Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2020 and 15 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GNielsen1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 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. ShadowLeopardBeetleweightGuy (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Be bold and add some information. The recent publication An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) would be a good source. --Leyo 21:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Map of PFAS contamination probes by EWG

Is it more worth a weblink or a quotable source? PFAS contamination by EWG. Also John Oliver talked about it in Last Week tonight as of last week. See e.g. his youtube video. (which would be just a recitable source. Any ideas what should be included. -- 143.164.1.12 (talk) 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. -- Nuretok (talk) 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. -- SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 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. -- 67.61.157.87 (talk) 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:
--Leyo 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 US EPA, CDC, ITRC 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.
67.61.157.87 (talk) 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. --Leyo 22:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, the European Commission, European Environment Agency, and European Environmental Bureau seem to prefer PFAS. The European Chemicals Agency and European Food Safety Authority use the two interchangeably. Australia and Canada use PFAS. The Stockholm Convention 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 Wikipedia page to use it. 67.61.157.87 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, you found one page of the Stockholm Convention, where PFAS is use as a plural once. See here and here 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. --Leyo 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. 67.61.157.87 (talk) 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. --Leyo 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"? 67.61.157.87 (talk) 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. --Leyo 08:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Leyo, 67.61.157.87, and 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 WP:RFC. Will write one shortly. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC about PFAS vs PFASs

Should Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances be shortened to PFAS or PFASs when using the acronym as a plural? 71.11.5.2 (talk) 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. 2800:A4:244F:EA00:D0CC:AFAD:D93D:61E9 (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
"a PFAS compound" is silly as it would correspond to "per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance compound". --Leyo 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 "Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)". uses PFAS to mean the plural and thus has a problem with its sentence:

    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. Dominic Mayers (talk) 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 PCBs, PAHs, CFCs, POPs and VOCs. A source of confusion: this article title is plural for unclear reasons, counter to WP:CHEMGROUP and unlike singular titles for PCBs, PAHs, etc. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia) 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 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Use singular. (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". -DePiep (talk) 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. Dominic Mayers (talk) 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: CFK/s, ...
    2. Treat as group name always: Compound X is a PFAS (*)
    2b. (*) ... but this breaks the suggested rule "always swappable written out ↔ abbreviation"; the plural in written out:
    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):
    Compound X is a per- and poly13substance.
    3. Avoid the PFASs plural -s at any cost. For readability, some writing around may be helpful: OECD (2021) nicely says ... the Universe of Per- and Poly13Substances.
    3b. So current opening line though better change (because bad plural effect; avoid -s):
    Per- and poly13substances (PFASs) are ... → Per- and poly13substances (PFAS) form a chemical group ... or The per- and poly13substances (PFAS) is a chemical group ...
DePiep (talk) 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 OR, but follow that international organisation (that has been doing a lot of standardizing work in chemistry). --Leyo 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"[13]" is shortening text: 13 characters removed from "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" ← 'Per- and poly[13]substances'. For talkpage convenience only. Like: "i18n" ← "internationalisation" (say, translation). -DePiep (talk) 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 here. Sandbh (talk) 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. Dominic Mayers (talk) 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 PFASs at all cost (rewrite the sentence; eg when referring to individual class member). -DePiep (talk) 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. ADONA).
    Hence: Compound X is a PFAS — Compounds X, Y and Z are PFASs --Leyo 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.-DePiep (talk) 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. --Leyo 21:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @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 (§ PFAS vs. PFASs).
IEAM (2011): Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment: Terminology, classification, and origins, 2011 (highly cited)
OECD (2021) Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Recommendations and Practical Guidance, OECD, 2021
OECD (2022) A New OECD Definition for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, 2022
Hope this is a correct & neutral c/p. The earlier discussion has more detailed discussions. -DePiep (talk) 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 --ChemConnector (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Explain why is that article of interest? What are your criteria? That it exists?--Smokefoot (talk) 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.--Smokefoot (talk) 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:

  1. ) that PFAs indeed are pervasive (scary)
  2. ) 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.
  3. ) 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: WP:MEDRS. It appears that health claims are based on primary reports, which might not meet Wikipedia's standards. Hopefully I am wrong. --Smokefoot (talk) 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. --Leyo 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 195.176.112.198 (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What about changing the wording "mineralization" to something such as "low-heat destruction"? --Leyo 09:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Leyo Changed to Chemical treatment. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 01:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances/Archive_1&oldid=1184441811"