Non-polymer PFAS can build up in blood protein of animals, and is not always removed quickly. This means that predators eating PFAS-contaminated food will have higher levels in their bloodstream, and concentrations can increase up the food chain. Studies suggest that build up of PFAS is similar to those of other Persistent Organic Pollutants such as DDT.PFAS are estimated to be settling in arctic regions at rates of tens to hundreds of kilograms per year (25-850kg per year), depending on the specific PFAS chemical in question. Certain PFAS are released as gases to the environment and are blown a long way by wind and air currents in the atmosphere,. These gas PFAS will over time degrade to more persistent chemicals like PFOS and PFOA. This may be one reason why PFAS of environmental concern have been found in remote regions such as the Arctic as well as near PFAS production sitesPFAS including PFOS and PFOA have been found in air samples around Europe. The chemicals are found in small quantities, but appear in almost all samples tested. PFAS enters the atmosphere both from factories and the air inside our homes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17554424 PFAS is found in treated waste water from industrial and domestic sources and has been found in both rivers and groundwater. Conventional drinking water processes will not remove PFAS.PFAS-coated clothes that are thrown away will often end up either incinerated or in landfill. Unless incinerated at very high temperatures (>1000oC), fluorinated polymers could release more harmful PFAS during burning. PFAS of environmental concern have also been found in landfill leachate. Non-polymer PFAS are used in the production of fluorinated polymers. The manufacture of stain-resistant finishes generally releases these PFASs into the environment, both by air and water emissions. They are very hard to remove during water treatment. Workers in textiles factories are some of the population most exposed to these potentially harmful chemicals. Small quantities of PFAS will be removed during wash and wear of products containing PFAS. This includes fluorinated polymers used on stain-resistant coatings, and non-polymers that remain on clothes after production (Lassen et al. 2015).Most UK waste still ends up in landfill, and this includes PFAS-containing products. Studies have shown that the liquid coming from landfills (known as leachate) often contain non-polymer PFAS chemicals. In the USA the total quantities were estimated at 563-638 kg in 2013. To properly break down PFAS chemicals high temperature (1000oC or more) incineration is recommended. Incineration of municipal waste does not necessarily reach these temperatures (min temp. required is 850oC), and the incomplete breakdown could release non-polymer PFAS.Wash and wear of clothing that contains PFAS-based stain-resistant or water repellent finishes release PFAS to the environment. Coatings are thought to lose effectiveness after 20-30 washes. This can include non-polymer PFAS, remnant from production or as a break-down product of side-chain polymers (Lassen et al. 2015). The manufacture of stain-resistant finishes releases PFAS into the environment, both by air and water emissions. PFAS are very hard to remove during water treatment. Industrial emissions are estimated to be the biggest source of these chemicals to the environment.
19th December 2025

The Environmental Audit Committee’s third PFAS evidence session: our takeaways

The Environmental Audit Committee has held its third evidence session as part of its ongoing inquiry into the risks posed by PFAS. The Committee heard from leading toxicologists and chemists, alongside representatives from the UK’s water industry and the Agricultural Industries Confederation.

The health evidence demands decisive action

A central interest of the committee was the weight of evidence linking PFAS exposure to risks to public health. While experts acknowledged ongoing scientific uncertainty, particularly around the precise impacts and mechanisms of harm for many individual PFAS, experts stressed that the overall body of evidence is already substantial and growing. There was strong agreement across panellists that the existing evidence, along with the persistence and bioaccumulative capacity of PFAS, is sufficient to necessitate strong and collective action.

Some PFAS have been associated with a wide range of harmful health effects, across a variety of populations and human organ systems, including impacts on immune response [1], cholesterol levels [2], fertility [3], neurodevelopment [4] and certain cancers [5]. However, the panel emphasised that studying health effects in humans is inherently challenging: people are exposed to complex mixtures of chemicals every day, making it difficult to isolate a single cause and effect, and impacts may not always be seen in the short-term. Given there are many thousands of ‘forever chemicals’, awaiting studies on each substance risks unnecessary exposure continuing for decades. This has led experts to call for a ‘precautionary approach’, addressing all PFAS as a group based off the weight of existing evidence and to ensure public health is prioritised.

Experts called for PFAS to be regulated as a group

The same persistence that underpins concerns about PFAS health impacts also led experts to emphasise the need to regulate PFAS as an entire chemical class. Class-based regulation was presented as a more effective way to protect people from both known and unknown health impacts, while avoiding the regulatory delays and resource demands of a chemical-by-chemical approach. Experts also highlighted that narrow definitions risk creating loopholes, allowing certain PFAS uses or substitutes to escape scrutiny despite sharing the same persistent and bioaccumulative properties.

The EU is currently reviewing a comprehensive restriction of PFAS as an entire class, with derogations for specific essential uses. We are calling on the UK Government to take a similar approach by aligning with EU chemical regulation, including the proposed universal PFAS restriction, in line with the evidence presented to the EAC.

