PFAS Forever
PFAS is in the news again. Raising awareness of PFAS "forever chemicals" in our drinking water. A rapidly escalating catastrophe for human health. How to test & filter water for PFAS.
If you have been fortunate enough to have lived a while on this beautiful planet, you get to see repeating patterns of bad behaviour, particularly from some corporations, industry and even governments.
Through very good fortune for most of us, gutsy dedicated driven individuals with a very deep alignment to preserving human and environment health, step into this repeating cycle of harm and speak up.
This article adds to already large efforts to raise awareness to the growing human and environmental exposure to PFAS, a broad group of chemicals, now also called “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and the human body. Increasing evidence indicates that exposure to PFAS chemicals, even in small amounts of parts per billion in our drinking water, can lead to severe chronic health conditions in human and animals.
Hardly a month goes by when PFAS is not in the news. We focus here mostly on the increasing exposure to PFAS in Australia, starting with some background and context, how PFAS fits into the “repeating patterns of bad behaviour” and what we can do about it.
The "precautionary principle" is a strategy used in risk management, particularly in the context of environmental health and safety, where scientific understanding is incomplete or inconclusive but the stakes are high. The principle allows for preventive, anticipatory measures to avoid harm to human health or the environment, without having to wait until the harm is proven conclusively.
Some context and “repeating patterns of bad behaviour”
We had to read Rachel Carson’s book - “Silent Spring” when I went to school in the 60’s and 70’s. The book was published in 1962, and is Carson’s most influential work and faced significant opposition from the chemical industry but garnered widespread public support while sparking a national debate about the safe use of pesticides.
The book brought to light the environmental and health dangers of indiscriminate pesticide use, particularly DDT. Carson meticulously documented the adverse effects of pesticides on the environment, particularly on birds, which she argued could lead to a “silent spring” - nature without the sounds of birdsong.
Similar to PFAS today, recall how DDT was used enthusiastically at that time with no precaution as to the consequences. These consequences included persistence in the environment and harm to humans and in particular, children, with continued resistance from powerful groups with vested interests (money).
Rachel Carson highlighted how chemicals like DDT accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals and humans, causing long-term health effects; helped raise awareness about the dangers of pesticide use and the need for environmental protection; and most importantly, Carson’s advocacy and the public response to “Silent Spring” contributed to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 in the USA. The policy changes that followed lead to the eventual ban on DDT in the United States in 1972 followed soon after around the world. That’s a great outcome but keep in mind that DDT still exists in soil to this day.
Jump forward to the early 1990s, where residents of Hinkley, California, began to report serious health issues, which they suspected were linked to the local water supply. Erin Brockovich, working as a clerk for the law firm Masry & Vititoe, discovered that PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) had been using chromium-6, also known as Hexavalent Chromium, to prevent rust in the cooling towers of its compressor station. The company had discharged wastewater containing chromium-6 into unlined ponds, which contaminated the groundwater.
Hexavalent chromium is a toxic form of the element chromium. Industrial uses include - electroplating, stainless steel production, and leather tanning. Unlike trivalent chromium, which is an essential nutrient in trace amounts, chromium-6 is highly toxic and carcinogenic when inhaled or ingested. Exposure can lead to severe health problems, including lung cancer, kidney damage, liver damage, and reproductive issues.
Residents of Hinkley reported numerous health issues, including cancer, respiratory diseases, and reproductive problems, which were linked to the contaminated groundwater from PG&E which they did not openly report. Brockovich’s work, along with her persistence and dedication, brought to light significant environmental and health issues related to water contamination. Erin Brockovich and the law firm Masry & Vititoe filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the affected residents against PG&E leading to a legal battle culminating in 1996, when PG&E agreed to settle the case for $333 million, the largest settlement ever paid in a direct-action lawsuit in U.S. history at that time. Keep in mind though, that people suffered serious health issues, some leading to death, during this time.
This case brought national attention to the issue of industrial pollution and its impact on public health and most importantly demonstrated the power of community action and legal recourse in addressing corporate environmental malfeasance.
It’s hard to believe that this keeps happening.
In 1998 lawyer, Rob Bilott, was approached by Wilbur Tennant, a farmer from Parkersburg, West Virginia. Tennant’s cattle were dying, and he suspected it was due to contamination from a nearby DuPont landfill. Bilott, who had previously worked with chemical companies, decided to take on the case. His investigation revealed that DuPont had been discharging a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA, also known as C8) into the environment for decades. This whole issue was portrayed in the extraordinarily revealing and open 2018 movie called Dark Waters. PFOA is a type of PFAS used in the production of Teflon and other non-stick coatings.
