© The Environmental Working Group. The picture shows the PFAS polluted sites in New Jersey.

Abstract:

This study intends to look at the water pollution with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination experiences, perceptions, and worries of people living in New Jersey. Rich and nuanced data will be gathered using a qualitative research technique, which includes interviews with inhabitants from various parts of the state. The study of these interviews will reveal significant themes and viewpoints, offering insightful information on the intricate dynamics of the PFAS water contamination in New Jersey. In this study, nine individuals with various educational backgrounds took part. Doctoral degree holders in the arts and scientific sciences have voiced their concerns about water contamination. All nine participants agreed that there is a lack of knowledge and that PFAS and water contamination are not adequately covered in the national media.

Introduction:

Water pollution is a serious problem on a worldwide scale that endangers both the environment and people’s health. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become one of the most concerning pollutants due to their persistence, bioaccumulative nature, and potential for negative health impacts.[1] PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are widely used in both industrial and consumer items, such as non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, and firefighting foams.[2] They are incredibly common in all types of water sources, including rivers, lakes, and groundwater, as a result of their extensive usage and resilience to deterioration.[3]

The management of PFAS pollution and preserving the security of its water supply present substantial issues for the state of New Jersey,[4] as they do for many other areas of the world. In New Jersey, a state with a large population and a long industrial history, there have been many cases of environmental pollution, raising questions about the effects on both human health and the ecosystem. Growing public knowledge of PFAS pollution in the state has sparked concerns regarding the government’s reaction, media coverage, and private initiatives to solve the problem in recent years.

By performing a qualitative analysis including interviews of residents from various parts of the state, this research report intends to further understand PFAS pollution and its effects in New Jersey. The study investigates people’ perspectives, experiences, and worries about PFAS pollution, concentrating on how it affects water quality and public health. This research seeks to shed light on the intricate dynamics underlying PFAS contamination in New Jersey by identifying important themes and viewpoints via analysis of the data gathered.

The importance of this study rests in its ability to inform and direct future initiatives to remediate PFAS pollution and enhance New Jersey’s water quality. Policymakers, environmental organizations, and public health professionals may create more specialized policies and interventions by comprehending the viewpoints and worries of those who have been impacted by PFAS pollution. Additionally, the study results can support educational programs and public awareness campaigns that aim to educate communities to advocate for stricter laws and make informed decisions about their water usage. This research article investigates the experiences, opinions, and worries of New Jersey residents regarding PFAS contamination.

Methodology:

To gather information and gain insight into the participants’ experiences linked to PFAS contamination and water pollution, the technique used a combination of literature reviews and online qualitative interviews with nine people.

The literature review concentrated on the PFAS’s historical context, their ubiquity in both human and wildlife populations, and the health hazards they pose. This information influenced the creation of interview questions and gave the participants’ experiences a context.

Participant Selection:

            Adult residents of New Jersey with more than 30 years old were interviewed as part of a study that aims to document people’s experiences with water contamination, with an emphasis on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as well as gauge how aware they are of it. Personal ties were used to choose the participants. Age, gender, and location within New Jersey were taken into account while trying to assure variety in the sample. This method sought to document a variety of PFAS contamination and water pollution-related experiences and viewpoints.

Interviews:

            To assist data collection, semi-structured interviews were carried out online utilizing Zoom and other appropriate online communication technologies. Both the participants and the researchers found the online format to be convenient and adaptable. Participants received information about the study and its goals prior to the interviews. Each participant gave their written agreement and was asked if the interviews might be recorded. Accurate data collection and analysis were guaranteed by the recorded interviews.

Data Analysis:

Qualitative methodologies were used to assess the interview data that had been gathered. Thematic analysis was used to extract recurrent themes, patterns, and insights from the interview transcripts about the participants’ perceptions of PFAS contamination in water pollution. The qualitative data were coded, categorized, and interpreted systematically and iteratively as part of the study. The themes and patterns that were found shed light on the participants’ views, experiences, and effects of PFAS contamination and water pollution.

The study interviewed three males and six females from different counties of New Jersey. Generally, the participants can be categorized into well informed and less informed citizens. Well informed citizens are either people with degrees in natural sciences or those who look for news related to sciences such as reading scientific journals and listening to scientific podcasts.

Data gathered through interviews were transcribed by the features in Zoom application and other online tools that convert audio to text. After reading the transcripts several times, summaries of interviews were written. For the coding and thematic analysis, the application MAXQDA-2022 is used.

It is critical to recognize some of this study’s shortcomings. First off, the findings’ generalizability may be constrained by the relatively small sample size and the fact that the individuals were chosen through personal ties. Furthermore, because the study only included residents of New Jersey, it’s possible that the results don’t apply to people in other parts of the world. Additionally, because the data gathering technique relies on self-reports, memory bias or social desirability bias may affect the results. Despite these drawbacks, this study offers insightful information on how New Jersey citizens feel about water pollution, with an emphasis on PFAS exposure.

