​how to understand PFAS measurements

 How do Australia rate against other countries for exposure protection?

PFAS measurement units and concentration

​​Just as each country uses different units of measure for metrics vs imperials, the same applies for units of measure for PFAS concentrations.
This makes it very hard for the lay person to understand what this means and how to rate what we are being told is safe by our EPA's and state health departments.
There is only one Australian Commonwealth entity that holds all the power while all others, including the federal government default to them - the irresponsible food standards entity FSANZ.
​Read here how FSANZ operate and play games with our health allowing the Australian government to do nothing compared to the rest of the European Union (EU) and USA.
​Australia mainly uses measurements expressed in micrograms (μg), nanograms (ng) and parts per trillion (ppt).
  • Depending on drinking water, blood levels , food intake it could be nanograms or micrograms per kilogram/litre/gram/millilitre.
  • Countries also use measured amounts of PFAS per day, per week, over a lifetime (the maximum intake in food that can be consumed weekly over a lifetime without risking adverse health effects).
  • Then there is the all-important sum total of PFAS substances.
But what do they all mean?
A concentration of part per million can correspond to 1 part material per 1 million parts regardless of whether it is a gas, liquid or solid.
Because PFAS substances have been proven to be dangerous in such tiny amounts is why these small fractions are used and why various analogies can also be used to visualise the concentrations as a comparison.
While the Australian Government, EPA’s and industries can test for at least 28 PFAS substances, they only need to be compliant with just 3.
The Australian Government have deliberately chosen to be unethical, immoral and dishonest to their own citizens. 
The following two graphics show different ways to see the conversions in symbols > ppt and further below is the Australian comparison levels for drinking water, diet and meat against America and the European Union. 
​Copy and paste these for your own reference.
  • ​The important issue is the comparison and the total sum of PFAS substance measured with all following representations of PFAS unit measurements converted to Parts Per Trillion (ppt) for ease of understanding and comparing.
  • Important to also note that ‘sum of PFAS’ and ‘total PFAS’ have two different meanings for the European Union as they are working to monitor the grouping for all PFAS (total) as opposed to ‘the sum of 20 PFAS - the sum of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances considered a concern as regards water intended for human consumption…' 
  • The drinking water toxicity reference values is a perfect example of the widening gap on what thresholds are deemed safe. All cannot be correct!​
*Update - US' National EPA new rule released 10/04/24 April for PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). 
​Important to note,
  • US EPA are distinguishing a non-enforceable health-based goal, at ZERO
  • an enforceable MCL for PFOA and PFOS at 4 ppt 
  • enforceable MCL for PFNA, PFHxS, and “GenX Chemicals at 10 ppt. 
  • EPA is also setting a limit for any mixture of two or more of the following PFAS: PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and “GenX Chemicals” which is based on a hazard index.
​*Note

​Who is eating our contaminated meat?

The Australian Government is overseeing regulatory agencies and Commonwealth entities with obligations under food safe acts to allow highly contaminated meat to be sold into both the domestic and export market for human consumption.
We know of cattle that had PFAS blood serum levels around 1500ng/ml (1,500000 ppt) which the Australian Government has declared is fit for human consumption.
Other countries are introducing more stringent requirements to monitor, clean up and reduce PFAS exposures to their citizens because their governments deem PFAS compounds unsafe, a hazard and a significant health burden to their population.
Yet the Australia Government and State EPAs do not see the same PFAS compounds as a health burden in Australia nor treat PFAS as hazardous. Worst, our government are not even prepared to protect our agricultural markets from PFAS contamination​. ​
Australia's position must be seen in the context of WHO's recent findings by IARC classifying PFOA as a Group 1 Carcinogen and PFOS as Group 2B. 'PFOA is carcinogenic to humans on the basis of sufficient evidence for cancer in experimental animals and strong mechanistic evidence (for epigenetic alterations and immunosuppression) in exposed humans…PFOS is possibly carcinogenic to humans on the basis of strong mechanistic evidence across test systems, including in exposed humans (for epigenetic alterations and immunosuppression, as well as several other key characteristics of carcinogens).'
  • This new determination puts pressure on Government and Regulators (EPAs, Health) to review current health levels presently set for water/food/soils/biosolids.
  • ​Yet, AUSTRALIA IS STUBBORNLY NOT CHANGING THEIR PFAS POSITION as revealed with the release of the 2024 health guidance factsheet from EnHealth.
    ​It is dangerous allowing government and big industry to continue their toxic chemical abuse and mismanagement without oversight.      ​
The following link says it all when an 2022 international journal calls out Australia's health position on PFAS.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00857-9 
The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) acknowledges specific cholesterol, renal, and endocrine findings, yet provides a scientifically puzzling blanket assessment concerning the level of evidence for health impact: 
  • “PFAS has not been shown to cause disease in humans” [95]. 
…however, it is a strange statement and not aligned with modern reviews
​…However, the Australian Government Department of Health has communicated a similarly puzzling message about all exposure pathways. 
  • “PFAS has not been proven to cause any specific illnesses in humans” [96]. 
…It is hard to understand why a national department of health would invoke confounding by diet in the face of these data, and difficult for the reader to be clear what is being conveyed about evidence by the choice of the word “proven.” At best, the communication is misleading about the current weight-of-evidence for some outcomes such as abnormal lipid profiles and kidney cancer, and the reader is left uncertain what level and evidence for human and experimental studies is indicated by “proven.” 
​BACK TO TOP
HOME
ABOUT
PFAS​​​​​​​
GOVERNMENT
RESEARCH
WHATS NEW
​​PFAS RED FLAGS
CONTACT
This page was last updated 11 April 2024