Environmental Impact of Clothing Revealed

It's not easy finding information on the waste products, the energy used, or the carbon dioxide produced by your favorite shoe manufacturer or clothing company, but that's exactly what Patagonia (you know, the expensive but generally well-made and stylish outdoor adventure clothing company) does on their site, called the "Footprint Chronicles^TM ."

Of course not many of us really want to know. But this winter I'll be working with students at a local high school building a website that focuses on the environmental impacts of their favorite outfits. When I came across the Patagonia site, I knew I had my model.

They highlight a few key products (an organic cotton t-shirt, a waterproof shell, a wool sweater and a leather shoe,) covering the major categories of textiles, and provide details on the carbon dioxide production, energy use, and waste production.

For example according to the site, fiber for the cotton T originated in Izmir Turkey, traveled to Bangkok for spinning and sewing and then on to Reno, Nevada for distribution, traveling 14,100 miles, and generating 27 pounds of CO2 (remember this is a gas!), ten ounces of waste, and using enough electricity to power an 18w compact fluorescent bulb for 72 days.

After trying in vain to gather information on the ubiquitous Crocs ( a couple of emails to Tia Mattson their public relations manager asking questions about recycling and the chemistry of crosslite (PCCR) the primary material - only left me waiting by the phone for her call which never came), the apparent openness of Patagonia was a welcome find.

Of course, ever the skeptic I tried to find the holes. What about tanning? What about other toxics surely used in dying processes? Well, I couldn't find much on dying, but on their discussion page, readers did raise questions about tanning, and, the "localcrew" responded to reader's comments with seemingly honest and useful information. Patagonia also notes that although they still use PFOA in their "Eco-Rain Shell" they are seeking alternatives to the persistent environmental contaminant. Finally, a closer look at endpoints like "waste generated" reveals that this includes only solid waste, and not liquid or hazardous waste.

At the very least, it'll be a great place for students to begin, for in addition to maps and videos of manufacturing locations, they also provide detailed references which include several websites on Life-cycle analysis for various materials, energy use, and CO2 emissions.

Check it out, and thank you Patagonia for doing (at least part of) my howework!

Electronics Recycling Can be a Dirty Business, or Not....

Electronic Recycling Parts I and II: Reprinted from the Montague Reporter

Part I

When I mentioned I was doing some research into e-waste, or electronic waste, meaning anything from iPods to computers, my neighbor Patrick groused, “I’ve got a ware-house half-full of computers. I don’t know what to do with them.” Patrick owns several Turn it Up! record and CD stores, providing plenty of opportunity for e-waste. Later that day I mentioned the e-waste issue to William, a self-employed computer repair and software expert. He pointed to a tall shelf stuffed with old computer parts.

Patrick and William aren’t alone. We’ve all got some, haunting us with their lack of utility, taking up space. I’ve got an old monitor in my shed, a laptop no one wants (not even the kids) under the couch, and then there’s the box labeled, “Misc. electronics stuff.”

In a recent report on e-waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that of the almost two billion electronics sold (this includes things like laptops, desktops, cell phones, keyboards) over the past twenty-four years, roughly 180 million units are in storage somewhere, lurking in basements, attics and sheds around the nation.

William told me a while back he’d carted a bunch of his old computer parts down to his local elementary school, “They were recycling a bunch of their own stuff – I asked their permission, of course – but I have no idea what happened after that.”

What happens after that it the big question. A question all of use who use computers, digital cameras, cell phones and iPods ought to be asking. As many of us already know – for the most part – you can’t give the stuff away, particularly things like computers, even if they’re still in fine working condition. Many years ago, when computers were room-sized modern miracles, my father helped pioneer the Used Computer business, buying and selling the behemoths across the country and around the world. But, over the period of a couple of decades as computer chips shrank, and the million dollar equipment that used to require its own air-conditioned room evolved into desk-top computers that cost a few hundred dollars, he also observed the demise of the used computer business. A decade ago, when visiting Israel, he was shown an empty classroom. “Our computer room,” they hinted. He offered to fill it with completely functional used desktops for free – they declined. They wanted new.