Literature Review:

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs, CnF2n+1–)[5] are synthetic chemicals with a structure of carbon-fluorine bond and at least one another functional group like sulfonic acid, carboxylic acid, amine, or others.[6] Polymeric and non-polymeric are two different subgroups of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.[7] PFAS has been introduced as a new word in place of the term perfluorinated chemicals (PFC) in the recent decade to avoid confusion with perfluorinated carbons.[8] While the first perfluorocarbon -carbon tetrafluoride- was made in 1886[9], the PFCs were not widespread till the 1950s.[10]

Since the 1950s these substances have been excessively produced for their desirable features.[11] The strong polar bond of carbon and fluorine makes PFASs highly stable against physical, chemical or biological degradations.[12] The usage of these compounds encompasses various industries from cooking wares to firefighting foams.[13] Thanks to such a vast application, nowadays there are traces of these compounds all around the world.[14] There is no agreement among organizations about the numbers of PFASs that currently exist in the environment. While the US Environmental Protection Agency has outlined 14735 compounds as PFASs,[15] the report of the government of Canada published in May, 2023 has suggested that there are over 4700 of these compounds.[16]

The same features like chemical stability that make PFASs operational in many industries can also be its negative feature. Considering the great numbers of these substances it is not easily feasible to determine the degradation time of all of them. However, it is estimated half-lives of polymeric PFASs are between 1000-2000 years in soil[17] and some non-polymeric PFASs like PFOA might take more than 92 years to break down in water.[18] Industrial activities and mismanagement of waste have contaminated water, air and soil with PFASs. These pollutants can spread regionally through rivers and groundwater[19] and globally through the ocean and atmosphere.[20] Non-polymeric PFAS are studied more than polymeric PFAS.[21] C8F17SO3H (PFOS) is a non-polymeric PFAS that has been detected in wildlife for the first time by Giesy and Kannan.[22] They studied fish, birds and marine mammals in both urbanized and remote areas of North America, Europe, Arctic and North Pacific Ocean. They found out that PFOS is present in all considered locations but it is concentrated in urbanized areas.

Studies suggest that PFASs are present in human blood.[23] The studies I have cited are conducted in different countries. To compare them, PFASs are in highest concentrations in the bloods of the US and Poland citizens[24] and lowest in the citizens of Uzbekistan[25] and India.[26] It should be surprising that Western countries have higher levels of PFASs in their samples since these countries have enjoyed urbanization more than other countries. Although some long chained C8-based PFASs, such as PFOA and PFOS, are no longer manufactured because of their negative consequences, their presence in groundwater, ocean, and marine food chains will continue for a considerably longer period of time.[27] The level of manufacturing of short chained PFASs as replacement is alarming.[28] The companies claim that short chained PFASs are safer however studies do not confirm it.[29]

In the context of the US, the east coast suffers more contamination than the rest of the US.[30] New Jersey is one the regions with a high level of PFAS contamination.[31] “PFNA serum levels were 285% higher in Paulsboro compared with U.S. residents.”[32] The exposure to PFASs in some areas of New Jersey are believed to be through drinking water.[33] A study conducted from in the Metedeconk River Watershed, New Jersey states, “groundwater PFOA concentrations as high as 70,000 ng/L were found in samples taken within 200 m of the parcel and surface water concentrations as high as 130 ng/L were observed in the river.”[34]

Exposure to PFAS may lead to some health problems in humans.[35] A study conducted in Ronneby, Sweden states the half-life of different PFASs. There is evidence of correlation between PFOA concentrations and kidney cancers.[36] Further studies suggest the PFASs can both directly and indirectly affect kidneys and thyroid hormone.[37] A study on Chinese women suggests that there is a link between PFAS exposure and infertility in women.[38] PFASs are bioaccumulative, and parental exposure to these substances may have an effect on the developing fetus.[39] Type 2 diabetes is another health problem associated with PFAS.[40] Research shows the connection of PFAS with cholesterol level[41] as well as cardiovascular diseases.[42]

Some PFASs like PFOA and PFOS are regulated. In 2000, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and 3M Company, the primary large-scale producer of PFOS, agreed to initiate significant reforms in the management approach of PFAAs.[43] PFOS was labeled a persistent, bio accumulative, and toxic compound (PBT) by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in December 2002 during the 34th OECD Chemical Committee meeting.[44] Perfluorooctane sulfonates were prohibited from being marketed and were subject to additional regulations under EU Directive 2006/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on December 12, 2006.[45] These were some examples of first regulation efforts and it still continues. One the latest efforts to limit PFAS contamination levels to a lower concentration is National Primary Drinking Water Regulation proposed by USEPA.[46]

Findings:

            The findings of this study can be divided into the following themes.

Theme 1: Poor Knowledge and Awareness of PFAS Contamination

Majority of the participants knew little or nothing about PFAS contamination before the interview. Participants 1, 4, 5, and 7 acknowledged that they had no prior awareness about PFAS and its origins. For some it was the first time that they heard the word per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS. I would like to bring some of the responses for the question, “how much do you know about water quality issues in New Jersey, including pollutants  such as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances known as PFAS that have been reported in  New Jersey?”  Participant 1: “I don’t know anything about it. I wasn’t even aware that that was an issue. Now I want to know more about it.” Participant 5: “None sorry”.  Participant 9 knew little about PFAS and asserted that her knowledge comes from local newspaper’s coverage in the 1980s. Another feature of the study’s findings is the paucity of media coverage of the PFAS poisoning issue, which may explain why New Jersey citizens are unaware of it.

