Skip to main content

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — main concerns and regulatory developments in Europe from an environmental point of view



Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) are the most investigated substances of the group of per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). Whereas for PFOS regulatory measures are already in force on international level (inclusion in Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants) such activities are missing for PFOA. The environmental concerns of PFOA, which are summarized in the present study, underline the necessity of regulatory measures on an international level for PFOA. Since it seems more likely to agree on a regulation within the European Union first, a regulatory strategy based on the European chemicals regulation REACH (EC No. 1907/2006), is discussed in the present study.


PFOA is persistent in the environment, ubiquitous present in surface waters, and subject to long-range transport. It accumulates in biota, especially in top predators. PFOA is increasingly analyzed in food items, and in drinking water. PFOA’s intrinsic properties such as its persistency (P), its potential for bioaccumulation (B) and its toxicity (T) suggest that PFOA is a promising candidate for being identified as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under REACH. Because of the dispersive occurrence of PFOA in the environment, the presence in imported products, and the use of PFCs, which can degrade to PFOA in various consumer products, a restriction under REACH seems to be the most effective regulatory measure to minimize human and environmental exposure to PFOA in the European Union.


Due to its intrinsic properties, PFOA fulfills the REACH PBT-criteria. The next regulatory step will be the identification of PFOA and its ammonium salt (APFO) as SVHC according to REACH and the addition to the REACH Candidate List. As a second step, a restriction proposal will be prepared to include both substances and precursors into REACH Annex XVII.


Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) are emerging pollutants of the 21st century. These man-made chemicals have been produced since the 1950s. Due to their outstanding properties – they provide water, oil, and grease repellency and are very stable − certain PFCs have been used in a variety of consumer products. A number of studies are available reporting the occurrence of these chemicals in all environmental media as well as in humans [14]. In total, according to an OECD survey, the group of produced and used PFCs consists of more than 600 compounds [5]. They are characterized by a fully (per-) or partly (poly-) fluorinated carbon chain in connection with different functional groups. Two compounds from the PFC family are well known: Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOS has recently been identified as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) and was included into Annex B of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants [6]. For PFOA only some national measures exist worldwide for the time being. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States (US-EPA) agreed with eight fluoropolymer and -telomere manufacturers on a PFOA-stewardship program in 2006 [7]. The first goal of the agreement was a 95 % emission reduction of PFOA, its precursors, and related higher homologue chemicals until 2010 using the emission data of the year 2000 as a baseline. The second goal is the elimination of these chemicals by 2015 [7]. Canada prepared a risk management scope for PFOA and long chain PFCs in 2010 [8] and a draft screening assessment for PFOA, its salts, and its precursors [9]. The scope is currently under revision. Canada has an agreement with industry to work on the elimination of PFOA residuals from products sold in Canada [10]. In Europe some national regulatory activities are present for PFOA, i.e. the ban of PFOA from consumer products in Norway from 2013 on [11]. In Germany recommended maximum concentrations for drinking water are available [12, 13]. A Europe-wide regulation is missing so far.

The aim of this paper is (i) to summarize the concerns of PFOA from an environmental point of view, (ii) to assess whether PFOA is a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substance according to the European Chemicals Regulation (REACH EC No. 1907/2006), and (iii) to illustrate a strategy to phase out PFOA in the EU using REACH. It is not the aim of this paper to be a review. In parts only selected studies and exemplary studies are mentioned, which are helpful to support the intention of the study. Additionally, further information needs are formulated.

In the following the abbreviation PFOA (CAS. No. 335-67-1) refers to the acid PFOA (Figure 1) as well as to the conjugate base perfluorooctanoate (PFO). Both species are in equilibrium, whereas the fraction of each species depends on the pH of the environmental media and the pKa of PFOA. The general relationship of pH and pKa is given by the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation [14]. In the literature pKa values in the range of −0.2 to 3.8 are discussed for PFOA [15, 16]. Therefore, under normal environmental conditions (i.e. pH 7) more than 99 % is present as conjugate base PFO. In environmental and human samples, generally, PFO is measured. However, in most cases PFOA is documented for these samples in the literature. Only in cases where it is important to distinguish between both of the PFOA-species and where species specific knowledge is available it is clearly indicated that either the acid PFOA or the conjugate base PFO is meant in the following.

Figure 1

Structure of PFOA.

Furthermore, PFOA is used and produced as ammonium salt (APFO) (CAS. No. 3825-26-1). APFO is highly soluble and dissociates in the environment under the formation of PFO. Again, when analyzing samples concerning their APFO content usually PFO is measured. In the literature the concentrations are referred to as PFOA or APFO in most cases. For a better understanding of the present study, the term PFOA stands for APFO and PFO as well.

There are other salts of PFOA available as well, i.e. sodium salt, potassium salt and silver salt. These salts are not included in the present paper due to a lack of physico-chemical data and other studies up to the present.

Results and discussion

Uses and sources of environmental exposure

PFOA has been mainly used as polymerization aid in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers and in aqueous fluoropolymer dispersions, which are used for paints, photographic film additives and in the textile finishing industry [17, 18]. Furthermore, PFOA has been used in aqueous fire fighting foams [17, 18].

Telomerization and electrochemical fluorination (ECF) are procedures which have been applied to produce PFOA as well as other PFCs [19]. With a radical reaction all hydrogen atoms are replaced with fluorine in the ECF process. The more common production process nowadays is the telomerization. Here, perfluorinated iodides (PFIs) are used as starting point for the formation of PFOA. Since other PFCs are also produced by applying the telomerization process, PFOA might be present in the final product as an unintended by-product or a residue [19]. Whereas the ECF process results in both linear and branched isomers the telomerization process results in linear isomers only.

From 1951 to 2004 the estimated total global production of PFOA and APFO was 3600 – 5700 t [18]. Latest data on production volumes are rare. As a result from the US-EPA stewardship program and further activities to substitute the substance in many uses, production of PFOA decreased significantly at least in Europe and North America. Partly, this is documented in annual progress reports of the US EPA stewardship program [7]. For the time period from 2005 to 2050 480 – 950 t of total PFOA emissions are estimated [20]. Results of an OECD survey, which was, however, not answered by all PFOA manufacturers and users, showed that PFOA as well as its ammonium salt was manufactured in four countries in 2008, whereas masses in products are <5.5 t [17].