These days new doesn’t last long. In fact my four-year old IBM is at the shop around the corner– and I can only hope if my hard drive has taken its last spin, that Veronica and Cathy who are tending to it, can save the e-mails that were never backed up, the early drafts, the photos and all those iTunes my son downloaded.

“I know how many we see die, and the landfill thing just kills me,” said Veronica, when I mentioned e-waste. As I imagine is the case with most computer ER’s like Veronica’s, the workshop was filled with computer cases, monitors and cables. I asked Veronica about rebuilding, or updating old computers. “We can take an old case,” she said, “but the new motherboards just don’t fit in them.” We were standing over a large box filled with circuit boards bound for the recyclers, each board a different concoction of colorful wires, copper, precious metals (gold, silver, and platinum) and plastic. These boards are the heart and soul of our computers and sought out by recyclers around the world interested in recovering metals, and this is where my own journey into the toxicology and politics of e-waste really begins.

Recently two disturbing articles on e-waste published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology caught my eye. The title of the first article, by Huiru Li and others, is Severe PCDD/F and PBDD/F Pollution in Air around an Electronic Waste Dismantling Area in China and the other by Xinhui Bi and others is Exposure of Electronics Dismantling Workers to Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Organochlorine Pesticides in South China. The titles say it all. Together these articles describe the exceedingly high concentrations of toxic chemicals released from e-waste plastics that contaminate not only the workers who dismantle and “recycle” e-waste.

But what has this got to do with me and my useless electronics?

According to the authors, upwards of one million tons of electronic waste is shipped to China from the United States, Europe and other countries, and as they note, “Unfortunately, appropriate methods and advanced techniques to deal with such a great quantity of EW [e-waste] in China are lacking. Cheap and primordial methods, like manual disassembly, roasting, and combustion, are often used to dismantle the EW to recover valuable metals, plastics, and electronic devices.”

Roasting. We’re talking toxic metals and plastics like polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene which often contain chlorides and flame retardants including polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. Although the impacts of PBDE exposure on humans is unclear, in animal studies they impair thyroid function (in fact, a recent study associates PBDEs with hyperthyroidism in house cats), additionally these chemicals are widespread in the environment, and like their polychlorinated cousins (for example PCBs and dioxins) are persistent in the environment, accumulating in both humans and in wildlife. But that’s not all folks, when heated the plastics and the chemicals with which they’re impregnated melt and recombine to form even more toxic products including polychlorinated and polybrominated dioxins, which then contaminate not only the worker’s air, but the air of local villages, delivering these hazardous chemicals to both the oldest and youngest residents. In fact, based on concentrations in local air, the authors estimate that residents may be exposed to upwards of fifty times the total daily intake of toxic equivalents established by the World Health Organization (because chemicals like dioxins really represent a large family of similarly shaped chemicals with a broad range of toxicity – toxic equivalents are used to establish a single number that can be used to refer to toxic doses of dioxin and like-chemical mixtures), and, they add, workers are likely exposed to much higher amounts.

My thoughts turned to the monitor in the shed, and the laptop under the couch. In our Massachusetts town, for five dollars a piece I cart the monitor and laptop over to the local transfer station. But surely they don’t end up in one of those communities I’d read about? Or do they?

Part II

“Great question,” says Jan Ameen, the executive director of my county’s solid waste management district. “The company most towns use had been processing everything in the U.S.China. I heard they don’t do that anymore. We are looking into different companies that appear to have a better market.” They got bought out a couple of years ago and I just thought to ask about their markets. A bunch of end product goes overseas. …the company Montague uses was sending things on a box car to

My heart sank. Our little town of Montague tends towards the progressive. We’ve got great recycling, Prius’s zip through town, and biodiesels abound. Solar panels glint from rooftops and good luck to the Nestle Corporation, currently considering sucking spring water from the Montague Plains. After a few more e-mail exchanges with Jan, I began to wonder if it was even possible to ensure that our e-waste did not sicken workers nor contaminate their local environment.