Theme 2: Media Coverage of Environmental Issues and PFAS Contamination

Media coverage of PFAS pollution and other environmental issues is insufficient. All of the interviewees agreed that they do not hear much about PFAS in local news channels. Based on the interview with the Participant 9 it can be interpreted that in the 1980s media such as local newspapers covered PFAS contamination. However, she suggests that nowadays she has not come across any PFAS pollution news. Participant 9: “Most people don’t read a local newspaper anymore. There’s limited coverage in local areas. So I think that’s a problem people don’t know, unless they look.” The quote highlights that people should look for this issue otherwise they will not have any idea about PFAS contamination. Participant 8  says that he got his information about PFAS from a Canadian science podcast, not local news. Participant 8:  “I’m trying to think if I’ve seen any other media coverage besides the podcast. The podcast that I listened to was a Canadian science podcast. I haven’t heard any local news.” Some individuals, including participant 4, voiced doubt about how the media covers environmental concerns and possible financial pressures on media organizations. Participant 4: “I feel like I’m getting most of my news coverage from TikTok because the media isn’t covering what’s really going on in the different states, because then it gets the big people mad, the CEOs and the big companies mad. And they’re the ones that usually donate to big media outlets and stuff. And it gets me very upset.”

Theme 3: Perceptions of Water Quality and Variability

Participants provided a variety of viewpoints on New Jersey’s general water quality. Some think water in New Jersey is safe while others argue against it. Participant 1’s response to overall water quality of New Jersey is, “I can say that it’s probably fine. I can compare it to water in other places that I’ve lived. I’ve lived in Massachusetts most of my life, and I think the water in Massachusetts tastes better. The water in New Jersey before it’s filtered has a bad smell to it. So I don’t drink it straight from the tap. Even the shower water has a kind of a mildew smell to it, which it does not have in other places. So that’s why I filter the water before we drink it. I’m sure it’s fine. I’m probably safe. It’s just not that pleasant.” While Participant 1 suggests that he is safe, he says that water smells bad. Participant 2 rates the New Jersey water quality below average. Participant 2: “I would say, New Jersey’s water is below average. You know, we do our best here, and we do a good job trying to keep at the EPA limit. But overall, there’s a lot of legacy pollution here in New Jersey. We have the highest concentration of superfund sites which are areas that are so contaminated that the government needs to step in in order to clean it up.” Participant 3 gives extra information and suggests depending on different locations in New Jersey water quality differs. Participant 3: “I think it depends where in New Jersey you are living. So you know I’m in Princeton. It’s a good area, not a lot of city around. But if you were to go to North Jersey in like, you know, New Brunswick, Newark, Camden, Trenton. I think that my answer might be different. You’re just around more cities, more pollution. And then also, typically, it ends up, being more of a lower income population. So from what I have heard, the times when there have been some water contamination issues It hasn’t been that big of a deal, or in the news because it’s impacting lower income communities.” Participant 3 is not the only interviewee who thinks that low income communities are affected the most. Participant 4  agrees, “but the people mostly who are being affected by this are the low income.”

Theme 4: PFAS Contamination: Health Impacts and Concerns

In their interviews, some participants talk about the possible health effects of PFAS pollution. Participants 2 and 3 expressed concerns about the possible health hazards of PFAS and other pollutants in water such as lead. Participant 2: “When I moved to Trenton, because I have 2 young kids and worrying about the lead, I switched over to using bottled water actually. So we got delivery of spring water because we were nervous about the effect of the lead on my children’s developing brains. And so that says something about my confidence in New Jersey water.” Participant 2: “I don’t know. I always just assume it’s cancer which sounds really sad. But yeah, these are the human health outcomes, if it’s a chemical that you’re ingesting like that would probably be something that leads to cancer issues. And I assume it probably potentially affects childhood brain development as well. That’s generally how I teach my students is any type of human made chemical that gets into the environment. If we ingest that the wrong way, then it usually manifests as some form of cancer in adults or in some type of you know, brain development issue in children. But I don’t know. Specific health outcomes.” Participant 3’s response about the consequences to PFAS exposure  is “from what I’ve heard, I think it is somewhat cancerous. Maybe an endocrine disruptor. Potentially. I think those are the two big ones that I know offhand are just cancer and kind of messing with our internal hormones.” Participant 8 adds, “only in the most general terms I know I’ve read it, but the thing that I retain most was could damage kidneys and liver.” Participant 9 knows that PFAS is harmful but does not know any specific side effects. Participant 9: “I don’t know. I know that they are not good.”

Theme 5: Government Reaction

Participants’ confidence in the government’s response to PFAS contamination varied. As most of the participants did not know much about PFAS, they were also unaware of the government’s reaction. However, Participant 2 and participant 8 acknowledged the significance of government action in resolving environmental issues. Participant 2 underlined the importance of the New Jersey state government in addressing environmental problems and upholding EPA regulations. Participan 2: “New Jersey is an interesting place for this, because of all the legacy pollution we have and the history of industrialization, we tend to have more environmental problems than other places. If you were to pick a random state in the United States like Nebraska, or something like that, Nebraska will be less likely to have this type of contamination because they just have not used these chemicals as often as companies have here in New Jersey. But and so, although we’re starting with a relatively elevated concentration of it, I still want to believe that how New Jersey, at least as a state government embraces environmental challenges, I do think they will prioritize this and will make sure that communities hold themselves to the EPA limit. In comparison to other states like I said, I think New Jersey is specifically more contaminated but I do worry about states maybe like Texas that are a little less concerned about their environmental hazards that they may not apply the EPA limits on these things, or they may be slow to develop changes.” Participant 8 who found PFAS in his private well responded positively about the government’s actions in addressing PFAS. Participant 8: “Personally, I think the response has been great. Because they got in touch with me. I wouldn’t have known about it otherwise, and they are paying for everything. So I’m very happy.” Participant 2 worries about politicization of environmental issues. Participant 2: “I’m a little nervous for the future of all science in this country. Because as climate change has been politicized, a lot of people lump all environmental problems in with that. And so they have shown that if a person is more likely to dispute climate change, they’re all so more likely to dispute any other type of environmental issue. And so I’m worried that in communities that don’t have buy-in to environmental responsibility that this PFAS contamination will be a bigger issue in those places. New Jersey is a little bit more progressive when it comes to environmental problems. And I do think that they will invest the proper amount of funds in order to make sure this problem gets dealt with.”

