Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:00, 7 November 2023 editBon courage (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users66,214 edits →Corporate and federal government suppression of information: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:21, 17 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,376,815 editsm Archiving 2 discussions to Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances/Archive 1. (BOT)
(43 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{talkheader}}		{{talkheader}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Environment~~\|class=C\|~~importance~~=~~High}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Chemistry\|class=C~~\|importance=~~Mid~~}}		{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=High}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Science Policy\|class=C~~\|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Chemistry\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Science Policy\|importance=High}}
			}}
	{{to do}}		{{to do}}

	{{old move\|date=24 May 2023\|destination=PFAS\|result=no consensus\|link=Special:Permalink/1158827211#Requested move 24 May 2023}}		{{old move\|date=24 May 2023\|destination=PFAS\|result=no consensus\|link=Special:Permalink/1158827211#Requested move 24 May 2023}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			\| age=9600
			\| archiveprefix=Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances/Archive
			\| numberstart=1
			\| maxarchsize=75000
			\| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minkeepthreads=5
			\| minarchthreads=2
			\| format= %%i
			}}

			{{Archives}}
	==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
			== Bioaccumulation and biomagnification ==
	] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-09-08">8 September 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-15">15 December 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].

	{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 06:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	== Missing usage info ==

	This article seems to lack info on how these chemicals are used and what for. I feel it would help improve the article if this info was added, however due to the heavy focus most information has on the negative effects of PFAS on the human body it's hard to find any usage info. ] (]) 16:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
	: ] and add some information. The recent publication '']'' would be a good source. --] 21:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

	== Biased Source ==
	Echoing the previous comment, the page provides a Table titled "Probable links to health issues as identified by the C8 Science Panel." The Table lists position papers that did not meet the quality standards for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus were self-published by C8SciencePanel.org. C8SciencePanel.org is registered anonymously, but appears to be owned by a plaintiff's law firm with a financial interest in PFAS litigation. Misplaced Pages's editorial standards say that content "must be verifiable." The C8SciencePanel.org position papers are not verifiable. That Table should be deleted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
	: That table was removed a while ago. --] 22:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

	== Map of PFAS contamination probes by EWG ==

	Is it more worth a weblink or a quotable source? . Also John Oliver talked about it in Last Week tonight as of last week. See e.g. his . (which would be just a recitable source. Any ideas what should be included. -- ] (]) 17:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
	:I added the link to the map as weblink. I do not know if there is anything new to add to the article from the Last Week Tonight episode. -- ] (]) 06:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
	::Probably worth noting the recent John Oliver piece itself in the article, since it is a notable public media presentation of the topic. Would suggest noting it in the "Human health concerns..." section, in the paragraph that mentions the 2021 Brockovich article. -- ] (]) 08:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

	== PFAS vs. PFASs ==

	The article currently uses PFASs to denote multiple PFAS chemicals. As the "S" in PFAS stands for "substances", the word is already plural. I believe it is best practice (and the format used by the U.S. EPA) to not use the second S. -- ] (]) 17:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
	: With the same argument, the acronym of e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls would be PCB, not PCBs.
	: In all relevant publications of the terminology of PFASs, the acronym ''with'' the plural-s is used:
	:* '']'', 2011 (highly cited)
	:* '''', OECD, 2021
	:* '']'', 2022
	: --] 23:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
	::Respectfully, that isn't "all relevant publications". That is two documents for which Robert Buck is a significant contributor which uses that notation, and one article referencing one of those two publications.
	::Several organizations, such as the , , explicitly state that PFAS is the preferred format, while the cited OECD publication states in the notes that "It is noted that there is a notion of using “PFAS” as the acronym for both the singular and
	::plural forms. This report does not make any recommendation to address this notion..." (note 2). Scholarly publications use PFAS vs. PFASs at about 3:1 based on an admittedly very rudimentary Google Scholar search.