Although the production volume of PFOA is relatively low in industrialized countries, it is still detected in a number of consumer products. Especially in products with water, dirt, and grease repellent properties like treated carpets (0.2 to 6 mg kg−1 PFOA [21]), outdoor jackets (0.08 to 0.6 mg kg−1 PFOA [19]), and impregnating agents (up to 3.6 μg mL−1 PFOA [22]) PFOA was found. For example in Norway the import of articles was figured out as main source since there is no manufacturing and use of PFOA itself. Carpets, coated and impregnated paper, textiles, paint and lacquer (12 kg, 1.3 kg, 0.5 kg and 1 kg annual maximal PFOA emission in Norway, respectively) have been identified as a potential source for PFOA in Norway [19].

Some PFCs can degrade to PFOA under environmental conditions. Those precursor compounds are within this study defined by a carbon chain of at least seven perfluorinated C-atoms connected to different functional groups. Examples for those precursors are fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs) [23], Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphoric Acid (PAPs) [24] and polyfluorinated iodides (PFIs) [25]. These compounds are also present in consumer products, i.e. up to 52 μg mL−1 8:2 FTOH in impregnating agents [22].

The fact that PFOA and its precursors are present in numerous consumer products indicates wide and dispersive sources of the compounds into the environment. Moreover, during the production of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers, PFCs can be released into the environment [18]. During the whole life cycle of products containing these compounds, starting with the manufacturing, including the use and ending with the disposal, PFOA and its precursors might be emitted into the environment. Detection of PFOA and precursors in wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents [26] as well as in air emitted from WWTPs [2729] give further evidence for the wide dispersive use of PFOA and precursors. Households are one possible source for PFOA and its precursors in municipal WWTPs. Additionally, landfills emit PFOA with their leachates [30] or release these substances into the atmosphere [29, 31].

Concerns about PFOA from an environmental point of view

There are different reasons which show that the releases of PFOA and APFO into the environment are of concern (Table 1). Most of the concerns are related to the environmental persistence of PFOA. PFOA is not expected to undergo biotic or abiotic degradation in the environment. Tests under laboratory conditions prove the suspected environmental persistence as no degradation was observed [32]. Besides these laboratory tests also monitoring data confirm the persistence of PFOA. For example, PFOA was found in groundwater close to a former fire-training area years after the last use of PFOA containing fire fighting foams on this area [33]. Additionally, its high water-solubility (especially of the conjugate base PFO) characterizes the fate of PFOA in the environment: the aqueous phase is one major pathway for the occurrence and the distribution of PFOA in the environment. Various measurements and studies showed that PFOA is ubiquitously present in oceans and other surface waters [2, 3436]. The formation of deep ocean water is discussed as a potential sink for PFOA [2]. Sources of PFOA into oceans are rivers and atmospheric deposition. The distribution of PFOA in aqueous media is also of concern when the long-range transport potential of the substance is examined. For example, findings of PFOA in remote areas like the Arctic or the Antarctic give evidence for the long- range transport potential, because PFOA is not known to be used or produced in these regions. Mainly two transport pathways are discussed: (a) Transport of PFOA in ocean currents and (b) transport of precursors in the atmosphere. Precursors are then degraded to PFOA [18]. The contribution of these two transport pathways to the occurrence of PFOA in remote regions is still under discussion [20, 56, 57]. Furthermore, transport of PFOA bound on particles, i.e. directly emitted from industrial facilities [58] or emitted from oceans is possible as well [18]. Even the transfer of PFOA from particles into the gas phase [59] and the detection of PFOA in the gas phase [28] were shown. Because of the low vapor pressure of the conjugate base PFO only the acid PFOA is expected to be present in the gaseous phase [59, 60].

Table 1 Summary of concerns about PFOA under environmental aspects

The occurrence of PFOA in biota of remote regions is another topic of concern. It was shown that PFOA accumulates in food webs and findings in top predators are reported [4]. PFOA is toxic for reproduction (Cat 1B) and has carcinogenic potential (in accordance with opinion of Risk Assessment Committee of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), [61, 62]). Furthermore, PFOA has a long residence time of 3.5 years in human blood and is present in breast milk [63, 64]. One exposure pathway for humans is nutrition [65]. For example in fish, meat, and vegetables PFOA has been found in low levels [46, 66]. The PFOA load of these food items results most probably from environmental concentrations in water and biota. Also the transfer of PFOA from soil into plants [67], i.e. after application of PFOA contaminated sewage sludge on fields, or the migration from food packages can be a source for PFOA in food [46]. Another potential human exposure pathway is the occurrence of PFOA in drinking water [48, 68]. In cases where surface waters are used for the production of drinking water, PFOA is not effectively removed by common purification methods [69]. Therefore, the occurrence in surface waters is of concern from a human health point of view as well.

It has to be kept in mind that the precursors contribute to the exposure of PFOA to humans and the environment, additionally [24, 25, 54]. Biotic as well as abiotic degradation of those precursors does occur and partly results in the formation of PFOA [70]. Especially indoor air contains up to 10–20 times higher concentrations of these substances than outdoor air, i.e. FTOHs [55, 7173].

In conclusion, the described concerns about PFOA circumstantiate the impact of the exposure of humans via the environment, which is known as man via environment exposure. From a regulatory point of view these concerns raise the question whether PFOA is a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under REACH. SVHC are substances which for example have persistent (P), bioaccumulative (B) and toxic (T) properties. The available data on PFOA need to be compared with the PBT-criteria defined in REACH.

Assessment of PFOA and APFO fulfilling the PBT-criteria for Substances of Very High Concern under REACH

In Annex XIII of the REACH regulation criteria for the identification of PBT-substances are defined. These criteria will be used in the following to assess whether PFOA is a PBT-substance. The relevant criteria and the corresponding PFOA properties are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 PBT-assessment of PFOA

Assessment of persistence

In general, persistence is defined by measured half-lives for the environmental compartments water, sediment, and soil. The numerical values for minimum half-lives in water are 60 days in marine waters, and 40 days in freshwater, 180 days in marine sediment, and 120 days in freshwater sediment, as well as 120 days for the soil compartment. At least one of these values must be exceeded to fulfill the criteria for persistent substances under REACH.