I was on a mission. Jan gave me the names of a few local companies that collect e-waste and after Googling e-waste and recycling, I sent a raft of emails to various companies around the country. “I am interested in learning about e-waste recycling and dismantling,” I wrote, and attached a list of questions I’d hope would get some answers. Perhaps I shouldn’t have included that I was a toxicologist and a writer. I received just one response.

“Almost any electronic waste can be recycled,” wrote Andrew McManus, Environmental Engineer at Metech International, a large precious metal and electronic waste recycler with facilities in Worcester, MA and Gilroy, CA, which serves commercial businesses and equipment manufacturers. In response to the questions I’d sent, he provided a detailed narrative of what happens to the plastics, metals, and batteries once they leave our homes and enter their facility.

“Current historic high prices for base and precious metals, rapid changeover of technology, data security systems, and high labor costs,” explained McManus, “favor shredding domestically.

Current standard shredding process is as follows: Desktop computers usually have one small "button-cell" lithium metal battery inside which functions as the computer memory clock. Typically the case is opened, the main circuit board is pulled out, and the battery is removed. The entire CPU frame is placed on a conveyor and shredded. A magnetic belt removes the steel after shredding, sometimes followed by an Eddy Current separator to remove non-ferrous metals like aluminum and copper materials. The remaining mixed material contains circuit boards, some mixed metals, and plastic.”

This was all very interesting, and positive, until I got to the following:

“This is sent overseas to a smelter for recovery of the copper, precious metals, and other base metals while the remaining plastic/circuit board is consumed as fuel in the process. There are no facilities in the U.S. that can take circuit boards and effectively recover metals.”

“Overseas,” I responded, “as in Asia? Why are there no facilities in the U.S.?” I thought about the box of circuit boards at Veronica’s, and imagined them waiting to be roasted in Guiyu, China. Knowing that the conditions in China and elsewhere was likely a sensitive topic, thanks in part to the Basal Action Network, a nonprofit toxic-trade watchdog group, responsible for the documentary, “Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia,” and more recently “The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa,” I wondered if McManus would answer.

The response was swift, maybe for those reasons above, he was quick to point out they do not ship circuit boards to Asia.

“We send our circuit boards to Germany, Sweden, or Belgium. There are also large smelters in Canada and Japan.”

In response to my question about why no U.S. facilities, McManus wrote, “In my opinion there are none in the U.S. because our government in unwilling to establish conditions favorable to operate. Regulations are no stricter than other places in the world. Our environmental agencies do not co-operate with business, and our legal system makes lawsuits by almost any party a constant risk. The complexity of materials would require an enormous capital investment. The German smelter, Norddeutsche Affinerie, recently announced they plan to build a secondary copper smelter to recover electronic waste in Louisiana.”

His comments about difficulties with recycling in our own country where we’ve got electronic gadgets galore, made me wonder about who ought to be responsible for recycling, aside from the consumer, many of whom would like to do the right thing but who just don’t have the time to investigate what happens to their cast-offs once they’ve deposited them at the town transfer station.

Turns out this is a question that states across the country have been asking in recent years, with California, of course, leading the way. Back in 2003 California enacted “The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003” requiring retailers to collect e-waste recycling fees from consumers, which then cover the cost of collection and recycling of unwanted electronics. This is just one approach. Another is to hold the producer responsible. According to Dennis Brown Vice President of State Government Relations for the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, eight states so far have passed electronic recycling legislation with seven of the eight enacting producer responsibility legislation and it looks like Massachusetts may follow suit.

“Massachusetts is all the more unlikely to do what California did if it results in a ten dollar tax – New Hampshire would throw a party for the legislature if they did,” says Brown, adding that, “producer responsibility to develop programs for recycling also spurs development of more green products.”

