Teflon® Encapsulated O-Rings: Fluoropolymers: PFAS: Understanding the Differences

Encapsulated O-RIngs: PFAS: Fluoropolymers: and fluoroelastomers in sealing components, highlight the complexity of PFAS. While it’s tempting to view all PFAS as the same, understanding their distinct differences is crucial. These O-rings, known for exceptional chemical resistance and durability, emphasize these differences. In contrast, certain PFAS, like PFOA and PFOS, have raised health concerns, prompting a deeper examination of these materials. Recognizing that not all PFAS are equal has significant implications for industries relying on them. This distinction also raises critical questions about how regulations should evolve to address the diversity of PFAS, ultimately leading to a more informed and responsible approach to their use.

Not All PFAS Are the Same

PFAS chemicals vary significantly in their properties and risks, making it essential to evaluate each based on its specific application and safety profile. Although “PFAS” often groups these substances together, many have unique characteristics that directly impact their safety and effectiveness. For example, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is highly valued for its non-stick and chemical-resistant properties, making it indispensable in various industrial applications.

In contrast, some PFAS, like PFOA and PFOS, are linked to serious health concerns, leading to stricter regulations. This diversity among PFAS underscores the need for nuanced regulations that don’t unintentionally limit safer alternatives, which are crucial in sectors like aerospace, automotive, and pharmaceuticals.

By recognizing these differences, manufacturers and regulators can make informed decisions that protect public health while maintaining performance standards. Therefore, it’s crucial to assess the molecular structures and uses of PFAS chemicals to ensure beneficial products remain available, while harmful substances are appropriately restricted.

Fluoropolymers: The History: Separating Fact from Fiction

Fluoropolymers have long been celebrated for their unique properties and versatility. However, in recent years, they have been caught in the controversy surrounding PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). This is the story of how the fluoropolymer industry has addressed these concerns and proven the safety of its products.

In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised alarms about perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which were widely used in producing fluoropolymers like PTFE (Teflon). In response, the industry took decisive action, pledging to eliminate PFOA and PFOS from their products and emissions by 2015.

Yet, this solution brought new challenges. The replacement processing aids also fell under the PFAS umbrella, sparking fresh concerns. This led scientists and industry experts to clarify an important distinction: not all PFAS are alike:

Polymers of Low Concern (PLC)

The nature of polymers lies at the heart of this distinction. Fluoropolymers, with their long chains of carbon atoms, exhibit behavior that is markedly different from their non-polymerized PFAS counterparts. To illustrate, comparing fluoropolymers to other PFAS is akin to comparing a massive cargo ship to a small speedboat—they may both float, but their characteristics and impacts differ vastly.

This understanding prompted a focused effort to evaluate fluoropolymers separately from other PFAS. In 2015, the European Commission provided a framework for identifying “Polymers of Low Concern” (PLC). Three years later, a pivotal study demonstrated that common fluoropolymers like PTFE, ETFE, FEP, and PFA met these PLC criteria, solidifying their safety profile.

The fluoropolymer industry did not stop there. They subjected their materials to rigorous testing, ensuring they met the stringent safety standards required for use in food packaging, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices. Research showed that fluoropolymers do not degrade in the environment or release harmful substances, a stark contrast to the behavior of non-polymerized PFAS.

PFAS Chemicals of Concern

The PFAS chemicals of concern include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which should be regulated to prevent contamination of drinking water and the environment. However, the thousands of other PFAS chemicals that do not share these harmful characteristics should not face sweeping regulations that could restrict the use of safe materials that benefit safety and the environment. Major PTFE manufacturers have already removed PFOA from their production processes, effectively eliminating the risk associated with this hazardous material.

Impact of Fluoropolymers on Human Health

Fluoropolymers, when used as intended, do not negatively impact human health. A 2022 in-depth assessment against the OECD polymer of low concern (PLC) criteria confirmed this. With a molecular weight exceeding 100,000 Daltons, fluoropolymers are too large to cross cell membranes or contaminate vital organs. Clinical studies have shown that these materials, used in medical devices, are neither carcinogenic nor harmful to reproductive or endocrine systems. Restricting fluoropolymers could jeopardize public health by limiting their use in critical medical devices and in the safe handling of drugs and other substances.

Conclusion

Teflon® encapsulated O-rings demonstrate that not all PFAS chemicals pose the same risks. Their unique properties make them invaluable in high-demand industries like semiconductors, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals. While it’s crucial to monitor harmful PFAS, it’s equally important to recognize the benefits of advanced materials like fluoropolymers. A balanced approach to regulation can harness the advantages of these substances while protecting health and the environment.

M-Cor Inc. urges lawmakers to adopt a science-based approach when regulating harmful PFAS chemicals, such as PFOA and PFOS. We advocate for regulations grounded in standardized test methods and acceptance limits for materials identified as harmful by the EPA. M-Cor also supports using the grouping concept to distinguish hazardous chemicals from non-hazardous ones, ensuring regulations target substances that truly pose a threat. Additionally, M-Cor actively lobbies for legislative language that carves out exceptions for PTFE use in industry, similar to the allowances made for its use in medical applications. This approach will help industries continue utilizing current PTFE technology.

As this narrative concludes, the debate over fluoropolymer classification remains controversial. Some argue for separating fluoropolymers from other PFAS chemicals for regulatory purposes, while others insist that fluoropolymers should not be exempt from PFAS regulations due to lifecycle concerns.

Request M-Cor Inc. PFAS/ PFOA Statement

Bibliography:

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained

https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4646

https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/news-trends/press-release/2022/new-study-demonstrates-vast-majority-of-commercial-fluoropolymers-meet-criteria-for-polymers-of-low-concern-designation

Encapsulated O-Rings: Fluoropolymers: PFAS