Due to the stability of PFOA it is, in general, challenging or even impossible to measure its half-life. Nevertheless, some studies are available showing that no abiotic or biotic degradation was observed [7478]. The atmospheric half-life of PFOA derived by analogy from short-chain perfluorinated carboxylic acids is 130 days [90]. For hydrolysis a half-life greater than 92 years is reported based on observations of the APFO concentration in buffered aqueous solutions [32]. Taking all the information together, PFOA does not undergo abiotic or biotic degradation under environmental conditions. Therefore, PFOA is considered to fullfil the persistence criteria of REACH.

Assessment of the bioaccumulation potential

The numerical criterion under REACH defining that a substance is bioaccumulative is a bioconcentration factor (BCF) in aquatic species higher than 2000. For PFOA only BCFs far below 2000 were measured in bioconcentration studies using fish and other aquatic species and an exposure route via the surrounding water [32]. Bioaccumulation factors (BAFs) were determined from field measurements. Compared to BCFs, BAFs take all possible routes of exposure into consideration, whereas the BCF excludes dietary uptake. Reported BAFs were also far below 2000 [42, 8183]. There is no defined threshold value for BAFs in Annex XIII of REACH, but taking into account the BCF threshold, again the numerical criterion for bioaccumulation of Annex XIII is not fulfilled.

For assessing the bioconcentration data the high water solubility of PFOA could be the reason for the effective excretion of PFOA by fish via gill permeation, facilitated by high water throughput. Therefore, it is not surprising that no BCF > 2000 is reported in the literature for PFOA and it is also the reason, why several authors came to the conclusion that PFOA does not bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms [79]. However, this possible excretion pathway does not exist for air breathing animals [91, 92] and therefore bioconcentration values in fish may not be the most relevant endpoint to consider.

Also, octanol-water partition coefficients (KOW) can be taken into consideration under REACH to assess the bioaccumulation potential of a chemical. To the best of our knowledge there are no measured KOW values available for PFOA. Only estimates for the neutral PFOA acid are reported [93, 94]. However, if this KOW for the neutral PFOA is applied to environmental conditions, where also PFO is present, the pKa is needed [95]. As the pKa is, as already outlined above, subject to broad discussion, it should be avoided to assess the bioaccumulation potential of PFOA in the environment based on not yet assured properties.

Annex XIII of the REACH regulation was revised in March 2011 (Commission Regulation (EU) No. 253/2011). For assessing the bioaccumulation potential of a substance the criteria were expanded to include more recent findings with respect to biomagnification, bioaccumulation in terrestrial species, concentrations in human body fluids, etc. [96]. However, this weight of evidence evaluation needs expert judgment, since there are no hard, i.e. quantitative, definitions of these new criteria. To the best of our knowledge the new criteria were up to now not used for the assessment of chemicals under REACH.

Information that PFOA bioaccumulates can be drawn from biomagnifications factors (BMFs) and trophic magnification factors (TMFs). Both of them are related to concentrations in predator/prey relationships, whereas TMFs take into consideration a food web. Generally, factors higher than one indicate accumulation. Studies report TMFs or BMFs greater than one, indicating bioaccumulation of PFOA. For example studies on dolphins [97] and caribou [84] clearly show that PFOA is bioaccumulative to a certain degree. Moreover, for the food chains walrus (liver)/clam, narwhal (liver)/Arctic cod, and celuga (liver)/Arctic cod the BMFs are above one, respectively, indicating bioaccumulation [98]. Also for a Canadian Arctic marine food web (sediment and different organisms (macroalgae, bivalves, fish, seaducks, and marine mammals)) a TMF larger than one was reported. Even after protein-normalization, the TMF value was greater than one [97].

BMFs between 0.9 and 11 were calculated in the terrestrial food chain of lichen, caribou, and wolf, living in the remote Canadian environment, indicating bioaccumulation. Furthermore, calculated TMFs were greater than one, indicating trophic magnification, too [84].

Field studies are complex and therefore difficult to judge concerning their reliability. Each of the field studies has its drawbacks due to sample collection in different years, the sampling of body tissues and fluids instead of whole body or uncertainty of prey constitution etc. and may not be considered as a standalone proof for the bioaccumulation potential of PFOA. Nevertheless taken together all studies their results can be considered overall conclusive. The weight of evidence of these studies suggests that PFOA can biomagnify in the food chain as indicated by biomagnifications factors and trophic magnification factors larger than one.

Also the detection of PFOA in human body fluids, such as blood, milk and fat, can be used as additional information to assess whether PFOA is a bioaccumulating substance as defined in Annex XIII of the REACH regulation. PFOA has been found in human blood from all around the world [99]. In addition the following observations are of relevance: Five to eight times higher levels have been found at locations, where people had been exposed to PFOA contaminated drinking water indicating accumulation in the blood compartment [100, 101]. Time trend studies show that PFOA levels are significantly associated with the time being exposed to PFOA, i.e. during work as a ski waxer [102104]. And recent studies strongly indicate that PFOA levels increase with age [105, 106]. Elimination half-lives of PFOA in humans of 3.5 [64] or 3.26 [107] years indicate the bioaccumulation potential of PFOA.

Occurrence of PFOA in endangered species and in vulnerable populations can be used in accordance with Annex XIII of the REACH regulation to assess the bioaccumulation properties of a substance as well. Because polar bears live in remote regions where no direct PFOA source is known, detection of PFOA in polar bears indicates the uptake from the surrounding environment [1].

In conclusion, a number of data are available demonstrating the bioaccumulation potential of PFOA especially in air breathing animals. Moreover, the detection in human body fluids of the general population together with long elimination half-lives is of very high concern. Additionally, it is of special concern that PFOA biomagnifies in endangered species or vulnerable populations as shown by the findings of PFOA in polar bears. Thus, it can be concluded that PFOA is a bioaccumulative substance in accordance with Annex XIII of the REACH regulation.

Assessment of toxic and eco-toxic effects

Toxic substances under REACH are those with no-observed effect concentrations (NOECs) below 0.01 mg L−1 or substances classified as being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction for humans according to regulation EC No 1272/2008. These criteria for toxic substances are defined in Annex XIII of the REACH regulation.

The acute and toxic effects of PFOA to fathead minnow (Pimephales promela) have been analyzed [32]. The threshold value of Annex XIII is not met. The same was observed for aquatic invertebrates [32].

