We are happy to share Ensia articles for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-Prohibited Derivation 3.0 Unported License Terms. At the beginning of your post, please indicate the author and Ensia as the original source and link to the Ensia article.

You must use the "Get Article" link below and repost with the copied text. The story may not be edited without Ensia's permission. Please send an email to contact@ensia.com with a link to the reposted story on your website.

Images and other visual effects are not included in this license. For specific questions about visual effects, please contact Todd Reubold. If you have any other questions, please send an email to contact@ensia.com.

The post is now in your clipboard. You can paste it directly into the WYSIWYG editor on your website.

December 16, 2020-Editor's note: This story is part of a nine-month survey of drinking water pollution in the United States. The series is funded by the Park Foundation and the Water Foundation. Read the release story "Hungry for a Solution" here.

Tom Kennedy was told that his breast cancer had metastasized to his brain and it was about two months after the end of his life that he learned that his home’s drinking water had been contaminated for a long time.

The problem of polluting his taps: Perfluorinated and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a wide range of chemicals invented in the mid-1900s to add desirable properties, such as anti-fouling and anti-stick shoes, cooking utensils and Other daily necessities. For decades, manufacturers in Fayetteville, North Carolina have discharged them into the Cape Fear River, a regional drinking water source.

"I'm very angry," said Kennedy, who lives in nearby Wilmington. "I soon thought that PFAS might have caused my illness. Although I can't prove anything."

The double whammy of bad news appeared more than three years ago. Kennedy has exceeded his prognosis and is now actively advocating stricter supervision of PFAS.

"PFAS is everywhere," he said. "It's really hard to get any changes."

After chemicals were found in the rivers that provided him with drinking water, breast cancer survivor Tom Kennedy became an active advocate for stricter PFAS regulations. Photo courtesy of Tom Kennedy.

In fact, various forms of PFAS are still used in a variety of industrial and consumer products—from non-stick frying pans and antifouling carpets to food wrappers and fire-fighting foams—and have become ubiquitous. These compounds enter the environment wherever they are manufactured, spilled, discharged or used. Rainwater can wash them into surface drinking water sources such as lakes, or PFAS may gradually migrate through the soil to groundwater, another important source of public water supply systems and private wells.

For the same reason, these chemicals are favored by manufacturers—they are heat, oil and water resistant—PFAS are also found in soil, water, and our bodies.

Studies have shown that more than 200 million Americans may be drinking water contaminated by PFAS. As research continues to link exposure to a range of potential health consequences—including links to Covid-19 susceptibility—scientists and advocates call on regulators and industry to take urgent action to reduce the use of PFAS and take steps to ensure The existing compound environment is far away from drinking water.

The history of PFAS can be traced back to the 1930s and 1940s, when DuPont and Manhattan Project scientists discovered these compounds by accident. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (now 3M) soon began producing PFOS as a key ingredient in Scotchgard and other non-stick, waterproof and anti-fouling products.

Over the next few decades, thousands of different PFAS chemicals appeared, including the two most studied versions: PFOS and PFOA. Oral-B started using PFAS in dental floss. Gore-Tex uses it to make waterproof fabrics. Hush Puppies uses waterproof leather to make shoes. DuPont and its spin-off company Chemours use these compounds to make its popular Teflon coating.

Science has shown that there is a link between PFAS exposure and a range of health consequences, including those that may increase the risk of cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver damage, kidney disease, low birth weight infants, immunosuppression, ulcerative colitis, and pregnancy-induced hypertension risk.

"PFAS really seems to interact with all the biological functions of our body," said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG, a collaborator of the report project). "Even at the level of ordinary people in this country, these chemicals may have an impact."

PFAS has been used in common items such as cookware and food wrappers for decades. © iStockphoto.com | Woody Root | ia_64

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) even issued a warning that exposure to high levels of PFAS may increase the risk of Covid-19 infection, and pointed out that evidence from human and animal studies suggests that PFAS can reduce vaccine efficacy. PFAS, known as PFBA, has attracted special attention to the global pandemic. Philippe Grandjean, professor of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and colleagues recently discovered that the severity of Covid-19 symptoms is positively correlated with the presence of PFBA in individuals’ blood, according to their October publication Preprinted papers that have not been peer-reviewed.

"There are a range of potential adverse effects. For me, interference with the immune system is the most important," Grandjean said. "According to our data, the immune system is affected at the lowest exposure level."

Once PFAS enters the environment, these compounds are likely to stay for a long time because they are not easily decomposed by sunlight or other natural processes.

PFAS is contaminating soil and water across the United States. Copyright © Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org. Reprinted with permission. Click to view the interactive map.

