PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were virtually unheard of several years ago. Now that the dangers of exposure to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) have made it into the spotlight, people are becoming more aware of the forever chemicals.
The diverse chemical compounds were found in firefighting foam and firefighter gear. Even more alarming was that PFAS was detected in everyday items, even drinking water.
The Case of AFFF Lawsuit
The AFFF foam lawsuit has become a case study of sorts. In 2022, hundreds of firefighters across the U.S. filed a firefighting foam lawsuit against AFFF manufacturers. Big chemical companies like 3M and DuPont were named as defendants.
The firefighters claimed the exposure to PFAS found in the firefighting foam resulted in their cancer diagnosis. Numerous studies found exposure to toxic chemicals increased the risk of kidney cancer and testicular cancer, among other illnesses.
Communities impacted by contaminated water also joined the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuit.
Following three years of litigation, TorHoerman Law says that U.S. states are stepping up efforts to address the dangers of PFAS chemicals. As to PFAS found in water supplies? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is monitoring the situation.
Citizens often feel confused and helpless when it comes to polluted drinking water. Below, we’ll discuss how to take real action to minimize your exposure to PFAS in drinking water.
Track the Data
While analyzing the EPA’s latest data, USA Today found that city officials frequently blamed airports and military bases as the likely source of PFAS contamination in drinking water.
The military was the most checked source when the EPA asked water utilities to list potential contamination sources. Ratepayers are feeling the burden as well. They are saddled with the costs. Dayton officials say their ratepayers fork out $100 million to remove PFAS from their water supplies.
The EPA has made data and tools available to the public to track PFAS in drinking water. The governmental agency uses the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR).
These tools allow people to search for analytical results from each UCMR cycle. Using the data provided, citizens can measure unsafe levels of PFAS in their water.
Activated Carbon
Your first response will be reaching for the bottled water. The Conversation says even bottled water has been found to contain forever-chemicals.
Similar to charcoal, activated carbon is a sponge that removes PFAS from water. Refrigerator filters and some water filters use the same technology.
The Maysville water plant in North Carolina reopened this year following a $1 million grant from the federal government. Chemical & Engineering News reported that the town used the money to upgrade its filtration system.
To remove PFAS from the water, the plant implemented a system that uses granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion-exchange resins.
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) uses membrane technology to remove contaminants from water. Most homes have the filter installed in their kitchen sinks.
Rome, Georgia, last year piloted a treatment process for removing PFAS from the city’s water supply. After testing six treatments, the city found that reverse osmosis was the most promising, exhibiting consistent PFAS removal rates.
Studies are highlighting the role RO and nanofiltration can play in addressing PFAS contamination. However, key challenges remain. One of them is, once PFAS is removed, how do you dispose of them in the environment?
Long Term Solutions
The EPA announced in April the first-ever limits on PFAS in drinking water. Public health experts welcomed the announcement. On the other hand, the removal of the cancer-causing chemicals would be a Herculean task.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) tells National Geographic the costs of infrastructural changes could be closer to $3.8 billion. This would require hiring new talent to design new systems and test them.
Local municipalities could be left with a hefty bill, passed down to ordinary people who can’t afford the added cost. Citing figures from Moody, National Geographic adds that it could cost thousands annually per customer.
Experts are positive about the direction things are heading in, despite the costs. Many argue that the new EPA limits are needed, given what we know about the dangers of PFAS exposure.
John Hopkins University says we don’t know the extent of PFAS damage to the environment and human health. There are ways to minimize exposure to PFAS by being a mindful consumer and having some control over how you deal with the issue.
Use water filtration techniques and water pitches certified for PFAS. Avoid non-stick cookware. Purchase PFAS-free personal hygiene products.