Even low PFAS in drinking water raise blood levels, California study shows – News-Medical

Report on PFAS Contamination in Southern California Drinking Water and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent study conducted in Southern California reveals a direct correlation between low levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in public drinking water and elevated concentrations of these chemicals in the blood serum of adults. These findings present a significant challenge to achieving several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation). The research underscores the urgent need for stricter regulatory frameworks and improved water treatment infrastructure to protect public health and ensure environmental integrity, aligning with the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

PFAS Contamination: A Threat to Health and Environmental Sustainability

PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” are persistent man-made substances that accumulate in the environment and the human body. Their widespread use and resistance to degradation pose a direct threat to multiple SDGs.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Human exposure to PFAS is linked to severe health issues, including cancer, hormonal disruption, and adverse immune system effects. The study’s finding that 86% of participants had blood PFAS levels indicating potential health effects directly contravenes Target 3.9, which aims to reduce illnesses from hazardous chemical contamination.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The existence of PFAS contamination is a legacy of production patterns that did not account for the full lifecycle of chemicals. This highlights a failure to meet Target 12.4, which calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals to minimize their impact on human health and the environment.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: The study demonstrates that public water systems remain a significant pathway for chemical exposure, undermining progress toward Target 6.1 (universal access to safe drinking water) and Target 6.3 (improving water quality by reducing pollution).

Study Methodology and Key Findings

Researchers linked biomonitoring data from 563 adults in Southern California with public water system quality data to assess the impact of drinking water on blood PFAS levels.

Methodological Approach

1. Participant Data: Blood samples and questionnaires were collected from adults in the California Regional Exposure (CARE) study between 2018 and 2020.
2. Water System Data: PFAS monitoring data from public water systems (2019–2022) were obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board.
3. Geographic Analysis: Participant addresses were geocoded and matched to specific water system boundaries to determine exposure levels.
4. Statistical Analysis: Serum PFAS concentrations were compared between participants with and without detectable PFAS in their water supply, adjusting for demographic variables.

Primary Findings

• PFAS were detected in nearly all participant blood samples, with PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS being the most prevalent.
• 56% of participants were connected to public water systems where at least one PFAS compound was detected.
• Participants served by water systems with PFHxS detections had 31.9% higher serum PFHxS concentrations. This association was stronger (64% higher) where detections were frequent.
• Analysis of post-treatment water samples showed significantly higher serum levels for multiple PFAS compounds, including an 80% increase for PFHxS and a 42% increase for total PFAS.
• The association was strongest among individuals who primarily drink tap water.

Implications for SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The widespread, low-level contamination of public water systems challenges the goal of creating safe and resilient human settlements (SDG 11). Contamination sources in California, such as airports, military bases, and landfills, are integral parts of urban infrastructure. Failure to manage the chemical waste from these sites directly impacts the safety of basic public services, conflicting with Target 11.1 (access to basic services) and Target 11.6 (reducing the environmental impact of cities).

Policy Recommendations for Stronger Institutions (SDG 16)

The study’s conclusions reinforce that contaminated drinking water is a critical exposure pathway, even in regions without industrial PFAS manufacturing. This necessitates robust institutional action to protect citizens and the environment, in line with SDG 16’s call for effective and accountable institutions.

Recommended Actions

• Strengthen Regulations: Implement stricter regulatory limits for PFAS in drinking water that are protective of public health, moving beyond current advisory levels.
• Expand Monitoring: Mandate comprehensive and continuous monitoring of all public water systems for a wider range of PFAS compounds, including source and post-treatment water.
• Invest in Water Treatment: Promote and fund the adoption of advanced water treatment technologies capable of effectively removing PFAS from public water supplies.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on PFAS contamination in California’s drinking water connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its focus on public health, water quality, environmental pollution, and regulatory governance.

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     This goal is central to the article, which directly links exposure to PFAS chemicals in drinking water to adverse health outcomes. The text states that certain PFAS are linked to “health problems such as cancer, hormone disruption, reduced birth weight, and immune system effects.” The study’s entire premise is to measure the correlation between contaminated water and the levels of these toxic chemicals in human blood, highlighting the direct threat to human health.

   • SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

     This is the most prominent SDG addressed. The article revolves around the safety and quality of public drinking water. It discusses the contamination of “public water systems” with PFAS, the monitoring efforts by “California’s State Water Resources Control Board,” and the finding that even low levels of contamination can be harmful. The call for “improved water treatment” directly supports the aim of ensuring safe water for all.

   • SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

     The article touches upon this goal by identifying PFAS as “man-made chemicals” that “persist in the environment and human body.” This points to unsustainable production patterns where chemicals are created without a plan for their safe, long-term management. The widespread contamination is a direct consequence of the lifecycle of these chemicals, from production to their release into the environment from sources like “airports, military bases, and landfills.”

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This goal is relevant through the article’s discussion of governance and regulation. It mentions the role of institutions like the “U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)” and California’s state water board in setting limits and monitoring contamination. The conclusion that the findings “reinforce the need for stricter PFAS regulations” underscores the importance of developing effective and accountable institutions to protect public health and the environment from chemical pollution.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   The article’s content aligns with several specific targets under the identified SDGs.

   • Target 3.9

     “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.”
     The article directly addresses this target by investigating illnesses caused by hazardous PFAS chemicals contaminating drinking water. The study’s finding that “86% of participants” had serum PFAS levels indicating a “potential for health effects” demonstrates the urgency of reducing exposure to this form of water pollution.

   • Target 6.1

     “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.”
     The article challenges the definition of “safe” drinking water. It reveals that even water meeting certain regulatory standards can lead to “elevated toxic chemicals in the bloodstream,” suggesting that current access to what is considered safe water may not be sufficient to protect public health.

   • Target 6.3

     “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…”
     The presence of PFAS in public water systems is a clear example of water quality degradation due to chemical pollution. The article identifies sources of this contamination, such as “firefighting foams,” and its persistence highlights the failure to minimize the release of these hazardous chemicals.

   • Target 12.4

     “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle…and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.”
     PFAS, described as “forever chemicals,” exemplify the challenge of this target. Their persistence in the environment and accumulation in the human body are direct results of a failure to manage them soundly throughout their lifecycle. The article shows how their release into water systems has direct adverse impacts on human health.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article mentions and implies several indicators that can be used to track progress.

   • Concentration of PFAS in human blood serum

     This is a direct indicator used in the study to measure human exposure and potential health risks (Target 3.9). The article states that “blood samples were analyzed for 12 PFAS” and that elevated “serum PFAS levels” were found, providing a quantifiable measure of contamination in the human body.

   • Concentration of PFAS in public drinking water

     This is a key indicator for water quality (Targets 6.1 and 6.3). The article explicitly mentions that water was tested for “18 PFAS compounds” and refers to specific “State Consumer Confidence Report Detection Limits of 2–4 ng/L.” Tracking the percentage of public water systems with detectable PFAS levels is a clear metric for progress.

   • Prevalence of PFAS detection in water systems

     The article provides data on this indicator, stating that “56% of participants were connected to systems in which at least one PFAS was detected.” This percentage serves as a baseline indicator of the extent of the contamination problem.

   • Establishment and enforcement of regulatory limits for PFAS

     This is an implied indicator for institutional effectiveness (Target 16.6) and chemical management (Target 12.4). The article’s reference to “newly established limits” by the EPA and its call for “stricter PFAS regulations” suggest that the existence, stringency, and enforcement of such regulations are crucial measures of progress.

4. SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.9: Substantially reduce illnesses from hazardous chemicals and water pollution.	Concentration of PFAS chemicals (e.g., PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS) in human blood serum. Percentage of the population with blood serum levels exceeding health guidance values (mentioned as 86% of participants).
   SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation	Target 6.1: Achieve access to safe and affordable drinking water. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals.	Concentration of specific PFAS compounds in public drinking water (measured in ng/L). Proportion of public water systems with detectable levels of PFAS. Number of water systems exceeding established regulatory limits.
   SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production	Target 12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.	(Implied) Amount of PFAS released into water systems from industrial and waste sources (e.g., firefighting foams, landfills). (Implied) Prevalence of persistent man-made chemicals in environmental media like water.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	(Implied) Existence and stringency of national and state-level regulations for PFAS in drinking water (e.g., EPA limits). Implementation of public water system monitoring programs (e.g., California’s State Water Resources Control Board program).

Source: news-medical.net