Despite decades of research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), fundamental obstacles remain to addressing worldwide contamination by these chemicals and their associated impacts on environmental quality and health. Here, we propose six urgent questions relevant to science, technology, and policy that must be tackled to address the “PFAS problem”: (1) What are the global production volumes of PFAS, and where are PFAS used? (2) Where are the unknown PFAS hotspots in the environment? (3) How can we make measuring PFAS globally accessible? (4) How can we safely manage PFAS-containing waste? (5) How do we understand and describe the health effects of PFAS exposure? (6) Who pays the costs of PFAS contamination? The importance of each question and barriers to progress are briefly described, and several potential paths forward are proposed. Given the diversity of PFAS and their uses, the extreme persistence of most PFAS, the striking ongoing lack of fundamental information, and the inequity of the health and environmental impacts from PFAS contamination, there is a need for scientific and regulatory communities to work together, with cooperation from PFAS-related industries, to fill in critical data gaps and protect human health and the environment. 

The essential-use concept is a tool that can guide the phase-out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and potentially other substances of concern. This concept is a novel approach to chemicals management that determines whether using substances of concern, such as PFAS, is truly essential for a given functionality. To assess the essentiality of a particular use case, three considerations need to be addressed: (1) the function (chemical, end use and service) that the chemical provides in the use case, (2) whether the function is necessary for health and safety and critical for the functioning of society and (3) if the function is necessary, whether there are viable alternatives for the chemical for this particular use. A few illustrative examples of the three-step process are provided for use cases of PFAS. The essential-use concept takes chemicals management away from a substance-by-substance approach to a group approach. For PFAS and other substances of concern, it offers a more rapid pathway toward effective management or phase-out. Parts of the concept of essential use have already been widely applied in global treaties and international regulations and it has also been recently used by product manufacturers and retailers to phase out substances of concern from supply chains. Herein some of the common questions and misinterpretations regarding the practical application of the essential-use concept are reviewed, and answers and further clarifications are provided.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are of concern because of their high persistence (or that of their degradation products) and their impacts on human and environmental health that are known or can be deduced from some well-studied PFAS. Currently, many different PFAS (on the order of several thousands) are used in a wide range of applications, and there is no comprehensive source of information on the many individual substances and their functions in different applications. Here we provide a broad overview of many use categories where PFAS have been employed and for which function; we also specify which PFAS have been used and discuss the magnitude of the uses. Despite being non-exhaustive, our study clearly demonstrates that PFAS are used in almost all industry branches and many consumer products. In total, more than 200 use categories and subcategories are identified for more than 1400 individual PFAS. In addition to well-known categories such as textile impregnation, fire-fighting foam, and electroplating, the identified use categories also include many categories not described in the scientific literature, including PFAS in ammunition, climbing ropes, guitar strings, artificial turf, and soil remediation. We further discuss several use categories that may be prioritised for finding PFAS-free alternatives. Besides the detailed description of use categories, the present study also provides a list of the identified PFAS per use category, including their exact masses for future analytical studies aiming to identify additional PFAS.

Fluoropolymers are a group of polymers within the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the evidence regarding the environmental and human health impacts of fluoropolymers throughout their life cycle(s). Production of some fluoropolymers is intimately linked to the use and emissions of legacy and novel PFAS as polymer processing aids. There are serious concerns regarding the toxicity and adverse effects of fluorinated processing aids on humans and the environment. A variety of other PFAS, including monomers and oligomers, are emitted during the production, processing, use, and end-of-life treatment of fluoropolymers. There are further concerns regarding the safe disposal of fluoropolymers and their associated products and articles at the end of their life cycle. While recycling and reuse of fluoropolymers is performed on some industrial waste, there are only limited options for their recycling from consumer articles. The evidence reviewed in this analysis does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health. Given fluoropolymers' extreme persistence; emissions associated with their production, use, and disposal; and a high likelihood for human exposure to PFAS, their production and uses should be curtailed except in cases of essential uses.

Grouping strategies are needed for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in part, because it would be time and resource intensive to test and evaluate the more than 4700 PFAS on the global market on a chemical-by-chemical basis. In this paper we review various grouping strategies that could be used to inform actions on these chemicals and outline the motivations, advantages and disadvantages for each. Grouping strategies are subdivided into (1) those based on the intrinsic properties of the PFAS (e.g.persistence, bioaccumulation potential, toxicity, mobility, molecular size) and (2) those that inform risk assessment through estimation of cumulative exposure and/or effects. The most precautionary grouping approach of those reviewed within this article suggests phasing out PFAS based on their high persistence alone (the so-called P-sufficient approach). The least precautionary grouping approach reviewed advocates only grouping PFAS for risk assessment that have the same toxicological effects, modes and mechanisms of action, and elimination kinetics, which would need to be well documented across different PFAS. It is recognised that, given jurisdictional differences in chemical assessment philosophies and methodologies, no one strategy will be generally acceptable. The guiding question we apply to the reviewed grouping strategies is: grouping for what purpose? The motivation behind the grouping (e.g.determining use in productsvs.setting guideline levels for contaminated environments) may lead to different grouping decisions. This assessment provides the necessary context for grouping strategies such that they can be adopted as they are, or built on further, to protect human and environmental health from potential PFAS-related effects.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic organic substances with diverse structures, properties, uses, bioaccumulation potentials and toxicities. Despite this high diversity, all PFAS are alike in that they contain perfluoroalkyl moieties that are extremely resistant to environmental and metabolic degradation. The vast majority of PFAS are therefore either non-degradable or transform ultimately into stable terminal transformation products (which are still PFAS). Under the European chemicals regulation this classifies PFAS as very persistent substances (vP). We argue that this high persistence is sufficient concern for their management as a chemical class, and for all non-essential uses of PFAS to be phased out. The continual release of highly persistent PFAS will result in increasing concentrations and increasing probabilities of the occurrence of known and unknown effects. Once adverse effects are identified, the exposure and associated effects will not be easily reversible. Reversing PFAS contamination will be technically challenging, energy intensive, and costly for society, as is evident in the efforts to remove PFAS from contaminated land and drinking water sources.

Because of the extreme persistence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and their associated risks, the Madrid Statement argues for stopping their use where they are deemed not essential or when safer alternatives exist. To determine when uses of PFASs have an essential function in modern society, and when they do not, is not an easy task. Here, we: (1) develop the concept of essential use based on an existing approach described in the Montreal Protocol, (2) apply the concept to various uses of PFASs to determine the feasibility of elimination or substitution of PFASs in each use category, and (3) outline the challenges for phasing out uses of PFASs in society. In brief, we developed three distinct categories to describe the different levels of essentiality of individual uses. A phase-out of many uses of PFASs can be implemented because they are not necessary for the betterment of society in terms of health and safety, or because functional alternatives are currently available that can be substituted into these products or applications. Some specific uses of PFASs would be considered essential because they provide for vital functions and are currently without established alternatives. However, this essentiality should not be considered as permanent; rather, constant efforts are needed to search for alternatives. We provide a description of several ongoing uses of PFASs and discuss whether these uses are essential or non-essential according to the three essentiality categories. It is not possible to describe each use case of PFASs in detail in this single article. For follow-up work, we suggest further refining the assessment of the use cases of PFASs covered here, where necessary, and expanding the application of this concept to all other uses of PFASs. The concept of essential use can also be applied in the management of other chemicals, or groups of chemicals, of concern.