Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 20 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYEnvironmental Science & Technology

PFAS Toxicity: What’s True, What’s Not, and What Really Matters

19 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology
  2. 2Oregon State University
  3. 3Department of Environmental Science
  4. 4Stockholm University
  5. 5Milieu Consulting SPRL
  6. 6NILU, Tromsø 9296, Norway and Division of Environmental Health
  7. 7Norwegian Institute of Public Health
  8. 8Graduate School of Oceanography
  9. 9University of Rhode Island
  10. 10National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  11. 11U.S. Public Health Service
  12. 12Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Environmental and Occupational Health
  13. 13University of Pittsburgh
  14. 14Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich
  15. 15Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Section for Environmental Chemistry and Physics
  16. 16University of Copenhagen
  17. 17Empa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, St., St. Gallen, CH 9014, Switzerland
  18. 18National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Catalysis
  19. 19University of Southern Denmark, Department of Green Technology & Danish Institute for Advanced Study (DIAS)

Abstract

A substantial body of evidence exists demonstrating that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) poses a risk to human health. Data from epidemiological studies of those exposed occupationally or environmentally demonstrate adverse health risks, and these health effects are concordant with data from toxicological studies. Systematic reviews, conducted by agencies, organizations, and independent scientists that synthesize and integrate these data streams, have concluded that a range of health risks arise from PFAS exposure, including different types of cancer, especially kidney and testicular cancer, metabolic alterations such as increased liver enzymes and increased cholesterol, immune dysfunction such as reduced vaccination efficiency, reproductive and developmental outcomes such as low birth weight and reduced duration of breast feeding, and forms of endocrine disruption. Despite this, myths and misinformation surrounding these health risks slow efforts to protect public health from the hazards of PFAS exposure. This work addresses the most predominant of these myths and counters them with accumulated evidence from epidemiological and toxicological studies, demonstrating that exposure to PFASs poses a risk to human health.

Related

  1. Impedance, admittance or current–voltage? What each measurement really tells about charge transport in deepblue hosts
    Manmohan Dash, M. N. Satyanarayan
    ChemRxivPreprintLicence not statedGeneral chemistryChemRxiv
  2. Evaluation of airborne PFAS concentrations in PFAS-using industrial facilities
    Myoungho Lee, Seunghon Ham, Chungsik Yoon
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textEnvironmental chemistryCrossref
  3. Do public records document PFAS drinking-water response handoffs? A 51-jurisdiction audit
    Gustavo Pedro Ricou
    EarthArXivPreprintPublisher termsFull textEnvironmental chemistryEarthArXiv
  4. Overlooked Roles of Oxygen in PFAS Degradation by UV/Sulfite: Mechanistic Insights and Engineering Implications
    Erica Yin, Zoe Zhang, Andrew Delcid +2
    ChemRxivPreprintLicence not statedGeneral chemistryChemRxiv
  5. Near-infrared spectroscopy for rapid and non-destructive assessment of PFAS effects in blue mussels (Mytilus spp.): a proof-of-concept study
    Colleen Guinle, Cécile Levasseur-Garcia, Laurence Poirier +2
    Marine Pollution BulletinPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral biochemistryGeneral biologyHAL
BibTeX
@article{dewitt2026pfas,
  title = {{PFAS Toxicity: What’s True, What’s Not, and What Really Matters}},
  author = {Jamie C. DeWitt and Ian T. Cousins and Gretta Goldenman and Dorte Herzke and Rainer Lohmann and Mark Miller and Carla A. Ng and Martin Scheringer and Xenia Trier and Zhanyun Wang},
  journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology},
  year = {2026},
  month = may,
  doi = {10.1021/acs.est.6c01037},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6c01037},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - PFAS Toxicity: What’s True, What’s Not, and What Really Matters
AU  - Jamie C. DeWitt
AU  - Ian T. Cousins
AU  - Gretta Goldenman
AU  - Dorte Herzke
AU  - Rainer Lohmann
AU  - Mark Miller
AU  - Carla A. Ng
AU  - Martin Scheringer
AU  - Xenia Trier
AU  - Zhanyun Wang
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/05/18
JO  - Environmental Science & Technology
DO  - 10.1021/acs.est.6c01037
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6c01037
AB  - A substantial body of evidence exists demonstrating that exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) poses a risk to human health. Data from epidemiological studies of those exposed occupationally or environmentally demonstrate adverse health risks, and these health effects are concordant with data from toxicological studies. Systematic reviews, conducted by agencies, organizations, and independent scientists that synthesize and integrate these data streams, have concluded that a range of health risks arise from PFAS exposure, including different types of cancer, especially kidney and testicular cancer, metabolic alterations such as increased liver enzymes and increased cholesterol, immune dysfunction such as reduced vaccination efficiency, reproductive and developmental outcomes such as low birth weight and reduced duration of breast feeding, and forms of endocrine disruption. Despite this, myths and misinformation surrounding these health risks slow efforts to protect public health from the hazards of PFAS exposure. This work addresses the most predominant of these myths and counters them with accumulated evidence from epidemiological and toxicological studies, demonstrating that exposure to PFASs poses a risk to human health.
SN  - 0013-936X
SN  - 1520-5851
ER  -