And some producers are already reclaiming their own materials. Most recently, Sony announced a take-back program for any Sony product, joining computer companies Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Apple, all of which now have some version of recycling (Dell for example will take back any brand of computer upon purchase of a new Dell.)

This all seems like great news, but none of it answers the “Then What,” question. Most companies refer to their “environmentally responsible practices,” but it would take some digging to learn specifics. What would Massachusetts do if they enacted legislation requiring some sort of recycling?

According to Greg Cooper of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, “The legislation would hopefully build on the existing collection and processing infrastructure that Massachusetts has built since its, first in the nation, ban on the disposal of televisions and computer monitors and ensure that e-waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner."

Thankfully, I don’t need to think about recycling the old IBM just yet – Veronica and Cathy fixed it up just fine - but hopefully when the day comes for the blue screen of death to rear it’s ugly head – I’ll be able to send her off for disassembly and recycling without contaminating workers and their families half-way around the world.

For more information check out EPA's site on e-waste and the Basal Action Network's site. If you want a whole book about it, read High Tech Trash, by Elizabeth Grossman, published by Island Press.

For detailed information on Cell Phone recycling see: Cell Phone Recycling

Please feel free to distribute or reprint with proper attribution: E. Monosson, theneighborhoodtoxicologist.blogspot.com

Our bodies, the ultimate transformers: PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals in our bodies

Our bodies are constantly working, transforming chemicals from one form to another like that bagel and cream cheese I had for breakfast into something hopefully more useful or, the chemicals from that greaseproof food-packaging paper into something more toxic. Whoa. What?

A few posts back I wrote about perfluorinated chemicals – known as PFOA and PFOS - used for waterproofing and nonstick pans. Then I added a post about PFOA and popcorn bags. Now it’s even more insidious and complicated than being exposed to just PFOA. Considering recently reported concentrations of these chemicals in human blood, Jessica D’Eon and Scott Mabury, in a study just published in Environmental Science and Technology suggest that concentrations in humans are likely the result of “exposure to current-use fluorinated materials and not the historical load present in the environment,” (Certain perfluorinated chemicals have been phased out of use by major producers once recognized as human and environmental contaminants.)

These current-use chemicals, particularly those used to manufacture waterproof or greaseproof paper (think microwave popcorn,) known as polyfluoroalkyl phosphate surfactants or PAPs, can be transformed once transferred from say, that greasy microwave popcorn bag to our fingers or popcorn and then to our guts, not only into PFOA (which a recent draft assessment by EPA suggests is a carcinogen) but also chemical compounds which might be more immediately toxic.

Referring to the byproducts of metabolism D’Eon and Mabury write,“Due to their inherent reactivity, exposure to these transient metabolites is likely of greater toxicological concern than exposure to PFCAs [which includes PFOA] alone.”

Huh. Ain’t that funky now.

Of course further work is necessary before the potential impacts of these kinds of exposures can be fully understood, including a better understanding of how (and how much of) these chemicals migrate into food, what kinds of food are most important for this kind of exposure, and how much of these foods we consume. Microwave popcorn anyone?

You can find the full article, in issue 41, of Environmental Science & Technology, pages 47-99-4805.

What's Emerging in your Water?

There is a nice review of Emerging Contaminants, recently published in the journal Analytical Chemistry, by Susan Richardson. In it is a review of the "oldies" like PFOA, PFOS, and polybrominated flame retardants and newbies like nanomaterials and ethylene dibromide or EDB, a gasoline additive from back in the day when gasoline was leaded.

In the excerpt below she discusses the term “Emerging,” a term over which I sometimes stumble. Which chemicals fit into the category of emerging contaminants? Why are some chemicals which have been around for decades suddenly appear as “emerging” and, why are others, which have yet to be detected in major quantities (like the category of nanomaterials – which describes a type of chemical rather than any one specific chemical) on the list?