	::Further, PFAS is a distinct case from PCBs. The plural-s for PCBs is to distinguish the class (PCBs) from polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) the compound. There is no compound with the abbreviation PFAS that must be distinguished from the class.
	::] (]) 18:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
	::: Multinational organizations are more relevant than national ones.
	::: Also in the case of PFASs, there is a singular referring to one substance. Moreover, there are substances that contain both a perfloroalkyl and a polyfluoroalkyl moiety. --] 22:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::Okay, the , , and seem to prefer PFAS. The and use the two interchangeably. and use PFAS. The uses PFAS. The only organization I can find that consistently uses 'PFASs' is OECD.
	::::I'm not sure what the relevance of a compound containing both a per- and polyfluorinated moiety is.
	::::The extra -s is less common and grammatically incorrect, and it seems odd for the Misplaced Pages page to use it. ] (]) 23:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::: Wow, you found one page of the Stockholm Convention, where PFAS is use as a plural once. See and for the latest risk profile and risk management evaluation documents on a PFAS, namely PFHxS. These documents were both adopted by the POPs Review Committee.
	::::: It is silly to call the version PFASs gramatically incorrect, when a use without the plural-s is against practice in chemistry as shown above. --] 12:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::"Against practice in chemistry" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Reviewing other Stockholm submissions, they use a mix of PFAS and PFASs, so I'm happy to consider them as one of the "groups that use the two interchangeably". I have been unable to find any organization publishing guidance advising that PFASs is the preferred format. The governments of the top four English-speaking countries all prefer PFAS. ] (]) 14:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::: Submissions by e.g. individual member countries can't be compared to documents adopted by the POPs Review Committee. All these countries are OECD members and representatives have contributed to the recent terminology publication. --] 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::The documents you cite explicitly state they have not been formally edited. None of the formal publications I can find from them use the term PFAS at all, instead referring to each relevant chemical by name. Perhaps they should not be the defining source for this.
	::::::::Do you know of any organizations that have documented a preference fore "PFASs" over "PFAS"? ] (]) 19:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
	::::::::: The statement saying that a document has not been formally edited just means that is contains the text as ''agreed'' by the POPs Review Committee, including the use of acronyms. --] 08:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

	* {{ping\|Leyo\|67.61.157.87\|IP}} Obviously this quest has not produced a stable result. And tbh, I could not conclude from these posts for myself easily too. So to prevent some unpleasant editwarring, and to reach a wellbased, acceptable conclusion, I propose to restart this question wider, eg through an ]. Will write one shortly. -] (]) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

	== RfC about PFAS vs PFASs ==

	<!-- ] 20:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1660248109}}
	Should Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances be shortened to PFAS or PFASs when using the acronym as a plural? ] (]) 19:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

	:Use acronym PFAS when plural. Individual substances can be identified by name or using phrasing such as "a PFAS compound", which is grammatically consistent with the acronym referring to a class of chemicals, and follows the style guidelines of relevant sources (for explicit, but perhaps not implicit) recommendations. ] (]) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
	:: "a PFAS compound" is silly as it would correspond to "per- and polyfluoroalkyl <u>substance compound</u>". --] 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

