Since the release of a study last week on the prevalence of “forever chemicals” in the environment, there has been growing interest in the health implications of exposure to these chemicals.
“Forever chemicals” or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a diverse group of literally thousands of artificial chemicals used to make products resistant to water, heat, and stains.
PFAS do not break down in the environment and are difficult to destroy, according to the American Society for the Advancement of Science.
While we’re discovering more and more of these chemicals in the environment, used by industries worldwide for more than 80 years, only a few of these have been thoroughly studied in terms of health and environmental impacts – primarily legacy compounds like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
To show just how persistent those two chemicals are, both of them are still present in the environment and in animals, despite being phased out years ago.
But looking specifically at water, Chemistry World reported that in June this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued stricter safety standards for four different per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, saying that these chemicals are more hazardous than previously thought.
The agency is considering regulating these compounds as one class rather than individually.
But to avoid any confusion, this is the EPA’s new health advisories, announced on 15 June: “Exposure levels for the two most well-known and best-studied of these compounds in drinking water from 70 parts per trillion (ppt), set in 2016, to 0.004ppt for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 0.020ppt for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).”
The bottom line is this: Based on the new EPA health advisories, rainwater everywhere is unsafe to drink – even in the world’s remotest areas like the Tibetan Plateau and Antarctica.
Chemical companies are fighting back
Of course, the growing concerns over PFAS have ignited interest in further regulating the compounds. This means that companies everywhere must comprehensively review their products, facilities, and operations involving these substances.
This could also mean investigation, disclosure, and remediation. These are costly and time-consuming activities, so the chemical industry’s pushback is unsurprising.
Fluoropolymer maker Chemours, for example, has asked a US appeals court to vacate the EPA’s latest safety standards for a PFAS it makes, labeling it “scientifically unsound.”
Chemours is arguing that the EPA’s new standard for hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid and its ammonium salt, commonly called “GenX” is scientifically unsound and that the agency “disregarded relevant data and incorporated grossly incorrect and overstated exposure assumptions in devising its latest health advice.”
The widespread use of PFAS and their ability to remain intact in the environment means that over time PFAS levels from past and current uses can result in increasing levels of environmental contamination, according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Accumulation of certain PFAS has also been shown through blood tests to occur in humans and animals. While the science surrounding the potential health effects of bioaccumulation is developing, exposure to some types of PFAS has been associated with serious health effects.