Theme 6: Actions and Solutions

In order to mitigate PFAS pollution, several participants underlined the significance of personal actions and educated consumer behavior. However, all participants argued that firstly the state government and companies should act responsibly and take care of the citizens. Participant 1 emphasized the need to avoid products that contain PFAS. Participant 1: “I think the most effective thing that people can do, consumers like regular people can do is to be intelligent consumers. So don’t buy products that contain this chemical. And you can be educated voters so you can elect candidates who have an understanding of this problem and how to deal with it.”  Participant 2 is using bottled water to avoid water pollution. Participant 2: “When I moved to Trenton, because I have 2 young kids and worrying about the lead. I switched over to using bottled water actually.” Participant 2 also considers having filtration in future. Participant 2: “My wife and I are considering getting a reverse osmosis filter system when we move to our new house over the summer. We’re moving to another community and we are considering getting a water filtration system in that case.” In order to reduce plastic waste, participant 3 indicated she tries not to drink bottled water but filters her water. Participant 3: “I also am a person who cares about the environment in terms of not wanting to use plastic, and I also know that plastics not only are around forever, and they don’t get recycled nearly as much as they should but you know there’s a risk of whatever chemicals are in the plastic leaching into the water. So I think I’m doing a good thing by drinking tap water and filtering it, and not using plastic bottles.” Interviewees suggest that solutions should come more from the government than individuals. Participant 4: “I would say make filtration more accessible. I don’t know how possible that is.” Participant 2: “I don’t want to put the blame on individual consumers. I think it’s important for the government and businesses to work together to make sure that they’re providing products that are safe to consumers and also manufacturing products in ways that do not degrade the environment.” Participant 3: “ I don’t love putting the responsibility back on the individual, because there are a lot of other things that we have to worry about right in our everyday life and worrying about our water should not be our responsibility. We are in a developed country, we should be able to drink our water without having to worry.” Participant 8: “Given the fact that it’s everywhere and in everything. It’s really a national problem and an international problem. And so I think, individually, you can protect your own water supply. But really getting it out of the environment is the key. So there has to be a larger effort to ban these chemicals, or to find alternatives to them that are not as harmful.” Some also suggest that big companies are responsible for pollution and now they do not care about solutions. Participant 3: “They’ve already polluted. They’ve already sold whatever they needed to make their company bigger at the expense of the general public. And now the general public is concerned. If they spend money to try to clean up what they’ve done, it’s not gonna make them any more money. So why would they do it? And this is the continuous problem with everything, with climate change, with the water quality, with everything, unless there is something in it for the big companies, there is very little incentive by the big companies to do anything about it which is sad.” Participant 4: “I would say they should take care of it since they caused it. But in the world we live in that’s not gonna happen, it never happens, unfortunately. If they started it,  they should be accountable to it, they should let us know, and they should fix it. They’re the big companies, they don’t really care. They because they could afford mass filtration in their own homes. They don’t care about the small people.”

Theme 7: Need for Education, Awareness and Transparency

Participants stressed the value of educating people about PFAS contamination and water pollution throughout the interviews. The majority of participants emphasized the need of educating the public about problems with water quality, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods that may be disproportionately affected. Participant 6: “everyone should be aware and play a part, together.” Participant 7: “I would say just just don’t back down. Yes, don’t back down and keep encouraging and educating.” Participant 8: “Outreach to make people aware. Because I’m pretty sure nobody really, very few people are aware of this problem.” Participant 9: “They [environmental groups] should keep watching. Yes, they should. And the groups that are trying to make people aware need to keep doing that now that the media aren’t really doing it [awareness].” Participants 3 and 4 ask the government to be transparent about water quality. Participant 3: “I think I’d say just first communicate. Be transparent with the people that are consuming this. You know water is a product. Right? Everybody drinks water. Everybody uses water every single day, without a doubt. So you don’t want to cause alarm, but at the same time you don’t want to lie by omission, not be fully transparent. And if this is really that big of an issue that one should consider then telling people, hey, this is something that you should, you know, be aware of, and these are the things that you can do to protect yourself until we kind of figure out what to do overall.” Participant 4: “This should be our right as tax paying citizens of this country, we should know what we are putting into our kid’s body and what we’re putting into our body because it affects everything.”

Conclusion:

The nine interviews were analyzed thematically, and the results offer important new understandings of how people have experienced and view the PFAS contamination and water pollution in New Jersey. The findings show the need for more public knowledge and education on PFAS contamination by revealing a variety of viewpoints and concerns.

Regarding the government’s reaction to PFAS pollution, participants’ opinions were divided, with some expressing support for government action and others expressing concerns about private companies that are not held responsible and not made to clean up their pollution legacy.