	===Discussion for RfC about PFAS vs PFASs===
	*I was summoned by a bot to comment this RfC. This is not a case that requires that we do as in the sources. If we add a "s", we are not changing the information that is found in the sources and only the actual information needs to be verifiable, not the syntax or the grammar. It seems that there is a good logic for both options. However, the most flexible option is to add a "s" for the plural, because there is a problem if we need the singular and PFAS is plural. For example, the web page {{cite web\|title=Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)\|url=https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm\|publication-date=}} uses PFAS to mean the plural and thus has a problem with its sentence: {{quote\|Time-sensitive studies such as PFAS exposures in residents near Colorado Springs whose water was contaminated with the PFAS known as perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), and contamination of the Cape Fear River in North Carolina by GenX.}} For this kind of things, there is no requirement that we do as in this source or other sources. ] (]) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
	*Use '''PFASs''' for plural: scholarly and government sources intermix usages enough that we can choose any convention that's common and clear. Using PFAS for singular and PFASs for plural is consistent with WP usage in many other classes of compounds such as ], ], ], ] and ]. A source of confusion: this article title is plural for unclear reasons, counter to ] and unlike singular titles for PCBs, PAHs, etc. –] (]) 07:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
	*::Yes, I only meant to say that the verifiability requirement does not apply here. If all the sources had used systematically '''PFSA''' to mean the plural, perhaps Misplaced Pages should have done the same thing, but that would only have been a grammar issue, not a WP verifiability rule: its an implicit grammar rule (not specifically in Misplaced Pages) that we respect common usage. But even that would not have been a very strict requirement, because it should also depend on WP internal usage in similar cases such as ]. ] (]) 08:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
	* '''<s>Use singular</s>'''. (''needs fleshing out, see my 04:52 follow-up below. DePiep'') Basic rule: use abbreviation (or whatever it is called) same as if spelled out. Keep in mind: it is a primarily a ''chemical class'' name (or chemical ''group'' name), not a list of... So that defines its grammar (and: the -es in full name is meaningless in this; could do without without change). When individual substances are intended, describe like "FPAS chemicals like PFASname-1 and PFASname-2" or "PFAS means more than a dozen chemical substances". -] (]) 09:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
	* There is a good logic for both ways. Depiep just provided the logic for always using the singular to mean the class and I don't have anything against it, but the logic for only using the singular when we refer to one substance is perfectly fine too. So, one approach would be to seek uniformity across all similar articles. This means involving editors interested in other classes with the goal to have a global recommendation. I am not proposing that it becomes a strict rule, but only a global recommendation that this article would accept to follow. ] (]) 13:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
	**My suggestion needs more fleshing out. Not consistent enough ;-). Seems to boil down to: it is a '''chemical class name with grammatical effects'''.
	*:1. Yes similar approach needed (by MOS) for all classnames in chemistry. List: ]/s, ...
	:2. Treat as group name always: {{mxt\|1=Compound X is a PFAS}} (<nowiki></nowiki>)
	:2b. (<nowiki></nowiki>) ... but this breaks the suggested rule "always swappable written out ↔ abbreviation"; the plural in written out:
	*::{{!mxt\|1=Compound X is a per- and poly13substances.}} So:
	*:'''Allow written out as singular''' would solve without problem, while keeping the same definition & wikilink as a class (synonym):
	*::{{mxt\|1=Compound X is a ].}}
	*:3. '''Avoid the {{!mxt\|1=PFASs}} plural -s''' at any cost. For readability, some writing around may be helpful: OECD (2021) nicely says .
	*:3b. So current opening line though better change (because bad plural effect; avoid -s):
	*:::{{!mxt\|1=Per- and poly13substances (PFASs) are ...}} → {{mxt\|1=Per- and poly13substances (PFAS) form a chemical group ...}} ''or'' {{mxt\|1=The per- and poly13substances (PFAS) is a chemical group ...}}
	::] (]) 04:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	::: I don't understand what is the meaning of ''13''? Anyway, you link to the OECD publication on ''Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances'', in which PFASs is used as the plural and PFAS as the singular form. We should not do ], but follow that international organisation (that has been doing a lot of ]). --] 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
	::::"" is shortening text: 13 characters removed from "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" ← 'Per- and polysubstances'. For talkpage convenience only. Like: "]" ← "internationalisation" (say, translation). -] (]) 04:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
	* '''Use singular'''. The acronym PFAS stands for "per- '''and''' polyfluoroalkyl substances". No single chemical within the PFAS class can be both poly-fluorinated and per-fluorinated, so by definition PFAS is plural and a small s is not needed. Some authors elect to add a small s to this acronym (PFASs) to emphasise the fact that it is plural, but it's not needed. When referring to a single chemical within the PFAS class, it's usually more accurate to simply name that specific chemical. See . ] (]) 00:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	*: The example that I provided in my first comment above is a counter example of your argument: people still use PSAS to mean the singular (even when they also use it to mean the plural). I am not saying that your logic is not good, but I am saying that it's not an absolute: it does not invalidate the other logic, which is to use PFAS to mean the singular and add a "s" to mean the plural. I suggested that we simply try to be uniform across WP, but creating a precedent here is also a good idea. ] (]) 01:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	*::The "It's gramatically plural by definition & by name" does not solve all cases gently enough. That stems from: it's a ''class'' (group, set) name. As I described above: 1. Always treat as class name; allow writing singular when written out; and avoid as MOS plural {{!mxt\|PFASs}} at all cost (rewrite the sentence; eg when referring to individual class member). -] (]) 05:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	*: The claim by Sandbh (''“No single chemical within ”…'') is incorrect: There are of course substances that contain both a perfloroalkyl and a polyfluoroalkyl moiety (e.g. ).
	*: Hence: {{mxt\|Compound X is a PFAS}} — {{mxt\|Compounds X, Y and Z are PFASs}} --] 10:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	*::Ths ''X, Y, Z ...'' is a nice example of good grammar ''and'' readable result. A very specific ''exception''. Note: "PFAS" is used as class.-] (]) 17:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
	*::: Yes, some use ''PFAS'' as the class, but in key publications ''PFASs'' is used for the class. This is in line with e.g. PCBs, PAHs, PBDEs etc. --] 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
	*{{od}} {{re\|Leyo}} I am looking for grammatical and readable use base for your proposal. Since you refer to papers, I repeat the sourcelinks you have added above ({{slink\|\| PFAS vs. PFASs}}).
	::IEAM (2011): '']'', 2011 (highly cited)
	::OECD (2021) '''', OECD, 2021
	::OECD (2022) '']'', 2022
	:Hope this is a correct & neutral c/p. The earlier discussion has more detailed discussions. -] (]) 08:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

