Pfas / forever chemicals

MikeL_2

  I've been getting a few phone calls regarding treatment for water supplies contaminated with PFAS.
  Anyone out there that can help me understand how these forever chems get in our water supplies, and what level of contamination is dangerous, and are there any guidelines for treatment?

PC7060

PFAS chemical are used in a wide range of items ranging from non-stick coating to clothing. The chemicals are extremely stable and accumulate in water, soils and animals.

Current focus is on removing from water supply and sewage treatment.  I'm not familiar with methods by which it can be removed during processing but I expect it’s expensive.   And, of course, someone else should pay for it. 

https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/08/03/pfas-action-latest-updates-for-local-leaders

Jamie Hall

If you are talking about private water supplies -- wells and the like-- they get in with the rest of the groundwater, but in if they are present (the concentrations will be extremely low) they suggest that the water supply itself is the problem -- and how they get into the groundwater is very difficult to determine. If they are in a public water supply, that is a little different.

However, they are present in detectable quantities, but very very low concentrations, in most surface waters these days, and much of the groundwater. The level of contamination which is dangerous depends a lot on exactly which set of documents you look at -- and how you define danger. There is no agreement on that. For that matter, there is no agreement on what compounds should even be included in the list (I've seen numbers from around 5,000 compounds to 10s of millions). The EPA admits that it has no idea how dangerous any of these compounds are, nor how to treat for them (although there are private firms which will happily sell you miracle filters which will do it -- for many bucks). Here is a Wikipedia article on them, which actually isn't too bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances

As you may gather from reading it, there isn't much consensus on them.

Probably the best way to eliminate them is just that -- never make them in the first place. Since they are really very useful in some applications, and there is just no substitute in some...

But bottom line -- there is no known way to get low levels of them out of a drinking water supply on the residential level, and no reasonably cost-effective way to get them out of public water supplies.

Jamie Hall

And a PS -- I was in the environmental remediation business for a long time. Did I every tell you folks about the time I crushed up a head of broccoli with an equal quantity of known clean sand and sent it to be tested? Came back that I had a sample which exceeded a number of parameters to be qualified as heavily contaminated and probably came from a Superfund site I was working on at the time...

Or the little problem in some areas of New England, where the natural soil contains so much arsenic that have to "remediate" it?

hot_rod

A water sample should be taken to a lab to find out exactly what it contains. The more you want test for the more $$ it cost.
One issue is water quality can change throughout the year depending on where the provider sources, amount of rain or snowfall, etc.

Of course treatment ranges from mild to wild and you claim spend a lot of money trying to get perfect water.

A few months back we got the city water report in a newsletter, I can’t even pronounce 1/2 the chemicals they test for!
and what exactly is “acceptable range”

mattmia2

They are mostly removed with carbon filters. The city of ann arbor added carbon filter media to reduce the levels in out water supply. They usually get in the water from various types of industrial waste. they were used as a layer that floated on plating tanks to control evaporation, they are used in firefighting foams so they tend to be around training facilities and manufacturing processes especially ones that threat waterproof fabrics tend to dump waste containing them where it would leach in to the water.

Jamie Hall

The key to @mattmia2 's comment above is "mostly removed". They are not completely removed by carbon filters, and even to the extent they are the filter run time is very short (days before breakthrough and replacement). The real question is what level is acceptable, if any -- and as I noted there is a diversity of opinion on that, as well as the very real question of exactly which compound (of the thousands plus) are you talking about?

As @hot_rod said, there are tests for them. Last I looked, which was a number of years ago, the test sequence for that group of compounds was running around $5,000. Per sample, and you need at least one blank for the test to be valid, so double that...

MikeL_2

   Yes, so many variables. I'm told we already have trace amounts of pfas in our blood.
   Hard to pinpoint the source -  aquifers that stretch for miles, and a huge category of contaminates. I can understand the difficulties of this fluid situation.
   I hope they're working on an affordable standardized test.  I recently paid a lab 10 times the cost of a basic profile, and had to pay more when the sample was positive for pfas and they tested the field blank.

Jamie Hall

I doubt very much that you will see an "affordable" test any time soon. The capital cost of the test equipment, the care and training of the operators, and that sort of thing... when you are trying to measure elusive chemicals in the parts per trillion range (for an image, picture one teaspoon in a million gallons of water) it's not just a matter of whipping out a test tube or two...

DJD775

@Jamie Hall Hit the nail on the head. It looks like they test for PFAs by LC/MS/MS (liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry) which is required to achieve the level of sensitivity necessary for low level analysis. I don't have one of these instruments in my lab but if I had to guess they are a $150,000+ instruments and are typically operated by analysts with a higher level of experience than your typical analytical tests. Maintenance costs are also higher as they are akin to a laboratory "sports car". Overall this equates to an expensive test that only larger labs with higher overhead will perform.

hot_rod

It is tough to break off a chemical romance forever chemicals are showing up everywhere 
Laundry products are the latest under the spotlight.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351494142_Toxicities_of_Laundry_Products_-_Review_of_the_Evidence

jumper

Interesting to learn from reliable source the concentration in somebody's blood or in milk. Claim is that parts per billion are detectable but I wonder if such tests can detect anything in anything?

Jamie Hall

jumper said:

Interesting to learn from reliable source the concentration in somebody's blood or in milk. Claim is that parts per billion are detectable but I wonder if such tests can detect anything in anything?

They can. In fact, the tests used for those (and a number or other interesting compounds) can detect reliably and measure in the parts per trillion range -- a thousand times less than parts per billion.

Which, if I may digress slightly, is part of the problem. Many of the standards which were set, and all of the testing, has been done at parts per million levels at the lowest -- a million times more concentrated. The fact of the matter is that no one knows if concentrations at the very low levels which are now detectable and measurable pose any hazard at all, or what level of hazard. I could go into how the standards are set if anyone is interested...

Mad Dog_2

The plastic mircobeads that are used in facial scrubs are quite freaky...Winding up in the Flesh of fish 🐟...sick...I believe they banned their use...hope so....Mad Dog 🐕 

Solid_Fuel_Man

 Long term affects on humans is a very interesting topic. 

Lead, asbestos, tobacco products, etc are all harder to link to certain illnesses than one may imagine. Some people die of cancer for no known reason while others who are exposed to the above list live well into their 90s with seemingly no ramifications. 

When I lived in western Massachusetts there was widespread PCB contamination from the local General Electric plant. They made all sorts of distribution equipment and transformers. The solution to pollution is (was) dilution back then. They would dump PCBs on the soil and give it away for free for fill to spread it around. This was all above board mind you. 

Come ahead a few decades and now they are paying for thousands of tons of soul to be removed and replaced.... 

Long term affects, need long term study. I could go into an interesting topic about that.... no one really knows what the future will bring. 

ChrisJ

Solid_Fuel_Man said:

 Long term affects on humans is a very interesting topic. 

Lead, asbestos, tobacco products, etc are all harder to link to certain illnesses than one may imagine. Some people die of cancer for no known reason while others who are exposed to the above list live well into their 90s with seemingly no ramifications. 

When I lived in western Massachusetts there was widespread PCB contamination from the local General Electric plant. They made all sorts of distribution equipment and transformers. The solution to pollution is (was) dilution back then. They would dump PCBs on the soil and give it away for free for fill to spread it around. This was all above board mind you. 

Come ahead a few decades and now they are paying for thousands of tons of soul to be removed and replaced.... 

Long term affects, need long term study. I could go into an interesting topic about that.... no one really knows what the future will bring. 

I feel I agree with some of what you said, but not all of it.

I've watched quite a few friends who were smokers die from it in their 50s.
My grandfather died in his 70s, I guess he was a lucky one.

Yes, some who smoke make it into their 90s, but most do not. I think (honestly, doubt what I think matters on this topic) cancer is one of those things that, if you're going to get it, smoking makes it a lot more likely. It aggravates the situation.

Asbestos, I do not have any personal experience with anyone that had problems from it but I believe what I hear and try to avoid it. But to be honest, I also try to avoid breathing fiberglass also.

Lead, the effects are well known and have been for a very long time (hundreds of years?) and can easily be linked. There's no guessing on this one. I often use lead solder on electronics and I wash my hands after handling it.


PFAS etc I have no idea.
I'm guessing over time they will figure out more and more about it.

Jamie Hall

Quoth the preacherman: from dust you came, to dust you shall return. In the meantime, eat, drink and be merry -- enjoy and rejoice in each day you have!

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Quoth the preacherman: from dust you came, to dust you shall return. In the meantime, eat, drink and be merry -- enjoy and rejoice in each day you have!

The World Health Organization's 20-year review of the Chernobyl disaster found that its psychological impacts did more health damage than radiation exposure did, and a principle cause of the population's debilitating stress was “an exaggerated sense of the dangers to health of exposure to radiation.”

Mad Dog_2

It's funny...Smoking is not good for your lungs we can all agree...They NEVER mention this when they talk about smoking Weed. Conveniently avoided.  I think Bob Marley Died of Lung Cancer ♋,  right?   Nope Melanoma...I'm sure all that pot smoke didn't help...but who really knows...He was one cool dude...Didya know he had multiple species of Lice in his dreads...crazy....Mad Dog 🐕 

ChrisJ

Mad Dog_2 said:

It's funny...Smoking is not good for your lungs we can all agree...They NEVER mention this when they talk about smoking Weed. Conveniently avoided.  I think Bob Marley Died of Lung Cancer ♋,  right?   Nope Melanoma...I'm sure all that pot smoke didn't help...but who really knows...He was one cool dude...Didya know he had multiple species of Lice in his dreads...crazy....Mad Dog 🐕 

I think cigarettes are worse but I think it's clearly understood smoking anything including weed isn't good for your lungs.

PC7060

ChrisJ said:

Quoth the preacherman: from dust you came, to dust you shall return. In the meantime, eat, drink and be merry -- enjoy and rejoice in each day you have!

The World Health Organization's 20-year review of the Chernobyl disaster found that its psychological impacts did more health damage than radiation exposure did, and a principle cause of the population's debilitating stress was “an exaggerated sense of the dangers to health of exposure to radiation.”

Remind your of any recent events?   Mental health impact are the underestimated side of any major societal event. 

hot_rod

Mad Dog_2 said:

It's funny...Smoking is not good for your lungs we can all agree...They NEVER mention this when they talk about smoking Weed. Conveniently avoided.  I think Bob Marley Died of Lung Cancer ♋,  right?   Nope Melanoma...I'm sure all that pot smoke didn't help...but who really knows...He was one cool dude...Didya know he had multiple species of Lice in his dreads...crazy....Mad Dog 🐕 

I think the pot pros like Willie Nelson have all gone to edibles

Mad Dog_2

Gotta love Willie...I remember the first time seeing a video of him from the Early years....I only knew the Weathered, Pony-Tailed Journeyman.  An American Treasure...Mad Dog 🐕 

Solid_Fuel_Man

@ChrisJ

I'm certainly not saying any of those things are not bad, or won't shorten one's life. I'm just saying that there are people who are exposed to those things who still live very long lives, and those who are not and die an "early" death. 

I know several examples of both ends of that spectrum personally. Some in my own family. Terrible health choices who live into their late 90s, and clean living and exercise who are now gone to cancer in their 50s. The world is not fair. 

I've been to a lot of funerals in the last 10 years. 

WMno57

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/

Mad Dog_2

"Only the good die young. "  God protects drunks 🥴 and fools.  Mad Dog 🐕 

H2OBandit603

Went to a continuing education seminar and they talked about filtering it out of well water, but once you capture or filter these chemicals you would think you would get rid of it…I’m pretty sure they were just discharging the dirty water back into the well or onto the ground.  This seems really silly to me.  Once it’s out why would you put it back into the environment.  Idk maybe I missed something. 

EBEBRATT-Ed

Willie just turned 90 how bad can weed be LOL

In fact I have tickets to go see him the middle of September!!

Mad Dog_2

I just read an article in Long Island Newsday...SCWA (Suffolk County Water Authority) are treating it with a small amount of  Hydrogen Peroxide and pass it thru UV light to destroy 1,4 dioxane molecules...It will break the difficult compound down  it passes thru Activated carbon  Ill try to find the article. This is what Matt Jr.. works on....very cool stuff...Mad Dog