Addressing Urgent Questions for PFAS in the 21st Century

Despite decades of research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), fundamental obstacles remain to addressing worldwide contamination by these chemicals and their associated impacts on environmental quality and health. Here, we propose six urgent questions relevant to science, technology, and policy that must be tackled to address the “PFAS problem”: (1) What are the global production volumes of PFAS, and where are PFAS used? (2) Where are the unknown PFAS hotspots in the environment? (3) How can we make measuring PFAS globally accessible? (4) How can we safely manage PFAS-containing waste? (5) How do we understand and describe the health effects of PFAS exposure? (6) Who pays the costs of PFAS contamination? The importance of each question and barriers to progress are briefly described, and several potential paths forward are proposed. Given the diversity of PFAS and their uses, the extreme persistence of most PFAS, the striking ongoing lack of fundamental information, and the inequity of the health and environmental impacts from PFAS contamination, there is a need for scientific and regulatory communities to work together, with cooperation from PFAS-related industries, to fill in critical data gaps and protect human health and the environment

Finding essentiality feasible: common questions and misinterpretations concerning the “essential-use” concept

The essential-use concept is a tool that can guide the phase-out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and potentially other substances of concern. This concept is a novel approach to chemicals management that determines whether using substances of concern, such as PFAS, is truly essential for a given functionality. To assess the essentiality of a particular use case, three considerations need to be addressed: (1) the function (chemical, end use and service) that the chemical provides in the use case, (2) whether the function is necessary for health and safety and critical for the functioning of society and (3) if the function is necessary, whether there are viable alternatives for the chemical for this particular use. A few illustrative examples of the three-step process are provided for use cases of PFAS. The essential-use concept takes chemicals management away from a substance-by-substance approach to a group approach. For PFAS and other substances of concern, it offers a more rapid pathway toward effective management or phase-out. Parts of the concept of essential use have already been widely applied in global treaties and international regulations and it has also been recently used by product manufacturers and retailers to phase out substances of concern from supply chains. Herein some of the common questions and misinterpretations regarding the practical application of the essential-use concept are reviewed, and answers and further clarifications are provided

Information Requirements under the Essential-Use Concept: PFAS Case Studies

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of substances for which there are widespread concerns about their extreme persistence in combination with toxic effects. It has been argued that PFAS should only be employed in those uses that are necessary for health or safety or are critical for the functioning of society and where no alternatives are available (“essential-use concept”). Implementing the essential-use concept requires a sufficient understanding of the current uses of PFAS and of the availability, suitability, and hazardous properties of alternatives. To illustrate the information requirements under the essential-use concept, we investigate seven different PFAS uses, three in consumer products and four industrial applications. We investigate how much information is available on the types and functions of PFAS in these uses, how much information is available on alternatives, their performance and hazardous properties and, finally, whether this information is sufficient as a basis for deciding on the essentiality of a PFAS use. The results show (i) the uses of PFAS are highly diverse and information on alternatives is often limited or lacking; (ii) PFAS in consumer products often are relatively easy to replace; (iii) PFAS uses in industrial processes can be highly complex and a thorough evaluation of the technical function of each PFAS and of the suitability of alternatives is needed; (iv) more coordination among PFAS manufacturers, manufacturers of alternatives to PFAS, users of these materials, government authorities, and other stakeholders is needed to make the process of phasing out PFAS more transparent and coherent

Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?

Fluoropolymers are a group of polymers within the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the evidence regarding the environmental and human health impacts of fluoropolymers throughout their life cycle(s). Production of some fluoropolymers is intimately linked to the use and emissions of legacy and novel PFAS as polymer processing aids. There are serious concerns regarding the toxicity and adverse effects of fluorinated processing aids on humans and the environment. A variety of other PFAS, including monomers and oligomers, are emitted during the production, processing, use, and end-of-life treatment of fluoropolymers. There are further concerns regarding the safe disposal of fluoropolymers and their associated products and articles at the end of their life cycle. While recycling and reuse of fluoropolymers is performed on some industrial waste, there are only limited options for their recycling from consumer articles. The evidence reviewed in this analysis does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health. Given fluoropolymers’ extreme persistence; emissions associated with their production, use, and disposal; and a high likelihood for human exposure to PFAS, their production and uses should be curtailed except in cases of essential uses

