F-gases, Fluoropolymers and PFAS – unpacking the ‘F’amily Ties
Fluorinated gases (F-gases) and fluoropolymers frequently come up in the PFAS conversation – but what exactly are they? In simple terms, fluoropolymers can be considered as ‘PFAS plastics’ and some F-gases as ‘PFAS gases’. Although it should be noted not all F-gases are PFAS.
F-gases ‘PFAS gases’
Fluorinated gases or ‘F-gases’ are used for cooling in fridges, air conditioners, heat pumps and cars, and some are a major source of PFAS pollution, contributing to more than half of all PFAS emissions [1]. However, PFAS-free natural refrigerants, like CO2 and ammonia, are already widely available, safe and cost effective [2], [3], [4].
These natural alternatives can easily replace PFAS F-gases in most applications without compromising efficiency or profitability. So why are PFAS still used in some F-gases?
To help explain this, it’s useful to look back at the history of F-gases.
The history of F-gases – a story of regrettable substitution
F-gases FAQs
Only certain types of HFCs and HFOs contribute to PFAS pollution. However, evidence shows that PFAS F‑gases are widely used, and some HFOs break down more readily into TFA than their HFC predecessors, leading to widespread pollution. For example, a study in 2021 found that the switch from HFCs to HFOs in the early 2000s led to a 33-fold increase in the global burden of TFA, and up to a 250-fold increase of TFA in surface water concentrations in some parts of Europe[10].
Many alternatives are already readily available. Natural refrigerants for example, such as CO2 and ammonia, can be used successfully, safely, affordably and without reliance on PFAS for many F-gas applications [4], [14], however dominance of synthetic alternatives has so far prevented their widespread adoption.
The UK is currently reviewing its F-gas regulation and although the UK Government has committed to a phase-down of HFCs [8], there is a lack of urgency compared with our European neighbours and the UK is yet to act on HFOs. With heat pump installations expected to increase in the near future[15], there is a significant risk industry will shift to using more HFOs, including PFAS HFOs, in the UK, leading to more PFAS pollution[11].
It is essential that F-gases classified as PFAS are included in a single set of overarching PFAS regulations within the UK. Sector-specific reviews can miss the broader impact of PFAS-containing products throughout their life cycle, e.g. through degradation into PFAS like TFA. A unified approach to regulation would close these gaps and better control PFAS risks. The hopeful news is that many PFAS F-gases can easily transition to safer alternatives that are already widely available[14], [16], ready for the industry to make a positive step.
Fluoropolymers ‘PFAS plastics’
Fluoropolymers represent a distinct subgroup of PFAS and include one of the most well known – polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), often branded as Teflon, commonly used in non-stick frying pans. Fluoropolymers are essentially plastics made with PFAS, often used for creating non-stick surfaces and offering high-temperature resistance in a range of products.
While fluoropolymers may be convenient, they come with a heavy environmental cost. Not only are they PFAS themselves, but their production, use and disposal contribute significantly to wider PFAS emissions, as well as microplastic pollution[17].
Pollution during production
In the production of fluoropolymers, other types of PFAS are commonly used at various stages. For example, PFAS are often used as ‘processing aids’ to stabilise the materials and make their production easier*[18]. For decades, PFOA, now one of the most widely restricted PFAS, was used as a processing aid to make fluoropolymers. This led to widespread PFAS pollution, with an estimated 72% of global PFOA/PFO emissions tied to fluoropolymers from 1950 to 2004 [19]. PFOA was banned under the Stockholm Convention in 2019 due to its harmful effects [20], prompting the industry to shift to newer PFAS for processing aids, like GenX and EEA-NH4. However, concerns are already being raised about these replacement PFAS, highlighting the problem of ‘regrettable substitution’. For example, the UK has proposed classifying EEA-NH4 as carcinogenic and toxic to reproductive health. In addition, GenX is already being detected in the environment and drinking water source near fluoropolymer production plants, with growing evidence of similar health and environmental concerns[21], [22].
Pollution doesn’t just stop with processing aids during the production of fluoropolymers, emissions from monomers (molecules that form polymers), other fluorinated by-products and PFAS F-gases also occur[17]. Some of these PFAS emissions can then transform into other PFAS once in the environment[18]. We know very little about the quantity and the structural identities of the numerous additional PFAS emitted during fluoropolymer production and the potential risks for public health and the environment.
*Fluoropolymers made through the emulsion polymerization process require fluorosurfactants or ‘processing aids’ to emulsify and stabilize aqueous dispersions.
