Water from the US May Have More "Forever Chemicals" than Previously Thought

The analysis of water samples collected in nine different US locales reveals that the testing agency is most likely missing substantial amounts of PFAS contaminants.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire's new $17 million water treatment plant will be celebrated in May 2021, with local and national officials declaring the city's water free of hazardous "forever chemicals."

Water Contamination

Firefighting foam from the adjacent Pease air force base had contaminated the water for decades with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The US military sponsored the city's new filtration system in awareness of the public health concern.

According to officials, after applying the enhanced filtration, tests revealed no measurable amounts of PFAS chemicals in the water. They referred to the Portsmouth operation as a "national model" for combating PFAS water pollution.

Senator Maggie Hassan stated, "We are here to celebrate clean water."

However, the water may not be completely pure.

Analyzing the Water

A Guardian analysis of water samples taken in Portsmouth and eight other locations across the United States reveals that the type of water testing relied on by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - and officials in towns like Portsmouth - is so limited in scope that significant levels of PFAS pollutants are likely to be missed.

The undercount gives authorities a skewed view of the degree of PFAS pollution and illustrates how millions of people may be exposed to an unknown health danger in their drinking water.

Examining Water Samples

The study examined water samples from PFAS hotspots around the country using two tests: one produced by the EPA that detects 30 types of the approximately 9,000 PFAS compounds and another that looks for a marker of all PFAS.

The Guardian discovered that seven of the nine samples taken revealed higher levels of PFAS in water using the test that recognizes PFAS indicators than levels detected using the EPA approach - and at concentrations up to 24 times higher.

"The EPA is doing the bare minimum, which is endangering people's health," said Kyla Bennett, policy director at the environmental advocacy organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Major Health Concern

Since the 1950s, PFAS has produced thousands of items that repel water, stains, and heat. They are commonly referred to as "forever chemicals" since they do not completely degrade, accumulating in the environment, humans, and animals. Some are harmful even at low concentrations and have been associated with cancer, birth abnormalities, renal illness, liver difficulties, lowered immunity, and other major health concerns.

Government Action

In June, the Biden administration proposed additional efforts to safeguard drinking water from PFAS pollution, claiming that the chemicals "represent a substantial hazard throughout rural, suburban, and urban regions." The government has set aside $10 billion to address PFAS and other toxins in drinking water.

However, critics argue that when it comes to identifying PFAS-contaminated water, the limitations of the test used by state and federal regulators, known as the EPA 537 method, virtually ensure regulators will never have a complete picture of contamination levels because the industry produces new compounds much faster than researchers can develop the science to measure them.

This adds to the motivation for business to transition away from earlier compounds: if chemical firms generate newer PFAS, authorities will be unable to detect contamination.

"Industry has got a 70-year head start, and we'll never catch up," said Graham Peaslee, a University of Notre Dame researcher.

Many experts believe that a "total organic fluorine" (TOF) test is the most accurate technique to analyze water samples, which detects a PFAS signature called organic fluorine.

The European Union is proposing a TOF test. States like Maine, which want to regulate PFAS as a class rather than individual chemicals, will require more sophisticated testing to enforce their rules.

"The TOF isn't the be-all and end-all, but it tells us there's more fluorine out there, and we need to hunt for it," Peaslee explained.

Last year, clean water advocacy organizations encouraged the EPA to utilize more extensive testing to "give us a greater picture of the entirety of PFAS pollution." Still, the agency informed the Guardian that no such plans are presented in the works.

Continued Investigation

According to the EPA, it "continues to undertake research and monitor developments in analytical procedures... that may increase our capacity to quantify additional PFAS" in a statement to the Guardian.

That is insufficient for researchers concerned about PFAS exposure.

"We're looking for and investigating less than 1% of PFAS, so what the hell is the other 99 percent?"

Peaslee inquired. "I've never seen a good PFAS; therefore, they're all going to be harmful somehow."

For similar news, don't forget to follow Nature World News!