“Emerging environmental contaminants were the focus of a recent issue of Environmental Science & Technology (December 1, 2006), where current research on emerging chemical and microbial contaminants was highlighted. This is a must-read issue, and several of those papers will be discussed in this review. The guest editors of this issue also published an excellent perspective on "What is emerging?" as a lead-off editorial to this issue, which points out that the longevity of a contaminant's "emerging" status is typically determined by whether the contaminant is persistent or has potentially harmful human or ecological effects (2). It is often the case that emerging contaminants have actually been present in the environment for some time (in some cases, decades), but they are discovered through a wider search of potential contaminants (as in the case of ethylene dibromide, in this current review) or through the use of new technologies (such as LC/MS) that have enabled their discovery and measurement in the environment for the first time (as in the case of many pharmaceuticals).”

Although a bit technical in spots (this is Analytical Chemistry afterall,) the current literature for each emerging contaminant is reviewed in a readable manner, and there is an impressive list of over 200 citations for those looking to learn more.

What do nonstick pans, carpets, polar bears and newborn cord blood have in common? Perfluorinated chemicals in the news again

Once again, the “miracle” chemicals that coat most of our fry pans, raincoats and the ever-white (well maybe after 10 years of leg-sweat and black dogs - off-white) stain repellant couch in the living room are in the news. I’m referring to that most complex family of perfluorinated chemicals which includes perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) (and I promise not to mention the whole chemical name again in this entry!)

I wrote about PFOA and PFOS earlier, some of the legal loopholes that led to this current situation, and the ongoing phase-out of certain types of these chemicals, and now there is an excellent article summarizing the current research on the toxic effects of these chemicals written by Kellyn Betts and published in the Environews section of Environmental Health Perspectives.

After decades of use, these wondrous and now infamous chemicals are a part of us all. Scientists have measured the chemicals in the bodies and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. In fact, a recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology reported the presence of these chemicals in “99-100% of umbilical cord sera” of newborn babies tested in Baltimore, MD.

What I find most frustrating is that though these chemicals have been used (and released) by the ton for decades, once again toxicologists are playing catch-up. The great majority of toxicity studies about how a chemical behaves in a body, and its toxicity depends upon experimental exposures to laboratory animals. The difficulty lies in translating these effects to the “target” species; it may be humans or it maybe certain wildlife species that are at greatest risk of exposure (for example – Atlantic dolphins.) One key, among many, to extrapolating from laboratory animals to target species is understanding the similarities, and differences of how a chemical moves through the body. Where it goes, how long it remains and what happens to it (is it broken down, metabolized, excreted?) But according to EPA scientists interviewed by Betts, for chemicals like PFOA and PFOS there are very large differences in how long the chemical remains in the body, not only between species but between sexes, that they don’t understand just yet. For example while PFOA might be eliminated in a few hours from a female laboratory rat, it might be days for a male rat, and years for a human.

Among the findings reported in this recent Environmental Health Perspectives article are a summary of studies indicating that both PFOA and PFOS suppress immune function, in some cases at concentrations that occur in wildlife (some of the highest concentrations reported in wildlife have been found in Atlantic dolphins, according to the article,) in addition, researchers report impacts on growth and development of offspring born to exposed mothers, and neonatal morality. For more, read the article published in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 115, Number 5, May 2007

Update Nov 1, 2007: Another study just published in Environmental Health Perspectives evaluates the relationship between PFOA and PFOS concentrations in cord blood with birth size and weight. Although the authors report a small negative relationship between PFOA, PFOS and birth weight and head circumference, the authors suggest "...cautious interpretation of this study until the findings can be replicated in other populations."

