PFAS can be found in many everyday objects and are intended to make life easier. But the substances also accumulate in humans and are suspected of promoting many diseases. In Germany they have been detected in many places and are to be banned in the future.
According to the Federal Environment Agency (UBA), many places in Germany contaminated with the so-called perpetual chemicals PFAS are still unknown. “What we see is probably the tip of the iceberg,” said UBA President Dirk Messner in a reply to the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” (SZ). According to research by SZ, NDR and WDR, PFAS can be detected at more than 1,500 locations in Germany. Messner spoke of an “important contribution to further assembling the mosaic”.
PFAS belong to the group of substances known as perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl compounds. These chemicals do not occur naturally in the environment, so they are all man-made. Roughly speaking, the PFAS (pronounced pifas) have in common that at the molecular level they consist of more or less long carbon chains (this is what the syllable “alkyl-” refers to), in which hydrogen atoms are completely (per-) or partially (poly -) are replaced by fluorine atoms (-fluorinated).
The substances can be found in everyday objects such as anoraks, pans and cosmetics. But they are also part of industrial processes and technical applications. PFAS are also known as forever chemicals because they accumulate in the environment and break down very slowly. “Depending on the substance, they last from several decades to centuries in the environment,” said Wiebke Drost, PFAS expert at the UBA.
In the EU, the chemical group with an estimated more than 10,000 individual substances is now to be largely banned. The UBA is significantly involved in the initiative. The extremely broad ban is also special because only relatively few of the substances have actually been directly proven to pose a risk. Because of the enormous variety of compounds, the majority of the substances have not yet been investigated at all.
So the ban is a kind of precautionary measure. The thought behind this: if some of the substances are proven to be harmful, many other, previously untested representatives of the substance group could also be. The initiators say the basic ban is necessary to protect human health and the environment, where the extremely persistent chemicals continue to accumulate. The industry, however, considers the step to be disproportionate.
Due to their unique characteristics, PFAS are used today in a large number of mainly industrial products, as the Federation of German Industries writes in a position paper from 2021. The substances are chemically stable, and they don’t mind even high temperatures. In addition, they have a very low surface tension and are therefore both oil and water-repellent. Furthermore, they are considered to be very resilient and have a high abrasion and wear resistance.
PFAS have a very wide range of applications. They are found in everyday products such as cosmetics, rain jackets and pan coatings. But they also play a major role in industrial processes. The BDI names twelve sectors that would be affected by a ban under discussion, including semiconductor production, the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells, the automotive and electrical industry, the textile industry and mechanical and plant engineering.
According to the UBA, PFAS can enter soil and water through the exhaust air from industrial plants, for example. Since PFAS are also contained in everyday products, they also occur in indoor air. Some PFAS find their way into rivers, lakes and seas via sewage treatment plants. They reach remote areas via the air and the water of the rivers and oceans. For example, the fabrics can already be found at the Poles.
Last year, a study found that PFAS can be detected in rainwater in even the most remote regions of the world — at levels many times higher than US Environmental Protection Agency thresholds. “With the absorption of PFAS from contaminated soil and water in plants and the accumulation in fish, these substances are also absorbed into the human food chain,” writes the UBA. Humans can also ingest PFAS through the air and drinking water.
Some PFAS are already largely banned because they are considered dangerous. “Of the relatively few well-studied PFAS, most are considered to be moderately to highly toxic, particularly to child development,” writes the European Environment Agency (EEA). A total of around a dozen individual substances or small groups of substances are regulated. The best known of these are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).
Studies have suggested that PFOS? and ?PFOA? can, among other things, cause a reduced antibody response to vaccinations, writes the UBA on its website. In addition, there are “clear indications” of a connection with elevated serum cholesterol levels. Elevated cholesterol levels are considered a risk factor for heart attacks and strokes. According to the EEA, PFOA and PFOS are also linked to liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer. Negative effects on animals and plants are also assumed.
It is not known how the vast majority of PFAS affect people and the environment. However, many experts assume that at least part of it has negative properties. “There are indications that other PFAS are also dangerous,” says UBA expert Drost. She sees the need to act quickly. “If we wait until the toxicity for each individual substance is proven, it may be too late.” After all, the PFAS accumulate in the environment and are difficult or impossible to get out of there.
One problem so far: If a single substance is banned, the industry can replace it with a similar, not yet regulated substance. However, this could be just as dangerous or even more dangerous than the original substance. Experts then speak of regrettable substitution.
A total ban would pose major challenges for the industry. “No one is really relaxed at the moment,” said Mirjam Merz, an expert on chemicals policy and hazardous substances law at the BDI, the dpa. PFAS are irreplaceable for some technologies. For example, extremely stable plant components such as seals are required for many industrial processes. There are currently no alternatives for semiconductors, lithium-ion batteries or fuel cells either. “There seems to be little understanding for the problems in the industry,” complains Merz. In addition, it is unclear what a total ban for consumers means, after all PFAS are indispensable in every mobile phone and every car.
The BDI does see that individual substances are toxic and need to be regulated. “It is correct to react where there is a risk,” says Merz. From the BDI’s point of view, a complete ban would go too far, since many applications that pose no risk at all would then also be prohibited. “As a compromise, it could be discussed to form smaller groups of PFAS and to test their toxicity based on a typical representative. On this basis, this subgroup could then be regulated – or not.”