Through extreme dedication and hard work, Bilott uncovered internal documents showing that DuPont had known about the dangers of PFOA for many years but had not disclosed this information to the public or regulatory authorities. Sound familiar. In 2001, Bilott filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the affected residents that alleged that DuPont had contaminated the local water supply with PFOA, leading to serious health problems for the residents.
DuPont settled the class-action lawsuit for $70 million, agreeing to fund medical monitoring and health studies. And then in a separate series of lawsuits, DuPont and its spin-off company Chemours agreed to pay $671 million to settle approximately 3,500 personal injury claims related to PFOA exposure.
Dedication of Rob Bilott is clearly seen in the film mentioned above and in the extensive but highly interesting article by Nathaniel Rich in The New York Times Magazine in January 2016, titled “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare.” This article detailed Bilott’s decades-long fight and brought significant public attention to the issue of PFAS contamination.
PFAS in Australia. More Class Actions
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in various industrial applications and consumer products since the 1940s. PFAS are commonly found in non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foams, and many other products. These chemicals are persistent in the environment and human body, meaning they do not break down easily and can accumulate over time. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to various health issues, including cancer, liver damage, thyroid disease, and developmental problems.
In 2017 Shine Lawyers commenced a class action on behalf of members of the Katherine community (Northern Territory, Australia) whose land has been contaminated by PFAS chemicals due to activities of the RAAF Base, Tindal. The class action was filed against the Commonwealth of Australia, specifically the Department of Defence, and sought compensation for Katherine property owners for economic loss, including the diminution in value to their properties. Then on 26 February 2020 Shine Lawyers reached an in-principle agreement with the Department of Defence, successfully achieving justice for Katherine residents affected by the PFAS contamination. Later the Federal Court approved the settlement and distribution scheme ($92.5 million) which determines how compensation is distributed to members of this class action.
However, the Katherine PFAS Contamination Class Action did not did not include personal injury claims for exposure to the PFAS contamination.
More recently in Australia…
August 20th 2024 ABC Australia - “Sydney Water has been monitoring additional water outlets since June this year and detected levels considered unsafe in the United States, which is seen as a world-leader for PFAS regulation.”
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" have been detected in water filtration plant samples across Sydney.
Australian guidelines say there are "safe" levels of PFAS exposure in drinking water, unlike its US counterpart.
A type of PFAS known as PFOS have also been found in deceased platypuses across eastern NSW.
See more at - PFAS 'forever chemicals' found in water filtration plants and platypus livers in NSW - has great 10min video by Craig Reucassel entitled - What are the potential health impacts of PFAS?
Audio segment (5min) entitled - Concerns over 'toxic' chemicals in tapwater
“Prolonged exposure to PFAS by drinking contaminated water over a lifetime — is associated with negative immune and cardiovascular impacts, as well as negative impacts on foetal and infant growth. The US EPA has found, based on the best available evidence - that there is actually no safe level of PFAS compounds. If you get exposed across a lifetime, at any level, your risk of these diseases starts going up incrementally based on the level of exposure. Scientists express that the US EPA's evaluation should be a prompt for Australia.
Oddly, the Australian government has had information on the health effects of PFAS for the last few years from the WHO, the National Academies of Sciences in the US and now the US EPA. And they're still currently saying on their websites that there's no known health effects.”
For more see (and hear) - Australian PFAS guidelines for drinking water criticised as US, EU take significant steps on 'forever chemicals'
Meanwhile, back in the US…
Erin Brockovich is still advocating on behalf of humans. She travels and speaks and has a newsletter that recently published the following report on the growing PFAS issues in America (and relevant to Australia). In the article farmers speak about sludge and biosolids that have growing levels of PFAS contamination that ends up in the soil and then potentially enters our food!
“The fertilizer comes from sludge, also known as biosolids. It’s the leftovers from treating wastewater. Farmers in Maine, Michigan, and all throughout this country are facing (or are going to face) similar issues. This problem isn’t just one community, sadly. The PFAS is everywhere … these “forever chemicals,” it will impact roughly 66,000 water systems nationwide.”
The PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
PFAS contamination & more legal stuff
Taking a more precautional stance when it comes to both human and environmental health has been part of our ethos since we started Toxno and Toxtest in 2014.
The precautionary principle is a broad approach to innovations or actions with potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. This is highly relevant in the current climate of uncertainty and thin evidence around how high our exposure to PFAS can be and still be safe. It emphasises caution, pausing and review.