In March 2010 Norway submitted a proposal for the harmonized classification and labeling of PFOA and APFO in the EU. In December 2011 the Risk Assessment Committee of the ECHA came to the conclusion that classification according to regulation EC No. 1272/2008 for PFOA is Repr. 1B and STOT RE 1 [61]. In agreement with the Annex XIII of the REACH regulation the category for reproduction toxicity and specific organ toxicity after repeated dose fulfill the toxicity criteria.

Conclusion on PBT-assessment

PFOA clearly fulfills the P and T criteria of REACH Annex XIII. For the B-criterium a weight of evidence approach mainly based on field studies investigating the accumulation of PFOA in different food webs results in the conclusion that PFOA is a bioaccumulative substance in agreement with REACH Annex XIII. Therefore, PFOA is considered to fulfill the PBT-criteria as defined in REACH. Because of the dissociation of PFOA as well as APFO under environmental conditions the results for PFOA can be transferred to APFO. Hence, APFO fulfills the REACH PBT-criteria, too.

Strategy for regulation of PFOA under REACH

The REACH regulation provides different options for regulatory measures [108]. The PBT-properties of PFOA and APFO in combination with its different source are exceptionally of the PFOA case. (Figure 2) needs to consider both parts to protect the environment.

Figure 2

Strategy for regulation of PFOA under REACH.

Identification as substance of very high concern (SVHC) and addition to the REACH-Candidate List

PFOA and APFO fulfill the PBT-criteria under REACH, which is one possible requirement for a substance to be identified as a SVHC according to REACH, Art. 57d. The identification of SVHC is based on the intrinsic properties of the substances mainly. From a human health point of view PFOA and APFO also fulfill the criteria for the classification as toxic for reproduction (Art. 57c). The next step is to identify the SVHC-properties of PFOA and APFO according to a formal process defined in REACH. Therefore, Germany and Norway are preparing a proposal assessing the PBT-properties of PFOA and APFO in detail. Subsequently to the submission to ECHA this proposal is open for public consultation. Finally, the Member State Committee, which is established with the ECHA, needs to identify the SVHC-properties of PFOA according to Art. 59. Once PFOA and APFO are identified as SVHC ECHA will include the substances into the Candidate List – the list of substances proposed for authorization. This process will start in 2013.

The identification of PFOA and APFO as SVHC in the EU might indicate to states outside of the EU the need to minimize risks, and might also be a starting point for other regulatory measures on national or international level. Furthermore, this might be a strong signal to manufacturers and downstream users to replace PFOA and APFO. Authorization is the foreseen instrument in the REACH regulation to control the risks of SVHC. Once PFOA and APFO are included in the Candidate List they could be included into Annex XIV of the REACH regulation. Following inclusion into this Annex, manufacturers, importers and downstream users would not be allowed to use or to place these substances as such on the European market without an authorization of any single use. Risk control, good functioning of the internal market, and the replacement of SVHC by substitutes are aims of the authorization. Assuring the safe use of the substances, manufacturers, importers and downstream users can apply for authorization using the substances on its own, in a mixture or in an article.

The following three reasons make the instrument of authorization ineffective to control the emissions of PFOA in the environment and the environmental exposure: (i) PFOA and APFO themselves are produced and imported into the EU in decreasing amounts. (ii) Consumer articles containing PFOA, i.e. textiles, are partly imported into the EU and authorization does not apply for imported articles. (iii) Also precursors contribute to the presence of PFOA into the environment. However, precursors of SVHC are not included in the substance definition and therefore won’t be included into Annex XIV. Therefore, the contribution of precursors and residues in (imported) articles to the environmental exposure of PFOA is not addressed by the authorization instrument. If an authorization based on the intrinsic properties of a substance is coming into effect, a restriction based on the same risk will not be possible.


An option to regulate manufacturing, placing on the market or use of a substance on its own, in a mixture or in an article is the inclusion into Annex XVII of the REACH regulation (Restriction, Art. 67). A restriction might also include residue limits for PFOA and its precursors in articles. For PFOA and APFO as PBT-substances this seems to be appropriate to reduce the environmental PFOA concentrations effectively, because especially the residues in articles need to be controlled successfully. As also precursor compounds contribute to the environmental exposure with PFOA, these compounds need to be included in the restriction as well. To decide how an effective restriction needs to be designed more information about the residues of PFOA in articles and mixtures are necessary. Furthermore, relevant precursors need to be identified and included in the restriction. When suggesting a restriction, information about possible substitutes is essential: Some substitutes are already known but not much is known about their properties and their long-term effects. A restriction of PFOA, its salts, and its precursors under REACH is envisaged by Germany and Norway and will be initiated in 2013.


This study demonstrates that PFOA and APFO are PBT-substances and promising SVHC candidates according to REACH. Hence, PFOA and APFO need to be added to the REACH Candidate List. This step alone does not minimize exposure effectively and does not address the concerns of PFOA appropriately. A restriction for production, placing on the market and/or use of PFOA and APFO in certain articles and mixtures is, therefore, necessary as a follow-up. For the future a regulatory process beyond the European level is required to achieve a global protection of humans and the environment from PFOA exposure. Since there are numerous different PFCs manufactured and used worldwide, the intrinsic properties of other PFCs need to be evaluated in future, too. Especially, their fate and behavior in the environment has to be monitored to find out if further regulatory measures are needed.


Literature review and analysis of data obtained in the review were performed to achieve the aim of the study. Furthermore, interpretation of the REACH regulation was necessary. For that reason, also a workshop with experts from different EU-member states, the EU-Commission and the ECHA was hosted in Dessau-Roßlau (Germany) in November 2011.



Perfluorooctanoic acid ammonium salt


Bioaccumulation factor


Bioconcentration factor


Biomagnifications factor


Degradation half-life


European Chemicals Agency


Electrochemical fluorination


Fluorotelomer alcohols


Octanol-water partition coefficient


No-observed effect concentration


PAPs: Polyfluoroalkyl Phosphoric Acid


Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic


Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals


Per and polyfluorinated iodides




Perfluorooctanoic acid


Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid


Persistent organic pollutant


European Chemicals Regulation, EC No. 1907/2006, Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals


Substance of Very High Concern


Trophic magnification factor


Wastewater treatment plant.