Zürich II Statement on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs): Scientific and Regulatory Needs

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are a class of synthetic organic chemicals of global concern. A group of 36 scientists and regulators from 18 countries held a hybrid workshop in 2022 in Zürich, Switzerland. The workshop, a sequel to a previous Zürich workshop held in 2017, deliberated on progress in the last five years and discussed further needs for cooperative scientific research and regulatory action on PFASs. This review reflects discussion and insights gained during and after this workshop and summarizes key signs of progress in science and policy, ongoing critical issues to be addressed, and possible ways forward. Some key take home messages include: 1) understanding of human health effects continues to develop dramatically, 2) regulatory guidelines continue to drop, 3) better understanding of emissions and contamination levels is needed in more parts of the world, 4) analytical methods, while improving, still only cover around 50 PFASs, and 5) discussions of how to group PFASs for regulation (including subgroupings) have gathered momentum with several jurisdictions proposing restricting a large proportion of PFAS uses. It was concluded that more multi-group exchanges are needed in the future and that there should be a greater diversity of participants at future workshops

Direct Measurement of Perchlorate Exposure Biomarkers in a Highly Exposed Population: A Pilot Study

Exposure to perchlorate is ubiquitous in the United States and has been found to be widespread in food and drinking water. People living in the lower Colorado River region may have perchlorate exposure because of perchlorate in ground water and locally-grown produce. Relatively high doses of perchlorate can inhibit iodine uptake and impair thyroid function, and thus could impair neurological development in utero. We examined human exposures to perchlorate in the Imperial Valley among individuals consuming locally grown produce and compared perchlorate exposure doses to state and federal reference doses. We collected 24-hour urine specimen from a convenience sample of 31 individuals and measured urinary excretion rates of perchlorate, thiocyanate, nitrate, and iodide. In addition, drinking water and local produce were also sampled for perchlorate. All but two of the water samples tested negative for perchlorate. Perchlorate levels in 79 produce samples ranged from non-detect to 1816 ppb. Estimated perchlorate doses ranged from 0.02 to 0.51 µg/kg of body weight/day. Perchlorate dose increased with the number of servings of dairy products consumed and with estimated perchlorate levels in produce consumed. The geometric mean perchlorate dose was 70% higher than for the NHANES reference population. Our sample of 31 Imperial Valley residents had higher perchlorate dose levels compared with national reference ranges. Although none of our exposure estimates exceeded the U. S. EPA reference dose, three participants exceeded the acceptable daily dose as defined by bench mark dose methods used by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Reporting individual results for biomonitoring and environmental exposures: lessons learned from environmental communication case studies.

Measurement methods for chemicals in biological and personal environmental samples have expanded rapidly and become a cornerstone of health studies and public health surveillance. These measurements raise questions about whether and how to report individual results to study participants, particularly when health effects and exposure reduction strategies are uncertain. In an era of greater public participation and open disclosure in science, researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) need new guidance on changing norms and best practices. Drawing on the experiences of researchers, IRBs, and study participants, we discuss ethical frameworks, effective methods, and outcomes in studies that have reported personal results for a wide range of environmental chemicals. Belmont Report principles and community-based participatory research ethics imply responsibilities to report individual results, and several recent biomonitoring guidance documents call for individual reports. Meaningful report-back includes contextual information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies. Both narrative and graphs are helpful. Graphs comparing an individual's results with other participants in the study and benchmarks, such as the National Exposure Report, are helpful, but must be used carefully to avoid incorrect inferences that higher results are necessarily harmful or lower results are safe. Methods can be tailored for specific settings by involving participants and community members in planning. Participants and researchers who have participated in report-back identified benefits: increasing trust in science, retention in cohort studies, environmental health literacy, individual and community empowerment, and motivation to reduce exposures. Researchers as well as participants gained unexpected insights into the characteristics and sources of environmental contamination. Participants are almost universally eager to receive their results and do not regret getting them. Ethical considerations and empirical experience both support study participants' right to know their own results if they choose, so report-back should become the norm in studies that measure personal exposures. Recent studies provide models that are compiled in a handbook to help research partnerships that are planning report-back. Thoughtful report-back can strengthen research experiences for investigators and participants and expand the translation of environmental health research in communities