There are legacy and ongoing PFAS pollution throughout the United States, especially in or near locations related to firefighting training, industry, landfills, and wastewater treatment. Near Parkersburg, West Virginia, PFAS seeps into the drinking water supply of the DuPont plant. In Decatur, Alabama, a 3M manufacturing plant is suspected of discharging PFAS and polluting residents' drinking water. According to the state, in Hyannis, Massachusetts, firefighting foam from the Firefighter Training Academy may be a source of well water pollution. Hundreds of military sites across the country (including one on Whidbey Island in Washington) use PFAS-containing materials, such as fire-fighting foam, and pollute many drinking water supplies.

"It's useful for fires. It's just that it's toxic," said Donald (Matt) Reeves, associate professor of hydrogeology at West Michigan University in Kalamazoo, who studies how PFAS moves and adheres in the environment.

Reeves explained that this can be a nearly infinite loop. Industry may discharge these compounds into waste streams that end up in wastewater treatment plants. If the facility is not equipped with a filter that can capture PFAS, these chemicals may enter the drinking water source directly. Or, wastewater treatment facilities may produce PFAS-containing sludge, which is used in land or landfills. Either way, PFAS can be leached and returned to the wastewater treatment plant, repeating the cycle. These compounds can also be released into the air, causing PFAS to deposit on the ground in some cases, where it can seep back into the drinking water supply.

He said his research in Michigan echoed a broader trend throughout the United States: "The more tests, the more discoveries."

In fact, a study published by EWG scientists in October 2020 used state test data to estimate that the drinking water of more than 200 million Americans may contain one part per trillion (ppt) or higher in PFAS. According to some scientists and health advocates, this is the recommended safety limit, equivalent to one drop in 500,000 barrels of water.

Of the 44 drinking water samples tested last year, the Environmental Working Group found that the PFAS levels in 41 were worrying. Copyright © Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org. Reprinted with permission.

"This really highlights the extent to which these pollutants are present in drinking water across the country," said Andrews of EWG, the paper's co-author. "And, in some respects, this is not a huge surprise. It is almost impossible to avoid contamination of drinking water." He cited the CDC study, which found this in the blood of 98% of Americans surveyed. Kind of chemical substance.

U.S. chemical manufacturers have voluntarily stopped using and discharging PFOS and PFOA, and the industry is working to reduce persistent pollution and clean up past pollution even though these companies do not always agree with scientists on the related health risks.

3M spokesperson Sean Lynch said: “The large amount of scientific evidence of decades of research does not indicate that PFOS or PFOA has caused harm to humans at the current or historical level.” However, he pointed out that his company has Investing more than $200 million globally to clean up these compounds: "As our scientific and technological capabilities advance, we will continue to invest in cutting-edge cleanup and control technologies, and work with the community to determine where this technology can make a difference ."

Chemours spokesperson Thom Sueta pointed to similar efforts to solve historical and current emissions and emissions problems. The company’s Fayetteville plant dumped a large amount of the PFAS compound GenX, contaminating the drinking water used by Kennedy and his approximately 250,000 neighbors.

“We continue to reduce the PFAS load on the Cape Fear River and begin operation of the capture and treatment system for important groundwater sources at the site this fall,” Sueta said in an email.

A large part of the challenge is that PFAS is considered an emerging pollutant and therefore is not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But Andrews pointed out that most of the ongoing pollution of PFOS and PFOA seems to come from previous uses, circulating back into the environment and the human body.

A large part of the challenge is that PFAS is considered an emerging pollutant and therefore is not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2016, the EPA set a non-binding health recommendation limit of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. The agency proposes to enact federal regulations on pollutants in February 2020, is currently reviewing the opinions, and plans to issue a final decision this winter.

Several states in the United States have set drinking water limits for PFAS, including California, Minnesota, and New York. Michigan's regulations cover seven different PFAS compounds and are one of the most stringent. Reeves of Western Michigan University said that the 2014 Flint lead pollution crisis raised the state's focus on safe drinking water.

Nevertheless, inconsistencies across the country caused confusion. “The regulation of PFAS is still different. States have different ideas, which is not necessarily a good thing,” said David Sedlak, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. "People are not sure what to do."

The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Commission (ITRC), a consortium of states that promotes the use of new technologies and processes for environmental remediation, is working to summarize evidence-based recommendations for PFAS regulation without federal action.

Professor Grandjean of the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard University suggested that the safe level of PFAS in drinking water may be about 1 ppt or less. Grandjean said that the latest EU risk assessment corresponds to the recommended limit of about 2 ppt for four common PFAS compounds, which is “probably close,” he said. "This is not a preventive restriction, but it is definitely closer than the EPA."

