These persistent substances in everyday products and industrial applications raise serious questions about their long-term effects on health and the environment.
Dr Kruchev will provide expert insight into how these chemicals behave, why they are so difficult to manage and the challenges of tackling their widespread presence across the UK.
Can you explain what the eternal chemical is and why it is called so?
Forever chemicals is a term used to describe a large group of manufactured substances, also known as PFAS, which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It is used in everyday items such as non-stick cookware and waterproof clothing.
These are called eternal chemicals because they are not easily broken down in the environment or our bodies. They can persist for years or even decades, raising concerns about potential health effects.
In what industries and products is it most commonly used?
It’s used in a wide range of applications, from pizza boxes and nonstick cookware to waterproof materials like Gore-Tex used in outdoor clothing.
Some of these chemicals have been phased out, while others have been reintroduced. For example, the industry once relied on long-chain PFAS, which turned out to be highly toxic. They then replaced them with short-chain PFAS, assuming they were safer.
However, subsequent studies have shown that shorter-chain versions may be harmful as well, perhaps slightly less persistent in the environment, but still potentially toxic. There are more than 5,000 known PFAS compounds, but only two or three are currently regulated.
What are the potential health effects of these chemicals?
Based on the scientific literature, PFAS are believed to be associated with hormonal (endocrine) disruption, immune system suppression, and some types of cancer.
The challenge is that most of this data comes from a small subset of PFAS that have been studied, and we know that there are thousands more that have not been tested.
So given how many of these chemicals exist, there could be many effects that we don’t yet know about.
How do these permanent chemicals end up in our water systems? Are there any particular entry points of particular concern?
My research group studies wastewater treatment systems, which are often seen as repositories for liquid waste. It also examines the atmospheric fate of PFAS, an area that is both lacking in research and largely ignored by regulators, as most existing regulations focus on water and soil. Unfortunately, current treatment technologies are not designed to effectively remove PFAS.
In some cases, the treatment process can actually break long-chain PFAS into shorter-chain forms, which still continue to find their way into water streams without being removed. Therefore, PFAS can simply pass through treatment facilities and enter rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water.
You mentioned that treatment systems cannot currently remove them, but are water companies developing new technologies to tackle that?
Yes, that’s right. I don’t think we should blame the water industry. The water industry is under tremendous pressure to comply with regulations and is actively working to develop better technology as new evidence comes to light.
Some companies are experimenting with carbon-based methods that can absorb PFAS. Because PFAS are water repellent, they tend to stick to surfaces, such as algae and other materials in the water, rather than remaining dissolved.
Therefore, water companies are now working on developing absorption and filtration technologies to capture them. But the main challenge is that PFAS are incredibly stable.
Traditional processing systems were not designed to handle these chemicals, which often allowed them to slip through the process. We are still in the early stages of tackling this environmental threat, and we need support, not just blaming water companies.
A recent BBC report suggests that around 6 million people in the UK may be at risk of PFAS in their drinking water. Are there certain areas that are more affected or is this a nationwide issue?
The Environment Agency published a report last year identifying more than 10,000 potential PFAS ‘hotspots’ across the UK.
Contamination is not limited to one area and can occur anywhere. For example, one of the main sources is water-based film-forming foam used in firefighting operations. Older versions of these forms contained PFAS, so areas near airports and fire training ranges are often contaminated.
So should we prioritize certain industries and sites when tackling pollution?
That’s exactly right; this is not just a UK issue, it’s a global issue. For example, in the US state of North Carolina, a company was accused of contaminating a large area with PFAS. People living near affected plants had much higher levels of PFAS in their blood compared to the general population.
PFAS accumulate in the body over time, so even small amounts of continued exposure can have serious effects. One common PFAS compound, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), has an estimated half-life of up to three years in humans. It takes a long time for something potentially harmful to stay in your system.
Although short-term exposure may not cause immediate effects, long-term continuous exposure through contaminated water or air can cause serious health problems.
How do you rate the UK’s response compared to other countries? Do we need stronger regulation or government support?
More testing is definitely needed. If you look at the global PFAS contamination map, you’ll see that there are many red zones across Europe. However, data is not available for some regions. Not because PFAS don’t exist, but because no one is measuring them. Therefore, the first step is to invest in monitoring. Without evidence, governments cannot act.
The UK is catching up, but countries like the US are collecting more data and are therefore further ahead. Once that evidence emerged, stricter regulations were put in place, and many U.S. states now ban the production of certain PFAS compounds. Several companies have pledged to completely stop producing PFAS by 2030.
Therefore, we should follow their example. We need to conduct more testing to understand the scale of the problem and build regulations based on evidence. But it’s a big challenge. For example, a report from Belgium, one of the countries with the highest PFAS contamination in Europe, estimates that cleaning up all affected land would cost more than the country’s entire GDP.
Realistically, is it possible to completely tackle this problem, or is the focus now on mitigation?
That’s a very good question and also very philosophical. I don’t think we should aim to completely eliminate PFAS. PFAS have valuable applications, especially in medicine, such as in implants where stability is essential.
Designed to be durable. That is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Therefore, rather than banning all PFAS, a balance must be struck between restricting their use to critical uses and preventing unnecessary use in everyday products.
Simply replacing one group of chemicals with another will not solve the problem. We need smarter regulation and a deeper understanding of alternatives.
Source link
