Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids (PFAAs) are organic chemicals widely distributed worldwide, causing concerns about their adverse effects on human health and the environment. They are highly resistant to environmental degradation processes, thus requiring proper waste management. These acids are found in products that people use daily. For example, perfluorooctanoic acid is used to produce cookware, food containers, and home textiles. As such, perfluorinated compounds are abundant in human life and gradually increasing their concentrations in nature. This paper examines the sources of PFAAs contamination in the environment, their effects on animal and human health, and the existing U.S. policies regarding PFAAs.
PFAAs are a persistent pollutant that harms nature and human health. Industrial production and the use of perfluorinated compounds are surrounded by health and environmental concerns as they are found to have a high level of toxicity (Auer et al.). Two major manufacture areas, North America and Europe, were widely investigated, showing that PFAAs are found in different types of wildlife, such as fish, reptiles, and birds (Reiner et al. 128).
That demonstrates the need for careful examination of the issue of PFAAs. There are various ways how PFAAs affect the environment and human health. The most frequent cause of contamination occurs when PFAAs are released during production in industrial sites (Reinet et al.). For example, DuPont Washington Works had produced total PFOA emissions of 80,000 pounds in 2000 and 1,700 pounds in 2004 (Hu et al.). Currently, the amount of such emissions from fluoropolymer manufacture and use continues to grow. In addition, the emissions also contribute to the greenhouse effect due to its long atmospheric lifetime. Moreover, industrial wastes further lead to contamination of the environment.
With regards to people, the primary sources of perfluorinated compounds to people are food, air, food packaging, and drinking water. People interact with these products daily and cannot avoid PFAAs contamination. For instance, popcorn packages contain PFAAs; hence, the oil from microwave popcorn packages includes 6-290 parts per billion of perfluorooctanoic acid (Sunderland et al., 142). The study of the effects of perfluorinated chemicals on human health has found that local people living near DuPont’s Washington Works facility had higher levels of perfluorooctanoic acid in their blood (Hu et al. 346).
It is seen that the chemicals influence blood concentration, causing some changes that lead to unavoidable consequences. For example, people living near the industrial sites of PFAAs are more likely to develop kidney cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and other serious illnesses (Stanifer et al., 1480). Yet, the serum concentrations of perfluorinated compounds in humans are declining globally.
However, the total exposures to newer chemicals related to PFAAs and precursor compounds are still not well-investigated. As such, these chemicals continue to contaminate Human exposures to legacy PFASs from seafood and drinking water are stable or increasing in many regions, suggesting observed declines reflect phase-outs in heritage PFAS use in consumer products. Many areas globally continue to discover PFAS contaminated sites from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) use, particularly near airports and military bases. Such effects on health suggest that governments should mitigate food contamination by PFAAs.
PFAAs are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT), and therefore, they are unique among contaminants in organic drinking water. Since the pollutants are indefinitely persistent in the environment, resulting from their excellent strength carbon-fluorine compounds, they are referred to as forever chemicals. Nonetheless, despite being unique in drinking water, there are no existing national policies on drinking water standards.
That is to say, and no new contaminants have been established under the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on maximum contaminant level (MCL) on the complicated and lengthy procedures for fresh drinking water contaminants national regulation (USEPA n.p). Further, despite the 2016 efforts on non-regulatory lifetime health advisories on drinking water, the May 2020 conclusion by the government was that USEPA lifetime health advisories are insufficient in protecting Americans against contaminants (USEPA n.p). That meant more stringent regulations have to be established in securing Americans from the contaminants in drinking water.
Moreover, the U.S. government has undertaken several regulatory actions towards addressing PFAAs substances in consumer and manufacturing products. Based on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews, the global stewardship program’s development and implementation aim to eliminate the chemicals in the contaminants from the environment. Since 2006, the eight major leading organizations in the country, based on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), were invited to join the program to achieve two crucial goals. The first goal was to commit to achieving a 95 percent reduction no later than 2010 as measured by the baseline established in the year 2000 (USEPA).
The contractions were both in related higher homologue chemicals and chemicals levels in product content as well as precursor chemicals that break perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (USEPA). The second goal was to commit to eliminating PFAAs chemicals from products and emissions by 2015.