The principle is often used in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision or taking a particular course of action and conclusive evidence is not yet available.
The principle acknowledges that while the progress of science and technology has often brought great benefit to humanity, it has also contributed to the creation of new threats and risks.
It implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to such harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections should be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result. Ref
The good news is that the postulates of the precautionary principle have been tested in law in Australia with the result that the application of the precautionary principle was enforced. This may be helpful or relevant if you need to get legal advice and help with regard to PFAS contamination in your community, especially when nothing is being done.
The most important Australian court case so far, due to its exceptionally detailed consideration of the precautionary principle, is Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council.
The principle was summarised by reference to the NSW Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, which itself provides a good definition of the principle:
If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reasoning for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the principle... decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (ii) an assessment of risk-weighted consequence of various options.
The most significant points of Justice Preston's decision are the following findings:
The principle and accompanying need to take precautionary measures is "triggered" when two prior conditions exist: a threat of serious or irreversible damage, and scientific uncertainty as to the extent of possible damage.
Once both are satisfied, "a proportionate precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate."
The threat of serious or irreversible damage should invoke consideration of five factors: the scale of threat (local, regional etc.); the perceived value of the threatened environment; whether the possible impacts are manageable; the level of public concern, and whether there is a rational or scientific basis for the concern.
The consideration of the level of scientific uncertainty should involve factors which may include: what would constitute sufficient evidence; the level and kind of uncertainty; and the potential to reduce uncertainty.
The principle shifts the burden of proof. If the principle applies, the burden shifts: "a decision maker must assume the threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage is... a reality [and] the burden of showing this threat... is negligible reverts to the proponent..."
The precautionary principle invokes preventative action: "the principle permits the taking of preventative measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of the threat become fully known".
"The precautionary principle should not be used to try to avoid all risks."
The precautionary measures appropriate will depend on the combined effect of "the degree of seriousness and irreversibility of the threat and the degree of uncertainty... the more significant and uncertain the threat, the greater...the precaution required". "...measures should be adopted... proportionate to the potential threats". From Precautionary principle
And - Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (24 March 2006)
Fascinating and hopeful
also see this post by lawyer Liam Mulligan
The Federal Court of Australia in Bob Brown Foundation Inc v Minister for the Environment (No 2) [2022] FCA 873 has confirmed how the precautionary principle is to be interpreted and applied under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (‘EPBC Act‘). Posted in 2022 by Liam Mulligan
from - Federal Court confirms interpretation of the precautionary principle
TESTING for PFAS in Water & Soil - YOURSELF
If you have reason to think your drinking water or soil has PFAS contaminants and you are in Australia, you can use our NATA accredited Laboratory to test the most common PFAS chemicals you might be exposed to in your drinking water or soil around you home. See the Toxtest water page and the Water PFAS order form or the Soil PFAS order form for more details.
If you live outside of Australia, find a certified Laboratory that can test for PFAS down to parts per billion.
What PFAS testing results look like…
Example of a PFAS molecule structure.
An example of TOXTEST de-identified PFAS water testing results…
REMOVING PFAS from drinking water - YOURSELF
Reverse Osmosis (RO) is the best means to remove PFAS chemicals from drinking water. These RO systems come in various forms that are free standing and portable for the kitchen or plumbed in under the kitchen sink (that you can do yourself without a plumber. Prices cost between $450 - $850 in Australia.
We partnered with a second generation Australian family business, The WaterShop in 2018 during the draught. We identified them as the best water purifier manufacturer in Australia. During this time dam levels around Australia went down to critical levels with the result that sediment that contained harmful chemicals started to overwhelm the water supply filtration system around different regions in Australia.
Now PFAS issues in certain areas around Australia are again raising the potential need to filter your own water.
If you live outside of Australia find a reputable local domestic water filter supplier and go for an RO system.
Note that the optimal solution for avoiding PFAS chemicals in drinking water is to band together as a community, lawyer-up if need be and put pressure on councils, governments and corporations to STOP the contamination to the environment in the first place. Using an RO filter is a short term solution that will protect you and your family, but will not protect your greater environment long term.
In summary…
Stay informed. It appears that the PFAS contamination problem in our water and soil with its associated long term healthy concerns, is not going away soon. We will post updates on this page and future articles also.
If you suspect your water is contaminated, get it tested.
If your water is contaminated, use an RO system to clean your drinking water.
If you or your whole community is affected, make yourselves heard by the appropriate authorities and/or regulators or even the media, so as to help raise awareness. If needed get legal advice and help.
