It is important to stop the introduction of these chemicals and microplastics into our environment. That should be the number one goal - to stop it at it's source instead of dealing with it after the fact. Depending on how the filtration systems scale, not everyone would be able to benefit - and certainly not wildlife which is affected.
In the meantime, it may be effective to remove these chemicals from your body through regular blood and plasma donation[0]. Although not entirely altruistic, I doubt those in need of emergency blood are asking if it contains PFASs. In the end it helps you and those in need.
I have also recently switched to stainless steel cookware and picked up a LifeStraw home water filter[1] that claims to reduce these chemicals in your drinking water.
Unfortunately, the EPA, and modern science has no proactive models to predict toxicity.
By the time disclosure occurs, studies are completed, you're 5 to 10 years into mass production. And a ban then gets another 5 years and manufacturing just needs to rotate a few molecules and those studies are now irrelevant.
Until we have a predictive model of toxicity, there's no real ability to do anything but in decadal scales.
Wait a minute: what if leeching was actually a legitimate treatment to remove blood toxins, maybe like mercury or lead poisoning?
By the way, looks like donation removes 8% of your blood, so you’d have to donate 9 times to halve the amount of any chemical in your blood (assuming it’s not also stored elsewhere in your body).
> picked up a LifeStraw home water filter[1] that claims to reduce these chemicals in your drinking water
Seeing that the LifeStraw pitcher is made of plastic, I wonder whether the amount of filtered chemicals is greater than the ones introduced by the plastic in the pitcher itself.
Civilization is built on plastics all the way down.
> It is important to stop the introduction of these chemicals and microplastics into our environment.
This is an unreasonable, although noble, goal. The petrochemical industry is simply too embedded to be meaningfully regulated in the ways that it should be. They have had de facto nation state powers for decades, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia/Aramco, are state actors themselves.
> In the meantime, it may be effective to remove these chemicals from your body through regular blood and plasma donation[0]
slight distinction: remove these chemicals from your blood
I only mention that because there are most likely places in the body where doing this will not do anything to help remove them from that organ
As far as removing it from the blood, I wonder about the efficiency of blood donation. It seems to me that simply stopping the intake of new PFAs by drinking purified water from your pitcher should help considerably, because water consumed goes into the bloodstream regularly. Additionally, red blood cells are constantly being cycled in the body as well, with their byproducts excreted.
Does the lifestraw also remove essential minerals from the water?
I mean that's the primary reason we got a water filter ourselves, filter out some minerals so our cats get less urinary stones.
But we've switched to stainless and/or 'plain' steel ourselves as well, we still have some non-stick pans for e.g. frying eggs but we try to avoid them. Even before PFAS, I never liked the teflon pans because they wear and sometimes flake off after a while.
We really ought to show more care and test more when we are creating chemical marvels and new materials. At a certain level of scale a lot of the inventions of the last 50 years turned out to be quite damaging to our health and environment. We don't seem to have the balance right yet comparing freedom to release whatever and complete lockdown until something is proved safe and we keep damaging people and the biodiversity of the planet on which we depend.
You could make the argument that we really need better methods and technology for determining the health impact of what we put into our environment. The problem as I see it (as a total layman) is that the health sciences are not good at determining the effects of almost anything in the future. The best we can do is wide-scale studies that try to control for different variables (and largely fail, because the set of variables is incredibly large).
I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. I am optimistic that we can massively increase the data collected as time goes on, and that will increase our accuracy of studies of things that occurred in the past.
Because we don’t close the loop. We find out asbestos and plastics and whatever else is dangerous actually and then go “ah shit” and that’s all. We don’t prosecute the makers of it or charge for cleanup. Yeah we have superfunds for breathtakingly poor resource and conservation management, but with micro pollutants don’t have the same kind of knee jerk visceral reaction a major radioactive waste site does.
We should have laws that say “if you make something, you own its entire lifecycle, including its safe and ecologically sound disposal.” That would turn the page on wasteful production almost overnight.
I don't think it'll ever be the case. There's an infinite number of unknowns and unknown unknowns. It's a lot easier in our economic system to solve a bounded problem by throwing money at it than for regulations to be enforced politically on what would be 99% speculative problems.
Something that blows my mind is that you can get a patent on a new "state of matter" (implying intrinsically that it has novel properties) but then claim to regulators that it doesn't need new safety testing because it's similar to something existing.
Aren’t we totally ignoring this with the renewed push for nuclear energy? If we insist nuclear waste can safely be stored than surely we can safely store PFAS.
I know there was a big scare around PFAS and stick-free pans. That confused me because they are actually on most food-wrapping. Sure, the heat and scraping don’t help the pans, but I can’t imagine that having it on most things we throw in the trash and then burn or put in a landfill helps much.
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently approves more than 90 PFAS in food container materials ranging from paper cups, parchment paper, and microwavable popcorn bags to fast-food wrappers, pizza boxes, and pet food bags, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council reported in September 2021.
