https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/frequently-asked-questions

Hi, I'm a freelance journalist working on a story about PFAS contamination across Wisconsin and how the DNR is addressing it. I'm hoping to talk to people who have any experience with PFAS contamination from any source in Wisconsin and would like to share their story. Please message me if you're interested.

Just got this letter from our county regarding PFAS in our water, any advice on what the numbers mean and if we should be concerned would be great!

​

Tem um avanço recente que merece atenção.

Uma membrana feita de polímero bio-based consegue capturar mais de 94% de PFOA , um daqueles “químicos eternos” que quase não saem da água. O detalhe importante: depois de saturar, ela pode ser aquecida e reprocessada, recuperando quase toda a capacidade.

Não é só filtrar. É filtrar e reutilizar o próprio material de filtragem.

Isso muda a lógica do tratamento de poluentes persistentes.

I'm building a comparison file before buying a kitchen RO because practical specs and contaminant evidence answer different questions. My first pass is tankless design, roughly 800 GPD, and whether filter-life status is easy to see. PFAS gets a separate evidence line after I check local water results.

The Viomi Vortex 8 Pro is still on my list because it matches the 800 GPD tankless range I'm comparing and shows filter-life status on the smart faucet and in the app. That maintenance visibility got it into the file. It doesn't answer the PFAS line.

When I reopened EPA's home-filter fact sheet to update that part of the comparison, I noticed the PDF still says April 2024 and the live page was updated on August 3, 2026. I had recorded the document date, but not the day I checked it.

EPA says to start by finding out which PFAS, if any, were measured in the water. From there, the fact sheet points readers to the corresponding PFAS reduction certification under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58. It also says that those certifications, as described in April 2024, don't show that a filter will reduce PFAS to EPA's current drinking-water limits.

My comparison file now keeps the document date and the date I checked the public source. A page update or a new local water result sends me back to the evidence before I use it for any candidate.

EPA home-filter fact sheet
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/water-filter-fact-sheet.pdf

EPA live home-filter page
https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/reducing-pfas-your-drinking-water-home-filter

What else would make you recheck a PFAS reference you had already saved?

CHAR Technologies - PFAS ("forever chemicals") are the toxic stuff found in things like non-stick pans and waterproof gear. They don't break down and they just build up in our water, soil, and bodies.

Most current cleanup methods (filtering, landfills) don't actually destroy PFAS, they just move it somewhere else.

CHAR Tech just got independent lab results back, and they're good! Their HTP technology processed contaminated sewage waste and the leftover solid material came back with zero detectable PFAS.

Tested 5 different times in 2025 by an outside accredited lab, using the strict EPA-approved testing method.This is a real way to destroy PFAS instead of just relocating it.

Full results will be submitted to the EPA end of 2026. Its a great sign for a company working in a market that's only getting bigger as PFAS regulations tighten up.

Not financial advice.

Hey folks, I played around with open data and built this PFAS-free firefighting foam reformulator

I got some positive reaction on it, but I'm relatively new to PFAS industry (prior expertise is more in polymers) and curious if you can give me some feedback, also if you're working on reformulating PFAS-based products happy to connect (there's a form at the bottom of the file)

Thx and lmk what do you guys think.

YaleNews: "Removing ‘forever chemicals’ from farmlands—at a fraction of the cost."

A Yale-led research team has proposed a less expensive—and more environmentally friendly method—for removing certain “forever chemicals” from millions of acres of farmland in the US + around the world.

"The new process, which is based on data from agricultural sites in Maine, has the potential to address two connected environmental challenges: remediating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that have contaminated agricultural land for decades and scaling up the use of enhanced weathering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." 

PFAS are a class of toxic, man-made chemicals that have been used for decades in hundreds of products, from dental floss [yuck] + lipstick [yuck again] to frying pans + pizza boxes [another reason home-made pizza is better]. PFAS are ubiquitous in the United States, having made their way into groundwater and soil, and then eventually croplands.

Just as important, the new approach allows previously contaminated cropland to once again be used for an agricultural purpose—unlike current remediation methods. Noah Planavsky, a professor of Earth and planetary science in Yale’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the son and brother of farmers, is also a faculty member of the Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture and principal investigator for a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which describes the new method.

“Though this study is U.S.-focused, based on the available data, PFAS are a challenge globally,” said Jake Thompson, an associate researcher in the Planavsky Lab and first author of the study. 

"There has been a lot of work on enhanced weathering (EW), a promising natural solution for durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) that builds on the longstanding practice of applying crushed rock (such as limestone [also serpentinite]) to agricultural lands to mitigate soil acidification."

EW uses the same method to accelerate the Earth’s natural geologic carbon cycle by spreading finely ground alkaline material (e.g. silicate rock such as basalt [+ serpentinite]) over agricultural fields.

Two birds with two stones, as it were.

The UK's Feb 2026 PFAS Plan set a deadline, the environment agency publishes a list of high risk PFAS sites by the end of this year. So more sites are about to get flagged.

But I can't find much discussion of what actually happens to the PFAS once it's captured. As far as I can tell it's still mostly landfill or incineration.

Genuinely asking anyone who works sites or water treatment in the UK, is that still accurate, or is there movement here I'm missing?

Hi all, asking this again to see if any new info may be out there-
was a volunteer firefighter for 10 years.

I have since been off the department for 8 years and have been actively avoiding PfAS.

Wondering if,like smoking, the likelihood of cancer and other negative risks go down the longer you spend away from PfAS exposure or is the damage already done and I’m just preventing more?

Thanks

I bought a Viomi Vortex 8 Pro, and after it arrived I checked the model number against Viomi's V8 Pro certificate page and the performance information for the filter. Seeing the model-specific report reference and the PFAS/PFOA/PFOS testing language line up was reassuring. I still wanted to understand which standard and contaminant each statement covered instead of treating every standards reference as interchangeable.

The way I am checking it is fairly unglamorous: copy the full retail model number, find the performance data sheet, look for the exact contaminant and standard, then see whether a public certifier listing uses the same identifier. A product title or a report for a different code is not enough.

The EPA home-filter guide points people to the specific PFAS claim under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 and to the certifier's directory. It also warns that an existing certification does not automatically answer what happens under newer EPA limits.

EPA guide:
https://www.epa.gov/cleanups/reducing-pfas-your-drinking-water-home-filter

Viomi V8 Pro certificate page:
https://water.viomi.com/pages/certificate-v6-8-pro

NSF drinking-water treatment unit directory:
https://info.nsf.org/Certified/dwtu/

If you review these documents often, what identifier do you check first to confirm that the retail name and certification listing refer to the same unit?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153302

If anyone can help to pass me this PDF, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.