Summary of some of the most commonly studied PFAS compounds, their known health effects, and common sources of exposure:
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA): Known for its potential effects on developmental outcomes in infants, like low birth weight, immune system impacts, and some cancers including kidney and testicular cancer. Major sources of exposure include drinking contaminated water, consumer products like non-stick cookware, and industrial emissions
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS): Associated with cholesterol changes, immune suppression (including reduced vaccine effectiveness), thyroid hormone disruption, and developmental delays during pregnancy and infancy. Exposure often comes from consumer products like stain-resistant carpets, firefighting foams, and also contaminated water and food
Perfluorononanoic Acid (PFNA): Linked to increased cholesterol levels, altered liver function, immune effects, and developmental effects in newborns, like low birth weight. PFNA can be found in drinking water and various consumer products like specialty coatings
Perfluorohexane Sulfonate (PFHxS): Possible effects include changes in liver enzymes and thyroid hormones, and it may impact immune health. It is typically found in firefighting foam and some food packaging materials
Perfluorobutane Sulfonate (PFBS): Exposure has been linked with thyroid hormone disruption and potential reproductive issues. Common exposure routes include drinking water and products like cleaning agents, paints, and fire-fighting foams
Perfluorobutyric Acid (PFBA): Found in drinking water and associated with high accumulation in foods like lettuce and strawberries when irrigated with contaminated water. Health impacts may include effects on kidney function and potential developmental toxicities
Perfluorodecanoic Acid (PFDA): Studies suggest that PFDA can affect liver function, development, and reproduction. It has also been associated with changes in hormone levels and metabolic effects like insulin resistance. Exposure often occurs through contaminated food and water, as well as certain consumer products
Perfluorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA): This compound is linked to developmental and reproductive toxicity. Common exposure routes include contaminated water and the use of products manufactured with PFHxA, such as firefighting foams and some greases
Perfluoroheptanoic Acid (PFHpA): Exposure to PFHpA is associated with reproductive and developmental harm, liver toxicity, and disruptions in lipid metabolism. It is primarily found in industrial waste, firefighting foam, and some food packaging
Perfluorododecanoic Acid (PFDoA): This compound may affect the liver, hormone levels, and reproductive health. Exposure often comes from industrial sources and contaminated water, as well as from certain stain-resistant materials used in consumer goods.
Other sources of PFAS & how to avoid them.
Among the main sources of food contamination are tainted water, greaseproof food wrappers, some plastics, pesticides, or farms where PFAS-tainted sewage sludge is spread as fertiliser.
We have a paid subscription to the website ConsumerLab.com as they often have detailed information and conduct independent testing on many consumer products (albeit mostly from USA). In their article - How can I avoid PFAS in dental floss, food, water, and other products?, they provide some useful information. See below…
There is increasing concern about the potential adverse health effects of PFAS and the levels of PFAS found in drinking water. The EPA has created new federal standards for PFAS in drinking water limiting the amount of two longer-chain PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — in drinking water to 4 ppt (parts per trillion) as well as limits for four others: PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and HFPO-DA (commonly referred to as GenX Chemicals) (EPA 2024). However, the standards do not apply until 2027 and action to reduce high levels are not required until 2029.
PLUS…
Desserts and sweet snacks are the second largest source of sugars among young adults in the United States and higher intake of cakes and cupcakes were positively associated with PFAS concentrations. Dessert wrappers have been shown to be highly fluorinated however, therefore it is plausible that greater PFAS exposures through desserts is driven by PFAS-contaminated packaging materials.
Interestingly, we also saw, that nuts and seeds were associated with lower concentrations of PFOS and PFDA, which is consistent with previous findings that nuts and seeds are inversely associated with several PFAS (Linet al., 2020); However, nut and seed butters were associated with higher PFHpS and PFPeS concentrations. Given that nut and seed butters are packed in grease-resistant containers, it is possible that nut and seed butters may contribute to greater PFAS exposures through the packaging materials rather than the nuts and seeds themselves. Increased consumption of high-fiber foods may contribute to reduced PFAS concentrations.
While PFAS exposure can come from the consumption of contaminated foods, food packaging containing PFAS may be an important exposure source as well. Previous studies have shown that PFAS are found in dessert and bread packaging, fast-food sandwich and burger wrappers and paperboards such as pizza boxes.
Given that packaging materials contaminated with PFAS are frequently used at fast-food restaurants or for restaurant take-out, we examined where foods were prepared (fast-food, restaurant or home) as a proxy for food packaging exposure. We found that higher consumption of food prepared at home was associated with lower PFAS concentrations.