In line with attempts by the U.S. government to eliminate or at least minimize the chemicals, July 2021 saw the House of Representatives endorse a bill to designate PFASs as harmful material. Commonly known as Superfund Law, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) moved to require the EPA to add both the perfluoroactanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and the perflurorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as harmful materials (O’Brien & Mark). Under the PFAS Action Act, the addition, is to be realized within one year and similarly, every other PFAS is evaluated in the next five years. With the bill’s passing, the CERCLA would trigger evaluations and remediation obligations associated with PFAAs.
Before the bill becomes law, there are policies by the U.S. government on regulating PFAAs in the environment. In 2002, EPA issued a SNUR to require EPA notification before any upcoming inventions, imports included, of the 13 PFAS chemicals that constitute part of the voluntary PFOS phase-out between 2000 and 2002 (USEPA n.p). December of 2002, and EPA issued another SNUR where similar notifications were made relative to 75 PFAS chemicals (USEPA n.p). In both instances, the SNUR gave provisions for limited continuation for the highly technical use of the chemicals where no existing alternatives were available.
Having seen the need to further improve on the policies, EPA established another requirement. In October 9, 2007, EPA finalized a SNUR for notifications on 183 PFAS chemicals that were believed to be no longer used or manufactured, imports included, within the U.S. (USEPA n.p). On October 22, 2013, EPA made it a mandate for every organization using PFOA associated chemicals to document their use as part of carpets in treating carpets (USEPA n.p).
The category was considered potentially harmful since the chemicals would impart water and soil and cause stain resistance (USEPA). In 2015, the EPA proposed a significant rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), where manufacturers, importers are included, regulating the use of PFOA and related chemicals (USEPA n.p). With the proposal, EPA could assess every new use, and where necessary, actions were taken to limit or prohibit chemical use.
EPA made another proposal where a supplemental important new rule use allowed for notifications. Starting early February 2020, before any resumption of beginninglong-chain chemical material imports, EPA had to be notified. The announcements were significant since they were related to surface coatings on articles like carpets, textiles, electronics, household appliances, and furniture. Later in the same year, the EPA issued a final rule towards strengthening PFAS regulation in the country (USEPA n.p). The issue required EPA review for phased-out long-chain PFAS before their resumption in the U.S. Further, every product containing specific long-chain PFAS as surface coatings could no longer be used in the country without EPA review.
Having seen the challenges that associated with the last compliance guide, EPA sought to change the guidelines. Lastly, in June 2021, the July 2020 SNUR compliance requirement by EPA on specific long-chain PFAS was withdrawn. The withdrawal was founded on the understanding EPA failed to consider public concerns. Upon further review of the compliance guide, EPA saw the guide was inappropriate since it weakened and narrowed SNUR.
Its inappropriateness was established based on the knowledge the compliance guide only impacted the importer but no article’s processors (USEPA). Based on such limitation by the 2020 compliance guide, the House of Representatives endorsed the July 2021 bill to designate PFASs as harmful material (USEPA n.p). Far from regulating PFAS under CERCLA, the federal environmental laws would also be responsible for regulating PFAS (O’Brien & Mark). Even before the law is passed, as established, EPA has been actively committed to minimizing the potential risks associated with the use of the chemicals in the county.
Works Cited
Auer, Charles M., et al. “Toxic Substances: A Half-Century of Progress.” 2016. EPA Alumni Association.
Hu, Xindi C., et al. “Detection of poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in S.U.S. drinking water linked to industrial sites, military fire training areas, and wastewater treatment plants.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters 3.10 (2016): 344-350.
O’Brien, Mitchelle, N., & Mark, Beliveau E. “Federal government takes more steps toward regulating PFAS.” The National Law Review 11.347 (2021).
Reiner, Jessica L., and Benjamin J. Place. “Perfluorinated alkyl acids in wildlife.” Toxicological Effects of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Humana Press, Cham, 2016. 127-150.
Stanifer, John W., et al. “Perfluorinated chemicals as emerging environmental threats to kidney health: A scoping review.” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 13.10 (2018): 1479-1492.
Sunderland, Elsie M., et al. “A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects.”Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 29.2 (2019): 131-147.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Risk management for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under TSCA. Web.