Disentangling the Exposure Experience

This article examines participants' responses to receiving their results in a study of household exposure to endocrine disrupting compounds and other pollutants. The authors study how the "exposure experience"-the embodied, personal experience and understanding of chronic exposure to environmental pollutants-is shaped by community context and the report-back process itself. In addition, the authors investigate an activist, collective form of exposure experience. The authors analyze themes of expectations and learning, trust, and action. The findings reveal that while participants interpret scientific results to affirm lay knowledge of urban industrial toxics, they also absorb new information regarding other pollutant sources. By linking the public understanding of science literature to the illness and exposure experience concepts, this study unravels the complex relationship between lay experience and lay understanding of science. It also shows that to support policy development and/or social change, community-based participatory research efforts must attend to participants' understanding of science

Translating community-based participatory research into broadscale sociopolitical change: insights from a coalition of women firefighters, scientists, and environmental health advocates

BackgroundWe report on community-based participatory research (CBPR) initiated by women firefighters in order to share successful elements that can be instructive for other community-engaged research. This CBPR initiative, known as the Women Worker Biomonitoring Collaborative (WWBC) is the first we are aware of to investigate links between occupational exposures and health outcomes, including breast cancer, for a cohort of exclusively women firefighters.MethodsIn order to be reflective of the experiences and knowledge of those most intimately involved, this article is co-authored by leaders of the research initiative. We collected leaders' input via recorded meeting sessions, emails, and a shared online document. We also conducted interviews (N = 10) with key research participants and community leaders to include additional perspectives.ResultsFactors contributing to the initiative's success in enacting broadscale social change and advancing scientific knowledge include (1) forming a diverse coalition of impacted community leaders, labor unions, scientists, and advocacy organizations, (2) focusing on impacts at multiple scales of action and nurturing different, yet mutually supportive, goals among partners, (3) adopting innovative communication strategies for study participants, research partners, and the broader community, (4) cultivating a prevention-based ethos in the scientific research, including taking early action to reduce community exposures based on existing evidence of harm, and (5) emphasizing co-learning through all the study stages. Furthermore, we discuss external factors that contribute to success, including funding programs that elevate scientist-community-advocacy partnerships and allow flexibility to respond to emerging science-policy opportunities, as well as institutional structures responsive to worker concerns.ConclusionsWhile WWBC shares characteristics with other successful CBPR partnerships, it also advances approaches that increase the ability for CBPR to translate into change at multiple levels. This includes incorporating partners with particular skills and resources beyond the traditional researcher-community partnerships that are the focus of much CBPR practice and scholarly attention, and designing studies so they support community action in the initial stages of research. Moreover, we emphasize external structural factors that can be critical for CBPR success. This demonstrates the importance of critically examining and advocating for institutional factors that better support this research

The Concept of Essential Use for Determining When Uses of PFASs Can Be Phased Out

Because of the extreme persistence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and their associated risks, the Madrid Statement argues for stopping their use where they are deemed not essential or when safer alternatives exist. To determine when uses of PFASs have an essential function in modern society, and when they do not, is not an easy task. Here, we: 1) develop the concept of “essential use” based on an existing approach described in the Montreal Protocol, 2) apply the concept to various uses of PFASs to determine the feasibility of elimination or substitution of PFASs in each use category, and 3) outline the challenges for phasing out uses of PFASs in society. In brief, we developed three distinct categories to describe the different levels of essentiality of individual uses. A phase-out of many uses of PFASs can be implemented because they are not necessary for the betterment of society in terms of health and safety, or because functional alternatives are currently available that can be substituted into these products or applications. Some specific uses of PFASs would be considered essential because they provide for vital functions and are currently without established alternatives. However, this essentiality should not be considered as permanent; rather, constant efforts are needed to search for alternatives. We provide a detailed description of several ongoing uses of PFASs and discuss whether these uses are essential or nonessential according to the three essentiality categories. We suggest applying this concept of essential uses to all uses of PFASs, and considering its use also for other chemicals of concern