Fall 2021 Update
Last month, the EPA released updated results concerning the PFAS container contamination addressed in the article below. They also publicly released a new internally validated method for detecting 28 PFAS compounds in oily matrices. Here’s the summary of both their new detection method and their findings.
New PFAS Determination Method
In an effort to eliminate as much PFAS contamination as possible, the EPA released an internally validated method for the detection of 28 PFAS compounds in oily matrices, such as pesticide products formulated in oil, petroleum distillates, or mineral oils.
This oily matrix method is modified from EPA Method 537.1, which is mainly used for drinking water and was previously used in analyzing PFAS in fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers.
The purpose of this new method is to help pesticide manufacturers, state regulators, and other interested stakeholders test oily matrix products for PFAS and “join the effort in uncovering any possible contamination.”
Updated Investigation Results
Through close collaboration with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the EPA used their new oily matrix method to analyze three stored samples of mosquito control pesticide products (Permanone 30-30 and PermaSease 30-30) by obtaining samples directly from the pesticide manufacturer.
According to the EPA, they conducted a thorough sample and quality analysis of the samples and found that none of the tested samples contained PFAS at or above the Agency’s method limit of detection.
So far, the only PFAS contamination in mosquito control pesticide products that the EPA has identified came from the fluorinated HDPE containers used to store and transport a different mosquito control pesticide product (Anvil 10-10, see more below).
The EPA said they plan on continuing this investigation, and just last week, they also announced a much broader fight against PFAS pollution in general. The new initiative, called the “Strategic Roadmap to confront PFAS contamination nationwide,” includes three main points:
- Increase investments in research
- Leverage authorities to take action now to restrict PFAS chemicals from being released into the environment
- Accelerate the cleanup of PFAS contamination
If the EPA releases any more updates concerning the PFAS investigation, we’ll give you the updated information!
Over the past few months, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) advocacy group discovered that multiple publicly available herbicides and insecticides contain Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), a group of manmade chemicals linked to various health issues.
What does all of this mean for applicators thaused these contaminated products and who might have been exposed to PFAS? Read on to get a breakdown of all of the discoveries, test findings, and possible consequences.
PFAS Background
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that can be found in food packaging, commercial household products, some drinking water, and more. Of the many variants, PFOA and PFOS are the most commonly produced and are known as “forever chemicals” – meaning they don’t break down or leave a person’s body over time.
The EPA recognizes that PFAS exposure can lead to “adverse health outcomes” such as low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (PFOS).
Contaminated Products
Per a new report from E&E News, PEER announced that their own testing revealed PFAS in the following pest control product:
- Mavrik Perimeter – a mosquito and tick control agent Zoecon.
Author’s Note: There are at least three other unnamed pesticides that showed PFAS levels during initial testing. PEER is still waiting for more result confirmations before putting their names out. These findings have not yet been evaluated or confirmed by the EPA.
Anvil 10+10
The new findings listed above are part of PEER’s follow-up investigation after they discovered PFAS in a commonly used mosquito control insecticide, Anvil 10+10.
New testing from an environmental watchdog group shows PFAS are present in multiple pesticides. Claudine Hellmuth/E&E News (illustration); Freepik (mosquito); EPA (logo and text) ; Clarke Mosquito Control Products Inc. (Anvil bottle)
PEER’s initial test results revealed that it contained roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFOA, and 260 – 500 ppt of HFPO-DA (hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid, a “GenX” replacement for PFOA). Massachusetts, parts of Florida, New York, and many other states have all used Anvil 10+10 in aerial spraying programs.
When PEER alerted Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) of its findings, MADEP independently tested nine samples of Anvil 10+10 from five different containers, and found eight different PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.
“In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with EPA, who arranged for the testing.
The EPA Steps In
In response to these findings, the EPA released the results of their own Anvil 10+10 investigation just last week. They discovered eight different PFAS compounds in the fluorinated (a chemical coating) high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers, with levels ranging from 20-50 parts per billion.
Despite these findings, the EPA has this to say concerning possible exposure:
“The PFAS detections…from the tested containers do not represent PFAS concentrations in the environment or human exposure to PFAS. While the EPA is early in its investigation, the agency will use all available regulatory and non-regulatory tools to determine the scope of this emerging issue and its potential impact on human health and the environment.”
PEER says this response, and the EPA’s general testing method, is not enough. Bennett says the EPA should be more proactive in warning the public about the possibility and implications of PFAS contamination in pesticides.
“We now have five different manufacturers that are selling PFAS-contaminated pesticides,” Bennett said, noting PEER’s latest findings. “This is a problem of epic proportions.”
She’s also concerned that the EPA’s testing methods are too focused on PFAS coming from HDPE containers. PEER’s new tests (results listed above) revealed different PFAS compounds than were found in the Anvil 10+10 containers, raising questions about whether the chemicals could be getting into pesticides through other means.
Possible Contamination Causes
One theory Bennett proposed for explaining the contamination would be pesticide manufacturers listing PFAS chemicals as an “inert” ingredient, because there’s no requirement to disclose inert ingredients to consumers.
But there are pesticide manufacturers that dispute the claim. Megan Provost, president of Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), which represents nonagricultural pesticide producers, said, “PFAS chemistry is not an active or inert ingredient in any pesticide formulation” made by members in her coalition. She instead blamed container manufacturers, saying “fluorinated packaging is used for some 20% to 30% of pesticide formulations to increase product and packaging integrity.”
What Now? States, Manufacturers Respond
Regardless of who’s to blame, pesticides have a growing PFAS problem. In response, Anvil 10+10 manufacturer Clarke Mosquito Control Products Inc. confirmed in January that they voluntarily ceased all sales and shipments of the pesticide.
Massachusetts, Maine, and New York have all introduced or proposed bills that either limit or completely ban the use of any pesticide that contains (or might contain) PFAS due to florinated HDPE containers.
The EPA said they are “actively working with the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and industry and trade organizations to raise awareness of this emerging issue and discuss expectations of product stewardship.”
If you suspect you have used a pesticide that may contain PFAS, you can file a report with the EPA here.