Waterproofing the Ocean: the consequence of keeping dry

“Must keep water out” was my mantra. The old red backpack, my faithful traveling companion for over twenty years, cross country, up mountains, at sea, and across the ocean had sprung a leak. Wet through completely when a drenching rain followed my husband and I down the Madison Gulf trail. Socks, underwear, warm clothes – sopping. But rather than purchase a new frame pack, I reached for the Scotchgard™, and methodically sprayed each crack, crevice and seam, confident in that by “renewing” my old pack, I was doing the right thing.

What I didn’t know then, shames me now. What I didn’t know then, apparently the 3M Company and the Dupont Corpration had known for years. That the use of, and manufacturing process for products like Scotchgard™, my Gore-Tex Coat, and the surface on my favorite fry-pan, leave behind more than just consumer goods. What we know now, according to a review recently published by Magali Houde and others from the Unversity of Guelph in the journal Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T), is that the perfluorinated polymers, the most notorious being PFOA and PFOS, used to resist, protect, and repel, have infiltrated almost every living system on earth, from Great Lakes algae to polar bears in Svalbard, from the green-lipped mussel to Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, the bald eagle and the common loon. And, unless you consider yourself separate from life on earth, these chemicals have infiltrated you, me and your next-door neighbor.

By now, this is old news. Many of us are familiar with the stories. Parrots dropping dead, 3M voluntarily “outing” PFOS, reports of PFOA and PFOS in our blood. It is old news that these chemicals persist in the environment and are found from the North Pole to the South Pole and everywhere in-between.

But how did this happen? These chemicals have been around for over fifty years. Where was the US EPA? Where were our environmental protections? Turns out, that these chemicals slipped through, legally, at least one process that would have identified their current role as the environmental contaminants de jour. That is, the Premanufacture Notification process.

Ever since Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act back in 1976, the EPA has had the authority to review and regulate each new chemical based on its potential threat to us, and the environment prior its use in commerce. But there’s a catch. According to the EPA, “chemicals in commerce prior to the effective date of the Toxic Substances Control Act were placed on the inventory without going through the premanufacture notice.” And, some classes of chemicals were specifically granted exemptions. These included some of the perfluorinated chemicals involved in the production of PFOA and PFOS. The idea being, according to the agency, that “certain chemical health and safety information [would] be submitted to the Agency…when companies learn of it.”

But in 2004, the US EPA charged that Dupont had violated that bit about providing “certain health and safety” information. Apparently they forgot to report that not only was PFOA persistent, but that it might be toxic to humans and the environment. Oops.

Dupont settled for over $10 million, EPA initiated a voluntary phase-out of the chemical by 2015 (a program in which Dupont along with several other manufacturers, is a participant) and back in 2000, the 3M Company voluntarily phased their use of PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals.

Phew. Glad that’s over.

Or is it?

What about those polar bears, eagles, and loons? What about the starfish, green-lipped mussels, tuna, sea-turtles and otters? Konstantinos Prevedouros and others from Stockholm UniversityE. I. duPont de Nemours, in a study published in ES&T, estimated that over the years, thousands of tons of PFOA or PFOA precursors were released to the environment, with much of it discharged into our waters. and In one case, 61% of the chemical used was released to the environment, most going right into the water, without violating a single law. Well, excepting those companies that knew, but didn’t tell. And this is only part of the legacy bequeathed upon us not just by industry but by our own desire for eggs to slide, fabric to repel, and carpets to gleam. There is no accounting of the tons of PFOS used or released over the years.

“Water is the main vector for exposure in wildlife,” says Frank Gobas, a researcher at Simon Fraser University who studies chemicals that accumulate in wildlife. In the environment, according to Gobas, perfluorinated chemicals exist in a relatively water soluble form. “Marine mammals are likely the most exposed, due to water to fish to mammal transport, which the perfluorinated chemicals tend to favor.”

The big “so what” comes from my son. Each time I begin to write, he knows it’s bad news.

“So what do those kill?” he asks peering over my shoulder.

