If you’ve recently walked through the cookware section of your favorite store, you might have noticed a shift. The classic black nonstick pots and pans are increasingly being replaced by enameled, stainless steel, cast iron, and ceramic options.
This change is more than just a trend in cookware design. It’s related to the growing awareness about PFAS and its direct and indirect use in consumer goods, high-tech manufacturing, cleanroom environments, and more.
Why Does PFAS Matter in the Cleanroom?
What to do About PFAS in Your Cleanroom Supply Chain
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as ‘forever chemicals,” are a large group of human-made chemicals that are characterized by chains of carbon atoms that are fully or partially fluorinated.
Because they are bonded with fluorine atoms, PFAS are highly resistant to breaking down and can build up in the environment and living organisms. PFAS has been found in people and animals all over the world and in a variety of food products, soils and water.
Current research indicates that exposure to some PFAS may lead to negative health outcomes. However, research is ongoing to determine how varied levels of exposure might affect health in different ways.
The EPA currently regulates six PFAS in drinking water due to associated health risks:
In addition to these six pillar PFAS, there are dozens of other chemicals that have been found in the environment that serve as “precursors,” meaning they will eventually break down to one of the pillar PFAS, or a combination of them.
For example, fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs), used in the production of some paints, adhesives, and cleaning agents, are not on the list of EPA-regulated PFAS. However, FTOHs are precursor chemicals that break down over time to a combination of PFAS chemicals.
PFAS are known for their resistance to heat, grease, water, oil, and stains, as well as their low cost of production. For decades, they have been used directly and indirectly in a variety of consumer and industrial products, as well as in many manufacturing environments.
PFAS was first discovered in the late 1930s and by the 1950s they were being used extensively in products like non-stick pans and stain-resistant fabrics.
In the 1980s and 90s, studies started to reveal the environmental persistence and health risks of PFAS and its accumulation in living organisms.
Awareness of these risks continued to grow in the 2000s, leading to legal cases and regulatory proposals aimed at limiting the use of PFOA and PFOS.
In the 2010s, the EPA proposed regulations, and some states moved to ban PFAS altogether. During this time, some companies began phasing out certain PFAS and using alternatives.
This year, the EPA published Method 1633, “Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS” which is intended to provide standard procedures for the analysis of PFAS in a wide range of sample types.
Initially, the EPA was focused on testing for hazardous chemicals in drinking water. However, as PFAS was identified in other environmental media – such as groundwater, soil, sediment, wastewater, and biosolids – and as concerns about PFAS in consumer products grew, Method 1633 adapted and continues to evolve.
There are three generally accepted analytical methods for PFAS testing :
TOF PFAS testing measures the total amount of organic fluorine in a sample, which helps indicate the presence of PFAS but doesn’t identify specific compounds. TOF is typically used as a diagnostic tool for high impact zones.
|
Pros: |
Cons: |
|
Accessibility: Samples are tested quickly and cost-effectively. |
Non-specific: No conclusive data about the compounds or chain length. |
|
Simplicity: Provides a single measurement for organic fluorine. |
Non-PFAS interference: Assumes fluorine is PFAS. Other fluorine could be present. |
|
Communication: Results are easy to understand and explain. |
High detection limits: Can miss lower levels of PFAS concentrations. |
This PFAS testing method involves screening for a broad range of PFAS compounds without knowing in advance which specific chemicals are present. It helps identify unknown or suspected PFAS compounds based on their characteristics.
|
Pros: |
Cons: |
|
Adaptability: Detects new, emerging and less-known PFAS. GenX was added to list of pillar chemicals based on suspect screening. |
Interpretation: Processing the data is time-consuming and can produce ambiguous results. |
|
Detailed profile: Provides data on a wide range of PFAS in a sample. |
Specificity: Data isn’t precise about the concentration levels or structure of PFAS in a sample. |
|
Broad detection: Includes PFAS that aren’t being specifically targeted. |
High cost: Complex analytical equipment can be cost-prohibitive, especially for a preliminary assessment. |
Target analysis provides the concentrations of a specific defined set of known analytes. For example, EPA Method 1633 currently includes 40 listed analytes.
|
Pros: |
Cons: |
|
High sensitivity and specificity: Detects low concentrations of specific PFAS with high accuracy. |
Limited scope: Only detects the specific PFAS compounds being tested for. |
|
Actionable data: Provides clear information to help address the severity of contamination to inform remediation strategies. |
Evolving compounds: May not account for new and emerging PFAS compounds and variations. |
|
Well-established: Techniques for target analysis are well-developed, widely used and provide reliable results. |
Potential for inconsistency: Compounds may be omitted. EPA Method 1633 recommends testing for 40 specific analytes, but labs can adjust their analysis. |
Because many of the tools and methods related to PFAS testing didn’t exist in the consumer product space until recently, there’s a great deal of confusion in the marketplace surrounding PFAS and what test methods should be used to identify it.
The risk of PFAS chemicals in the cleanroom environment is two-fold:
Even if you aren’t using PFAS chemicals directly in your controlled environment, you could be unknowingly introducing PFAS into the environment through one of your supply chain partners.
Different industries are adopting different analysis methods and thresholds for what it means to be “PFAS free.” It’s more important than ever to establish a transparent supply chain to ensure that all related components, products, and suppliers in your pipeline comply with regulations.
Make sure you’re asking your suppliers the right questions:
While research continues and more information becomes available about PFAS and their impact on the environment and public health, organizations should monitor developments in their industries.
As a best practice, stay up to date by joining an association like the Sustainable PFAS Action Network (SPAN), the SEMI PFAS Initiative, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, the ASTM’s Committee F15 on Consumer Products, or other related working groups that are aligned with your industry.
Signs Your Cleanroom Design Needs a Refresh: A Guide to Re-evaluating Specifications
Why Repeatable, Standardized Testing is Important for Cleanroom Products
Modern Methods for Detecting Contaminants in Cleanrooms: An Overview
Endotoxins: Strategies for Control in Life Science Environments