Global source water exceeds safe drinking limits of PFAS
Global source water exceeds safe drinking limits of PFAS Earth.com
sdgtalks
Research reveals concerning levels of PFAS contamination in global water sources
Research from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia, in collaboration with international partners, has brought to light the concerning levels of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. The results of the study reveal that we have underestimated the amount of PFAS in source waters across the globe.
These chemicals, numbering over 14,000, have been valued since the 1950s for their remarkable properties, including resistance to heat, water, grease, and stains, leading to their prevalence in a vast array of consumer and industrial products.
Forever chemicals
From non-stick pans and waterproof apparel to cosmetics, insecticides, food packaging, and even firefighting foams, PFAS compounds have been integrated into daily life, despite their environmental and health risks.
Labeled as “forever chemicals” due to their persistent nature, PFAS compounds hardly degrade in the environment or the human body, posing long-term ecological and health risks.
PFAS contamination in water sources
Now, the UNSW experts have provided a pioneering global assessment of PFAS contamination in surface and groundwater sources, revealing widespread exceedances of established safe drinking water thresholds for these chemicals.
“Many of our source waters are above PFAS regulatory limits,” said senior author Denis O’Carroll, a professor of engineering at UNSW. “We already knew that PFAS is pervasive in the environment, but I was surprised to find out the large fraction of source waters that are above drinking water advisory recommendations. We’re talking above five percent, and it goes over 50 percent in some cases.”
Focus of the study
This comprehensive study, aggregating over 45,000 data points from government reports, databases, and peer-reviewed literature collected over roughly two decades, is the first to quantify the environmental load of PFAS on such a scale.
The researchers found high levels of PFAS in various regions, including Australia, particularly in areas historically exposed to firefighting foams, such as military and fire training facilities.
“Drinking water is largely safe, and I don’t hesitate drinking it,” O’Caroll said. “I also don’t suggest that bottled water is better, because it doesn’t mean that they’ve done anything differently than what comes out of the tap. But I certainly think that monitoring PFAS levels and making the data easily available is worthwhile.”
Health implications of PFAS
In Australia, as well as in numerous other regions globally, it’s common for individuals to have trace amounts of PFAS in their system. However, the health implications of these chemicals remain a topic of debate, with a lack of universal consensus on the extent of their risk.
For instance, an expert health panel in Australia has indicated that the evidence linking PFAS exposure to significant health impacts is minimal to non-existent. However, international health organizations in the US and Europe associate PFAS exposure with a range of negative health effects, including decreased birth weights, elevated cholesterol levels, diminished kidney functionality, thyroid disorders, changes in sex hormone levels, weaker vaccine efficacy, and an increased risk of liver, kidney, and testicular cancers. Moreover, the World Health Organisation (WHO) classified PFOA, a variant of PFAS, as a category one human carcinogen in 2023.
Controls on PFAS usage
While associations between PFAS and various health conditions have been identified, causation has not been definitively established. Nevertheless, due to the enduring presence of these substances and their associated health risks, regulatory agencies worldwide have implemented stricter controls on PFAS usage and established safety limits for drinking water as a precautionary measure.
“Two forms of PFAS initially raised concerns about 20 years ago: PFOS and PFOA,” said O’Carroll. “These chemicals are regulated to different extents around the world. In the US, the proposed drinking water limits for PFOS and PFOA are four nanograms per liter.”
In Australia, another PFAS compound, PFHxS, is subject to regulation, with a combined limit for PFOS and PFHxS set at 70 nanograms per liter, significantly exceeding the US’s threshold for PFOS and PFOA.
“PFOA, on the other hand, is regulated in Australia at 560 nanograms per liter, which is two orders of magnitude higher than in the US,” O’Carroll added.
What level of PFAS is safe?
Compared to the regulations in the US, Australia’s standards appear more lenient. Yet, when compared with Canada’s approach, which aggregates the total of all 14,000 PFAS compounds and caps them at 30 nanograms per liter, both the Australian and US guidelines seem less stringent.
The research revealed that 69 percent of worldwide groundwater samples, lacking known sources of contamination, surpassed Health Canada‘s safety benchmarks for drinking water, while 32 percent exceeded the US’s hazard index for drinking water.
“There’s debate about what level PFAS should be regulated to,” O’Carroll added. “Australia has much higher limits than the US, but the question is why. Both health bodies would have different reasoning for that, and there’s not a really strong consensus here.”
Ongoing research
In light of the findings, the researchers aim to deepen the understanding of PFAS pollution by investigating the environmental impact of PFAS compounds in consumer products and developing new technologies to mitigate PFAS in drinking water systems. Furthermore, predictive models are in development to forecast the distribution of PFAS in the environment and their interaction with biological systems.
As this significant research unfolds, Professor O’Carroll urges manufacturers and consumers to exercise caution and responsibility in the use of PFAS-containing products.
“We manufacture and distribute a lot of chemicals without having a full assessment on their potential health impacts. We should have judicious use of some of these chemicals. Just because they’re available, doesn’t mean that we should use them,” he concluded.
The study is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
-
SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
- Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
- Indicator 6.3.2: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality.
-
SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
- Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
- Indicator 12.4.2: Hazardous waste generated per capita and proportion of hazardous waste treated, disaggregated by treatment type.
-
SDG 14: Life Below Water
- Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
- Indicator 14.1.1: Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density.
Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators
| SDGs | Targets | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation | Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials. | Indicator 6.3.2: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality. |
| SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production | Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment. | Indicator 12.4.2: Hazardous waste generated per capita and proportion of hazardous waste treated, disaggregated by treatment type. |
| SDG 14: Life Below Water | Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution. | Indicator 14.1.1: Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density. |
Analysis
1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?
The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).
2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?
Based on the article’s content, the specific targets identified are:
– Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping, and minimizing the release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
– Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, and significantly reduce their release to air, water, and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
– Target 14.1: Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, including marine debris and nutrient pollution.
3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?
Yes, there are indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:
– Indicator 6.3.2: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality.
– Indicator 12.4.2: Hazardous waste generated per capita and proportion of hazardous waste treated, disaggregated by treatment type.
– Indicator 14.1.1: Index of coastal eutrophication and floating plastic debris density.
These indicators can be used to measure progress towards improving water quality, managing chemicals and wastes, and reducing marine pollution.
The article highlights the concerning levels of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in source waters globally. PFAS are hazardous chemicals that pose risks to human health and the environment. The presence of PFAS in water sources indicates a failure to achieve good ambient water quality (Indicator 6.3.2) and the environmentally sound management of chemicals (Target 12.4). Additionally, the article mentions the issue of marine pollution caused by PFAS and other contaminants, which relates to the target of preventing and reducing marine pollution (Target 14.1). The indicators mentioned in the article can be used to measure progress towards these targets, such as monitoring the proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality (Indicator 6.3.2) and assessing the presence of hazardous waste and its treatment (Indicator 12.4.2). The article also indirectly implies the presence of floating plastic debris (Indicator 14.1.1), which is a form of marine pollution. Overall, the issues discussed in the article align with multiple SDGs and their respective targets and indicators, highlighting the need for action to address PFAS contamination and improve water quality.
Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.
Source: earth.com
Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.