	== Recent Article of Interest ==
	Recent article of interest which may be worth referencing?
	Assembly and Curation of Lists of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to Support Environmental Science Research (from the EPA) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2022.850019/full

	How to Define PFAS from C&E News: https://cen.acs.org/policy/chemical-regulation/define-PFAS/100/i24
	--] (]) 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Explain why is that article of interest? What are your criteria? That it exists?--] (]) 13:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	==Researchers find...==
	Whoever is monitoring this article, please reconsider using the term "researchers" find/report/discover. Just give the results. The term "researchers" is pretentious and meaningless. We know that results come from a "study" or from "studies". We know that the people doing the study are sometimes called researchers.--] (]) 22:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

	==The controversry==
	It might be helpful to general reader it the article began or emphasized one major aspect of ''the controversy'', which has (IMHO) three parts:
	#) that PFAs indeed are pervasive (scary)
	#) the concentrations (say in humans) are often so minuscule so as to challenge the limits of toxicity and health studies. Conventional toxins (cyanide, strychnine, etc) are dangerous at more conventional concentrations.
	#) the negative effects, still emerging but not there yet, do not operate by well defined mechanisms. Conventional toxins (cyanide, strychnine, etc) operate by well-defined mechanisms.

	It is the confluence of these three aspects that gives rise to the controversy.

	Another concern: ]. It appears that health claims are based on primary reports, which might not meet Misplaced Pages's standards. Hopefully I am wrong.
	--] (]) 22:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
	: These are not the three key aspects. You even missed the most important one, i.e. the extremely high persistence of PFASs. --] 12:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Mineralization ==
	The new destruction method that was published in Science and received a lot of media attention is, unfortunately, not such a powerful solution:
	https://www.ehn.org/terry-collins-pfas-removal-discovery-not-yet-a-powerful-solution-2657897799.html ] (]) 00:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
	: What about changing the wording "mineralization" to something such as "low-heat destruction"? --] 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Leyo}} Changed to '''Chemical treatment'''. ] <sub>]</sub> 01:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

	== Vague tag-ism? ==

	I strongly disagree with the necessity of hanging a "vague" tag on the sentence: ''Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with PFAS exposure.'' ...especially, as a citation reference is given for that sentence. The entire point of the article is that there are undetermined correlations without established causality or mechanism; connections have been documented without the exact nature of them being known. This, necessarily, falls into the territory of "vagueness". Therefore, there is no reason to cast doubt upon a simple, self-evident statement (one which has a reference) by hanging a "vague" tag on it. Discussion? ] (]) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
	: These tags have been ] by ]. It seems to me that he is not an expert in the fields of epidemiology or medicine. --] 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
	:: {{reply\|Leyo}} I don't think it's particularly required to be a medical expert in order to point out a phrase that is not clear to a general audience, but I do actually have a science background. Thanks for pointing out this thread, but it would be helpful to direct your comments to the merits of the text, rather than other editors. {{reply\|Jmrowland}} I don't have access to the referenced article, so I can't clarify whether the association is based on epidemiology that indicates a statistical correlation that may or may not indicate causation, medical studies that were testing PFOS as a treatment, or case reports from people who had just been accidentally exposed or something. "Significant" is also vague and subjective, so it's better to "show not tell" and give the actual number. Something like this would be less vague: "Epidemiological studies find the opposite response in humans; an exposure of X is statistically correlated with a Y increase in total cholesterol and a Z increase in LDL cholesterol." The rest of that sentence seems to assume that the relationship is causal, rather than allowing that correlation does not prove causation and saying something like: "If PFOS exposure actually causes higher cholesterol, this would indicate..." -- ] (]) 23:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for your reply, but my issue is with the wording, not the research. ''"Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with PFAS exposure"'' is not an especially vague statement. ] (]) 22:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

	== Why no concentration (or level) values for effects ? ==

	One thing that struck me in this article, nowhere does it say that:
	: Х negative effect is observed to manifest in humans at (roughly) Y concentration of Z substance in a Q medium
	or
	: Х negative effect is observed to manifest with F frequency at (roughly) Y concentration of Z substance in a Q medium
	and without that... It is just empty words, just saying PFAS are bad. Come on, give the quantities!
	(or did i miss that in the article?)
	] (]) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
	: How shall this be done for a class of several thousand chemicals that don't have the same relative potency factors? Just adding them up won't work. --] 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