  1. 1.

    Butt CM, Berger U, Bossi R, Tomy GT: Levels and trends of poly- and perfluorinated compounds in the arctic environment. Sci Total Environ 2010, 408: 2936–2965. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.015

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ahrens L: Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the aquatic environment: a review of their occurrence and fate. J Environ Monit 2011, 13: 20–31. 10.1039/c0em00373e

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sturm R, Ahrens L: Trends of polyfluoroalkyl compounds in marine biota and in humans. Environ Chem 2010, 7: 457–484. 10.1071/EN10072

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Houde M, Martin JW, Letcher RJ, Solomon KR, Muir DC: Biological monitoring of polyfluoroalkyl substances: A review. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 3463–3473. 10.1021/es052580b

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    OECD: Lists of PFOS, PFAS, PFCA, Related compounds and chemicals that may degrade to PFCA. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)15; 2007.,3425,en_2649_34375_39160347_119666_1_1_1,00.html

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention: The new POPs under the Stockholm Convention. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Environment Canada, Health Canada: Risk management scope for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), its Salts, and its Precursors, and Long-Chain (C9-C20) Perfluorocarboxylic Acids (PFCAs), their Salts, and their Precursors. 2010.–1&xml=F68CBFF1-B480–4348–903D-24DFF9D623DC

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Environment Canada Health Canada: Draft screening assessment perfluorooctanoic acid, its salts, and its precursors. 2010.–1&xml=F68CBFF1-B480–4348–903D-24DFF9D623DC

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Environment Canada: Environmental Performance Agreement (“Agreement”) Respecting Perfluorinated Carboxylic Acids (PFCAs) and their Precursors in Perfluorochemical Products Sold in Canada. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    European Commission: Notification Number : 2010/9019/N. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Drinking Water Commission of the German Ministry of Health at the Federal Environment Agency: Provisional evaluation of PFT in drinking water with the guide substances perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as examples. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Wilhelm M, Bergmann S, Dieter HH: Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in drinking water of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany and new approach to assess drinking water contamination by shorter-chained C4-C7 PFCs. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2010, 213: 224–232. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.05.004

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Schwarzenbach RP, Gschwend PM, Imboden DM: Environmental Organic Chemistry. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Steinle-Darling E, Reinhard M: Nanofiltration for trace organic contaminant removal: structure, solution, and membrane fouling effects on the rejection of perfluorochemicals. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 5292–5297. 10.1021/es703207s

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Burns DC, Ellis DA, Li H, McMurdo CJ, Webster E: Experimental pKa determination for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and the potential impact of pKa concentration dependence on laboratory-measured partitioning phenomena and environmental modeling. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 9283–9288. 10.1021/es802047v

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    OECD PFC Steering Group: Survey on the production, use and release of PFOS, PFAS, PFOA, PFCA, their related substances and products/mixtures containing these substances (2009 survey). 2010.,3343,en_2649_34375_2384378_1_1_1_1,00.html

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Prevedouros K, Cousins IT, Buck RC, Korzeniowski SH: Sources, fate and transport of perfluorocarboxylates. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 32–44. 10.1021/es0512475

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Norwegian Pollution Control Agency: PFOA in Norway. 2354/2007.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Armitage JM, MacLeod M, Cousins IT: Modeling the global fate and transport of perfluorooctanic acid and perfluorooctanoate emitted from direct sources using a multipsecies mass balance model. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 1134–1140. 10.1021/es802900n

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Washburn ST, Bingman TS, Braithwaite SK, Buck RC, Buxton LW, Clewell HJ, Haroun LA, Kester JE, Rickard RW, Shipp AM: Exposure assessment and risk characterization for perfluorooctanoate in selected consumer articles. Environ Sci Technol 2005, 39: 3904–3910. 10.1021/es048353b

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fiedler S, Pfister G, Schramm K-W: Poly- and perfluorinated compounds in household consumer products. Toxicol Environ Chem 2011, 92: 1801–1811.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ellis DA, Martin JW, De Silva AO, Mabury SA, Hurley MD: Sulbaek Andersen MP, Wallington TJ: Degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols: a likely atmospheric source of perfluorinated carboxylic acids. Environ Sci Technol 2004, 38: 3316–3321. 10.1021/es049860w

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    D’eon JC, Crozier PW, Furdui VI, Reiner EJ, Libelo EL, Mabury SA: Perfluorinated phosphonic acids in Canadian surface waters and wastewater treatment plant effluent: Discovery of a new class of perfluorinated acids. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2009, 28: 2101–2107. 10.1897/09-048.1

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ruan T, Wang Y, Wang T, Zhang Q, Ding L, Liu J, et al.: Presence and partitioning behavior of polyfluorinated iodine alkanes in environmental matrices around a fluorochemical manufacturing plant: another possible source for perfluorinated carboxylic acids? Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 5755–5761. 10.1021/es101507s

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Loganathan BG, Sajwan KS, Sinclair E, Senthil KK, Kannan K: Perfluoroalkyl sulfonates and perfluorocarboxylates in two wastewater treatment facilities in Kentucky and Georgia. Water Res 2007, 41: 4611–4620. 10.1016/j.watres.2007.06.045

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Weinberg I, Dreyer A, Ebinghaus R: Waste water treatment plants as sources of polyfluorinated compounds, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and musk fragrances to ambient air. Environ Pollut 2011, 159: 125–132. 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.09.023

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Vierke L, Ahrens L, Shoeib M, Reiner EJ, Guo R, Palm W-U, Ebinghaus R, Harner T: Air concentrations and particle-gas partitioning of polyfluoroalkyl compounds at a wastewater treatment plant. Environ Chem 2011, 8: 363–371.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ahrens L, Shoeib M, Harner T, Lee SC, Guo R, Reiner EJ: Wastewater treatment plant and landfills as sources of polyfluoroalkyl compounds to the atmosphere. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45: 80980–88105.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Busch J, Ahrens L, Sturm R, Ebinghaus R: Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in landfill leachates. Environ Pollut 2010, 158: 1467–1471. 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.031

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Weinberg I, Dreyer A, Ebinghaus R: Landfills as sources of polyfluorinated compounds, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and musk fragrances to ambient air. Atmos Environ 2011, 45: 935–941. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.11.011

