Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are valued by manufacturers for their ability to repel oil and water and are used in everything from nonstick cookware to batteries and clothing. But they rarely make the news now that the extent of pollution around the world is known. Due to their extraordinary persistence in the environment, they are now found in the deepest parts of the ocean and high up in the Arctic, and have been linked to a variety of health problems, including cancer and fertility problems. A recent study found that even if the EU spent €100bn (£85bn) a year, it would only be able to remove a fraction of PFAS pollution.
What are PFAS?
PFAS, also known as the “forever chemicals,” are a group of an estimated 15,000 synthetic chemicals that have been widely used in consumer products around the world since the 1950s. These are a class of chemicals that contain at least one perfluorinated methyl (-CF3) or methylene (-CF2-) group. The bond between carbon and fluorine is the strongest in existence, so it does not easily break down in the environment. The unique properties of these materials allow them to repel oil, grease, and water, as well as provide properties such as heat resistance and friction reduction. This helps, for example, in creating non-stick and stain-resistant products.
However, PFAS are also highly mobile in the environment and can bioaccumulate as well as bioproliferate up the food chain. PFOA and PFOS, the most well-studied of these substances, are thought to be associated with serious health conditions such as reproductive and developmental disorders, weakened immune function, and certain types of cancer.
chemistry world We spoke with Rudy Dams, a former industry scientist at PFAS manufacturer 3M, who spoke at the 10th EuChemS Chemistry Conference. He said non-essential PFAS should be banned and the cleanup process should start now, but they will have to coexist with these chemicals in essential uses for some time yet.
There are hundreds of PFAS, including some blockbuster products (Prozac being one of them). need to maintain them.
Why should I worry about PFAS?
The biggest problem with PFAS is that these substances persist in the Earth’s ecosphere for very long periods of time because they are persistent. Also, they are widespread all over the world. Some of them are very powerful greenhouse gases and harmful to the human immune system. This was also the reason 3M stopped using long-chain perfluorocarbons in 2000 as a precaution. In my opinion, there’s still no reason for mass hysteria, but decades from now, if we continue to do what we’re doing now with PFAS, we could have problems. Therefore, now is the time to take action and find solutions. Although PFAS will still be needed for critical applications in the coming years, we hope to find viable alternatives within the next decade. But unfortunately, we are not there yet for the time being.
So what should we do?
At this time, we must select critical uses, such as healthcare, where PFAS are important to humanity and there are no alternatives. Since there are already viable PFAS-free solutions, all other uses should be ruled out.
To address past and present contamination, remediation efforts must begin around the world. Remediation here refers not only to capturing or removing PFAS from soil, groundwater, drinking water, and air, but also mineralization, which returns PFAS to their starting point, which is inorganic fluoride. And last but not least, these fluorides can be recycled back into industrial processes. That’s important – we need to close the fluorine loop. That’s a short term solution. In the long term, the solution is to find alternatives and replace as many PFAS as possible.
What are required PFAS?
These include applications that are important to humanity and for which there are no alternatives, such as healthcare applications such as pharmaceuticals and medical devices. There are hundreds of PFAS, including some blockbuster products (Prozac being one of them). need to maintain them. Ask any hospital, surgeon, or doctor who uses medical devices like catheters, stents, and implants and they will tell you that they cannot do without PFAS for the foreseeable future.
The same goes for energy markets. Europe wants to adopt renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels. Well, batteries will play a key role in that transition, and they contain a significant number of essential PFAS, including fluoropolymers and some electrolytes. Therefore, future generations may rely on PFAS or PFAS replacements, and we need to find those replacements as soon as possible.
Why should I do this?
I live in Zwindrecht, Belgium, which is one of the so-called PFAS hotspots contaminated by “forever chemicals.” My family and I have lived there for over 40 years. I’m a grandfather with five children. I want to ensure that my children and grandchildren continue to live in a safe environment, preferably free of PFAS.
What will happen to imported products containing PFAS?
That’s the important point. If the EU restricts or bans the production and use of PFAS in Europe, but does not ban imports from countries such as China, India and the United States, we are not solving anything for future generations. Remember that these substances are durable and can travel long distances in water and air. Therefore, producing PFAS outside Europe does not prevent PFAS from returning to the European environment, nor does it provide a permanent solution. Additionally, emissions and waste disposal are more strictly regulated in Europe than in other parts of the world. Therefore, production outside of Europe may be burdened with PFAS simply because environmental laws are less stringent there. PFAS contamination knows no boundaries.
Who do you think should pay for PFAS cleanup costs?
That’s a very good question, but a difficult one. Around the world, cleaning up PFAS is astronomically expensive. We need a pragmatic approach that first focuses on hotspots of severe contamination of drinking water and agricultural land. Remember that the general population’s primary exposure to PFAS is through drinking water and food. We need to manage them as soon as possible.
For example, water companies will have to install filters and other measures to remove as much PFAS as possible, and we, the public, will probably end up paying the price in higher prices. On the other hand, remediation of contaminated areas resulting from industrial emissions must be paid for by industry. That’s what 3M is currently doing with millions of euros in Zwindrecht.
We hope that the PFAS issue will be resolved as soon as possible, but we cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. For a short period of time, perhaps a decade or so, we will have to continue to live with limited amounts of essential PFAS, and we will have to accept that. And hopefully, soon there will be alternatives that can build a better, safer world for future generations.
Rudy Dams owns a consulting firm and previously worked as a corporate scientist at 3M for more than 40 years.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
