Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 13 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment High‑importance Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-05-10 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Update : Describe the occurrence of PFAS in pesticides

On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PFAS. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification

In my view, this addition would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on bioaccumulation and biomagnification. --Leyo 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we prefer wikilinks to concepts like bioaccumulation and biomagnification. I don´t understand why the review (Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (June 2006). "Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review". Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (11): 3463–3473) was removed; secondary sources are generally preferred in wp. Feel free to condense the text. JimRenge (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs"?

The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sections (as such) do not exist anymore. --Leyo 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presence in Fertilizer

Which section does this go under? ‘This is Chernobyl’: Texas ranchers say ‘forever chemicals’ in waste-based fertilizers ruined their land Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported statement in the article

N Deleted

 – See this revision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subheading of United States in the section titled "Concerns, litigation, and regulations in specific countries and regions" this statement is made: "but the Republican Party, supported by the U.S. chemical industry filibustered the bill.[24]"

I read the article linked as support for this statement. It mentions filibuster once and does not state who did the filibuster. Txantimedia (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the article is "All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster." It doesn't say that there was an actual filibuster. I take it to mean if there was a filibuster, there was not enough Republican support to overcome it. So I agree that the wording in the article should be clarified. Nowa (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if well-sourced, the factoid may not merit inclusion in this article. It's not really about PFAS themselves. I don't know if this type of political information is appropriate for this article. (It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia.) Drsruli (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. Nowa (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. Gahundle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs

Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s, as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. Gahundle (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards using PFAS. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the OECD in its revised definition (doi:10.1787/e458e796-en) uses "PFAS" as a singular: […] any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF₃) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF₂−) is a PFAS.
"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, e.g. Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards or If PFAS is detected in your water. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used.
Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN[1] (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD[2], but also in the scientific literature.
For the reasons stated, I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s). --Leyo 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation

These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. Gahundle (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

analytical methods

The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods: Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 194.230.145.139 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination as a vital article

I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article here. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances be renamed and moved to PFAS. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances → PFAS – Did this a few years ago, discussion resulted in a no consensus. I still believe this should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:ACROTITLE. The latter says: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose for several reasons:
  • It is against long-standing practice to use the acronyms of classes of chemical compounds instead of the full name. Examples:
    • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, not PAHs (redirect)
    • Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, not PCDDs (redirect)
    • Polychlorinated dibenzofurans, not PCDFs (redirect)
    • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, not PBDEs (redirect)
    • Volatile organic compound, not VOCs (redirect)

  Any user/reader who is interested in the topic, easily finds the article via the redirects PFASs and PFAS.

  • This case is not really covered by WP:COMMONNAME. Also the example, i.e. Aspirin, is totally different from this request here.
  • The OECD and other multinational organizations use the full name.

--Leyo 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a reason I am not proposing moving the other compound ls, because those aren't commonly featured in the media. The purpose of an article title is also assuring users there are om the right page and the current title is not doing that for the majority of our readers. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are also examples to the contrary:

• TNT, not Trinitrotoluene or 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene

• DDT, not Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane -jakeyounglol (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support: Just as an observation, we have DDT and TNT, but Polychlorinated biphenyl instead of PCBs. I don't recognize most of the others that have been discussed above except Volatile organic compound. That one is different in at least two ways. One is that it is not a very obtuse and unfamiliar chemical name. Another is that it seems relatively important for people to understand what the abbreviation means in order to achieve any level of understanding about the subject – the basic idea is to refer to the group of organic compounds that easily evaporate – that's pretty simple and memorable. For the others, it does not seem important at all for a non-specialist to know what the abbreviation stands for. For this substance, I have seen "PFASs" in mainstream publications, but there is no hope of the average person remembering "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances", and no good reason for them to try. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the full name, it is clear that they consist of two types of substances perfluorinated and polyfluorinated. They are merged into one group, because the latter are transformed into the former under environmental conditions (also not quickly). --Leyo 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that is all very helpful to understand, but it is way beyond what we can expect of most readers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the same readers are likely to mistake "PFAS" for a single chemical, because of its similarity to e.g. PFOS, PFOA. BTW: This wouldn't happen with PFASs, which is consistent with e.g. PFSAs, PAHs, PBDEs, PCDDs, PCDFs etc. --Leyo 09:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that PFASs is better than PFAS. This falls under WP:SINGULAR's exception for classes of things. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:CONCISE. I do see some official website using the full name, while most either use the abbreviation (EPA, UK gov), or use both (NIH, UNEP, Canada gov). In news article titles, it's almost always the abbreviation or 'forever chemicals': (Guardian, NYT). Happy to go for the plural here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in either singular or plural (though slight preference for singular). PFAS appear in the media, and are abbreviated consistently enough, to justify the use of the acronym here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NCA and WP:COMMONNAME. Previously, in the last RM discussion I was on the fence about using the acronym, but ultimately, the acronym is the common name and should be used as the title. Most readers are searching the acronym and come to the article to learn its definition, not the other way around. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I oppose a move to PFASs. PFAS is by far the more common term, used for both the singular and the plural. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the WP:COMMONNAME, when a usage, especially in this case where the abbreviation is so overwhelmingly dominant, we should ensure that the title is the same as that used by nearly every reliable source. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, per the one "oppose" !vote, there is no reason that "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" could not be a redirect instead. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SUPPORT easier to find and common enough.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:

• Redirects are fine.
• It is about chemicals, not a brand.

See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Redirects Charles Dong (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry) has more about naming conventions about chemicals. Charles Dong (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Water Resource Engineering

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2025 and 10 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luke3x33 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Luke3x33 (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]