Trifluoroacetic acid, a chemical compound known as TFA, has become increasingly prevalent in rainwater, drinking water, and ecosystems worldwide, according to new reporting by Nature. A study of drinking water across 11 European countries detected TFA in 94 percent of tap water samples and in 12 of 19 bottled waters, the reporting states.
TFA originates mostly from synthetic petrochemicals used in pesticides and found in landfills, where it breaks down from PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances commonly called forever chemicals because they can take hundreds or thousands of years to degrade. Because TFA is tiny and highly soluble, it moves easily through the water cycle. [IMG_1]
Levels have risen sharply in recent decades, with increases recorded in tree species in Germany, deep Atlantic Ocean waters, the Swiss mountain saddle of Jungfraujoch, and Arctic ice cores. TFA is also present in most of the world’s rainwater, according to Nature.
Unlike other PFAS pollution, terrestrial TFA does not evaporate with water, meaning the industrial sources typically associated with PFAS are not necessarily responsible for this type of acid rain. Instead, TFA typically forms when fluorinated gases—byproducts of refrigerants, air conditioners, and fire extinguishers—join with gaseous water molecules.
Health Effects and Scientific Dispute
The full effects of TFA on human health are not well established. Animal studies have shown harmful impacts on embryos and blood-filtering organs such as the liver, according to the reporting.
Researchers have been concerned about TFA levels since the late 1980s, but some petrochemical industry researchers have turned the chemical byproduct into a scientific debate, arguing that TFA should not be classified as a PFAS at all. The US Environmental Protection Agency currently classifies TFA as a non-PFAS.
Industry researchers say the consequences of TFA exposure are overblown and point to large amounts of it in ocean water as evidence that the planet is coping with the human-made chemical, arguing that the influx into ecosystems is not worth worrying about.
That position has reached the top of European governments. Research groups convened by the United Nations Environment Programme have argued that synthetic TFA levels pose a “minimal risk,” allowing governing bodies like the European Commission to set aside TFA concerns and delay regulation. The reporting notes this is a benefit to multinational corporations such as Honeywell, which have publicly disputed TFA concerns.
Many scientists disagree. A 2021 study by a team of University chemists in Canada found no “sufficient evidence that TFA occurs naturally,” calling it a myth accepted without scrutiny. The researchers asserted that “natural TFA should not be invoked in any discussions about the production and/or regulation of TFA.”
The PFAS Precedent
The history of PFAS illustrates the risk of accepting the petrochemical industry’s assurances. Companies like 3M and DuPont have produced PFAS since the 1940s, but evidence of harms did not enter the scientific record until the late 1990s—despite compelling evidence that the industry knew PFAS was “highly toxic” since at least 1970, according to the reporting.
By 2001, a widely influential study found PFAS traces throughout North America, Europe, and the Arctic, in the tissue of species including bald eagles, polar bears, mink, and seals. Decades of corporate inaction later, cancer- and disease-causing PFAS can be found in measurable amounts in virtually every person and animal on the planet, the reporting states.
Given that record, the chemical industry’s public relations work on TFA is viewed with skepticism by many in the scientific community. The central unresolved question is whether regulators will treat TFA as a distinct concern or continue to accept the minimal-risk assessment supported by industry-aligned research groups.
Editorial Notes