Further analyses showed that when these foods (including burgers, French fries, hot dogs, burritos, tacos, fajitas, and pizza) were prepared from home, they were inversely associated with PFAS, while restaurant and fast-food versions of these foods were positively associated with PFAS.
These results suggest that fast-food may provide higher PFAS exposures, which could be from grease-resistant food packaging containing PFAS or from other food process steps used in preparing fast food.
Home-sourced foods were consistently associated with lower PFAS concentrations, suggesting that home cooking may help young adults reduce their exposures to PFAS. However, further studies are needed to monitor specific food packaging materials for PFAS contamination.
From - Associations of dietary intake and longitudinal measures of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in predominantly Hispanic young Adults: A multicohort study, Hailey E. Hampson et al, 2024
PFAS in Dental Floss and Other Dental Products
Some brands of dental floss and other dental products are made with PFAS, including the common PFAS known as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), to reduce friction, while others are made with materials such as nylon, polyethylene, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), silk, or bamboo fiber, none of which would be expected to contain PFAS. Unfortunately, labels on dental floss and other dental products are not always clear as to whether or not they contain PFAS.
(Note: Unlike dental floss, toothbrushes are unlikely to contain PFAS, as the bristles are typically made of nylon.
In a 2019 study, six of 18 flossing products tested were found to contain fluorine, a marker that may indicate that PFAS are present, specifically, a common PFAS known as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The fluorine levels were consistent with levels measured in commercial Teflon tape. The study also found that use of Oral-B Glide was associated with having somewhat higher blood levels of just one type of PFAS, known as PFHxS, but apparently not enough to increase total PFAS blood levels to 20 ng/mL, which is linked with increased risk of adverse health effects. Other factors that were found to be associated with higher levels of certain PFAS included having stain-resistant carpet or furniture, and living in a city served by a PFAS-contaminated water supply (Boronow, J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2019).
From Consumerlab.com - How can I avoid PFAS in dental floss, food, water, and other products?
Global regulations on amounts of PFAS
Levels allowed and recommended in drinking water
“Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) constitute a class of over 14,000 chemicals extensively used in industrial applications and consumer products because of their distinct water and oil repellent properties and high heat tolerance.
PFAS are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom. This includes fluoropolymers (for example, Teflon), some fluorinated insecticides (for example, Fludioxonil) and pharmaceuticals (for example, Bicalutamide).
Regulators worldwide have proposed or regulated varying concentrations for PFAS in drinking water.
One of the most restrictive recommendations for drinking water is Health Canada’s, with the sum of all PFAS being less than 30 ng l−1 , whereas the European Union recommends the sum off all PFAS being less than 500 ng l−1 or the sum of 20 select PFAS being less than 100 ng l−1.
The US EPA has proposed drinking water concentration limits of 4 ng l−1 for PFOS and PFOA in their National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and limits on perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (GenX) through the hazard index (HI).
The Australian guidelines for PFAS in drinking water set the limits at 0.07 µg/L for the combined total of PFOS and PFHxS, and 0.56 µg/L for PFOA.
Toxicity concerns increase with fluorinated chain length (FCL), because long-chain PFAS (FCL > 6) usually take longer to be excreted from the body due to their lower water solubility, higher affinity for serum proteins and enterohepatic recirculation, which increase their elimination time from plasma and tissue.
Certain PFAS are referred to as precursors. Precursors are used extensively in the manufacture of consumer products such as cosmetics, surface treated paper, waterproof textiles, insecticides, food packaging and firefighting foams. Whereas there are too many PFAS precursors to list individually, they are generally separated into three major groupings: fluorotelomers, sulfonamides and polyfluorinated alkyl phosphate esters (PAPs).
Whereas studies have estimated PFAS production globally and quantified PFAS in commercial and industrial products, their fate is still unknown.
Whereas it is widely acknowledged that PFAS are globally pervasive, the extent of PFAS in global surface (SW) and groundwater (GW) is unknown, as is the extent to which PFAS concentrations exceed proposed or implemented PFAS drinking water guidelines.
In this article the authors investigate - the extent and distribution of PFAS surface and groundwater contamination globally. We assess PFAS concentrations with respect to current and proposed PFAS drinking water regulations or advisories.
They also investigate the source of PFAS contamination, including the distribution of PFAS used in various consumer products, providing insights into the global pervasiveness of PFAS and the ability to predict the future environmental burden of PFAS.”
