Forever Chemicals: The Harmful and Persistent Impact of PFAS on our Environment and Health
PFAS the toxic forever chemicals are everywhere and unavoidable - how can we test, monitor and measure PFAS (Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)?
Named the forever chemicals due to their water and stain-resistant properties, they do not naturally break down. They are large complex group of man-made chemicals that have a prolonged impact on the environment, in the soil, water and air. Found in thousands of everyday products and across industry sectors. PFAS are found in our rivers and seas and due to their complex nature, and inadequate wastewater treatment process can also contaminate water supplies. They are lurking in every area of your life from your dental floss to your fast-food containers, to your cleaning products, shampoo's, makeup even your clothing.
Human exposure
PFAS exposure can occur through contaminated water and food, inhalation of contaminated air, and contact with products containing PFAS. One study by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found PFAS in the blood of 97% of Americans. There are several ongoing studies on the negative health effects on humans, however PFAS is linked to:
- Increase in some cancers and heart disease
- Associated with decreased birth weight, delayed development, and other adverse effects on foetal development and birth defeats
- Linked to liver damage
- Weakened immune system
- Hormonal disruption, reproductive problems, thyroid disease
PFAS Fishmeal Contamination
A current study shows a high level of PFAS in organic eggs from Chicken Farms in Denmark , this is especially worrying for children who consume them. The study carried out by the DTU National Food Institute in collaboration with the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration researchers found PFAS in organic eggs, while observing lower levels in eggs from free-range and barn and battery hens. This is due to the hens being fed fishmeal which contained PFAS . Children could be adversely affected with increased cholesterol levels in blood, reduced birth weight and the immune system can be affected. Read the full study
Children at risk as forever chemicals PFAS identified in organic eggs
Water Samples for PFAS
PFAS chemicals have been used since 1940's, however scientific understanding and technical instrumentation needed to test for PFAS at very low concentrations began only recently. PFAS is no longer just a discussion for the health environmental and science community but also the mainstream media are alarmed by the widespread damage not only to humans but the impact on the environment.
The Environment Agency conducted research on Environmental monitoring data on PFAS in English rivers, estuaries and groundwater to evaluate PFAS use, sources and environmental pathways.
The Environment Agency and Rivers Trust data for 105 rivers has now revealed PFAS pollution in English rivers. 81 out of 105 rivers tested exceeded a proposed EU standard which is expected to become law later this year. 44 of 105 exceeding it by more than five times.
More details in The Times article
The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S.
Food & Drug Administrationare all good sources of information on the history, prevalence and side-effects of PFAS. The fact these sites and many others dedicate considerable space to PFAS reflects the growing alarm.
Wastewater
Research by the Environmental Agency highlights how PFAS gets into our rivers and seas. With more untreated sewage being pumped into our seas and rivers than ever before, as of 2022 much of it unreported, however the Water companies informed the Environment Agency that they dumped 372,544 times last year, for 2.6m hours.
The majority of UK WWTW relies on biodegradation to sewage sludge and do not have the capacity to remove PFAS. Leading to PFAS entering our eco system and remaining there. One of the primary concerns with PFAS in rivers and seas is their potential to bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms.
In 2016 the PFAS limit was 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for drinking water by the EPA Guidance. Then in 2022 they changed this to 0.02ppt as PFAS was deemed so toxic the EPA wants it as close to 0 as possible. More details from
Harvard University
Sampling PFAS
Trace amounts of PFAS can be detected in water and wastewater, however gaining an accurate assessment is challenging due to cross contamination. Composite sampling with an Automatic Sampler ensures cross-contamination is avoided. Time-paced and flow pace using a flowmeter is also an option but obtaining an accurate assessment is a challenge due to the ubiquitous nature of the chemicals. Exacting steps must be taken before, during and after samples are obtained to ensure they are not compromised.
RS Hydro have been providing total solutions for the environment, process, and industry since 1997 and provide stock, rentals and servicing across the UK of composite autosamplers and flowmeters and a wide variety of environmental sensors for water quality and remote monitoring.
With a wide range of expertise in water and wastewater sampling and flowrate measurement RS Hydro have a unique ability to determine and implement the right solution and obtain the best data to remove unnecessary expense and inaccurate analysis from compromised samples.
Below is a high-level guide of industry standards and best practices. For more detailed information specific to your application, feel free to contact our Product Specialist at
sales@rshydro.co.uk for a consultation.
Equipment Choices/Material Selection
PFAS sampling is conducted in the same way as any other sample, but extra care must be taken to maintain sample integrity. PFAS is prevalent in our environments and the extremely small quantitative measurements (0.02 ppt) in the EPA guidelines can easily be compromised however with care and taking simple steps before and after sampling.
Whist this is not an exhaustive list, it highlights some of the main considerations and serves as a reminder to be mindful of how external factors can impact results. The better the precautions, protocols and equipment the lower the risk of cross-contamination.
Personal Protective Equipment - can contain PFAS. Conduct a risk assessment and carefully select gloves, outerwear. If there is no equivalent PFAS-free option available, document the use of such and use a blank sample to establish a baseline presence of PFAS with the equipment and the exposure potential.