DuPont introduced GenX in 2009 to replace PFOA. It is one of the new generation of short-chain PFAS with fewer carbon molecules than the original long-chain PFAS. These were initially thought to be less toxic and can be excreted from the body more quickly. But some evidence proves otherwise: research shows that these relatives may pose many of the same risks as their predecessors.

Sedlak said: "The PFAS chemical family used in commerce is much broader than the small number of compounds that the EPA is considering regulating." Some discussions on GenX. But the deeper we dig, the more we can see a lot of PFAS."

Andrews pointed out that the continuous model of replacing one toxic chemical with another toxic chemical is a problem that the federal government urgently needs to solve. "This entire chemical family has many of the same characteristics," he said.

"When the production of these chemicals ceases, especially when they are produced in large quantities across the country, the levels will drop," Andrews said, referring to the phasing out of these compounds, the concentration of PFOS and PFOA in American blood will be correspondingly decline. "But this raises people's concerns about what will happen next? Or are we actually exposed to environments that we haven't tested?"

The use of PFAS in fire fighting foam has caused widespread environmental pollution across the United States, especially on or near military bases. Photo © iStockphoto.com | Kzenon

Andrews and his co-author Olga Naidenko (also a scientist at EWG) further urge governments to consider a relatively easy-to-achieve result: non-essential uses of PFAS. "Even if someone would say that for severe fires, we need to use the best foam, I think we all agree that there is no reason to spray PFAS just for training," Naidenko said. "You can spray water."

Environmental health advocates expressed their hope that more progress will be made in PFAS regulation in 2021. President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to set enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water and to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance — which would accelerate the cleanup of contaminated sites under the EPA's Superfund program.

At the same time, the million-dollar (or indeed more) question is: How do we remove PFAS from drinking water? The bond between carbon and fluorine atoms is one of the strongest bonds in nature. Therefore, the degradation of PFAS in nature is extremely slow. "People have good reasons to call them'forever chemicals'," Sedlak said. "These carbon-fluorine bonds want to remain intact."

Since PFAS is resistant to degradation, filtration is the main strategy to remove it from drinking water. Granular activated carbon filters can absorb PFAS and other contaminants, but they must be replaced when all available surface area is occupied by chemicals. Compared with long-chain PFAS, the effect of filters on short-chains is often worse. Another removal method is to use ion exchange resins, which can attract and retain negatively charged contaminants, such as PFAS. Perhaps the most effective technique to date is reverse osmosis. This method can filter out a wide range of PFAS. At the same time, Heather Stapleton, a professor of environmental science and policy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, points out that it is expensive.

Stapleton researched various filters and found that they all work well. After discovering PFAS in her own drinking water, she installed a household filter. But she pointed out that this cost can be a major obstacle for many people, making it an "environmental justice issue."

The diversity of PFAS compounds also presents challenges. Naidenko said that the community water system may spend a lot of resources to install a water treatment system, only to find that although the method may well remove one group of PFAS, it may not be able to filter another group.

Scientists are studying further chemical and biological treatment methods. Sedlak is one of the researchers and is studying how to treat PFAS while it is still underground, for example by combining in situ oxidation with microorganisms to break down chemicals.

"What we can be sure is that we have been exposed. What we don't know is what kind of lasting impact it has on our health as a community"-North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Civil Engineering, Architecture And environmental engineering professor Emily Donovan and Joel Ducost lamented that the treatment process still cannot remove PFAS and provide Americans with safe drinking water. "This has always been a problem in our state and is becoming a national problem," he said.

The clearer science surrounding PFAS—the best treatments, truly safe alternatives, and potential health effects—is not fast enough for those who deal with legacy PFAS contamination every day in Wilmington.

"What we can be sure of is that we have been exposed. We don't know what kind of lasting health impact we have as a community," said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, an advocate for clean water in the area. Grassroots organization. She said that part of their effort is to seek better medical monitoring of people exposed to PFAS.

Because of the long incubation period between exposure and disease—usually decades—it is difficult to associate any PFAS with a specific cancer. Kennedy pointed out that there is no history of breast cancer in his family and no genetic predisposition for the disease. "These factors make me more convinced that this is caused by PFAS," he said.

"This does not seem to be the right way to test the safety of chemicals-here is a potentially major problem-exposing the population widely. However, this seems to be what we are doing now," Andrews said.

Ensia shares solution-focused stories for free through our online magazine and partner media. This means that audiences around the world can always access stories that can—and indeed—help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please express your support today.

Sign up for our bi-weekly newsletter now, and you will receive the latest stories from Ensia directly to your inbox.