Thermal hydrolysis (raising water/sewage to very high temperatures and pressures) can also break down PFAS and other bad stuff like pharmaceutical compounds. The Washington, D.C. Blue Plains water treatment plant uses this technology to safely convert septic sludge to fertilizer, sold under the brand name Bloom:
edit: As I Google to double-check my recollection, I'm finding mixed but encouraging reports on this technique's effectiveness. For instance this 2021 paper:
>To our best knowledge, there are only two studies that have evaluated fate of PFAS in sludge before and after HTL. In a report presented by Mitroshkov et al. [19], 15 PFAS were quantified in five sludge samples before HTL. After HTL, concentrations of the majority of these PFAS were below detection limit of the GC/MS/MS. However, the authors did not report the HTL operating conditions used in this study. In addition, PFSAs including PFOS, the commonly recognized most recalcitrant PFAS, were not targeted in this work.
>In another study, degradation of five PFAS (i.e., PFOA, 7:3 FTCA, 8:2 FTUCA, 8:2 FTS, PFOS) in sludge by HTL was conducted [35]. Among the five, each spiked at 1000 µg/kg, the first three were degraded > 99% at 350 °C for 90 min. Degradation of 8:2 FTS and PFOS was 34% and 67%, respectively. It was found that undegraded PFAS partitioned to the biocrude phase, which may negatively impact the quality and use of these biocrude in the real world.
>Compared to PFAS in water only, more degradation was observed when these PFAS were spiked to sludge. It was speculated that metal ions and mineral solids in the sludge might have contributed to enhanced PFAS degradation [35].
I never could get a straight answer if the activated charcoal filters can remove these.
I’m distilling my own water now. Seems about the same price as filtering once you factor in the costs of the filters. And you know you’re getting everything out.
(I add in my own minerals in case that’s important.)
Some carbon filters make the claim on the label, some don't. The only difference is some companies pay to test for it, and then they can make the claim on the labeling, there is no actual difference in the filters.
I don't think distillation actually works for forever chemicals, as they may be miscible to a certain degree or also vaporize and condense. Don't have the source, but there was a story about PFAS in rain recently. Your best bet would be reverse osmosis, which is unfortunately a pretty big waste of water.
carbon filters remove PFAS but they're relatively ineffective so you need an awful lot of carbon to get a substantial reduction at least compared to the amount needed to remove other things.
RO is effective, as the chemicals in question have fairly high molecular weight.
But then RO is usually used with a bladder tank which will leach plasticizers so ::shrugs:: (they taste awful at least, so the norm is to follow up the tank with RO).
How prevalent are these in water (vs other parts of the environment)? Are there some common places where a few well-placed filters could have an outsized impact in cleaningup our mess?
There are some really nice lakes here in Düsseldorf that had to be closed to the public due to PFAS pollution. Makes me sad when I walk by them because they are beautiful, surrounded by trees, and there are still rope swings and such around, indicating to me that it used to be a great recreation spot.
If you have a common under the sink or above water filtration system that includes Active Carbon (granular activated carbon) filters and Reverse Osmosis. Most contain both, they are highly effective in removing PFAS.
Most installed water filters are not reverse osmosis because it takes up too much room, wastes a bunch of water, needs to be remineralized, is more expensive than a non-RO 3 stage filter, and is not significantly more effective than a 3 stage that includes carbon.
[+] [-] xarthna|2 years ago|reply
In the meantime, it may be effective to remove these chemicals from your body through regular blood and plasma donation[0]. Although not entirely altruistic, I doubt those in need of emergency blood are asking if it contains PFASs. In the end it helps you and those in need.
I have also recently switched to stainless steel cookware and picked up a LifeStraw home water filter[1] that claims to reduce these chemicals in your drinking water.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994130/ [1] https://lifestraw.com/products/lifestraw-home
[+] [-] cyanydeez|2 years ago|reply
By the time disclosure occurs, studies are completed, you're 5 to 10 years into mass production. And a ban then gets another 5 years and manufacturing just needs to rotate a few molecules and those studies are now irrelevant.
Until we have a predictive model of toxicity, there's no real ability to do anything but in decadal scales.
[+] [-] asdfman123|2 years ago|reply
By the way, looks like donation removes 8% of your blood, so you’d have to donate 9 times to halve the amount of any chemical in your blood (assuming it’s not also stored elsewhere in your body).
[+] [-] copperx|2 years ago|reply
Seeing that the LifeStraw pitcher is made of plastic, I wonder whether the amount of filtered chemicals is greater than the ones introduced by the plastic in the pitcher itself.
Civilization is built on plastics all the way down.
[+] [-] revscat|2 years ago|reply
This is an unreasonable, although noble, goal. The petrochemical industry is simply too embedded to be meaningfully regulated in the ways that it should be. They have had de facto nation state powers for decades, or, in the case of Saudi Arabia/Aramco, are state actors themselves.