Personal sources of contamination: soaps, shampoos, insect repellents, sunscreen, moisturizing lotion, cosmetics, some toothpastes
Clothing that was washed using fabric softeners
Clothing and textiles marked stain-resistant or waterproof, including raincoats and footwear, rugs and furniture
Fast food containers/packaging, food or drink in sealed packages (e.g., juice boxes)
Materials that are NOT in direct contact with the sample but should be avoided include Phones, notebooks, clipboards as they could have PFAS on their surfaces and become a source of contamination.
Materials to use or avoid in sampler parts
General rules
DO NOT USE PTFE or FEP tubing or any tubing that contains fluoride for suction line or any part of the sampler equipment. Where possible, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) sample collection bottles should be used. Unless verified as PFAS Free Low-density polyethylene (LDPE should NOT be used. Sample bottles should be used sparingly for PFAS sampling and then discarded due to the minute trace amounts under consideration.
Approved Materials
Strainer: stainless steel or stainless steel/HDPE
Tubing coupler and bulkhead fitting: stainless steel
Suction line: vinyl
Pump tubing: silicone
Collection bottles: HDPE or polypropylene (PP)
Natural Ice from verified PFAS-free water
Materials to avoid or use with caution
LDPE (unless tested and verified to be PFAS free)
Glass (unless tested and verified to be PFAS free). Samples should not be stored in glass for an extended period, as it can absorb PFAS over time and contribute to cross-contamination. Limit the re-use of glass for this reason.
Teflon or related materials
Items or materials containing any fluoropolymer
Gel-Packs
Equipment considerations
Sampling equipment used for PFAS sampling should be dedicated to and ONLY used for PFAS sampling. With the trace amounts of PFAS we are looking for, we don't want to have cross-contamination from the equipment used for other purposes.
Decontamination is a MUST due to the sensitive nature and cross-contamination threat. This is often accomplished with a thorough rinse with known PFAS-free water being run through the sample lines.
It is recommended that you communicate with your analytical laboratory and appropriate regulatory agency for their specific decontamination recommendations.
Sampling with Grab Dipper
Pros:
Cons:
- Increased Risk of PFAS Contamination
- Less Hygienic
- Time-Consuming
- Variation in Sample Collection
- Represents Singular Moment in Time
Grab samples open the door to all variances that can impact the integrity of the collected sample. Grab samples also increase the risk of cross-contamination due to the direct human contact with the act of collecting the sample. Automated sampling results in consistent samples and eliminates variances that can impact sample integrity.
Sampling with Automatic Sampler
Pros:
- Hygienic
- Quicker
- More Consistent Sampling
Cons:
Composite sampling is most common. Time-paced is common but there are those who flow-pace as well, assuming there is a flowmeter in place to perform that function.
Using Blanks
Best practice is to prepare three equipment blanks for the lab (1. Equipment Rinse Blank, 2. Field Blank, 3. Trip Blank) before going to the site and after sample collection using deionized water that has been validated to be PFAS free. Taking equipment blanks for analysis is a frequent and standard procedure to ensure sampling components are not contributing to false readings and elevated detection of PFAS.
Further Reading:
- Study on Tubing and Samplers
https://www.teledyneisco.com/en-us/Water_/Sampler%20Documents/Posters/Teledyne%20ISCO%20Samplers%20and%20PFAS%20Applications%20-%20Study%20on%20Tubing%20and%20Samplers.pdf
- Cleaning and blank taking
https://www.teledyneisco.com/en-us/Water_/Pages/PFAS-Sampling-with-Teledyne-ISCO.aspx
- British Geological Society (2018)
Emerging contaminants in groundwater.
- Environment Agency Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): sources, pathways and environmental data -
Environment Agency (2019). Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and related substances: sources, pathways and environmental data.
- Fidra, (2019).
PFAS, what is it, why is it in our environment and why is it a problem? [online] Available at:
https://www.pfasfree.org.uk/about-pfas
- US EPA. (2022).
Human Health Toxicity Assessments for GenX Chemicals | US EPA. [online] Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/human-health-toxicity-assessments-genx-chemicals
- Chemical investigations programme Data access portal. (2022).
Chemical investigations programme Data access portal. [online] Available at:
https://ukwir.org/eng/sign-up-and-access-the-chemical-investigations-programme-data-access-portal
- Fernandes, A.R. et al. (2018)
Occurrence and spatial distribution of chemical contaminants in edible fish species collected from UK and proximate marine waters. Environmental International, 114, 219-230.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29522986/
- Law, R. J. et al. (2008),
PFOS and PFOA in the livers of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) stranded or bycaught around the UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 792-797.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18281063/
- European Food Safety Authority. (2022)
PFAS in food: EFSA assesses risks and sets tolerable intake. [online] Available at:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pfas-food-efsa-assesses-risks-and-sets-tolerable-intake
- De Silva, A. O. et al. (2021) 'PFAS Exposure Pathways for Humans and Wildlife: A Synthesis of Current Knowledge and Key Gaps in Understanding',
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 40(3), pp. 631- 657. doi: 10.1002/ETC.4935.
https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.4935
16th Mar 2023