	==Wiki Education assignment: Equity in Occupational Health==
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Georgetown_University/Equity_in_Occupational_Health_(Spring) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2023-03-15 \| end_date = 2023-07-25 }}

	<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 21:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)</span>

	== Error in diagram? ==
	The diagram under Health and Environmental Concerns, which appears to be an original creation for this article (based on information from the five citations in the caption), has "low sperm count and mobility" pointing towards the pregnant woman. Mistake, or just an odd choice (pointing to the fetus because it relates to reproductive health)? Or is it saying that children exposed in the womb grow up to have low sperm counts? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	: The low sperm count and mobility affect the reproduction. Pointing towards the fetus is okay IMHO. --] 12:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

			In my view, ] would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on ] and ]. --] 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
	== Requested move 24 May 2023 ==
			:Yes, we prefer wikilinks to concepts like ] and ]. I don´t understand why the review (Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (June 2006). "Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review". Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (11): 3463–3473) was removed; secondary sources are generally preferred in wp. Feel free to condense the text. ] (]) 08:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

			==Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II==
	<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Rowan_University/College_Composition_II_(Spring_2024) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2024-01-16 \| end_date = 2024-05-11 }}
	:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)</span>
	The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' <small>(])</small> ] <small>]/] (please ] me on reply)</small> 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
	----

			== Merge "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs"? ==
	] → {{no redirect\|PFAS}} – Per ], the full length chemical name is unknown by virtually everyone. ] (]) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' ] (] • ]) 14:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)</small>

