This week we are learning about what PFAS are, their chemical properties, and how that contributes to their persistence in the environment as well as their toxicity to human health. While these chemicals were first used in the 1970s, their persistence in the environment was typically viewed as a non-threat to human health. In recent years, and through several scientific studies, however, the general understanding about PFAS toxicity in the environment has shifted.
One case study involves the manufacturer 3M. They produce many products that require the use of PFAS. With their primary plant located in Belgium, scientists discovered very high levels of PFAS in the water, soil, and air near the plant. Separated by a freeway, several people live near the manufacturing plant, and their blood levels were associated with very high levels of PFAS present.
A similar case occurred with the Dupont manufacturing plant in America. For this second case study, a farmer in West Virginia noticed that many of his cattle were dying. He suspected it was something to do with the water. With help from a corporate defense attorney, it was eventually determined that very high levels of PFAS (specifically PFOA) were in the drinking water. This water was so toxic it caused the farmer’s cattle to die at a high rate. Nearby residents suffered from increased rates of cancers (kidney and liver) and other diseases.
The environmental health impact and effect from exposure to PFAS is both a local and global issue. There are many interested and affected parties that we can identify as part of this environmental problem.
Those IAPs include (1) the people exposed to the PFAS or concerned about exposure, such as residents but also the farmer in the Dupont case whose cattle were dying, (2) consumers who purchase products that themselves spread PFAS, such as ScotchgardLinks to an external site., (3) the manufacturing companies creating products containing PFAS, and (4) the government agencies doing their part to help protect the public from exposure. Use what you learned this week, and through these two case studies, to help shape how you will approach your Course Project. To get started, let’s first choose a region to investigate for the environmental persistence of PFAS. Ideally you should choose the region where you live and one that belongs to the EPA region you studied in Week 1.
Analyze PFOA levels in the region where your local area resides and compare that to what you learned about EPA monitoring in Week 1. Specifically you will need to do the following: and define the following:
Analyze the PFOA levels in tap water for your regionLinks to an external site. (remember to select the state where your local area resides. Refer back to the EPA regional map to help guide how far to study PFOA levels in your region)
Identify at least 3 IAPs from the following categories:
At least one neighbor/consumer IAP in your local area
One manufacturing IAP, which will be DuPont (or similar if you have a different manufacturing plant, that you identified creates products containing PFAS)
At least one local water utility
Explain the current state of PFOA pollution (i.e. current concentration levels of PFOA , etc.) in that region using the interactive mapLinks to an external site. and EPA monitoring tool from week 1. Describe a possible response that each of your selected IAPs might have to these data results. How does the PFOA concentration levels you identified support the monitoring data EPA has for this region (based on what you found in week 1)? If the public watering system (PWS) data from week 1 was above the minimum reporting level (MRL), what does this tell you about the PFOA data you discovered this week? If the PWS data was below the MRL what does this tell you about the PFOA data? Why would this information benefit the IAPs you selected?
