A recent study suggests that we’re probably not measuring PFAS levels in the environment accurately enough. The current methods might be missing a lot of these harmful chemicals. The researchers say that we need better ways to measure PFAS and understand how they affect people and nature.
PFAS in the environment: What you need to know
Researchers have been studying harmful chemicals called PFAS in water for over 20 years. They looked at 45,000 samples of surface and groundwater from all over the world, but most were from countries with more research, like the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia. PFAS are chemicals used in everyday products like cosmetics, food packaging, and firefighting foam.
The researchers grouped the water samples into three categories:
- Areas where firefighting foam wasn’t used.
- Areas where firefighting foam was used.
- Areas where they didn’t know the source of the pollution.
In all three groups, many water samples had PFAS levels higher than the safe drinking water limits for those countries. However, since different countries have different limits, the percentage of unsafe samples varied.
According to Denis O’Carroll, an environmental engineer who led the study, the number of samples that went over the safe limit was surprising. For example, in places where firefighting foam was used, 70% of the samples had unsafe levels of PFAS based on US safety standards. Even in areas without known sources of PFAS, around 30% of groundwater samples and 15% of surface water samples were still above the hazard level.
While some water treatment plants can remove PFAS using special filters, not all can. This means that PFAS can end up in our drinking water.
The research team now wants to study PFAS in other parts of the environment, like soil and fish. They also want to develop ways to predict how PFAS spreads around the world. O’Carroll urges people to think carefully about using products that contain PFAS, saying, “Just because a product is high-quality doesn’t mean we should use it everywhere. We don’t need ski wax or bike chain lubricants with PFAS, for example.”
Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist, says the study should be a wake-up call. She notes that while they tested for some PFAS, there are many others we don’t even know about yet. “The more you look, the more you find,” she says.
Birnbaum also says that companies using PFAS should be monitored to make sure they’re not polluting the environment. However, she adds that better monitoring may raise the cost of water bills, as treatment plants will have to spend more to clean the water.
Want to read more about where PFAS can be found and how to avoid it? To read an article on the subject, click here.