Pesticides are important sources of PFAS pollution

We welcomed the Committee’s decision to scrutinise PFAS-containing pesticides as a significant source of PFAS pollution in the environment. Committee members pointed to recent progress in Denmark, where approvals have been withdrawn for six PFAS pesticide active substances used across 33 different products. Read our new case study that reveals how Denmark is leading the way to phase out ‘forever chemicals’ in pesticides and what the UK can learn from their approach.

Some panellists emphasised that moving away from PFAS pesticides would require a carefully staged transition, that considers the availability of alternatives, whilst others highlighted the need for comprehensive action, reflecting the many pathways through which PFAS can enter the food system. While some concerns were raised about the economic impacts of phasing out PFAS pesticides, these must be considered alongside the costs of inaction. A recent report from Systemiq estimates that avoiding pesticide use in the EU could cost around $26,000 per tonne, compared with an estimated $700,000 per tonne in health and environmental damages from continued pesticide application [6].

The Committee also examined evidence that PFAS pesticides can degrade into trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), referencing Fidra’s assessment of TFA in UK rivers. TFA is a highly persistent short-chain PFAS formed through the partial breakdown of other PFAS, including those used in pesticides and refrigerants. Both the German Environment Agency and the Danish Environmental Protection Agency have identified PFAS pesticides as a significant source of TFA pollution [7], [8], with the Danish research directly informing the Danish Government’s recent decisions to restrict a number of PFAS pesticides. Sweden has also recently launched a review of the authorisations of 38 pesticides that contain an active substance that break down into TFA [9]. We are calling on the UK Government to ensure pesticides are captured within future action on PFAS to protect soil, water and public health.

Biosolids regulations must be updated to reflect the risks from PFAS

The Environmental Audit Committee also raised concerns about PFAS in sewage sludge, reflecting frequent correspondence from constituents on the spreading of biosolids to farmland. Witnesses noted that current controls are based on the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations from 1989, despite substantial new evidence emerging since then. There were calls for improved monitoring of PFAS in sewage sludge at wastewater treatment plants, with speakers highlighting this as a logical point for testing before treated sewage sludge (biosolids) is distributed to farms. However, some stressed the importance of applying the polluter pays principle, ensuring that the costs of testing, treatment and clean-up are borne by the companies responsible for PFAS pollution, rather than the public. The Committee also heard support for bringing fertilising products derived from wastewater and sewage sludge within the UK’s fertilising product regulations, which could help facilitate higher quality standards for the composition of biosolids themselves as well as recovered nutrient products.

The current regulatory framework does not adequately screen sewage sludge for the wide range of chemicals present in modern day wastewater, which includes inputs from landfill leachate, hospital effluent and urban runoff. This gap is particularly concerning given growing evidence that PFAS in biosolids can accumulate in soil over time [10], persist for decades or longer, and subsequently get released into water bodies through surface runoff, erosion and leaching. Our research conducted alongside the James Hutton Institute highlights the potential for PFAS in sewage sludge to damage soil health in the long term. Without stronger regulation and monitoring, the continued application of contaminated biosolids risks locking PFAS into agricultural soils and the food system for generations.

We are pleased to see the Environmental Audit Committee progressing with its inquiry into PFAS and look forward to seeing the recommendations made to Government.

Find out more:

PFAS pesticides

Fidra EAC evidence

EAC Evidence session transcript

References

[1]        D. W. Phelps, A. M. Connors, G. Ferrero, J. C. DeWitt, and J. A. Yoder, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances alter innate immune function: evidence and data gaps,” J Immunotoxicol, vol. 21, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1080/1547691X.2024.2343362.

[2]        M. E. Andersen et al., “Why is elevation of serum cholesterol associated with exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in humans? A workshop report on potential mechanisms,” Toxicology, vol. 459, p. 152845, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/J.TOX.2021.152845.

[3]        W. Wang, X. Hong, F. Zhao, J. Wu, and B. Wang, “The effects of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances on female fertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114718.

[4]        K. M. Ríos-Bonilla et al., “Neurotoxic Effects of Mixtures of Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at Environmental and Human Blood Concentrations,” Environ Sci Technol, 2024, doi: 10.1021/acs.est.4c06017.

[5]        S. Li et al., “Associations between per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and county-level cancer incidence between 2016 and 2021 and incident cancer burden attributable to PFAS in drinking water in the United States,” J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41370-024-00742-2.

[6]        Systemiq, “Invisible Ingredients,” Dec. 2025. Accessed: Dec. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.systemiq.earth/reports/invisible-ingredients/

[7]        K. Adlunger, J. M. Anke, and G. Bachem, “Reducing the input of chemicals into waters: trifluoroacetate (TFA) as a persistent and mobile substance with many sources,” Nov. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/

[8]        Danish Environmental Protection Agency, “TriFluPest,” Dec. 2024. Accessed: Dec. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://mst.dk/publikationer/2024/december/triflupest

[9]        ENDS Europe, “‘We must act’: Sweden initiates re-evaluation of PFAS pesticides.” Accessed: Dec. 19, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.endseurope.com/article/1940512/we-act-sweden-initiates-re-evaluation-pfas-pesticides

[10]      B. Biswas et al., “Contamination of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances in agricultural soils: A review,” J Environ Manage, vol. 380, p. 124993, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2025.124993.

 

Post Views: 381