Photo by andersjilden from unsplash
The first sentence in the second paragraph of the article incorrectly defined PFOS as perfluorohexane sulfonic acid rather than perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. The sentence should read “Based on concordance between… Click to show full abstract
The first sentence in the second paragraph of the article incorrectly defined PFOS as perfluorohexane sulfonic acid rather than perfluorooctane sulfonic acid. The sentence should read “Based on concordance between population and experimental findings, the authors concluded there is convincing evidence that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) are hepatotoxic to humans.” The authors regret the error.
Keywords:
erratum invited;
perspective pfas;
acid;
evidence;
sulfonic acid;
invited perspective
Journal Title: Environmental Health Perspectives
Year Published: 2022
Link to full text (if available)
Share on Social Media: Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!
Journal Title: Environmental Health Perspectives
Year Published: 2022
Link to full text (if available)
Share on Social Media: Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!