Media coverage was deemed insufficient, emphasizing the demand for more public awareness via local media and news outlets. Individual activities and educated consumer behavior, such as avoiding PFAS-containing products and adopting filtration devices, were thought to be crucial in combating PFAS pollution. The need for education and awareness was underlined by the participants, especially in lower-income groups that would be disproportionately affected.

Overall, the theme analysis highlights the complexity of the problem and the significance of tackling PFAS contamination and water pollution through a multi-pronged strategy encompassing public awareness, governmental action, and personal accountability.

Bibliography

3M Company. “Phase out Plan for POSF-Based Products.” ERulemaking Initiative. 3M Center, July 7, 2000. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0268-0008.

 

Andersen, Melvin E., Bruno Hagenbuch, Udayan Apte, J. Christopher Corton, Tony Fletcher, Christopher Lau, William L. Roth, et al. “Why Is Elevation of Serum Cholesterol Associated with Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Humans? A Workshop Report on Potential Mechanisms.” Toxicology 459 (July 1, 2021): 152845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.152845.

 

Armitage, James O., Matthew MacLeod, and Ian T. Cousins. “Comparative Assessment of the Global Fate and Transport Pathways of Long-Chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids (PFCAs) and Perfluorocarboxylates (PFCs) Emitted from Direct Sources.” Environmental Science & Technology 43, no. 15 (June 17, 2009): 5830–36. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900753y.

 

Banks, Smart, and Tatlow. “Organofluorine Chemistry : Principles and Commercial Applications.” Plenum Press, 1994.

 

Blake, Bevin E., and Suzanne E. Fenton. “Early Life Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Latent Health Outcomes: A Review Including the Placenta as a Target Tissue and Possible Driver of Peri- and Postnatal Effects.” Toxicology 443 (October 1, 2020): 152565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2020.152565.

 

Blake, Bevin E., Susan M. Pinney, Erin P. Hines, Suzanne E. Fenton, and Kelly K. Ferguson. “Associations between Longitudinal Serum Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Levels and Measures of Thyroid Hormone, Kidney Function, and Body Mass Index in the Fernald Community Cohort.” Environmental Pollution 242 (November 1, 2018): 894–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.042.

 

Bonato, Marco, Francesca Corrà, Marta Bellio, Laura Guidolin, Laura Tallandini, Paola Irato, and Gianfranco Santovito. “PFAS Environmental Pollution and Antioxidant Responses: An Overview of the Impact on Human Field.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21 (October 30, 2020): 8020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020.

 

Brendel, Stephan, Eva Fetter, Claudia Staude, Lena Vierke, and Annegret Biegel-Engler. “Short-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Acids: Environmental Concerns and a Regulatory Strategy under REACH.” Environmental Sciences Europe 30, no. 1 (February 27, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0134-4.

 

Buck, Robert C., James Franklin, Urs Berger, Jason M. Conder, Ian T. Cousins, Pim De Voogt, Allan Jensen, Kurunthachalam Kannan, Scott A. Mabury, and Stefan P.J. Van Leeuwen. “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7, no. 4 (September 19, 2011): 513–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258.

 

Crone, B. K., Thomas F. Speth, David G. Wahman, Samantha Smith, Gulizhaer Abulikemu, Eric J. Kleiner, and Jonathan G. Pressman. “Occurrence of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Source Water and Their Treatment in Drinking Water.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49, no. 24 (June 17, 2019): 2359–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1614848.

 

“Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report.” Government of Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada, May 24, 2023. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/draft-state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html#toc96.

 

European Commission (EC). “Directive 2006/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 Amending for the 30th Time Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to Restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Perfluorooctane Sulfonates).” Official Journal of the European Union 49 (2006): 374–432. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/122/oj.

 

Ewg. “Interactive Map: PFAS Contamination Crisis: New Data Show 2,858 Sites in 50 States.” EWG © 2023, n.d. https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/.

 

Fenton, Suzanne E., Alan M. Ducatman, Alan R. Boobis, Jamie C. DeWitt, Christopher Lau, Carla A. Ng, James A Smith, and Stephen J. Roberts. “Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 40, no. 3 (December 7, 2020): 606–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4890.

 

Gaines, Linda. “Historical and Current Usage of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Literature Review.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, May 25, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23362.

 

Giesy, John P., and Kurunthachalam Kannan. “Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife.” Environmental Science & Technology 35, no. 7 (March 1, 2001): 1339–42. https://doi.org/10.1021/es001834k.

 

Graber, Judith M., Cora Alexander, Robert Laumbach, Kathleen Black, Pamela Ohman Strickland, Panos G. Georgopoulos, Elizabeth P. Marshall, et al. “Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Blood Levels after Contamination of a Community Water Supply and Comparison with 2013–2014 NHANES.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 29, no. 2 (November 27, 2018): 172–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0096-z.

Hanssen, Linda, Alexey Dudarev, Sandra Huber, Jon Øyvind Odland, Evert Nieboer, and Torkjel M. Sandanger. “Partition of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Whole Blood and Plasma, Assessed in Maternal and Umbilical Cord Samples from Inhabitants of Arctic Russia and Uzbekistan.” Science of the Total Environment 447 (March 1, 2013): 430–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.029.

 

Hatfield, Thomas L. “Hydrolysis Reactions of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” 3M Laboratory Report. eRulemaking Initiative, March 30, 2001. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0051-0013/content.pdf.