[+] [-] dbsmith83|2 years ago|reply
slight distinction: remove these chemicals from your blood
I only mention that because there are most likely places in the body where doing this will not do anything to help remove them from that organ
As far as removing it from the blood, I wonder about the efficiency of blood donation. It seems to me that simply stopping the intake of new PFAs by drinking purified water from your pitcher should help considerably, because water consumed goes into the bloodstream regularly. Additionally, red blood cells are constantly being cycled in the body as well, with their byproducts excreted.
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|2 years ago|reply
I mean that's the primary reason we got a water filter ourselves, filter out some minerals so our cats get less urinary stones.
But we've switched to stainless and/or 'plain' steel ourselves as well, we still have some non-stick pans for e.g. frying eggs but we try to avoid them. Even before PFAS, I never liked the teflon pans because they wear and sometimes flake off after a while.
[+] [-] PaulKeeble|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robcohen|2 years ago|reply
I have a feeling we aren’t going to solve this problem anytime soon, as the simulations required appear to be so large they are beyond our reach. I am optimistic that we can massively increase the data collected as time goes on, and that will increase our accuracy of studies of things that occurred in the past.
[+] [-] dclowd9901|2 years ago|reply
We should have laws that say “if you make something, you own its entire lifecycle, including its safe and ecologically sound disposal.” That would turn the page on wasteful production almost overnight.
[+] [-] weaksauce|2 years ago|reply
one man was so absolutely prolifically bad to the environment.
[+] [-] Tanjreeve|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtsr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neltnerb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cde-v|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frozenport|2 years ago|reply
Except that people like longer
[+] [-] Mistletoe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nonethewiser|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justaj|2 years ago|reply
Link to a better article: https://news.ubc.ca/2023/03/22/new-ubc-water-treatment-zaps-...
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] allears|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bertil|2 years ago|reply
> The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently approves more than 90 PFAS in food container materials ranging from paper cups, parchment paper, and microwavable popcorn bags to fast-food wrappers, pizza boxes, and pet food bags, the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council reported in September 2021.
[+] [-] neurobama|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Plains_Advanced_Wastewate...
https://bloomsoil.com/faqs/#what-is-bloom
edit: As I Google to double-check my recollection, I'm finding mixed but encouraging reports on this technique's effectiveness. For instance this 2021 paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22133...
>To our best knowledge, there are only two studies that have evaluated fate of PFAS in sludge before and after HTL. In a report presented by Mitroshkov et al. [19], 15 PFAS were quantified in five sludge samples before HTL. After HTL, concentrations of the majority of these PFAS were below detection limit of the GC/MS/MS. However, the authors did not report the HTL operating conditions used in this study. In addition, PFSAs including PFOS, the commonly recognized most recalcitrant PFAS, were not targeted in this work.
>In another study, degradation of five PFAS (i.e., PFOA, 7:3 FTCA, 8:2 FTUCA, 8:2 FTS, PFOS) in sludge by HTL was conducted [35]. Among the five, each spiked at 1000 µg/kg, the first three were degraded > 99% at 350 °C for 90 min. Degradation of 8:2 FTS and PFOS was 34% and 67%, respectively. It was found that undegraded PFAS partitioned to the biocrude phase, which may negatively impact the quality and use of these biocrude in the real world.
>Compared to PFAS in water only, more degradation was observed when these PFAS were spiked to sludge. It was speculated that metal ions and mineral solids in the sludge might have contributed to enhanced PFAS degradation [35].
[+] [-] diordiderot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bilsbie|2 years ago|reply
I’m distilling my own water now. Seems about the same price as filtering once you factor in the costs of the filters. And you know you’re getting everything out.
(I add in my own minerals in case that’s important.)
[+] [-] ars|2 years ago|reply
https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/hazar...
Some carbon filters make the claim on the label, some don't. The only difference is some companies pay to test for it, and then they can make the claim on the labeling, there is no actual difference in the filters.
[+] [-] lend000|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nullc|2 years ago|reply
RO is effective, as the chemicals in question have fairly high molecular weight.
But then RO is usually used with a bladder tank which will leach plasticizers so ::shrugs:: (they taste awful at least, so the norm is to follow up the tank with RO).
[+] [-] samtho|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jejeyyy77|2 years ago|reply
I stopped only drinking filtered/bottled water exclusively for this reason.
[+] [-] hgomersall|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] revscat|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbrochh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elil17|2 years ago|reply
It uses a starch which has been sized to interact with PFAS molecules.
[+] [-] gibolt|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empyrrhicist|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garfieldnate|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thewanderer1983|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BugsJustFindMe|2 years ago|reply
Most installed water filters are not reverse osmosis because it takes up too much room, wastes a bunch of water, needs to be remineralized, is more expensive than a non-RO 3 stage filter, and is not significantly more effective than a 3 stage that includes carbon.
[+] [-] alphanumeric0|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagicMoonlight|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgentry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] electrondood|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denton-scratch|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixhero|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soperj|2 years ago|reply