From - Underestimated burden of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in global surface waters and groundwaters, Diana Ackerman Grunfeld et al, April 2024
PFAS hot spots in Australia
The presence of PFAS in the Great Artesian Basin and other water bodies raises significant concerns due to the persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic nature of these compounds. Efforts are ongoing to monitor, regulate, and mitigate PFAS contamination in Australia, focusing on both preventing new contamination and addressing existing pollution.
For more detailed information, you can explore the Australian PFAS Map and additional resources provided by Geoscience Australia and the Power and Water Corporation:
PFAS and drinking water - Sydney Water - Updated July 2024
Drinking Water sampling for PFAS around Australia - Updated July 2024
PFAS Chemicals in Australian Drinking Water - A Summary - updated May 2024
Recent PFAS contaminations in water in Australia have been recorded in several locations, particularly where firefighting foams were historically used. Here are the top 10 locations with noted PFAS contaminations, primarily focused around defense bases and firefighting training areas due to the historical use of PFAS-containing foams:
Oakey, Queensland: Elevated PFAS levels due to the use of firefighting foams at the military base.
Williamtown, New South Wales: Similar issues with PFAS have been reported around the RAAF base.
Katherine, Northern Territory: PFAS contamination linked to the use of firefighting foams at the local RAAF base.
RAAF Base Pearce, Western Australia: Investigations have found elevated concentrations of PFAS.
HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia: Notable PFAS levels due to historical foam use.
Jandakot Airport, Western Australia: Undergoing PFAS investigations due to past foam use.
Perth Airport, Western Australia: Also a site of PFAS investigations related to historical foam usage.
Adelaide River, Northern Territory: Recorded PFAS concentrations in reticulation tap water were 0.01 µg/L.
Batchelor, Northern Territory: Similar PFAS concentrations as Adelaide River.
Darwin, Northern Territory: General monitoring across various sites, particularly near military installations, has noted PFAS presence.
These locations have been under scrutiny and monitoring due to the recognized health risks associated with PFAS exposure, including effects on cholesterol levels, liver function, and hormone levels. The Australian government and health organisations have been actively managing these sites and conducting health studies to understand the implications of exposure (Australian Government PFAS Taskforce) (NCEPH) (Western Australian Government) (PowerWater).
In Australia, PFAS contamination in drinking water and the Great Artesian Basin primarily occurs through several key pathways:
Firefighting Foams: Historically, aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) used in firefighting and training exercises, especially at military bases, airports, and industrial areas, have been significant sources of PFAS contamination. These activities have led to PFAS entering groundwater and surface water systems.
Industrial Discharges: Facilities that manufacture or use PFAS in processes, such as chrome plating, electronics manufacturing, and textile and paper production, can discharge PFAS into water systems through waste streams.
Leachate from Waste Sites: Landfills and disposal sites, particularly those that receive PFAS-containing products, can leach PFAS into groundwater and surface water, contributing to the contamination of drinking water supplies.
Wastewater Treatment Plants: Although not a primary source of contamination, wastewater treatment plants can have PFAS in their effluent due to the inability of standard treatment processes to fully remove PFAS from wastewater.
Products and Equipment: The use of PFAS-containing products like non-stick cookware and stain repellents (e.g., Scotchgard) in households can contribute to contamination when these chemicals are washed down drains and enter the wastewater system.
Teflon and PFAS, current non stick cookware and the PFAS related molecules therein
Cooking in Stainless Steel pots and pans requires about 90 seconds of training so things don’t stick. Let knowledge assist you, not toxic chemicals.
Teflon, a well-known brand name for polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), was discovered accidentally by Dr. Roy Plunkett in 1938 while he was working for DuPont. PTFE is a type of perfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), a group of chemicals that includes many other substances designed to resist heat, water, and oil. Teflon gained widespread popularity due to its non-stick properties, which revolutionized cooking and kitchenware, making it easier to cook with less oil and clean pans more quickly.
The primary molecule in Teflon, PTFE, is not itself considered harmful to human health. However, the manufacturing process of PTFE and other similar non-stick surfaces historically involved perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), another PFAS chemical. PFOA has been associated with various health risks, including cancer, liver damage, and immune system effects. Due to these concerns, major manufacturers agreed to phase out the use of PFOA by 2015 under the EPA's Stewardship Program.
Today, most non-stick cookware is advertised as "PFOA-free," but it's important to note that this doesn't necessarily mean it's free from all PFAS-related chemicals. Many companies have substituted PFOA with other similar perfluorinated compounds that might not have been as extensively researched but are believed to have similar persistence in the environment and potentially similar health effects.