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    OECD: SIDS Initial Assessment Report after SIAM 22—Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate & Perfluorooctanic Acid. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Moody CA, Field JA: Determination of perfluorocarboxylates in groundwater impacted by fire- fighting activity. Environ Sci Technol 1999, 33: 2800–2806. 10.1021/es981355+

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Yamashita N, Kannan K, Taniyasu S, Horii Y, Okazawa T, Petrick G, Gamo T: Analysis of perfluorinated acids at parts-per-quadrillion levels in seawater using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 2004, 38: 5522–5528. 10.1021/es0492541

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Yamashita N, Kannan K, Taniyasu S, Horii Y, Petrick G, Gamo T: A global survey of perfluorinated acids in oceans. Mar Pollut Bull 2005, 51: 658–668. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.026

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Busch J, Ahrens L, Xie Z, Sturm R, Ebinghaus R: Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in the East Greenland Arctic Ocean. J Environ Monit 2010, 12: 1242–1246. 10.1039/c002242j

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    McLachlan MS, Holmstrom KE, Reth M, Berger U: Riverine discharge of perfluorinated carboxylates from the European continent. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41: 7260–7265. 10.1021/es071471p

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Becker AM, Suchan M, Gerstmann S, Frank H: Perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate released from a waste water treatment plant in Bavaria, Germany. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2010, 17: 1502–1507. 10.1007/s11356-010-0335-x

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lasier PJ, Washington JW, Hassan SM, Jenkins TM: Perfluorinated chemicals in surface waters and sediments from northwest Georgia, USA, and their bioaccumulation in Lumbriculus variegatus. Environ Toxicol Chem 2011, 30: 2194–2201. 10.1002/etc.622

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Sun H, Li F, Zhang T, Zhang X, He N, Song Q, Zhao L, Sun L, Sun T: Perfluorinated compounds in surface waters and WWTPs in Shenyang, China: mass flows and source analysis. Water Res 2011, 45: 4483–4490. 10.1016/j.watres.2011.05.036

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Stock NL, Furdui VI, Muir DC, Mabury SA: Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in the Canadian Arctic: evidence of atmospheric transport and local contamination. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41: 3529–3536. 10.1021/es062709x

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Loi EI, Yeung LW, Taniyasu S, Lam PK, Kannan K, Yamashita N: Trophic magnification of poly- and perfluorinated compounds in a subtropical food web. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45: 5506–5513. 10.1021/es200432n

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Dietz R, Bossi R, Rigét FF, Sonne C, Born EW: Increasing Perfluoroalkyl Contaminants in East Greenland Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus): a new toxic threat to the Arctic Bears. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 2701–2707. 10.1021/es7025938

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Butt CM, Muir DC, Stirling I, Kwan M, Mabury SA: Rapid response of Arctic ringed seals to changes in perfluoroalkyl production. Environ Sci Technol 2007, 41: 42–49. 10.1021/es061267m

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Stahl T, Falk S, Failing K, Berger J, Georgii S, Brunn H: Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate in Liver and Muscle Tissue from Wild Boar in Hesse, Germany. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2011. In Press In Press

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Picó Y, Farré M, Llorca M, Barceló D: Perfluorinated compounds in food: a global perspective. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2011, 51: 605–625. 10.1080/10408391003721727

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    D’Hollander W, De VP, De CW, Bervoets L: Perfluorinated substances in human food and other sources of human exposure. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 2010, 208: 179–215. 10.1007/978-1-4419-6880-7_4

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Skutlarek D, Exner M, Farber H: Perfluorinated surfactants in surface and drinking waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2006, 13: 299–307. 10.1065/espr2006.07.326

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Ericson I, Nadal M, Van BB, Lindstrom G, Domingo JL: Levels of perfluorochemicals in water samples from Catalonia, Spain: is drinking water a significant contribution to human exposure? Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2008, 15: 614–619. 10.1007/s11356-008-0040-1

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Loos R, Wollgast J, Huber T, Hanke G: Polar herbicides, pharmaceutical products, perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), and nonylphenol and its carboxylates and ethoxylates in surface and tap waters around Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007, 387: 1469–1478. 10.1007/s00216-006-1036-7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Haug LS, Salihovic S, Jogsten IE, Thomsen C, Van BB, Lindstrom G, Becher G: Levels in food and beverages and daily intake of perfluorinated compounds in Norway. Chemosphere 2010, 80: 1137–1143. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.06.023

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Hoffmann K, Webster TF, Bartell SM, Weisskopf MG, Fletcher T: Private drinking water wells as a source of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in communities surrounding a fluoropolymer production facility. Environ Health Perspect 2011, 119: 92–97.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Thompson J, Eaglesham G, Mueller J: Concentrations of PFOS, PFOA and other perfluorinated alkyl acids in Australian drinking water. Chemosphere 2011, 83: 1320–1325. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.017

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Dreyer A, Weinberg I, Temme C, Ebinghaus R: Polyfluorinated compounds in the atmosphere of the atlantic and southern oceans: evidence for a global distribution. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 6507–6514. 10.1021/es9010465

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Langer V, Dreyer A, Ebinghaus R: Polyfluorinated compounds in residential and nonresidential indoor air. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 8075–8081. 10.1021/es102384z

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Armitage J, Cousins IT, Buck RC, Prevedouros K, Russell MH, MacLeod M, Korzeniowski SH: Modeling global-scale fate and transport of perfluorooctanoate emitted from direct sources. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 6969–6975. 10.1021/es0614870

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Schenker U, Scheringer M, MacLeod M, Martin JW, Cousins IT, Hungerbühler K: Contribution of volatile precursor substances to the flux of perfluorooctanoate to the arctic. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 3710–3716. 10.1021/es703165m

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Barton CA, Butler LE, Zarzecki CJ, Laherty JM: aiser MA: Characterizing perfluorooctanoate in ambient air near the fence line of a manufacturing facility: comparing modeled and monitored values. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2006, 56: 48–55. 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464429

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    McMurdo CJ, Ellis DA, Webster E, Butler J, Christensen RD, Reid LK: Aerosol enrichment of the surfactant PFO and mediation of the water-air transport of gaseous PFOA. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 3969–3974. 10.1021/es7032026