I explain that aside from killing the occasional parrot - though Dupont and others suggest that birds are sensitive not only to fumes from overheated Teflon but from overheated butter and oils - the effects on wildlife are unknown

And although there may be ample evidence of a chemical’s toxicity in the laboratory (one form of PFOA causes neurotoxicity, liver toxicity, immuno toxicity and developmental toxicity), and ample evidence of the chemicals presence in the tissues of wild animals, one of the more challenging problems in environmental toxicology is linking the presence of that chemical in the environment with harmful effects on wildlife.

For example, Kurunthachalam Kannan, of the New York State Department of Heath, and SUNY Albany, and others, recently reported on the relationship between PFOA and PFOS concentrations in sea otters found dead or dying along the California coast and disease status. The group found more PFOA and PFOS in sea otters determined to be diseased at the time of their death, compared with those classified as non-diseased, However, according to their study, reported in ES&T, they were unable to determine if the higher levels of perfluorinated chemicals were “a cause of the disease, a consequence,or coincidental.”

Kannan’s group also reported a decline in PFOS in the otters over time, following 3M’s phase-out. Was that a surprise? “I expect that it would take much longer for the environment to respond,” says Kannan. “Maybe what we found was circumstantial, but a few other researchers have found a similar decline in seals from the Arctic.”

James Armitage, a PhD candidate at Stockholm University, studies the fate of PFOA in the environment. He agrees that once the release of these chemicals and their precursors is halted, depending on the location, environmental concentrations may decline quite swiftly.

“Given the lifespan of most creatures in the environment,” says Armitage, “I would expect to see a response to declining environmental concentrations fairly rapidly.”

“But,” he adds referring to a modeling study soon to be published, “we observed that concentrations in the North Temperate Zone, the source area, decline almost immediately, while concentrations in the North Polar Zone continue to increase.” The declines he notes are due mainly to redistribution to other ocean areas. In other words, even if phased out, the perfluorinated chemicals aren’t likely to go away soon, they’ll just go somewhere else.

According to those in the industry, there really is no replacement for perfluorinated chemicals. It is the combination of fluoride and carbon that provides the repellent properties that make these chemicals so useful and durable. The 3M Company has already developed a new polyfluorinated chemical to replace PFOA, PFOS and PFOS-related products. Their website, asserts that the reformulated products have been tested for toxicity and bioaccumulation, and have apparently passed with flying colors. But, what the site doesn’t say is that they are persistent in the environment. And though no one expects them to accumulate in the sediments, they are expected to hang around in water.

When asked about the replacement products Enesta Jones of the EPA, says “The new chemical replacements have been subject to considerable scrutiny. The Agency is requiring robust fate and toxicity testing, and will retain regulatory authority over these chemicals until we can be assured they do not present unreasonable risk.”

I hover over my daughter’s leather boots, and ponder my desire to keep her feet dry, a can of Sno-Seal silicon (non-polyfluorinated) water-guard in my hand, and begin to spray.

Popcorn, hold the PFOA

Cruising through the latest news in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, I came across an article on PFOA (you know, those fluoropolymers that just a couple of years ago resulted in people tossing out their old non-stick pans, and returning to the heavy iron frying pans that could really knock someone out,) in both non-stick pans and, even more interestingly in the coating of microwave popcorn bags. The chemicals are known to accumulate in the environment (I've got a longer article on this in Green Living if you want to read more.)

The work, led by Kurnthachalam Kannan, published just this month in ES&T, reveals that yes, PFOA and related chemicals (for example chemicals called fluorotelomer alcohols or FTOHs) are released into the air from pans heated to normal cooking temperatures, and even into water boiled in these pans. The good news, was that the amounts released, in most cases, was reduced with repeated use.

But here's what's interesting, Kannan's group also reported that PFOA and FTOHs were released into the air from the packaging used for certain (unnamed brands) of microwave popcorn, and in some cases the amount of FTOHs released from popcorn bags was greater than amounts released from cookware.

SO, the next time you cook popcorn, you might want to do it the old fashioned way, in your new iron pot!