 

Hu, Frank B., Geng Zong, Damaskini Valvi, Kim Brøsen, Brent A. Coull, and Philippe Grandjean. “Plasma Concentrations of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Investigation among U.S. Women.” Environmental Health Perspectives 126, no. 3 (March 16, 2018): 037001. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp2619.

 

Hu, Xindi C., David L. Andrews, Andrew B. Lindstrom, Thomas A. Bruton, Laurel A. Schaider, Philippe Grandjean, Rainer Lohmann, et al. “Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Environmental Science and Technology Letters 3, no. 10 (August 9, 2016): 344–50. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00260.

 

Kannan, Kurunthachalam, Simonetta Corsolini, Jerzy Falandysz, Gilberto Fillmann, Kurunthachalam Senthil Kumar, Bommanna G. Loganathan, Mustafa Ali Mohd, et al. “Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Related Fluorochemicals in Human Blood from Several Countries.” Environmental Science & Technology 38, no. 17 (July 24, 2004): 4489–95. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0493446.

 

Kurwadkar, Sudarshan, Jason Dane, Sushil R. Kanel, Mallikarjuna N. Nadagouda, Ryan W. Cawdrey, Balram Ambade, Garrett C. Struckhoff, and Richard T. Wilkin. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water and Wastewater: A Critical Review of Their Global Occurrence and Distribution.” Science of the Total Environment 809 (February 1, 2022): 151003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151003.

 

Lohmann, Rainer, and Robert J. Letcher. “The Universe of Fluorinated Polymers and Polymeric Substances and Potential Environmental Impacts and Concerns.” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 41 (June 1, 2023): 100795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2023.100795.

 

Mamsen, Linn Salto, Bo Jönsson, Christian H. Lindh, Rasmus H. Olesen, Agnete Larsen, Erik Ernst, Tom Kelsey, and Claus Yding Andersen. “Concentration of Perfluorinated Compounds and Cotinine in Human Foetal Organs, Placenta, and Maternal Plasma.” Science of the Total Environment 596–597 (October 1, 2017): 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.058.

 

Meneguzzi, Alessandra, Cesare Fava, Marco Raciti Castelli, and Pietro Minuz. “Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Chemicals and Cardiovascular Disease: Experimental and Epidemiological Evidence.” Frontiers in Endocrinology 12 (July 9, 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.706352.

 

US EPA. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA,” June 6, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.

 

Perkins, Tom. “Chemical Giants Hid Dangers of ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Food Packaging.” The Guardian, January 5, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/12/chemical-giants-hid-dangers-pfas-forever-chemicals-food-packaging-dupont.

 

“PFAS|EPA: PFAS Structures in DSSTox.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2022. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical-lists/PFASSTRUCTV5.

 

Post, Gloria B., Judith B. Louis, R. Lee Lippincott, and Nicholas A. Procopio. “Occurrence of Perfluorinated Compounds in Raw Water from New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems.” Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 23 (November 19, 2013): 13266–75. https://doi.org/10.1021/es402884x.

 

Prevedouros, Konstantinos, Ian T. Cousins, Robert C. Buck, and Stephen H. Korzeniowski. “Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates.” Environmental Science & Technology 40, no. 1 (2006): 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475.

 

Procopio, Nicholas A., Robert Karl, Sandra M. Goodrow, Joseph D. Maggio, Judith B. Louis, and Thomas B. Atherholt. “Occurrence and Source Identification of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in the Metedeconk River Watershed, New Jersey.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24, no. 35 (September 30, 2017): 27125–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0309-3.

 

Rahman, Mohammad Feisal, Sigrid Peldszus, and William B. Anderson. “Behaviour and Fate of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Drinking Water Treatment: A Review.” Water Research 50 (March 1, 2014): 318–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.045.

 

Russell, Mark, William R. Berti, Bogdan Szostek, and Robert C. Buck. “Investigation of the Biodegradation Potential of a Fluoroacrylate Polymer Product in Aerobic Soils.” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 3 (January 4, 2008): 800–807. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0710499.

 

Sharifan, Hamidreza, Majid Bagheri, Dan Wang, Joel G. Burken, Christopher P. Higgins, Yanna Liang, Jinxia Liu, Charles E. Schaefer, and Jens Blotevogel. “Fate and Transport of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in the Vadose Zone.” Science of the Total Environment 771 (June 1, 2021): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145427.

 

Steenland, Kyle, and Susan Woskie. “Cohort Mortality Study of Workers Exposed to Perfluorooctanoic Acid.” American Journal of Epidemiology 176, no. 10 (October 18, 2012): 909–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws171.

 

Stockholm Convention. “Overview.” Copyright 2019 by Stockholm Convention, n.d. https://chm.pops.int/Implementation/IndustrialPOPs/PFOS/Overview/tabid/5221/Default.aspx.

 

Sunderland, Elsie M., Xindi C. Hu, Clifton Dassuncao, Andrea K Tokranov, Charlotte Wagner, and Joseph P. Allen. “A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 29, no. 2 (November 23, 2018): 131–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1.

 

Sznajder-Katarzyńska, Katarzyna, Wiesław Wiczkowski, and Iwona Cieślik. “A Review of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in Terms of Sources, Applications, Human Exposure, Dietary Intake, Toxicity, Legal Regulation, and Methods of Determination.” Journal of Chemistry 2019 (June 12, 2019): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2717528.