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Barton CA, Kaiser MA, Russell MH: Partitioning and removal of perfluorooctanoate during rain events: the importance of physical-chemical properties. J Environ Monit 2007, 9: 839–846. 10.1039/b703510a

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    European Chemicals Agency: Opinions of the Committee for Risk Assessment on proposals for harmonised classification and labelling. 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    European Chemicals Agency: RAC adopts 13 scientific opinions on the harmonised classification and labelling of industrial chemicals and pesticide active substances. 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Fromme H, Tittlemier SA, Volkel W, Wilhelm M, Twardella D: Perfluorinated compounds—exposure assessment for the general population in western countries. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2009, 212: 239–270. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2008.04.007

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Olsen GW, Burris JM, Ehresman DJ, Froehlich JW, Seacat AM, Butenhoff JL, et al.: Half-life of serum elimination of perfluorooctanesulfonate, perfluorohexanesulfonate, and perfluorooctanoate in retired fluorochemical production workers. Environ Health Perspect 2007, 115: 1298–1305. 10.1289/ehp.10009

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Trudel D, Horowitz L, Wormuth M, Scheringer M, Cousins IT, Hungerbuhler K: Estimating consumer exposure to PFOS and PFOA. Risk Anal 2008, 28: 251–269. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01017.x

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    European Food Safety Authority: Results of the monitoring of perfluoroalkylated substances in food in the period 2000–2009. EFSA Jounal 2011, 09: 2016–2040.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Stahl T, Heyn J, Thiele H, Huther J, Failing K, Georgii S, Brunn H: Carryover of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) from soil to plants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 2009, 57: 289–298. 10.1007/s00244-008-9272-9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Vestergren R, Cousins IT: Tracking the pathways of human exposure to perfluorocarboxylates. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 5565–5575. 10.1021/es900228k

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Lange FT, Wenz M, Schmidt CK, Brauch HJ: Occurrence of perfluoroalkyl sulfonates and carboxylates in German drinking water sources compared to other countries. Water Sci Technol 2007, 56: 151–158.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Buck RC, Franklin J, Berger U, Conder JM, Cousins IT, De Voogt P, Jensen AA, Kannan K, Mabury SA, van Leeuwen SP: Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2011, 7: 513–541. 10.1002/ieam.258

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Shoeib M, Harner T, Wilford BH, Jones KC, Zhu J: Perfluorinated sulfonamides in indoor and outdoor air and indoor dust: occurrence, partitioning, and human exposure. Environ Sci Technol 2005, 39: 6599–6606. 10.1021/es048340y

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Haug LS, Huber S, Schlabach M, Becher G, Thomsen C: Investigation on per- and polyfluorinated compounds in paired samples of house dust and indoor air from norwegian homes. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45: 7991–7998. 10.1021/es103456h

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Ericson Jogsten I, Nadal M, Van Bavel B, Lindström G, Domingo JL: Per- and polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in house dust and indoor air in Catalonia, Spain: Implications for human exposure. Environ Int 2012, 39: 172–180. 10.1016/j.envint.2011.09.004

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Hanson M, Small J, Sibley P, Boudreau T, Brain R, Mabury S, Solomon K: Microcosm Evaluation of the Fate, Toxicity, and Risk to Aquatic Macrophytes from Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA). aect 2005, 49: 307–316.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Wang N, Szostek B, Buck RC, Folsom PW, Sulecki LM, Capka V, Berti WR, Gannon JT: Fluorotelomer alcohol biodegradation-direct evidence that perfluorinated carbon chains breakdown. Environ Sci Technol 2005, 39: 7516–7528. 10.1021/es0506760

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Meesters RJ, Schroeder HF: Perfluorooctane sulfonate—a quite mobile anionic anthropogenic surfactant, ubiquitously found in the environment. Water Sci Technol 2004, 50: 235–242.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Schröder HF: Determination of fluorinated surfactants and their metabolites in sewage sludge samples by liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry after pressurised liquid extraction and separation on fluorine-modified reversed-phase sorbents. J Chromatogr A 2003, 1020: 131–151. 10.1016/S0021-9673(03)00936-1

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Liou JS, Szostek B, Derito CM, Madsen EL: Investigating the biodegradability of perfluorooctanoic acid. Chemosphere 2010, 80: 176–183. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.03.009

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Conder JM, Hoke RA, De WW, Russell MH, Buck RC: Are PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and comparison with regulatory criteria and persistent lipophilic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 2008, 42: 995–1003. 10.1021/es070895g

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Martin JW, Mabury SA, Solomon KR, Muir DC: Bioconcentration and tissue distribution of perfluorinated acids in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Toxicol Chem 2003, 22: 196–204.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Martin JW, Mabury SA, Solomon KR, Muir DC: Dietary accumulation of perfluorinated acids in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environ Toxicol Chem 2003, 22: 189–195.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Quinete N, Wu Q, Zhang T, Yun SH, Moreira I, Kannan K: Specific profiles of perfluorinated compounds in surface and drinking waters and accumulation in mussels, fish, and dolphins from southeastern Brazil. Chemosphere 2009, 77: 863–869. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.07.079

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Morikawa A, Kamei N, Harada K, Inoue K, Yoshinaga T, Saito N, Koizumi A: The bioconcentration factor of perfluorooctane sulfonate is significantly larger than that of perfluorooctanoate in wild turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans and Chinemys reevesii): an Ai river ecological study in Japan. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2005, 65: 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Müller CE, De Silva AO, Small J, Williamson M, Wang X, Morris A, Katz S, Gamberg M, Muir DC: Biomagnification of perfluorinated compounds in a remote terrestrial food chain: Lichen-Caribou-Wolf. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 45: 8665–8673. 10.1021/es201353v

    Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Houde M, Bujas TA, Small J, Wells RS, Fair PA, Bossart GD, Solomon KR, Muir DC: Biomagnification of perfluoroalkyl compounds in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) food web. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 4138–4144. 10.1021/es060233b

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Butt CM, Mabury SA, Kwan M, Wang X, Muir DC: Spatial trends of perfluoroalkyl compounds in ringed seals (Phoca hispida) from the Canadian Arctic. Environ Toxicol Chem 2008, 27: 542–553. 10.1897/07-428.1

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Martin JW, Whittle DM, Muir DC, Mabury SA: Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in a food web from Lake Ontario. Environ Sci Technol 2004, 38: 5379–5385. 10.1021/es049331s

