By Francesco Lo Presti
Click here to view the full presentation on “PFAS, Breaking Down the Forever Chemicals.”
During our Water Treatment Technical Training Day, Kevin Wong, Canadian codes manager at GF Building Flow Solutions (formerly Uponor), and Jason Jackson, senior technical sales specialist at EcoLab, participated in a panel discussion on PFAS, a group of forever chemicals.
Our editor, Leah Den Hartogh, moderated this panel discussion. Below are some highlighted questions from the discussion.
Question: How would you describe PFAS, and why has it been such a hot topic of discussion?
Wong: Essentially, PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances with chlorine in them. The reason these chemicals have become popular in discussions over the last decade is that their physical and chemical properties allow them to persist for a very long time in the environment. When they do break down, they’ve been shown to form toxic substances, mainly in fish and also in humans.
These chemicals have been used for a very long time and are widely used in industry. For example, in the standard of quality for fleece, it is required to use PFAS to help prevent burning.
Jackson: As Kevin mentioned, PFAS is everywhere around us. It was a chemical developed by man and deemed a forever chemical, used as a water- and oil-resistant chemical that helps improve life.
Now, we are starting to realize that as these chemicals are in the environment, they don’t break down, and they accumulate. This means the focus has shifted to what we do next about PFAS, which is proving to be a lesson for society.
Wong: The thing is, this is no different from 100 years ago, when, as a society, we used lead plumbing products. Fast forward 40 years, and we learned that it may have been a problem. As we understand human health and toxicity, as science improves, so does our reliance on certain chemicals.
Jackson: When Kevin mentions the sources of PFAS and where we find them, they are literally in a number of consumer products and components that we have. This includes adhesives, cleaning products and food packaging. Since this becomes part of the food packaging, it can become part of the food source.
Now, one of the more critical components to consider when talking about sources of PFAS is aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). These are used in firefighting, on air force bases and airports, and for fire suppression. AFFFs are very effective at doing their jobs, but the lingering effects have become a big talking point.
Question: Why should Canadians be concerned about PFAS, if they are not already?
Jackson: As we mentioned, PFAS and their chains can bioaccumulate and build up in the natural resources and the human body. The longer PFAS chains tend to do so more often than the shorter ones. When we consider the resistance in the environment, short PFAS chains are very difficult to remove.
This combination of long and short PFAS chains forms a bigger picture to remove, as they accumulate in different parts of the environment.
Wong: The other challenge is that the research is still in its early stages, which is why we should be concerned. For example, how do long PFAS chains break down into smaller molecules in the environment? Additionally, PFAS mobility in soil, water, and surface water, and its appearance in our food chain, are very complex topics.
Now, one of the best things the Canadian government has recognized is that if PFAS is present in the background of our environment and consumer products, we have to find a way to prevent it from being inhaled, ingested, and absorbed by the human body. However, the problem is that there are 14,000 known PFAS chemicals, and we only regulate nine or 10 of them.
Question: Does the location within Canada affect the level of concern about PFAS? Additionally, does how a building or home receives its water also determine the level of PFAS consumption?
Jackson: When we look at PFAS sites in Canada, the identified sites are airports, military sites, and landfills. Now, what people have to realize is that whether you are in the Maritimes or Atlantic Canada, testing is being done at different levels. Now, compared to the U.S., there is far more regulation in the site spaces.
Now, with regard to whether location matters, it doesn’t really matter much when talking about testing. The reason is that municipalities must do PFAS species testing. This can be found in water quality reports issued by each municipality, with a specific section highlighting PFAS.
Wong: What I’d like to add is that the testing requirement ability is fairly new. You won’t find anything before 2024 because the test methodology wasn’t available. I’m glad that it is finally here, and these protocols are agreed upon.
Now, for homeowners concerned about their water quality, if the building is municipally sourced, the first step is to review the municipality’s water quality reports. Unfortunately, PFAS testing for private residences is extremely expensive. So, for a single building/home to do it, there needs to be a very good reason to do it. Unfortunately, homeowners don’t really factor into this conversation right now.
Question: What are some of the practical methods for removing/filtering PFAS in drinking water?
Jackson: Right now, I’m going to talk about two treatment options that industry and regulators deem as the recommended choice to reduce PFAS. Now, it’s important to know that no single product or technology is deemed the perfect solution. Rather, the combination of technologies will make the difference.
When it comes to reverse osmosis, the standard drinking water system in someone’s home is already a good choice. Reverse osmosis can work in the home for various reasons, but there are also reasons why it may not be a good choice. Part of it could be that the waste stream coming from the technology may be concentrating the PFAS, which then goes back into the environment, which is something we need to consider.
Other treatment options include granular activated carbon (GAC), which is also used in certain reverse osmosis systems. Now, one of the components that makes PFAS and carbon work well together is the Van der Waals force, which is one of the weakest chemical interactions, but it helps hold onto the PFAS during the time it needs to be removed. There are also ion exchange components, which, in this case, we will classify as single-use. The reason is that we don’t want PFAS going back into the environment, so we want to grab it, capture it, and hold it, then deal with the resin/carbon afterward.
Questions: What are the best approaches that technicians can use to discuss PFAS with homeowners/customers?
Wong: At the end of the day, our drinking and source water is highly regulated and highly monitored. So, the conversation on what’s coming out of the tap is already at a good place. If someone is looking to take on more water treatment responsibility, the NSF, CSA, and industry are developing standards to help measure, mitigate, and manage water treatment. If someone is going to decide to buy something, they are going to buy a certified product.
Jackson: Speaking to technicians directly, the code of ethics has to be followed. When you’re explaining something to a customer, it has to be factual, proven, and free of fear-factoring. I’m a big advocate of going back to trusted entities as a resource when talking about PFAS with customers.
The next Technical Training Day will be held on April 8 and will cover heat pumps. Registration is open now.