Editor’s Note (March 14, 2023): This article has been republished to provide background to the Biden administration’s announcement of a proposal to regulate six perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water. I’m here.
Many Americans pour a glass of water from the faucet without worrying about whether it is dangerous. But the lead-contaminated water crisis in Flint, Michigan, has shown that safe, potable tap water is far from the norm in this country. Now, a survey by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy group, has uncovered a wide range of problems. It is likely that the majority of Americans’ drinking water contains “permanent chemicals.” These compounds can take hundreds or even thousands of years to degrade in the environment. It can also persist in the human body and cause health problems.
These contaminants are scientifically known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). However, like other contaminants such as benzene, uranium and arsenic, there are no federal limits set on the concentration of chemicals in water. With a new presidential administration taking office this week, experts say the federal government will eventually need to correct its oversights. “The PFAS contamination crisis is a public health emergency,” wrote Scott Faber, his president of EWG’s senior vice for government affairs, in a recent public statement.
Of the more than 9,000 known PFAS compounds, 600 are currently used in countless products in the United States, including firefighting foam, cookware, cosmetics, carpet treatments, and even dental floss. Scientists refer to his PFAS as the “forever chemical.” Because of its chemical nature, it does not decompose under typical environmental conditions. “One of the unique features of PFAS compounds is the carbon-fluorine bond,” explains EWG senior scientist David Andrews. “That bond is incredibly strong.” Ultimately this means that PFAS accumulate when they enter the environment. These chemicals can persist over geological timescales, explains Chris Higgins, a civil and environmental engineer at the Colorado Mining School.
Due to their widespread use, release and disposal over decades, PFASs appear virtually everywhere: soil, surface water, air, deep sea and even the human body. His website for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says he found PFAS in the blood of nearly everyone the FDA tested. Scientists have found links between many chemicals and many health concerns. These include kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental toxicity, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced preeclampsia and hypertension, and immune dysfunction.
Concerned about the persistence and potential harm of PFAS, Andrews and his EWG colleague Olga Naidenko set out to assess American exposure to the chemical through drinking water. PFAS can enter this water in a number of ways. For example, industrial sites can release compounds into water and air. Alternatively, it may leach from the landfill. It can also seep into groundwater from firefighting foams used at airports and military bases. Andrews and Naidenko say studies of drinking water levels are needed because the federal government does not require water to be tested for his PFAS. This creates a gap in scientists’ understanding of overall radiation exposure. Andrews and Naidenko focused their analysis on two of his chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The two researchers compiled that information from a variety of sources, including state agencies, the federal government, and EWG’s own measurements.
Scientists estimate that over 200 million people (the majority of Americans) have tap water contaminated with a mixture of PFOA and PFOS at concentrations greater than parts per trillion (ppt). I’m here. Andrews and Naidenko found in previous studies that above 1 ppt may increase the risk of conditions such as testicular cancer, delayed mammary gland development, liver tumors, high cholesterol, and effects on a child’s immune response to vaccination. It says it shows something. “This is a calculated safe exposure level,” says Andrews. Even when the researchers changed the analysis to his higher level of 10 ppt, he found that 80 million Americans were exposed, from about 18 million. Representatives of the chemical industry disagree with such concerns. “We believe there is no scientific basis for maximal contamination levels below 70 ppt,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. Scientific American.
Experts not involved in recently published new research environmental science and technology letters, They state that these findings are exactly what they expected, which is troubling. Jamie DeWitt, an associate professor of pharmacology, said, “It’s kind of sad, but it’s not at all surprising that they exist in so many different water systems and so many people are exposed through drinking water. I did.” He majored in Toxicology at East Carolina University Brody College of Medicine. Zhanyun Wang, an environmental scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, has expressed concern about how prevalent this class of chemicals is. “It’s a little scary that it’s so prevalent in a fairly populous America,” he says. “We now know that the safety level of PFAS is quite low.”
Andrews and Naidenko’s study only looked at two PFAS compounds and one source, so it doesn’t fully capture American exposure to these chemicals. “We are also exposed to more PFAS through our drinking water,” says Wang. This paper omitted other compounds due to lack of extensive data. [the study offers] It’s a conservative estimate of how we’re exposed to PFAS,” he adds. Higgins points out that people are also exposed to compounds found in substances other than drinking water, such as household items and food. “This is a broader exposure issue,” he says. “These other sources of exposure should not be ignored.”
Andrews and Naidenko agree that the lack of data on other PFAS contamination is a problem. Other tests of drinking water from five of his systems in Massachusetts showed that her levels of the specific PFAS the researchers were looking for have risen over the past few decades. The increase was even greater when the scientist tested his PFAS as a group (to include compounds for which there was not much individual data). It is unclear whether this trend applies to other countries. “It really [because of] Lack of data – regulators have not caught up with the chemical industry, and in fact have moved from PFOA and PFOS to hundreds of alternative compounds that are equally sustainable and have impacted a significant number of water systems across the country. may be contaminated. ’ says Andrews. The Environmental Protection Agency says it is working on the PFAS issue. “Proactively addressing her PFAS in drinking water remains an active and ongoing priority for the EPA,” an EPA spokesperson wrote. Scientific American“The agency has taken significant steps to monitor PFAS in drinking water and is following the processes provided under the Safe Drinking Water Act to address these chemicals.”
Technologies exist at both the household and municipal levels to remove PFAS from drinking water. Granular activated carbon filters and reverse osmosis membranes, he said, are two options, but they are costly, require maintenance, and put a burden on taxpayers. “PFAS can be produced and profited by companies,” DeWitt says. “And people end up paying to have the contamination removed.” Plus, his PFAS removed from drinking water could end up in other places, such as landfills and rivers. there is.
Some states have enacted or proposed limits for PFAS in drinking water, but experts say federal action is needed to address such a widespread problem. President Joe Biden’s administration may finally address that need. His campaign’s Environmental Justice Plan specifically called for chemicals forever. “We will tackle PFAS contamination by setting up, prioritizing alternatives through procurement, and accelerating toxicology studies and research on PFAS.” The new administration was able to unilaterally implement all these goals through the actions of the president, without congressional cooperation. “I hope the next administration will be able to re-empower the EPA to create regulations that actually protect public health,” he says. “That’s the agency’s duty, that’s its mission.”
