The ederal government has been searching for ways to decrease the use of PFAS—especially fluorine—in fighting fires. John Farley, director of fire test operations at the Naval Research Laboratory, reintroduces fire to a 28-sq.-ft. container that was just sprayed with a fluorine-free foam to put out a gasoline fire. This portion of the test, referred to as a “burnback,” is designed to see if the foam will remain stable over the surface of the water and keep flames from reigniting. The test took place at the NRL, Oct. 25, 2019. Photo courtesy of David Vergun, DOD
FDA recently described its efforts to understand the occurrences of PFAS chemicals in the food supply. In its “Total Diet Study” (TDS), FDA tested 94 food samples from the general food supply and found all but one of the samples had no detectable levels of PFAS.
According to FDA, “One sample—cod—had detectable levels of perfluorooctane sulfonate, aka perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), two types of PFAS. Based on the best available current science, the FDA has no indication that the PFAS levels in the cod sample present a human health concern.”
FDA’s TDS included a broad range of foods, including breads, cakes, fruits, dairy, vegetables, meat, poultry, fish and bottled water, but were not specifically collected from areas of known environmental PFAS contamination. While the sample sizes were relatively small, FDA is not making definitive conclusions, but using the tests to determine if targeted sampling assignments are necessary for certain foods and to help inform the agency’s approach to future surveillance efforts.
However, the FDA also tests for foods grown or produced in areas with known PFAS contamination, which usually occurs at the request of states and before the food enters the market. More good news: Previous analyses have shown that PFAS contamination in the environment where food is grown does not necessarily mean the food itself will contain detectable levels of PFAS. This is because the amount of PFAS taken up by crops/plants depends on several factors, including the specific type of PFAS and characteristics of the food.
According to the posted data, FDA detected PFAS in three samples of seafood—one cod and two tilapia—from three TDS regional collections. Therefore, FDA is conducting a targeted survey of the most commonly consumed seafood in the U.S. The survey will collect and analyze 80 retail seafood samples including shrimp, salmon, canned tuna, tilapia, pollock, cod, crab and clams. The PFAS results from this study will be used to determine if additional sampling and testing is required.
There is also good news in that it’s possible to keep PFAS out of water used as an ingredient—or for human consumption. It can be filtered out at the source. So, most food or beverage processors already know if PFAS is a problem in their area, and they know what technologies to use in the pre-treatment stage, as they’ve probably contacted water treatment specialists.
According to the U.S. EPA, certain technologies have been found to remove PFAS from drinking water, especially PFOA and PFOS, which are the most studied of these chemicals. Those PFAS removal technologies include activated carbon adsorption, ion exchange resins and high-pressure membranes. These technologies can be used in drinking-water treatment facilities, in water systems in hospitals or individual buildings, or even in homes at the point-of-entry.
In an April 2021 announcement, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan issued a memorandum to EPA’s senior leadership calling for the creation of a new “EPA Council on PFAS” (ECP) that is charged with building on the agency’s ongoing work to better understand and ultimately reduce the potential risks caused by these chemicals.
The Council will be directed to:
• Develop “PFAS 2021-2025 - Safeguarding America’s Waters, Air and Land,” a multi-year strategy to deliver critical public health protections to the American public. To develop the strategy, the ECP will review all ongoing actions, propose any necessary modifications, and identify new strategies and priorities. The ECP shall make initial recommendations within 100 days of its establishment.
• Continue close interagency coordination on regional specific and cross-media issues to assist states, tribes and local communities faced with significant and complex PFAS challenges.
• Work with all national program offices and regions to maximize the impact of EPA’s funding and financing programs, and leverage federal and state funds, to support cleanup of PFAS pollution, particularly in underserved communities.
• Expand engagement opportunities with federal, state, and tribal partners to ensure consistent communications, exchange information, and identify collaborative solutions.
The ECP’s work includes an April 2021 updated PFBS (perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, part of the PFAS family of chemicals) toxicity assessment. EPA has also taken action to begin to develop a national primary drinking water regulation, to collect new data critically needed to improve EPA’s understanding of 29 PFAS, and to solicit data on the presence and treatment of PFAS in wastewater discharges. The agency also strongly supports President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, which calls for investing billions of dollars to monitor and treat PFAS in drinking water.
The EPA has a web page dedicated to PFAS-related issues, and can be found at www.epa.gov/pfas. FE