Pollution during use
Though fluoropolymers are highly stable, they may degrade under more extreme use conditions, like high heat, interactions with some other chemicals and physical wear. The level of pollution coming from fluoropolymer products also varies substantially across different fluoropolymer substances and product types, due to differing production and treatment processes. Additionally, there are notable research gaps regarding emissions from across the various fluoropolymer products available [17].
One more thoroughly researched example considers potential emissions from fluoropolymers used in cookware. If a cookware item has not been properly pre-treated, research has shown this can result in the leaching of PFAS residues into food during cooking [17]. There is also evidence that PTFE can leach microplastics and nanoplastics from cookware. In a recent study, it was found that PTFE and plastic cookware could be contributing thousands of microplastics into home cooked food every year [23].
Pollution during disposal
Fluoropolymers present huge challenges when dealing with their disposal. The disposal of fluoropolymers in landfills can result in the contamination of landfill leachate with PFAS and can contribute to the release of PFAS and plastic pollution into the environment [17].
Disposal through incineration is not well understood. Incineration may not fully destroy PFAS and can also create harmful by-products[17]. For example, when PTFE is heated to temperatures between 250 and 600 degrees it can produce TFA, a highly mobile, short chained PFAS [24]. Additionally, it is unclear to what extent other unmonitored PFAS may form from incineration, one study found incineration of a common fluoropolymer, PCTFE, led to the production of over 50 by-products [25].
Finally recycling fluoropolymers after consumer use is extremely challenging due to complex product integration (e.g. coatings on metals), fillers and contamination.
Fluoropolymer FAQs
Fluoropolymers are the second most produced subgroup of PFAS after PFAS fluorinated gases and are used in a wide range of products, such as cookware, waterproof clothing, battery membranes, and building materials[18]. Despite claims of their safety and essentiality, research suggests that fluoropolymers result in harmful PFAS emissions and production statistics reveal that only 8% of fluoropolymers produced are used for critical applications, such as medical devices [26].
The UK does not currently regulate fluoropolymers. While they are referenced in the UK’s PFAS plan, this is limited to a commitment to do further research on their historical and current use. Given their widespread use and pollution associated with these substances, it is essential that fluoropolymers be incorporated into a comprehensive single set of overarching PFAS regulation within the UK, aimed at restricting their use. Doing so presents a huge opportunity to effectively reduce emissions of highly persistent chemicals and safeguard people and the environment.
Are there safer alternatives to fluoropolymers?
Increasingly there are safer alternatives being produced for fluoropolymers across various sectors. Hover over the images below to discover some of the innovative solutions to fluoropolymers currently available.
* It should be noted Fidra does not endorse these specific brands; they are mentioned solely as examples for demonstration purposes.
Alternatives for frying pans
Stainless steel frying pans without a plastic coating are PFAS-free. Sol-Gel non-stick is another alternative that creates a non-stick surface for pans without PFAS[27].
Alternatives for solar panels
Companies like Endurans solar have created several PFAS-free alternatives for solar back-sheets used in solar panels[28].
Alternatives for electric cars
Companies such as E-lyte Innovations and Nanoramic Technologies provide solutions to avoid PFAS used in lithium-ion batteries for electric cars[28].
Alternatives for waterproof clothing
There are many waterproof clothing brands that are PFAS-free, such as Alpkit[29], Polartec[30] and Lowe Alpine[31].
References
[1] “ANNEX XV RESTRICTION REPORT PROPOSAL FOR A RESTRICTION SUBSTANCE NAME(S): Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).”
[2] ATMOphere, “Natural Refrigerants: State of the Industry,” 2023.
[3] “F-GASES, AN UNPRECEDENTED CASE OF CHEMICAL POLLUTION – META.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://meta.eeb.org/2024/05/29/f-gases-an-unprecedented-case-of-chemical-pollution/
[4] “Stop using F-gases! Here are the alternatives.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chemsec.org/stop-using-f-gases-here-are-the-alternatives/
[5] P. A. Newman et al., “What would have happened to the ozone layer if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been regulated?,” Atmos Chem Phys, vol. 9, no. 6, 2009, doi: 10.5194/acp-9-2113-2009.
[6] “About Montreal Protocol.” Accessed: Oct. 24, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol
[7] United Nations, “Global Warming Potentials (IPCC Second Assessment Report).”
[8] UK Government, “Guidance Fluorinated gases (F gases).”
[9] “Climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs – European Commission.” Accessed: Nov. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/fluorinated-greenhouse-gases/climate-friendly-alternatives-hfcs_en
[10] R. Holland et al., “Investigation of the Production of Trifluoroacetic Acid from Two Halocarbons, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf and Its Fates Using a Global Three-Dimensional Chemical Transport Model,” ACS Earth Space Chem, vol. 5, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.0c00355.