Current non-stick cookware may use alternative coatings like ceramic or silicone, which are generally considered safer and more environmentally friendly. However, some newer non-stick surfaces still utilize PFAS-related molecules, often termed as GenX chemicals, which are newer fluorinated substances designed to replace older, more problematic PFAS like PFOA and PFOS. The health and environmental impacts of these newer substances, including GenX, are still under study, and concerns remain about their safety.
For those concerned about exposure to PFAS chemicals, alternatives to non-stick cookware include materials like stainless steel, cast iron, and glass, which do not contain fluorinated chemicals and are effective for various cooking tasks.
Tefal, also known as T-fal in some regions, has taken steps to ensure their cookware is safer and more environmentally friendly. Historically, Tefal used PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) in their non-stick coatings, which is a type of PFAS known for its effective non-stick properties. While PTFE itself is not considered harmful, the manufacturing processes involving other PFAS like PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) have raised health concerns.
Tefal has eliminated PFOA from its manufacturing process over a decade ago and claims that its products are PFOA-free. However, they still use PTFE for the non-stick properties of their cookware. Tefal asserts that PTFE is safe for cooking and non-reactive, which is supported by health authorities in the United States and Europe. They also emphasise that their cookware does not contain lead or cadmium, ensuring further safety for consumers (Tefal)
REF - Plunkett (1910–1994) at the DuPont Company’s Jackson Laboratory in 1938
NERD ALERT
How PFAS exerts its health effects inside the human cell, detox pathways and breakdown in the environment
Inside human cells, PFAS compounds can interact with various cellular components and pathways, leading to several potential adverse health effects. Here’s an overview of their impact at the cellular level:
Interaction with Cell Receptors: Both PFOS and PFOA can bind to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs), which are involved in regulating gene expression related to metabolism, cell growth, and differentiation. When PFOS and PFOA activate these receptors, they can disrupt normal cellular functions and metabolic processes.
Disruption of Hormone Regulation: These chemicals have been shown to disrupt the endocrine system. They can mimic or interfere with hormones such as oestrogen and thyroid hormones, affecting hormone balance and signalling pathways in cells. This can lead to issues like thyroid dysfunction and developmental problems.
Impact on Immune Function: PFOS and PFOA can affect immune cells and cytokine production, potentially weakening the immune response.
Oxidative Stress: Both chemicals can induce oxidative stress by generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cells. This leads to cellular damage and contributes to inflammation and apoptosis (programmed cell death).
Impact on Lipid Metabolism: Through their action on PPARs and other cellular pathways, PFOS and PFOA can alter lipid metabolism, leading to changes in cholesterol levels and contributing to the development of obesity and other metabolic disorders.
Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity: In cellular models, these compounds have been shown to interfere with development processes, which could explain the developmental and reproductive issues observed in animal models and potentially in humans.
The cellular mechanisms by which PFOS and PFOA exert their effects are complex and involve multiple pathways and systems. Extensive research continues to be conducted to fully understand the breadth and depth of their impacts on human health at the cellular level and beyond.
Levels of different PFAS molecules in the human body can have cumulative effects. PFAS are known to be bioaccumulative, meaning they can build up in the body over time.
Research suggests that the total burden of PFAS in the body—the combined levels of various PFAS compounds—can contribute to toxicity. This is because different PFAS compounds may exert similar biological effects, and their combined presence can potentially enhance these effects. For instance, if multiple PFAS impact the same biological pathway or organ system, their combined action could amplify the adverse health outcomes.
The concept of cumulative risk assessment is important in understanding the overall health implications of exposure to multiple PFAS, as individuals are typically exposed to a mixture of these compounds rather than a single PFAS. Therefore, considering the cumulative impact of various PFAS compounds can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential health risks associated with these chemicals.
Detox Pathways for PFAS
The elimination of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) from the human body is challenging due to their chemical stability and resistance to metabolic breakdown. The body primarily gets rid of PFAS through excretion in urine and feces, but the efficiency and rate of elimination can vary significantly depending on the specific PFAS compound.
Renal Excretion: Some PFAS, particularly those with shorter chain lengths, are more readily excreted via the kidneys into urine. The renal clearance of PFAS is influenced by their molecular size, charge, and the presence of functional groups that might affect their solubility.
Hepatic Metabolism: Although PFAS are generally resistant to metabolic breakdown, there is limited evidence suggesting that some degree of liver metabolism can occur, particularly for shorter-chain PFAS. The liver might transform these substances in ways that could either facilitate or hinder their excretion.
