Found in cosmetics, dental floss, menstrual products, and more. It comes in Teflon-coated pots and take-out food wrappers. The same goes for rain jackets, fire protection equipment, pesticides on sports fields and artificial turf.
It's PFAS. It is a type of man-made chemical substance called perfluoroalkyl substance and polyfluoroalkyl substance. These compounds are also called “eternal chemicals” because the bonds between them are so strong that even if they break, they will not break for hundreds to thousands of years.
They are also in our water.
A new study of more than 45,000 water samples around the world shows that approximately 31 percent of groundwater samples tested that are not located near an obvious source of contamination are considered hazardous to human health by the Environmental Protection Agency. Found to contain PFAS levels.
Approximately 16 percent of the surface water samples tested contained similarly dangerous PFAS levels, even though they were not located near known water sources.
The discovery is “alarming”, said Dennis O'Carroll, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New South Wales and one of the authors of the study published in Nature Geoscience on Monday. “Not just PFAS, but all the other chemicals we put into the environment. We don't necessarily know the long-term effects they have on us or on our ecosystems. ”
High levels of exposure to some PFAS chemicals are associated with increased cholesterol levels, liver and immune system damage, high blood pressure and preeclampsia, and even kidney and testicular cancer during pregnancy.
The EPA is proposing strict new drinking water limits for six PFASs, and could issue final rules as early as this week.
For their research, Dr. O'Carroll and his colleagues collected about 300 previously published studies on PFAS in the environment. These studies included 12,000 samples from surface waters such as rivers, rivers, ponds, and lakes, and 33,900 samples from groundwater wells collected over the past 20 years. These samples do not cover the entire globe. Environmental researchers are concentrated in places such as the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and the Pacific coast of Asia.
Dr. O'Carroll said samples may also be concentrated in areas where people were already concerned about PFAS contamination. As a result, the new study's results may be skewed to show higher levels of pollution than the true global average, he warned. But there is reason to believe there is some level of PFAS contamination almost everywhere on Earth, he said.
Among the countries studied, the United States and Australia had particularly high concentrations of PFAS in water samples.
Among the available samples, the highest levels of contamination were generally found near locations such as airports and military bases that routinely use PFAS-containing foam for firefighting training. Approximately 60 to 70 percent of groundwater and surface water samples near these types of facilities have PFAS levels that exceed the EPA Hazard Index, which measures how dangerous a particular mixture of chemicals is to human health. , and also exceeded new drinking water limits proposed by the EPA. Water regulations.
The study does an excellent job of gathering available data and highlighting the extent of global contamination from PFAS chemicals, said the study, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy group. said David Andrews, who was not involved in the study.
Scientific research on the health effects of PFAS has evolved significantly over the past 10 to 20 years, and exposure levels currently considered safe are a fraction of the levels from decades ago, he said.
The EPA's proposed drinking water rule could be a major step forward, depending on the final wording, he said.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the agency will require utilities to treat water so that levels of some PFAS are near zero. This requirement would make the United States one of the strictest countries regarding regulation of PFAS in water.
However, Dr Andrews added that while drinking water treatment is important, it does not solve the entire problem. His own research shows that PFAS chemicals are also prevalent in wildlife.
“Once released into the environment, it is often very difficult, if not impossible, to clean up,” he says. “It can be removed from drinking water, but The ultimate solution is to not use them in the first place, especially where there are clear alternatives. ”
For example, some outdoor clothing brands are moving away from using PFAS to waterproof their products and toward alternatives such as silicone. Fast food restaurants can wrap their burgers in paper that has been heat-treated to make them more oil-resistant, or alternatively coat them in PFAS-free plastic. The Department of Defense has begun replacing traditional fire extinguishing foams with an alternative extinguishing agent called fluorine-free foam (F3).
Meanwhile, Dr O'Carroll said: “I'm by no means saying you shouldn't drink water.” He added: “What I'm saying is, from a societal perspective, we need to be careful about what we put into the environment.”