Guitar Strings and Prozac: The Paradox of PFAS

From guitar strings to pharmaceuticals, cookware to pizza boxes, makeup to waterproof clothing, it’s a sure bet that most of us have per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in our homes; we might even use products containing them on a daily basis. So are all PFAS bad?

There are tens of thousands of PFAS in existence, “which makes studying and regulating PFAS individually, or even as small mixtures, infeasible,” noted the authors of the study “The Implications of PFAS definitions using fluorinated pharmaceuticals,” published in the journal iScience by a group of Boston University researchers. “Multiple PFAS definitions based on structure have been proposed, yet these definitions do not consider the implications for the full suite of organofluorine chemicals.”

“For this group of compounds, the definitions offer different and conflicting views of what is and is not ‘PFAS,’” said study lead author Emily Hammel in an interview with Boston University’s School of Public Health.

Some definitions are ambiguously written and have multiple interpretations, she added, noting, “The reality is that this is a very large class of chemicals used in a variety of applications, and there may not be a universally useful definition. The real danger is not adopting any definition, for fear of not having a perfect definition, and the consequential delay in decision making.”