[11] “HFO TFA Report 2022 – ATMOsphere.” Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://atmosphere.cool/hfo-tfa-report/
[12] OECD, “About PFASs – OECD Portal on Per and Poly Fluorinated Chemicals.” Accessed: Jun. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-chemicals/aboutpfass/
[13] OECD, “Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance Series on Risk Management No.61 JT03479350 OFDE,” 2021.
[14] “Approved Companies – ATMOsphere.” Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://atmosphere.cool/approved-companies/
[15] “Heat pump net zero investment roadmap – GOV.UK.” Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/heat-pump-net-zero-investment-roadmap
[16] “Stop using F-gases! Here are the alternatives.” Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chemsec.org/stop-using-f-gases-here-are-the-alternatives/
[17] R. Lohmann et al., “Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?,” Environ Sci Technol, vol. 54, no. 20, pp. 12820–12828, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1021/ACS.EST.0C03244/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/ES0C03244_0002.JPEG.
[18] J. Dalmijn, J. Glüge, M. Scheringer, and I. T. Cousins, “Emission inventory of PFASs and other fluorinated organic substances for the fluoropolymer production industry in Europe,” Environ Sci Process Impacts, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 269–287, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1039/d3em00426k.
[19] J. Armitage et al., “Modeling global-scale fate and transport of perfluorooctanoate emitted from direct sources,” Environ Sci Technol, vol. 40, no. 22, 2006, doi: 10.1021/es0614870.
[20] UNEP, “Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), PFAS overview.” Accessed: Oct. 21, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chm.pops.int/Implementation/IndustrialPOPs/PFAS/Overview/tabid/5221/Default.aspx
[21] E. O’rourke et al., “Persistence of PFOA Pollution at a PTFE Production Site and Occurrence of Replacement PFASs in English Freshwaters Revealed by Sentinel Species, the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra),” Cite This: Environ. Sci. Technol, vol. 58, pp. 10195–10206, 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c09405.
[22] S. H. Brandsma, J. C. Koekkoek, M. J. M. van Velzen, and J. de Boer, “The PFOA substitute GenX detected in the environment near a fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in the Netherlands,” Chemosphere, vol. 220, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.135.
[23] M. Cole, A. Gomiero, A. Jaén-Gil, M. Haave, and A. Lusher, “Microplastic and PTFE contamination of food from cookware,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 929, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172577.
[24] J. Cui, J. Guo, Z. Zhai, and J. Zhang, “The contribution of fluoropolymer thermolysis to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in environmental media,” Chemosphere, vol. 222, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.01.174.
[25] A. L. Myers, K. J. Jobst, S. A. Mabury, and E. J. Reiner, “Using mass defect plots as a discovery tool to identify novel fluoropolymer thermal decomposition products,” Journal of Mass Spectrometry, vol. 49, no. 4, 2014, doi: 10.1002/jms.3340.
[26] “Slam debunkin’ three myths about fluoropolymers.” Accessed: Nov. 19, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://chemsec.org/slam-debunkin-three-myths-about-fluoropolymers/
[27] “Sol-Gel non-stick food safe ceramic coating – Surface Technology UK.” Accessed: Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.surfacetechnology.co.uk/surface-coatings/sol-gel-non-stick-ceramic-coating/
[28] CHEMTrust, “Frequently Asked Questions: PFAS and the green transition,” Jul. 2024.
[29] “What Is PFC-Free Clothing and Equipment? | Alpkit.” Accessed: Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://alpkit.com/blogs/spotlight/pfc-free-outdoor-gear?srsltid=AfmBOoqajH-tGKZXIzTiUCStu2xu7BGmKq7eWlGrsk1lzdF_uhBn97NZ
[30] “Announcing Full Use of Non-PFAS DWR Treatments | Polartec®.” Accessed: Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.polartec.com/news/polartec-announces-full-use-of-non-pfas-dwr-treatments
[31] “All Lowe Alpine Packs – Rab® EU.” Accessed: Nov. 20, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://rab.equipment/eu/backpacks/all-lowe-alpine-packs?pf_select_claims=Fluorocarbon%20%28PFAS%29%20free%20fabric
[33] Jing Wu et al. (2025). Development and validation of a gridded emissions inventory for HFC-134a in China. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025002867
[34] OECD Series on risk management of chemicals. (2025). Synthesis report on understanding fluoropolymers and their life cycle. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/synthesis-report-on-understanding-fluoropolymers-and-their-life-cycle_35b035df-en.html