Although limited data exists on perfluorinated chemicals in water, a recent study published in CIWEM’s Water and Environment Journal has found that perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) is not a widespread contaminant of drinking water in England.
PFOS has a number of industrial and commercial uses, including as a surfactant for fire-fighting foam, a mist suppressant for metal-plating baths and in dirt-repellent treatments such as those used in the textile and carpet industries. However, PFOS has been shown to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, very resistant to breakdown processes found in the environment. It is a focus for restriction within the European Union, with a Directive to restrict the use of PFOS coming into force at the end of 2007.
Limited monitoring data is available for PFOS in environmental waters, and even less for its detection in drinking water. Data available in the United Kingdom indicate that PFOS contamination of environmental waters has only occurred following specific, pollution incidents. Even when groundwater contamination is more significant, such as the case following the use of PFOS-containing fire-fighting foams following the Buncefield Oil Depot fire, the amount reaching surface waters and drinking water appears to be limited. However, this incident heightened the priority for gathering monitoring data.
This study, which monitored 20 raw and treated drinking water sites in England and covering four seasonal periods, showed that PFOS is not a widespread background contaminant of raw and treated drinking water in England. Where PFOS was detected, concentrations were below the current DWI English and Welsh drinking water guidance levels, and the water source was considered at higher risk due to a specific incident, or the presence of a local source of contamination (e.g. an airfield).
Source: The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
This press release is presented without editing for your information only.
Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.
