How we should deal with PFAS
Martin Scheringer, a private lecturer in the Department of Organic Environmental Chemistry at ETH Zurich and Professor of Environmental Chemistry at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic, made proposals in a widely acclaimed essay on how the world should deal with the extremely problematic perpetuity chemicals (PFAS). These are - as their name suggests - very stable and have already been detected everywhere on our planet, including in our drinking water, in our blood and even in breast milk. Due to their properties - water and oil repellent, very stable and resistant, highly surface-active - we use them in a variety of ways, both in everyday objects and in numerous industrial applications.
On the term perpetual chemicals
"The term may be a bit casual, but it accurately captures the central property of PFAS, namely their enormous stability. This stability - in environmental chemistry it is called "persistence" - means that PFAS will actually remain in the environment for centuries or even longer. And there are no natural sources for these substances, which means they really are foreign substances and form a toxic "footprint" of human activity," explains Martin Scheringer in an interview with heise online. Together with Mohamed Ateia, the environmental chemist wrote an essay in the journal Science in which they suggest how the world should deal with the problem of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl compounds (PFAS).
We have already summarized the products in which PFAS can be found in an article.
Wide range of toxic effects caused by PFAS
"As long as PFAS are released into the environment, the concentrations in the environment and also in people's bodies will continue to rise because the PFAS are not broken down.
Sooner or later this leads to concentrations being reached at which toxic effects occur. PFAS can lead to a wide range of toxic effects, for example liver and kidney damage, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid damage, lipid metabolism disorders, a reduction in sperm count and a reduced immune response after vaccinations," explains the environmental chemist in an interview with heise online.
Is the change possible?
Scheringer: "Whether and how this change is possible differs greatly from application area to application area. In some areas it is simple and has already been implemented, especially in consumer products where PFAS are used for impregnation and also in fire extinguishing foams.
In other areas it is more difficult, especially in various industrial applications of PFAS. One problem with the switch is that PFAS are used extremely widely and in many different ways, so there is no one-size-fits-all answer. In any case, the change is already underway in many areas. An important question here is also why the regulatory substance evaluation system for PFAS did not raise a red flag earlier. We are still investigating this question."
This is easier to do in consumer goods, " but also in very demanding applications such as the aforementioned fire-fighting foams, and increasingly also in batteries and fuel cells. However, it very much depends on the application, and because there are so many different applications, the question cannot be answered uniformly or only briefly."
Using baking paper as an example, the environmental chemist explains that there are alternatives. "I found out from Swedish paper manufacturers: You can make baking paper that is greaseproof and grease-repellent by pulping the wood differently, and you don't have to add any impregnating agents such as PFAS. That would be a very elegant solution to do without this substance right from the start."
In industrial processes, switching to PFAS-free alternatives is becoming more difficult
"Some of the processes there are very demanding, technical and complicated. In the semiconductor industry in particular, we still have to develop individual solutions," explains Scheringer. "My favorite example is the fire-fighting foams I mentioned: they are very demanding, but it was already possible in 2003 to develop PFAS-free alternatives that are equivalent."
The use of PFAS in products that are essential for the energy transition is problematic. These include batteries, heat pumps and fuel cells. PFAS is used, for example, in films that separate individual components in batteries and fuel cells. "This is both a hope and an expectation that the energy transition can be achieved without using PFAS everywhere," says the environmental chemist.
Scheringer's recommendation to companies
"Companies should work closely with materials scientists and engineers, including at research institutes, who have ideas based on their experience of how the function of PFAS can be fulfilled as well as possible in other ways. Of course, this is an iterative process that takes time - we have to accept that."
Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have drawn up an EU-wide proposal with a clear phase-out scenario, which was submitted to the ECHA on January 13, 2023. Scheringer recommends that the EU continues to actively work on phase-out scenarios.
Switching to PFAS-free is not a luxury project
Scheringer concludes in an interview with heise online: "The switch to PFAS-free is not a luxury project of bored public officials and scientists, but necessary because millions of people throughout Europe are contaminated with PFAS and municipalities and water suppliers are facing enormous costs. There are therefore very good reasons to demand and promote the elimination of PFAS."
