Jump to content

Talk:PFAS

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


Wiki Education assignment: College Composition II

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs"?

[edit]

The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sections (as such) do not exist anymore. --Leyo 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported statement in the article

[edit]
☒N Deleted
 – See this revision. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subheading of United States in the section titled "Concerns, litigation, and regulations in specific countries and regions" this statement is made: "but the Republican Party, supported by the U.S. chemical industry filibustered the bill.[24]"

I read the article linked as support for this statement. It mentions filibuster once and does not state who did the filibuster. Txantimedia (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the article is "All legislation aimed at regulating toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” died in the Democratic-controlled US Congress last session as companies flexed their lobbying muscle and bills did not gain enough Republican support to overcome a Senate filibuster." It doesn't say that there was an actual filibuster. I take it to mean if there was a filibuster, there was not enough Republican support to overcome it. So I agree that the wording in the article should be clarified. Nowa (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if well-sourced, the factoid may not merit inclusion in this article. It's not really about PFAS themselves. I don't know if this type of political information is appropriate for this article. (It doesn't sound like it belongs in an encyclopedia.) Drsruli (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some interesting points. I agree that the article doesn't need a note about US legislation that didn't pass back in 2021. If we can get someone to second this point, then I'm in favor of removing the paragraph. Nowa (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not necessary for this article. Should also be removed from intro section. Gahundle (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs

[edit]

Article alternates between using PFAS as plural and PFASs. Should be standardized throughout. I see there was previously a RfC on this topic that did not lead to any changes. I am partial to "PFAS" without plural s, as that seems to be more common in literature (and it's what the group I work with uses, so that helps). Whichever way it goes, a decision should be made and article updated to reflect that. Gahundle (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards using PFAS. There are more instances of that being used over the other version, and I haven't seen any instances where PFAS was used to refer to something in the singular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the OECD in its revised definition (doi:10.1787/e458e796-en) uses "PFAS" as a singular: […] any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.
"PFAS" is even sometimes used in singular, when actually the plural is meant, e.g. Where PFAS is found at levels that exceed these standards or If PFAS is detected in your water. When using "PFASs", nobody would use "is" instead of "are". Furthermore, I've seen it several times, that people mistake "PFAS" to be a single chemical, similar to similar-looking acronyms such as PFOS, PFOA etc. This wouldn't happen if "PFASs" was used.
Initially, "PFASs" was used. A few years ago, there was a shift towards "PFAS". Recently, there has been a shift back to "PFASs" by Organisations such as the UN[1] (incl. Stockholm Convention), OECD[2], but also in the scientific literature.
For the reasons stated, I do strongly prefer "PFASs" (with plural-s). --Leyo 21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing sections: adverse health outcomes, regulatory concerns, remediation

[edit]

These three sections are pretty bloated. Health outcomes I think can be reduced to a single paragraph, rather than 7 subheadings. Same idea for litigation and regulation: there are quite a lot of details about litigation from individual US states that I think the breadth of this article does not warrant. Much of this can be condensed, removed, or moved to an article specific to PFAS litigation/regulation. The section on remediation needs a rewrite; it's not organized, it's unclear which technologies are in use and which are under research, or how well developed any of them are. I'm planning to start tackling these when I get a chance, but wanted to give people a chance to weigh in (or beat me to it!) in case there are any strong feelings about any of this. Gahundle (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

analytical methods

[edit]

The following paper could be useful to improve and update the section on analytical methods: Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122 194.230.145.139 (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination as a vital article

[edit]

I've nominated this article as a level 5 vital article here. -1ctinus📝🗨 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 April 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There appears to be consensus for the PFAS title. While some appear to prefer the plural form, there is about equal support for both and enough non-specific supporting comments to justify going with the title named in the original request. A further discussion may be needed to clarify the singular vs plural issue. (closed by non-admin page mover) Garsh (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances → PFAS – Did this a few years ago, discussion resulted in a no consensus. I still believe this should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:ACROTITLE. The latter says: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Leyo 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a reason I am not proposing moving the other compound ls, because those aren't commonly featured in the media. The purpose of an article title is also assuring users there are om the right page and the current title is not doing that for the majority of our readers. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are also examples to the contrary:
• TNT, not Trinitrotoluene or 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene
• DDT, not Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane -jakeyounglol (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward support: Just as an observation, we have DDT and TNT, but Polychlorinated biphenyl instead of PCBs. I don't recognize most of the others that have been discussed above except Volatile organic compound. That one is different in at least two ways. One is that it is not a very obtuse and unfamiliar chemical name. Another is that it seems relatively important for people to understand what the abbreviation means in order to achieve any level of understanding about the subject – the basic idea is to refer to the group of organic compounds that easily evaporate – that's pretty simple and memorable. For the others, it does not seem important at all for a non-specialist to know what the abbreviation stands for. For this substance, I have seen "PFASs" in mainstream publications, but there is no hope of the average person remembering "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances", and no good reason for them to try. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the full name, it is clear that they consist of two types of substances perfluorinated and polyfluorinated. They are merged into one group, because the latter are transformed into the former under environmental conditions (also not quickly). --Leyo 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that is all very helpful to understand, but it is way beyond what we can expect of most readers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the same readers are likely to mistake "PFAS" for a single chemical, because of its similarity to e.g. PFOS, PFOA. BTW: This wouldn't happen with PFASs, which is consistent with e.g. PFSAs, PAHs, PBDEs, PCDDs, PCDFs etc. --Leyo 09:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that PFASs is better than PFAS. This falls under WP:SINGULAR's exception for classes of things. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice that "PFAS" is sometimes used without the 's' for the plural, as observed by Mdewman6. However, adding the 's' might make it more clear that this is about a class rather than a particular compound, as suggested by Gtoffoletto. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I oppose a move to PFASs. PFAS is by far the more common term, used for both the singular and the plural. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true for the US, but not globally. For example, a group of leading scientists in the field of PFASs has just published the following paper: Scientists’ Statement on the Chemical Definition of PFASs (doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00478) --Leyo 15:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:
  • Redirects are fine.
  • It is about chemicals, not a brand.
See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Redirects Charles Dong (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry) has more about naming conventions about chemicals. Charles Dong (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: PFAS is by far the most recognisable name and is what most people will be searching for. Especially with all the (warranted) media attention that PFASs have been getting. Dual The Eggist (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PFAS or PFASs though? You used both in your comment. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the title should be PFAS, with a redirect for PFASs. However, the opening sentence sentence should mention both the plural form PFASs and the full name. This way PFAS - the most commonly used name - becomes the title; however the opening sentence still notes that this is a class of chemicals, and not one singular chemical. Dual The Eggist (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Water Resource Engineering

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2025 and 10 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luke3x33 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Elizsullivan.

— Assignment last updated by Elizsullivan (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new subsection Constructed Wetlands is too detailed for this article. It should either be shortened or moved to Remediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. --Leyo 09:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PFAS&oldid=1295786324"