 

Wang, Wei, Wei Zhou, Shaowei Wu, Fan Liang, Yan Li, Jun Zhang, Linlin Cui, Yan Feng, and Yan Wang. “Perfluoroalkyl Substances Exposure and Risk of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Related Infertility in Chinese Women.” Environmental Pollution 247 (April 1, 2019): 824–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.039.

 

Wang, Zhanyun, Jamie C. DeWitt, Christopher P. Higgins, and Ian T. Cousins. “A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)?” Environmental Science & Technology 51, no. 5 (February 22, 2017): 2508–18. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806.

 

Yu, Chang Sik, C David Riker, Shou-En Lu, and Zhihua Fan. “Biomonitoring of Emerging Contaminants, Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), in New Jersey Adults in 2016–2018.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 223, no. 1 (January 1, 2020): 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.10.008.

 

Zhang, Xian-Ming, Rainer Lohmann, Clifton Dassuncao, Xindi C. Hu, Andrea Weber, Chad D. Vecitis, and Elsie M. Sunderland. “Source Attribution of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Surface Waters from Rhode Island and the New York Metropolitan Area.” Environmental Science & Technology Letters 3, no. 9 (August 9, 2016): 316–21. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00255.

 

 

  1. B. K. Crone et al., “Occurrence of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Source Water and Their Treatment in Drinking Water,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 49, no. 24 (June 17, 2019): 2359–96, https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2019.1614848.

 

  1. Linda Gaines, “Historical and Current Usage of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Literature Review,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, May 25, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23362.

  1. Sudarshan Kurwadkar et al., “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water and Wastewater: A Critical Review of Their Global Occurrence and Distribution,” Science of the Total Environment 809 (February 1, 2022): 151003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151003.

  1. Gloria B. Post et al., “Occurrence of Perfluorinated Compounds in Raw Water from New Jersey Public Drinking Water Systems,” Environmental Science & Technology 47, no. 23 (November 19, 2013): 13266–75, https://doi.org/10.1021/es402884x.
  2. Robert C. Buck et al., “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7, no. 4 (September 19, 2011): 513, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.258.

 

  1. Gaines, “Historical and Current Usage,” 353.

 

  1. Rainer Lohmann and Robert J. Letcher, “The Universe of Fluorinated Polymers and Polymeric Substances and Potential Environmental Impacts and Concerns,” Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 41 (June 1, 2023): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2023.100795.
  2. Gaines, “Historical and Current Usage,” 353.

  1. Banks, Smart, and Tatlow, “Organofluorine Chemistry: Principles and Commercial Applications,” Plenum Press, 1994.

 

  1. Gaines, “Historical and Current Usage,” 354.

 

  1. Konstantinos Prevedouros et al., “Sources, Fate and Transport of Perfluorocarboxylates,” Environmental Science & Technology 40, no. 1 (2006): 32, https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475.

 

  1. Mohammad Feisal Rahman, Sigrid Peldszus, and William B. Anderson, “Behaviour and Fate of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Drinking Water Treatment: A Review,” Water Research 50 (March 1, 2014): 319, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.045.

 

  1. Rahman, Peldszus, and Anderson, “Behaviour and Fate of,” 319.

 

  1. Hamidreza Sharifan et al., “Fate and Transport of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in the Vadose Zone,” Science of the Total Environment 771 (June 1, 2021): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145427.

 

  1. “PFAS|EPA: PFAS Structures in DSSTox” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2022), accessed June 29, 2023, https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical-lists/PFASSTRUCTV5.

  1. “Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report,” Government of Canada (Environment and Climate Change Canada, May 24, 2023), accessed June 29, 2023, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/draft-state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html#toc96.

 

  1. Mark Russell et al., “Investigation of the Biodegradation Potential of a Fluoroacrylate Polymer Product in Aerobic Soils,” Environmental Science & Technology 42, no. 3 (January 4, 2008): 806, https://doi.org/10.1021/es0710499.

 

  1. Thomas L. Hatfield, “Hydrolysis Reactions of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA),” 3M Laboratory Report (eRulemaking Initiative, March 30, 2001), 15, accessed June 29, 2023, https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0051-0013/content.pdf.

  1. Xindi C. Hu et al., “Detection of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in U.S. Drinking Water Linked to Industrial Sites, Military Fire Training Areas, and Wastewater Treatment Plants,” Environmental Science and Technology Letters 3, no. 10 (August 9, 2016): 344–50, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00260.

 

  1. James O. Armitage, Matthew MacLeod, and Ian T. Cousins, “Comparative Assessment of the Global Fate and Transport Pathways of Long-Chain Perfluorocarboxylic Acids (PFCAs) and Perfluorocarboxylates (PFCs) Emitted from Direct Sources,” Environmental Science & Technology 43, no. 15 (June 17, 2009): 5830, https://doi.org/10.1021/es900753y.

  1. Lohmann and Letcher, “The Universe of Fluorinated,” 1.

  1. John P. Giesy and Kurunthachalam Kannan, “Global Distribution of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Wildlife,” Environmental Science & Technology 35, no. 7 (March 1, 2001): 1339-42, https://doi.org/10.1021/es001834k.
  2. Chang Sik Yu et al., “Biomonitoring of Emerging Contaminants, Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), in New Jersey Adults in 2016–2018,” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 223, no. 1 (January 1, 2020): 34–44, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.10.008; Linda Hanssen et al., “Partition of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Whole Blood and Plasma, Assessed in Maternal and Umbilical Cord Samples from Inhabitants of Arctic Russia and Uzbekistan,” Science of the Total Environment 447 (March 1, 2013): 430–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.029; Judith M. Graber et al., “Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Blood Levels after Contamination of a Community Water Supply and Comparison with 2013–2014 NHANES,” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 29, no. 2 (November 27, 2018): 172–82, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0096-z; Kurunthachalam Kannan et al., “Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Related Fluorochemicals in Human Blood from Several Countries,” Environmental Science & Technology 38, no. 17 (July 24, 2004): 4489–95, https://doi.org/10.1021/es0493446.