			The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? ] (]) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. More recognizable than the long form, and incorporates both of them. ]<small>]</small> 11:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
	*: ~~<small>Comment:~~ ~~This~~ ~~user~~ is ] not ~~familiar with the~~ ~~topic~~. --] 19:59, 5 June ~~2023~~ (UTC)		: Both sections (as such) do not exist anymore. --] 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
	*::@] please refrain from personal attacks regarding the knowledge of a particular editor on the topic. ] (]) 07:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	*::: This is certainly not an "attack", just a remark. Opinions of people who are knowledgeable about a subject are generally more relevant. Personally, I don't participate in discussions on matters I don't know well. --] 13:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)</small>
	* '''Strong oppose''' for several reasons:
	** It is against long-standing practice to use the acronyms of classes of chemical compounds instead of the full name. Examples:
	*** ], not ] (redirect)
	*** ], not ] (redirect)
	*** ], not ] (redirect)
	*** ], not ] (redirect)
	*** ], not ] (redirect)
	*: Any user/reader who is interested in the topic, easily finds the article via the redirects ] and ].
	** This case is not really covered by WP:COMMONNAME. Also the example, i.e. ], is totally different from this request here.
	** The OECD and other multinational organizations use .
	** The fact that the full name of a chemical class is unknown to a user who is mainly interested in computers, security, politics and history, is not a valid reason either.
	: --] 19:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
	::PFAS has one big difference from all the other chemicals that you listed: it has been a big theme both in the media and in politics in recent years, which makes it mostly a subject of interest to non-chemists too. The purpose of an article topic is also giving the user reassurance that they ended up on the right page. Wether a particular organization like the OECD uses a term is irrelevant, we have to check that with a wide variety of reliable sources. Also, don't attack me on my possible knowledege on the subject. On top of that, I don't mean only myself, but the general public, which is the audience of Misplaced Pages in the end. ] (]) 04:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	::: Also other substance classes have also been a big theme both in the media and in politics. We even have several articles highlighting this. Examples include ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], …
	::: I mentioned the OECD because they have recently re-defined which substances are PFASs.
	::: Concerning "giving the user reassurance that they ended up on the right page": The acronym is given in the redirect note and in the first sentence (in bold). For non-chemist users, the risk that they would mistake PFAS with ], ], ] etc. would increase, if the acronyms were used as title of the articles. --] 08:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	::::Those other examples are not well known chemicals for the general population. Other "pop" chemicals that have long and complex names (like drugs) use the short and ] acronym: e.g. ], ]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::: This is not true. Dioxins and PCBs, for example, are quite well known in the general population. --] 13:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	::::::PFAS really is an order of magnitude more known these days. ] (]) 13:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Redirects are cheap, so should of course exist for ]. However, the existing name is more revealing of what the article is actually about. Note that there is a more general discussion currently, at ] Pinging {{ping\|Mdewman6\|Smokefoot}} who contributed there. ] (]) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. ] (] • ]) 14:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Comment''' The relevant MOS guideline here is ], which suggests that {{tq\|if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.}} As a chemist, I know that PFAS relates to polyfluorinated substances, but honestly was not aware the full formal name relating to the acronym was "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance". So, the naming convention guideline seems to weight in support of using the acronym as the title, since that is what most people recognize as the title of the subject. That said, these are taken on a case by case basis and consensus can explicitly reject use of the acronym (e.g. ] instead of ], the example given at ]). I agree with Leyo that similar classes of chemical contaminants have traditionally not used acronyms/initialisms for article titles, suggesting we should not here, per ]. I am currently on the fence about which consideration should carry more weight. And as Mike Turnbull points out, regardless of outcome here, the general issue of how we handle the titles of our various articles on classes of organofluorine compounds needs some consideration in the linked discussion, given the overlapping content and potentially ambiguous terminology. ] (]) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	*: There is no harm in readers seeing the full name when they reach the article via ]. That way, they are more likely to remember the full name (which provides the definition). --] 20:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::I don't think that's much of a consideration, because they will either see it as the title of the page (if redirected from PFAS, as is the case currently) or will see it first thing in the lede in bold font, since per the MOS articles with acronyms are written out in the lede. The pertinent question is what is the best title per ] and naming conventions. ] (]) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::: "PFAS(s)" is sometimes also used as an acronym for "<u>per</u>fluoroalkyl substances" (see e.g. recent ) or "<u>poly</u>fluoroalkyl substances" (see e.g. or ) only. Hence, keeping "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" makes the scope clear. --] 21:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::Let's be realistic, users barely use the Misplaced Pages search box. They use Google, which redirects them to this article and only shows them the full title. ] (]) 09:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''', per Leyo's observation above, about scope. Otherwise, this a frustratingly dead-even fight between ] and ], two sections of the same policy. It's inevitable that in a handful of cases such a policy conflict will arise over an article title, and in this one we have a scope-clarity argument to settle it. Also, the citation to ] left out something important: "in contrast, consensus has rejected moving Central Intelligence Agency to its acronym, in view of arguments that the full name is used in professional and academic publications"; thus the mention above that "The OECD and other multinational organizations use the full name" was not irrelevant, as PhotographyEdits said it was. Furthermore, WP:NCA is just a rather tedious explication of a narrow application of WP:RECOGNIZABLE, so I don't think it really adds any weight to one side of the argument. <small>(Incidentally, it also actually has no business at all being in MoS, which is not a naming-conventions guideline. If today you tried to add new naming-convention guidance to an MoS page, you'd be shouted out of the room. If that passage actually has consensus at all, it should be moved into a naming-conventions guideline, probably ], as a section, or to its own NG page. We do regularly apply MoS principles to article titles, but what differentiates MoS from the NG pages is the latter are titles-specific, and the former are general and are written to pertain to article content; that they sometimes apply to titles also is entirely secondary.)</small> <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 10:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
	* '''Strong support''' per {{u\|Mdewman6}}. The average user will simply be confused here. I don't see the validity of the "scope" arguments. The first sentence would state clearly the scope of the article: {{tq\|Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs)}}. ] <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	*: The first sentence of reads ] <code>The <u>content</u> in articles in Misplaced Pages should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience.</code> Indeed, we should strive for the content to become more understandable for a general audience (suggestions are welcome). However, this does not involve the title. --] 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	*::Sure but ] follows the same spirit. We have ], not Acetylsalicylic acid. ] not 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The list goes on. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
	*::: Those are individual substances, not classes of substances. Hence, we can't really compare the cases.
	*::: Another very important point can be seen at ]: Even now, with the full and accurate title, some people confuse them for an individual substance are not aware that PFASs are a large and very diverse class of chemicals. It covers, i.e., both non-polymers and polymers. Obviously they are totally different in terms of toxicological effects. Moving the article to the acronym would increase the probability of misunderstanding a lot. --] 13:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
	<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
	</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

	== ~~Appropriate~~ ~~language?~~ ==		== Presence in Fertilizer ==
			Which section does this go under?

			] (]) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Examples ==
	I'm far from an experienced editor, but I have a concern that there are parts of this article that read like a polemic. Just one particularly egregious (and not particularly well-written) example - "Chemical corporations that produce PFAS pocket approximately an annual $4 billion in profits from the production of this chemical but they impose monumental costs on tax payers and the health of the planet's population."

			Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? ] (]) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
	Is this appropriate? ] (]) 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
	: Are you concerned about "pocket" and "monumental"? The former might be replaced by "make" or "generate", the latter by the actual (estimated) number. --] 13:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
	::Changed "pocket" to "generate" in the mean time. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

			== Unsupported statement in the article ==
	== Estimated Contemporary Costs section provides outrageous figure ==
			Under the subheading of United States in the section titled "Concerns, litigation, and regulations in specific countries and regions" this statement is made: "but the Republican Party, supported by the U.S. chemical industry filibustered the bill."

			I read the article linked as support for this statement. It mentions filibuster once and does not state who did the filibuster.
	Any claim that PFAS "costs" the world economy '''17.5 trillion dollars annually''' is patently absurd. Such an estimate might be fit for the worst-case scenarios associated with unmitigated climate change. I believe this section should be deleted, or at least the source of this figure should be removed. ] (]) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
			] (]) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
	: ''The analysis broke down societal costs into four categories. Soil and water remediation are the most expensive, followed by healthcare costs and bio-monitoring of PFAS pollution.'' Remediation of contaminated soil and water is indeed known to be very expensive. --] 13:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
	::We wish climate change would cost us "only" 17.5 trillion... try an extra order of magnitude <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
	:::Will it cost us 17.5T annually? And, even if it does, there is no way PFASs are such an extreme detriment to the world. 20% of world GDP? ] (]) 01:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
	::Expensive as remediation may be, there is no way this figure passes the smell test. If someone argued that all of fossil fuel use, including extraction in ocean wells and fracking from the ground, including health impacts to us and the environment, costs society 17.5T in damages '''annually''', perhaps I'd understand.
	::Given that this this number is from one relatively small NGO that seems laser focused on PFAS regulation (not without reason), I'd argue that this is not an unbiased source. The Guardian article being cited feels like a rewrite of a ChemSec press release, with no one interviewed except for ChemSec employees. ] (]) 01:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
	:::Inclined to Agree here. Summing up semi-acknowledged and fully acknowledged (thereby not necessarily correct by any means and faults surely overestimations by NGOs in line with shadow reporting culture, and underestimating/overestimating by Gov Agencies with special interests. In my totally irrelevant field we found that adding up numbers for fatalities globally, as they are reported (ca 2019) and used in fundraising, priority setting, policy shaping and science orientation we all have to die approximately 1,42 times. That’s not very helpful and a very smart colleague posits a theorem that we in fact only die once (population level). In effect, if so then that holds no matter what the aggregates sum up to. If the same is indeed applicable here, then we may have a systemic problem going in a multitude of globally critical academic fields that is kind of urgent to address. Lay-man understanding of the sciences and a fair grasp of my own immediate reality is that radical transformative action to correct for threats that are based in extremely faulty underlying premises (like +42% over theoretical max in my admittedly limited scope) may be spot on though that’s unlikely. But, even in such a lucky outcome scenario, then overdone and at the expense of the ‘opportunity cost’ (for lack of knowledge of more precise terminology) of also lessening resources and attention bandwidth available to simultaneously address other global issues also of paramount importance. IMHO Making arguments for policy based on simple truth-telling seems like a naïve but perhaps nifty way to begin to address this problem. Partly self regulating too as the instant the total hits 103,7% everyone knows somewhere something is off. Back to the drawing board for all claiming a percentage to hash it out amongst themselves till they reach a nice 100% benchmark consensus. That is of course provided I’m on to something here that even exists at all as an issue, and is a problem rather than a feature also for the special interest groups engaging. ] (]) 01:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

			:The quote from the article is "All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster." It doesn't say that there was an actual filibuster. I take it to mean if there was a filibuster, there was not enough Republican support to overcome it. So I agree that the wording in the article should be clarified. ] (]) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
	== ] ==

			Even if well-sourced, the factoid may not merit inclusion in this article. It's not really about PFAS themselves. I don't know if this type of political information is appropriate for this article. (It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia.) ] (]) 03:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	{{ping\|Bon courage}} Would you be happy with the reference used in ]? ] 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

			:You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. ] (]) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
	:] is a reasonable, but old, source in a changing field. What use should I be happy for? ] (]) 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
			::I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. ] (]) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
	:: Have you got a newer publication that is acceptable? If not, the one above should be sufficient to revert your removal. --] 19:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::Huh? That's not making sense. Could you say clearly in plain English what you want to do exactly? ] (]) 19:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Typo fixed. Hence, you may now respond to the content. --] 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

			== Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs ==
	I noticed that you have now ]. The following review articles might be helpful to draft a short section on that matter:
	* ''Considering environmental exposures to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy'', ]
	* ''Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food'', ]
	--] 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

			Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. '''I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s''', as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. ] (]) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Professional ski wax technicians ==
			:'''Leaning towards using ''PFAS'''''. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —] ( ] • ] ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			:Even the OECD in its revised definition (]) uses "PFAS" as a singular: {{tq\| any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF<sub>3</sub>) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF<sub>2</sub>−) is a PFAS.}}<br>"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, {{tq\|Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards}} {{tq\|If PFAS is detected in your water}}. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used. <br>Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD, but also in the scientific literature.<br>For the reasons stated, '''I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s)'''. --] 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation ==
	This section was ] with the inappropriate comment "rmv. garbage". There are two 2023 review articles that cover at least major parts of the content:
	* ''Occupational exposure and serum levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A review'', ]
	* ''Occupational exposures to airborne per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—A review'', ]
	] 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

			These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. ] (]) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
	:If you want to insert non-garbage-content, go ahead. But don't criticise legitimate cleanup of garbage sources (as you have before), as it's disruptive. ] (]) 20:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
	:: I wasn't aware that '']'' is a garbage journal … It's not a review article, but garbage?! --] 21:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::The problem isn't the journal, it's Misplaced Pages content sourced to unreliable sources. ] (]) 01:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Do you refer to ] sources? --] 21:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
	:::::Non-] for ]. ] (]) 00:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

			==analytical methods==
	== Corporate and federal government suppression of information ==
			The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods:
			''Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water'', https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 ] (]) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Nomination as a vital article ==
	I have reintroduced a paragraph in this section improving some content that had been removed in the past . @] I see you reverted it simply stating "Primary sourcing". What do you mean exactly? The source is a high quality source as far as I can tell https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ and the sourcing should be appropriate per ] for that kind of information. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

			I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article ]. ]] 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	:The publisher categorize this as an "Original Article", but PUBMED has it as a review. On inspection, it's a composite of both. So, the question is: is the cited material ] in nature? ] (]) 19:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	::Of course: "It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". In this case the primary sources are the historical documents that they reviewed. It was published in a peer reviewed journal and is on PUBMED. So it is a reliable secondary source per ]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small><nowiki>{{u\|</nowiki></small>]<small><nowiki>}}</nowiki></small></span>  <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
	:::They also "developed deductive codes to assess industry influence". And this "development" is original work (primary research). The review element pertains to determining document dating, so far as I can see. ] (]) 20:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:21, 17 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 13 months

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2023-05-10

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Update : Describe the occurrence of PFAS in pesticides

On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PFAS. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification

In my view, this addition would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on bioaccumulation and biomagnification. --Leyo 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we prefer wikilinks to concepts like bioaccumulation and biomagnification. I don´t understand why the review (Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC (June 2006). "Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review". Environmental Science & Technology. 40 (11): 3463–3473) was removed; secondary sources are generally preferred in wp. Feel free to condense the text. JimRenge (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs"?

The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both sections (as such) do not exist anymore. --Leyo 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Presence in Fertilizer

Which section does this go under? ‘This is Chernobyl’: Texas ranchers say ‘forever chemicals’ in waste-based fertilizers ruined their land Hcobb (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Examples

Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Unsupported statement in the article

Under the subheading of United States in the section titled "Concerns, litigation, and regulations in specific countries and regions" this statement is made: "but the Republican Party, supported by the U.S. chemical industry filibustered the bill."

I read the article linked as support for this statement. It mentions filibuster once and does not state who did the filibuster. Txantimedia (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The quote from the article is "All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster." It doesn't say that there was an actual filibuster. I take it to mean if there was a filibuster, there was not enough Republican support to overcome it. So I agree that the wording in the article should be clarified. Nowa (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Even if well-sourced, the factoid may not merit inclusion in this article. It's not really about PFAS themselves. I don't know if this type of political information is appropriate for this article. (It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia.) Drsruli (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. Nowa (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. Gahundle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs

Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s, as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. Gahundle (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Leaning towards using PFAS. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Even the OECD in its revised definition (doi:10.1787/e458e796-en) uses "PFAS" as a singular: any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF₃) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF₂−) is a PFAS.
"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, e.g. Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards or If PFAS is detected in your water. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used.
Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD, but also in the scientific literature.
For the reasons stated, I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s). --Leyo 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation

These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. Gahundle (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

analytical methods

The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods: Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 194.230.145.139 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination as a vital article

I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article here. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: