Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are valued by manufacturers for their ability to repel oils and water, and they have made their way into everything from non-stick cookware to batteries and clothing. However, they rarely leave the news now as the extent of the contamination around the world becomes known. Their exceptional persistence in the environment has meant they have now been found in the deepest parts of the ocean and the high arctic, and have been linked to a range of health problems including cancer and fertility issues. A recent study found that the EU could spend €100 billion (£85 billion) per year and still only clean up a fraction of PFAS contamination.
Chemistry World talked to Rudy Dams, a former industry scientist at PFAS manufacturer 3M, who was speaking at the 10th EuChemS Chemistry Congress. He told us that non-essential PFAS should be banned and the clean-up process should start now, but that we will need to live with these chemicals for essential uses for a while yet.
There are hundreds of medical drugs, including several blockbusters – Prozac is one of them – that are PFAS. We need to keep them.
Why should we worry about PFAS?
The biggest problem with PFAS is that these materials are persistent, so they stay around in the Earth’s ecosphere for a very long time. They are also widespread all over the world. Some of them are very potent greenhouse gases or harmful to the human immune system. That was also the reason why, as a precautionary measure in 2000, 3M pulled the plug on long-chain perfluorocarbons. In my opinion, there is no reason for mass hysteria yet, but in a few decades, if we keep on doing what we’re doing now with PFAS, there may be an issue. So, it is time for action and finding solutions. We’re still going to need PFAS in essential applications in the coming years, but I hope that within a decade or so, we have found viable replacements. But I am sorry to say that, for the time being, we are not there yet.
What should we be doing then?
At this moment, we should be selecting essential applications where PFAS are critical to mankind, for example healthcare, and where there are no alternatives. We should eliminate all other uses since we already have pragmatic PFAS-free solutions for them.
To take care of the historical and current contamination, we should start implementing remediation all over the globe. By remediation I mean not only capturing or removing PFAS from soil, groundwater or drinking water and air, but also mineralisation of PFAS back to their starting point, which was inorganic fluorides. And, last but not least, recycling these fluorides back into industrial processes. That’s a key thing – we need to close the fluorine loop. That’s the short-term solution. Long term, the solution is to find alternatives and replace as many PFAS as we can.
What counts as an essential PFAS?
These comprise applications that are critical to mankind and where there is no alternative, for example in healthcare applications, like drugs or medical devices. There are hundreds of medical drugs, including several blockbusters – Prozac is one of them – that are PFAS. We need to keep them. If you ask hospitals, surgeons or doctors using medical devices such as catheters, stents, implants and the like, they’re going to tell you that, for the time being, we cannot do without PFAS.
The same is true in the energy market. In Europe we want to go to renewable energy and move away from fossil fuels. Well, batteries will play an important role in that transition, and batteries contain quite a few essential PFAS, for example fluoropolymers or some electrolytes. So future generations may depend on PFAS or PFAS alternatives, but we need to find those alternatives as soon as possible.
Why should we do this?
I live in Zwijndrecht in 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 of five. I want to make sure that my children and my grandchildren continue to live in a safe environment, free of PFAS if we can.
What about imports containing PFAS?
That’s a key point. If the EU restricts or even bans PFAS manufacturing and their use in Europe, but does not ban imports from China, India, the US or elsewhere, then we haven’t resolved anything for future generations. Don’t forget that these materials are persistent and can travel a very long distance in water and in air. So, producing PFAS outside Europe, would not prevent them from coming back to the European environment and would offer no permanent solution. Furthermore, emissions and waste handling are tightly regulated in Europe, much more than in other parts of the world. So, production outside Europe may result in heavy PFAS burdens simply because environmental laws are not so strict elsewhere. PFAS pollution has no boundaries.
Who do you think should pay for the clean-up of PFAS?
That’s a very good, but tough, question. Worldwide, PFAS clean-up will come at an astronomical cost. We need pragmatic approaches that first focus on hotspots where there is severe contamination of drinking water and agricultural fields. Do not forget that the major exposure of the general population to PFAS is drinking water and food – we need to take care of those as soon as possible.
I suppose that we, the general public, are going to pay for that with increased prices, since, for example, water companies need to install filters or other means to remove as much PFAS as possible. On the other hand, the remediation of contaminated areas as a result of emissions from industry should be paid for by industry. That’s what 3M is doing currently in Zwijndrecht, and spending millions of euros on it.
My wish is that the PFAS issue gets resolved as soon as possible, but we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. For a short period of time, maybe a decade or so, we’re going to have to continue living with a limited amount of essential PFAS, and we’re going to have to accept it. And hopefully, soon, we’ll have replacements that will allow us to create a better and safer world for future generations.
Rudy Dams runs a consultancy firm and previously worked for 3M as a corporate scientist for over 40 years.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
No comments yet