  1. Kannan et al., “Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Related Fluorochemicals,” 4489.

  1. Hanssen et al., “Partition of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs),” 430.

  1. Kannan et al., “Perfluorooctanesulfonate and Related Fluorochemicals,” 4489.

 

  1. Elsie M. Sunderland et al., “A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 29, no. 2 (November 23, 2018): 131–47, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1.

 

  1. Stephan Brendel et al., “Short-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Acids: Environmental Concerns and a Regulatory Strategy under REACH,” Environmental Sciences Europe 30, no. 1 (February 27, 2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0134-4.

  1. Tom Perkins, “Chemical Giants Hid Dangers of ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Food Packaging,” The Guardian, January 5, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/12/chemical-giants-hid-dangers-pfas-forever-chemicals-food-packaging-dupont.
  2. Ewg, “Interactive Map: PFAS Contamination Crisis: New Data Show 2,858 Sites in 50 States,” EWG © 2023, n.d., https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/; Xian-Ming Zhang et al., “Source Attribution of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) in Surface Waters from Rhode Island and the New York Metropolitan Area,” Environmental Science & Technology Letters 3, no. 9 (August 9, 2016): 316–21, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00255.

  1. Yu et al., “Biomonitoring of Emerging Contaminants;” Graber et al., “Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).”

  1. Graber et al., “Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” 172.

  1. Yu et al., “Biomonitoring of Emerging Contaminants;” Graber et al., “Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS);”

 

  1. Nicholas A. Procopio et al., “Occurrence and Source Identification of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in the Metedeconk River Watershed, New Jersey,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24, no. 35 (September 30, 2017): 27125, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0309-3.

  1. Suzanne E. Fenton et al., “Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 40, no. 3 (December 7, 2020): 606–30, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4890; Bevin E. Blake and Suzanne E. Fenton, “Early Life Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Latent Health Outcomes: A Review Including the Placenta as a Target Tissue and Possible Driver of Peri- and Postnatal Effects,” Toxicology 443 (October 1, 2020): 152565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2020.152565; Marco Bonato et al., “PFAS Environmental Pollution and Antioxidant Responses: An Overview of the Impact on Human Field,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21 (October 30, 2020): 8020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218020.

  1. 36. Kyle Steenland and Susan Woskie, “Cohort Mortality Study of Workers Exposed to Perfluorooctanoic Acid,” American Journal of Epidemiology 176, no. 10 (October 18, 2012): 909–17, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws171.
  2. Bevin E. Blake et al., “Associations between Longitudinal Serum Perfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) Levels and Measures of Thyroid Hormone, Kidney Function, and Body Mass Index in the Fernald Community Cohort,” Environmental Pollution 242 (November 1, 2018): 894–904, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.042.

  1. Wei Wang et al., “Perfluoroalkyl Substances Exposure and Risk of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Related Infertility in Chinese Women,” Environmental Pollution 247 (April 1, 2019): 824–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.039.

 

  1. 39. Linn Salto Mamsen et al., “Concentration of Perfluorinated Compounds and Cotinine in Human Foetal Organs, Placenta, and Maternal Plasma,” Science of the Total Environment 596–597 (October 1, 2017): 97–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.058.

  1. 40. Frank B. Hu et al., “Plasma Concentrations of Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Investigation among U.S. Women,” Environmental Health Perspectives 126, no. 3 (March 16, 2018): 037001, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp2619.

  1. 41. Melvin E. Andersen et al., “Why Is Elevation of Serum Cholesterol Associated with Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Humans? A Workshop Report on Potential Mechanisms,” Toxicology 459 (July 1, 2021): 152845, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.152845.

  1. Alessandra Meneguzzi et al., “Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Chemicals and Cardiovascular Disease: Experimental and Epidemiological Evidence,” Frontiers in Endocrinology 12 (July 9, 2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.706352.

  1. Katarzyna Sznajder-Katarzyńska, Wiesław Wiczkowski, and Iwona Cieślik, “A Review of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in Terms of Sources, Applications, Human Exposure, Dietary Intake, Toxicity, Legal Regulation, and Methods of Determination,” Journal of Chemistry 2019 (June 12, 2019): 10, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2717528.
  2. Sznajder-Katarzyńska, Wiczkowski, and Cieślik, “A Review of Perfluoroalkyl Acids (PFAAs) in Terms of Sources, Applications, Human Exposure, Dietary Intake, Toxicity, Legal Regulation, and Methods of Determination,” 10.

 

  1. 45. European Commission (EC), “Directive 2006/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 Amending for the 30th Time Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to Restrictions on the Marketing and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Perfluorooctane Sulfonates),” Official Journal of the European Union 49 (2006): 374–432, http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2006/122/oj.

  1. 46. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) | US EPA,” US EPA, June 6, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.
HealthUnited Statesenvironment
Zahra Farahmand

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *