SAFETY

Contents

Overview

The origins of PFAS production date back to the 1950s, and its chemistry has been studied since the 1930s. Primarily produced through fluoro-telomerization and electrochemical fluorination (ECF), these products were introduced for their versatile properties and used in a variety of fields with the intention of improving safety(1):

  • Medicine: many medical devices make use of water insoluble PFAS that have low coefficient of friction, degradation proof, and chemical resistance characteristics beneficial for use in surgical tools, implantables, and syringes. (12)
  • Automotive: lubricant oils in cars contain PFAS to prevent fires that can occur. (13)
  • Aerospace: PFAS was used inside the plane to line hoses for high/low temperature fuels to travel (14) and outside the plane in fire-foams to fight liquid fuel fires that are extremely hard to control. (15)

However, irresponsible manufacturing and waste management techniques as well as widespread use of PFAS variants in non-essential applications such as grease resistant packaging products, non-stick cooking items and stain-resistant cleaners unnecessarily expose populations to small amounts of PFAS in a large array of ways(16). Bioaccumlation of this PFAS within the system then takes its effect resulting in potential severe health outcome

As part of our Human practices efforts we engaged with a variety of researchers and professionals to understand the flow of PFAS from manufacturing plants to our bodies (see more in Human Practices). There were two notable conversation we had that influenced our understanding of PFAS, contamination, and how our research must be conducted. Dr. Erin Baker (Bioanalytical Chemist): Exposed us to the large array of PFAS that exist, common pathways PFAS follows for contamination, and the harmful effects that can incur from PFAS entering the body (See more detailed description in Human Practices)

2 understood entrances for PFAS into the system

Oral Absorption
Oral Absorption
Dermal Absorption
Dermal Absorption


Libby Robinson (Research Environmental Engineer): Educated us on the surfacing EPA regulations for PFAS regulation and safety while exposing us to their various shortcomings.

The inconsistency of the PFAS industry along with these HP conversations reinforced our desire to set forth clear, guided safety procedures that not only protected our researchers but protected others from the downstream effects associated with PFAS contamination.

The safety goals for our project can be categorized into two groups: Recombinant production safety. Waste management of PFAS, therapeutic safety

Bacterial Handling production safety

Wet Lab Safety Guidelines

  • Before conducting experiments, all wet lab members completed lab safety training from UNC’s Environment Health & Safety Department.
  • Furthermore, PPE was worn and protocols were designed to minimize hazards in the lab.
  • We also developed our own Bacterial Safety protocol referencing general lab safety procedures and NIH guidelines on recombinant production safety (this can be seen on the Experiments Page).

Waste Management of PFAS

In addition to adherence to regulations set forth regarding general lab safety in the various safety trainings, we also consulted with Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) officials regarding PFAS disposal procedures. We discovered there were no regulations set forth on our campus to regulate the handling and disposal of PFAS waste. We did a general review and compiled and condensed information on some options for safe PFAS disposal (this can be seen on the Experiments Page).

Therapeutic Safety was also an area of concern:

Immunological Response to our Therapeutic

Immunogenicity of foreign particle protein is always a very important consideration in the design of a therapeutic. During the design stage of our protein, we considered the size and solubility of the protein. It is well documented that larger molecules are often more immunogenic than smaller proteins (7), with larger proteins sometimes employed as cofactors to smaller proteins to increase adaptive immune response (8)(, with haptens having to bind to the larger antigen to affect the immune response . In our design, we factored in the minimizing the size of the proteinas one method to decrease immunogenicity. Aggregation of particles often triggers immune activation complexes that deter therapeutic function (9). Optimization of solubility can therefore decrease immunogenicity of the therapeutic and limit adverse effects. Proteins designed with ProteinMPNN (the parent algorithm of LigandMPNN) usually result in a designed protein that is more soluble than the input structure(10) We also performed immunogenicity testing on our proteins using AntigenPRO (10) (seen on the Results page)

REFERENCES