20 Sep Community Chat Now Available Online – PFAS & Your Health
The third in OWASA’s PFAS Community Chat series – Safeguarding Our Water: PFAS Q&A – focused on how PFAS gets into the environment, how humans are exposed to PFAS and potential health impacts, and how we can reduce our exposure to PFAS in our daily lives. This discussion featured scientists and public health experts studying the impacts of PFAS on human and environmental health at some of our state’s top research universities and agencies. A recording of the event is now available on our YouTube channel.
Panelists:
- Mr. Kennedy Holt, Environmental Toxicologist, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
- Dr. Detlef Knappe, S. James Ellen Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University
- Dr. Heather Stapleton, Ronie-Richele Garcia-Johnson Distinguished Professor, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
Summary:
This third PFAS Community Chat focused on what the current research tells us about the health impacts of PFAS exposure on human and environmental health, and what we still need to learn. Dr. Knappe began the discussion by pointing out the significance of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water standards for PFAS, also known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Knappe explained that these standards are significant for a state like North Carolina because we do not set our own drinking water standards and defer completely to federal guidance. The EPA set MCLs on six PFAS compounds in drinking water:
- PFOA: 4 parts per trillion (ppt)
- PFOS: 4 parts per trillion (ppt)
- PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX: 10 parts per trillion (ppt)
- PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS and GenX: the combined amount of these PFAS in drinking water must be below a hazard index of one
Dr. Knappe explained why these specific levels were set. For PFOS and PFOA, the standard was set at 4 ppt because that is the lowest level commercial labs are able to accurately measure. For PFHxS, PFNA, and GenX, the standard was set at 10 ppt to protect the public from impacts to the liver, thyroid, and development. He also explained that a hazard index was set on PFHxS, PFNA, PFBS, and GenX to recognize that humans are exposed to combinations of different PFAS that can potentially be harmful to health.
Dr. Stapleton discussed the importance of studying PFAS levels in the blood and emphasized that the best way to understand your health risks is to have your blood tested. She referred to a report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of PFAS exposure and recommendations for clinical follow-up for physicians. This report looked at several different PFAS compounds and determined that if PFAS levels in the blood are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter, then you should get tested for certain conditions, such as high cholesterol, thyroid disease, kidney cancer, and breast cancer. She informed the audience gathered that several companies offer at home testing kits at a cost to test PFAS levels if your blood.
Mr. Holt added that the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) synthesized the Academies report into a three-page memo and distributed it to physician groups throughout the state. NCDHHS recommends patients take this document to their doctor to ensure they received it and are informed about updated guidance.
Dr. Stapleton went on to explain that just because PFAS is in your drinking water, it doesn’t necessarily mean there will be elevated levels of PFAS in your blood. Conversely, you could have low levels of PFAS in your water, but elevated levels in your blood because you have been exposed through another source, such as food packaging, building materials, or dust particles in your home. Consuming certain food products that are produced in areas with elevated levels of PFAS in the water could also lead to exposure. Dr. Stapleton recommended avoiding purchasing products that say, “stain repellant” or “scuff resistant.”
Dr. Stapleton highlighted that Duke University has developed materials to inform general practitioners and cancer centers about PFAS health risks, and that physicians can request blood tests for PFAS, but that not all doctors are aware of the health risks associated with PFAS exposure and that there are challenges to providing access to information. She also mentioned PFAS Exchange – a coalition of scientists, researchers, and physicians studying the health effects of PFAS – that provide informational resources on their website.
Mr. Holt discussed how much more North Carolina needs to learn about where PFAS is located throughout the state and how it is affecting public health. Holt stated that the MCLs help to identify areas affected by PFAS because water utilities are now required to report the levels of PFAS in their drinking water. He highlighted how there are thousands of PFAS we are just now discovering and don’t know yet how they affect public health. What we do know, however, is that there are certain occupations and industries that lead to higher exposure to PFAS, such as firefighting and textile manufacturing.
Dr. Knappe touched on his research and what it has taught him about how PFAS affects humans. He stated that PFAS are so prevalent in consumer products because they are very useful and make our lives easier, such as non-stick pans, cosmetics, and dental floss, all of which are produced with PFAS and can lead to exposure. There is also no labeling requirement for products containing PFAS, so consumers don’t know how much or what kinds of PFAS are in their purchases, or how it will affect their health. Knappe explained that many commercial production facilities throughout the country contaminate land, water, and air, which leads to human exposure, but there is still much to learn about the impact of different exposure pathways to human health.
Knappe also stated that there has been some success at the state-level across the country to phase out certain PFAS applications, and that some industries, companies, and supply chains are taking steps to phase out the use of PFAS. He recommended consumers visit PFAS Central – a website that provides a list of PFAS-free products and companies, as well as additional resources.
Dr. Stapleton added that not all companies know if PFAS are in their products unless they have them tested. She stated that silicone and wax are common replacements for PFAS that perform similar functions.
Mr. Holt discussed what the public should know about minimizing PFAS exposure and subsequent impacts on their health. He said that to minimize health impacts, it is essential to understand what products you are using and where they are coming from. It is important to take inventory of the products you use daily to determine your personal PFAS exposure risk, which will help you take steps to reduce that exposure.
Dr. Stapleton closed out the discussion by sharing how health impact studies have helped us determine how people are being exposed to PFAS. Stapleton stated that you must stop exposure to stop health effects, but even if exposure stops, it can take years for PFAS levels in the blood to drop because PFAS compounds are so long-lasting. She said that there are currently several studies underway to determine the difference between exposure to PFAS through inhalation or food and water consumption, and if these exposure pathways lead to different health effects. Health is also affected by length of exposure. If your exposure to PFAS is prolonged, your health impacts are likely to be more severe than in someone whose exposure is minimal.
Stapleton concluded by stating that it is going to take time to answer these questions about PFAS health risks as more research avenues are explored.