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Tomy GT, Pleskach K, Ferguson SH, Hare J, Stern G, Macinnis G, Marvin CH, Loseto L: Trophodynamics of some PFCs and BFRs in a western Canadian Arctic marine food web. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 4076–4081. 10.1021/es900162n

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Fromme H, Mosch C, Morovitz M, Alba-Alejandre I, Boehmer S, Kiranoglu M, Faber F, Hannibal I, Genzel-Boroviczeny O, Koletzko B: Volkel Wl: Pre- and postnatal exposure to perfluorinated compounds (PFCs). Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 7123–7129. 10.1021/es101184f

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Hurley MD, Andersen MPS, Wallington TJ, Ellis DA, Martin JW, Mabury SA: Atmospheric chemistry of perfluorinated carboxylic acids: reaction with OH radicals and atmospheric lifetimes. J Phys Chem A 2004, 108: 615–620. 10.1021/jp036343b

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Kelly BC, Gobas FAPC, McLachlan MS: Intestinal absorption and biomagnification of organic contaminants in fish, wildlife, and humans. Environ Toxicol Chem 2004, 23: 2324–2336. 10.1897/03-545

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD, Morin AE, Gobas FAPC: Food web-specific biomagnification of persistent organic pollutants. Science 2007, 317: 236–239. 10.1126/science.1138275

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Arp HP, Niederer C, Goss KU: Predicting the partitioning behavior of various highly fluorinated compounds. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 7298–7304. 10.1021/es060744y

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Wang Z, MacLeod M, Cousins IT, Scheringer M, Hungerbühler K: Using COSMOtherm to predict physicochemical properties of poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs). Environ Chem 2011, 8: 389–398.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Webster E, Ellis DA: Equilibrium modeling: A pathway to understanding observed perfluorocarboxylic and perfluorosulfonic acid behavior. Environ Toxicol Chem 2011, 30: 2229–2236. 10.1002/etc.637

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Gobas FAPC, de Wolf W, Burkhard LP, Verbruggen E, Plotzke K: Revisiting bioaccumulation criteria for POPs and PBT assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2009, 5: 624–637. 10.1897/IEAM_2008-089.1

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Kelly BC, Ikonomou MG, Blair JD, Surridge B, Hoover D, Grace R, Gobas FAPC: Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in an Arctic marine food web: trophic magnification and wildlife exposure. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 4037–4043. 10.1021/es9003894

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Tomy GT, Budakowski W, Halldorson T, Helm PA, Stern GA, Friesen K, Pepper K, Tittlemier SA, Fisk AT: Fluorinated organic compounds in an eastern Arctic marine food web. Environ Sci Technol 2004, 38: 6475–6481. 10.1021/es049620g

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Lau C, Anitole K, Hodes C, Lai D, Pfahles-Hutchens A, Seed J: Perfluoroalkyl acids: a review of monitoring and toxicological findings. Toxicol Sci 2007, 99: 366–394. 10.1093/toxsci/kfm128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Emmet EA, Shofer FS, Zhang H, Freemann D, Desai C, Shaw LM: Community exposure to perfluorooctanoate: relationships between serum concentrations and exposure sources. J Occup Environ Med 2006, 48: 759–770. 10.1097/01.jom.0000232486.07658.74

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Wilhelm M, Kraft M, Rauchfuss K, Hölzer J: Assessment and management of the first German case of a contaminatoon with perfluorinated compounds (PFC) in the REgion Sauerland, North Rhine-Westphalia. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2008, 71: 725–733. 10.1080/15287390801985216

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Freberg BI, Haug LS, Olsen R, Daae HL, Hersson M, Thomsen C, Thorud S, Becher G, Molander P, Ellingsen DG: Occupational exposure to airborne perfluorinated compounds during professional ski waxing. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 7723–7728. 10.1021/es102033k

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Nilsson H, Karrman A, Westberg H, Rotander A, Van BB, Lindstrom G: A time trend study of significantly elevated perfluorocarboxylate levels in humans after using fluorinated ski wax. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 2150–2155. 10.1021/es9034733

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Nilsson H, Karrman A, Rotander A, Van BB, Lindstrom G, Westberg H: Inhalation exposure to fluorotelomer alcohols yield perfluorocarboxylates in human blood? Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44: 7717–7722. 10.1021/es101951t

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Haug LS, Thomsen C, Becher G: Time trends and the influence of age and gender on serum concentrations of perfluorinated compounds in archived human samples. Environ Sci Technol 2009, 43: 2131–2136. 10.1021/es802827u

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Haug LS, Huber S, Becher G, Thomsen C: Characterisation of human exposure pathways to perfluorinated compounds—Comparing exposure estimates with biomarkers of exposure. Environ Int 2011, 37: 687–693. 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.011

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Brede E, Wilhelm M, Göen T, Müller J, Rauchfuss K, Kraft M, Hölzer J: Two-year follow-up biomonitoring pilot study of residents‘and controls’ PFC plasma levels after PFOA reduction in public water system in Arnsberg, Germany. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2010, 213: 217–223. 10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.03.007

    Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Lahl U, Hawxwell KA: REACH–the new European chemicals law. Environ Sci Technol 2006, 40: 7115–7121. 10.1021/es062984j

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the participants of the workshop on “Regulatory issues of PFCs” hosted by the Federal Environment Agency in Germany for their valuable input in assessing the bioaccumulation properties of PFOA, especially Greg Hammond from Environment Canada. We acknowledge the cooperation with our colleagues, Heidi Morka, Ingunn Correll Myhre, Stine Husa and Marit Kopangen from the Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency for the work on regulation of PFOA under REACH. Furthermore, we thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on our manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Vierke.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed in equal parts to this publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This paper does not necessarily reflect the opinion or the policies if the German Federal Environment Agency.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Authors’ original file for figure 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vierke, L., Staude, C., Biegel-Engler, A. et al. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — main concerns and regulatory developments in Europe from an environmental point of view. Environ Sci Eur 24, 16 (2012).

Download citation


  • PFCs
  • PFCAs
  • PFO
  • PFOA
  • APFO
  • SVHC
  • Candidate List
  • Restriction
  • Regulation
  • Per- and polyfluorinated chemicals