011; Yeung et al. 2009; Houde et al. 2006; Kannan et al. 2004; Giesy and
Kannan 2001). As PFOS is robust to biodegradation, it is persistent in environment
and hence shows bioaccumulative nature among the ecological trophic levels via
food chain. Giesy and Kannan (2001) have reported the global distribution of PFOS
in the tissues of wildlife. The species selected for this study were from urbanized
areas, coastal and marine waters, lake areas and remote areas like Arctic and Pacific
Ocean areas. The species having traces of PFOS concentration included aquatic mammals (ringed seals and other species of seals, otters, mink, dolphins, polar bears and
sea lions), birds (double crested cormorant, gull, albatrosses and bald eagle), fishes
(whitefish, salmon, brown trout and tuna), turtles and frogs (Giesy and Kannan 2001).
Houde et al. (2006) have done excellent review discussing biological monitoring of
PFOS and other PFCs in human and wildlife, comparison of concentrations profiles among various species and their locations, evaluation of bioaccumulation in the
ecosystems and various possible sources of exposure to wildlife.
Various studies have reported PFOS concentration in human tissues such as serum,
plasma and blood. Higher concentrations were detected in blood and serum samples
of people from USA and Canada as compared to those from Southern Hemisphere
Europe and Asia (Houde et al. 2008). Table 18.7 shows reported concentrations of
PFOS in human blood, serum and plasma from various countries. The results indicate
that many people from developed and industrialized countries are exposed to PFOS
significantly, whereas less exposure has happened to people from developing nations.
18.6 PFOS Removal Using Advanced Technologies
Several emerging contaminants and heavy metals has shown promising removal
by many sustainable and economic treatment technologies (Mukherjee et al. 2020;
Shim et al. 2018, 2019a, b; Borah et al. 2018; Kumari et al. 2018a, b; Ahmed
et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2017; Matamoros et al. 2016; Gogoi et al. 2015). But
for PFOS, From the available literature, it is widely accepted that PFOS does not
degrade during conventional biological wastewater treatment processes. There was
no evidence of biodegradation of PFOS compounds (Schultz et al. 2006; Key et al.
1998). It is inert/recalcitrant to most of the conventional treatment too. Instead its
concentration found to be increasing in such treatments due to the degradation of
its precursors (Guerra et al. 2014; Campo et al. 2014; Arvaniti et al. 2012; Yu et al.