Biliary Excretion: PFAS can also be excreted into bile and subsequently passed into the feces. This pathway is more significant for some of the larger, longer-chain PFAS, which are less efficiently processed by the kidneys.
Breakdown Metabolites
PFAS are notoriously persistent and do not break down easily in the environment or in biological systems. As such, they do not have a wide range of breakdown metabolites as is typical with other organic contaminants. Most of the PFAS detected in human serum are in their original form, not as metabolic products. This lack of significant metabolism means that PFAS can accumulate in the body over time, contributing to their potential for harm.
Challenges with PFAS Elimination
The elimination half-lives of PFAS can vary greatly:
Some shorter-chain PFAS like PFBA (Perfluorobutanoic acid) might have half-lives of days or weeks.
Longer-chain PFAS such as PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) have half-lives in the human body estimated at several years.
This slow elimination contributes to the bioaccumulation of PFAS and poses significant challenges for reducing body burdens of these chemicals. The persistence of PFAS in the human body, combined with their ubiquitous presence in the environment, underscores the need for careful management of these substances and ongoing research into their health impacts.
Further study is required to better understand the kinetics of PFAS in the human body.
Summary for Reducing exposure to PFAS chemicals
Reducing exposure to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) involves being cautious about the products you use and the food and water you consume. Here are some effective strategies for consumers looking to minimize their PFAS exposure:
Avoid PFAS-Containing Products:
Skip non-stick cookware and opt for alternatives like stainless steel, ceramic, or cast iron.
Avoid stain-resistant coatings on furniture, carpets, and clothing.
Use personal care products free from PFAS, such as cosmetics, shampoos, and dental floss. Check labels for ingredients that might indicate PFAS, such as those that include the term “fluoro” or “perfluoro.”
Check Water Sources:
If you live in an area known for PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.
Use water filters that can reduce PFAS levels. Filters using activated carbon or reverse osmosis are known to be more effective at removing certain PFAS chemicals.
Be Cautious with Food Packaging:
Reduce the use of microwave popcorn bags, fast food containers, and pizza boxes, which can be treated with PFAS for grease resistance.
Prefer fresh or frozen foods over processed and packaged foods to minimize exposure from packaging.
“Research shows that PFAS in food packaging can leach into food, and that increases with temperature, duration of contact, and other factors. Research in 2017 found PFAS in nearly 50 percent of fast food wrappers tested. The chemicals identified included PFHxS and PFOA. Federal PFAS data was later analysed and it found that a significant correlation between people who eat out and higher levels of the chemicals in their blood.” From - Consumer Reports
Cooking and Food Preparation:
Avoid cooking or storing highly acidic or fatty foods in containers that might contain PFAS.
Consume a varied diet to minimize PFAS exposure from any single source.
Stay Informed About Local Advisories:
Keep up with local fish advisories and guidelines if you consume locally caught fish, as PFAS can accumulate in fish living in contaminated water bodies.
Support PFAS-Free Products:
Support manufacturers and products that are committed to reducing and eliminating PFAS usage in their production.
All updates to this PFAS article (mostly from recent research) will be added here…
Update - August 23rd 2024
The immune system is dispersed throughout, and integrated within, most tissue types and organ systems. As such, it can be readily targeted by toxicants through nearly any exposure route. Since the immune system is composed of a diverse range of cell types with various functions, toxicant exposures can lead to immune dysfunction in myriad ways, ultimately leading to immunosuppression, inappropriate immune activation, or both. It is also well understood that when the immune system is perturbed during development, such as from exposure to immunotoxicants, effects are likely more severe and more long-lasting than from perturbations that occur during adulthood . Mounting evidence points to PFAS as potent human immunotoxicants.
The strongest epidemiological evidence for PFAS-associated immunotoxicity is reduced antibody production in response to vaccinations, particularly in children receiving tetanus and diphtheria vaccines. Antibodies are a key component of the adaptive immune system involved in responding to and limiting damage from infectious agents and toxicants. Experimental animal studies also support decreased antigen-specific antibody responses caused by exposure to certain PFAS. Additionally, PFAS exposure has been associated with an increased risk of respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections in experimental animal and human studies, particularly in children with in utero maternal PFAS exposures. PFAS exposure may also contribute to inappropriate immune activation… PFAS exposure may worsen pre-existing asthma and allergic reactions in the lungs.
See - Public Health Risks of PFAS-Related Immunotoxicity Are Real 2024
Update - From ERIN BROCKOVICH and SUZANNE BOOTHBY
FEB 12, 2025
This update is mostly related to the US but still interesting
