A Concerned Scientist @BE@qoto.org

@sidereal

Both are absolutely true in my experiences as well.

I've got a few DMs overnight asking about PFAs in masks, and so rather than discuss it all in private, here's my thoughts.

In short:

Yes. Some masks will test positive for PFAs.

No. I don't think it's a big concern.

Here's why. The spreadsheet going around about 3M products, at least the version I've seen, absolutely does list the Aura and some of their filters for some of their reusable masks like the 6503, which I own and use, but in extremely tiny amounts. A cup of water from your sink, unfiltered, probably has more than your mask.

You're, probably, talking tiny amounts that are due to manufacturing. Do I trust 3M about that? No. From professional and personal experience I wouldn't trust 3M if they told me the sky was blue. Don't trust them about anything. Would it surprise me if I later found out that they soaked the Aura in PFAs for a week to make sure it didn't get wet? No. There are some true believers in PFAs in that company who think they're the greatest thing and should be on everything. Do I think that's what's going on? No.

If I found out that they did, in fact, soak them, would I avoid them? Of course. But that doesn't mean you stop masking. Even if EVERY mask in the world tested positive for PFAs, I'd pick my poison and mask up when I needed to.

But, really, manufacturing is a real problem for trace amounts of PFAs. They're everywhere. I once knew a guy who fixed manufacturing machines. He worked for a big company and had a multi-state region where he just travelled around and fixed machines on manufacturing lines when they went down. Back before people worried about PFAs much, he had an SOP he followed, and the last step on most things was to spray the parts he replaced down with a PFA spray. Why? Because it kept grease out of the product on the line. Everything coming off of those manufacturing lines would have some trace of PFAs on them, even though the company who was responsible for the products had no idea.

This hasn't really gotten any better since. Supply chains are absolutely riddled with PFAs. Even companies trying their absolute best have very little control over it in the end.

The paper that's often cited about masks and PFAs is the following, and I believe it's really the only one.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00019

What you have to realize about this is that if you dig into the supplementary info, there was *some* PFA contamination on the N95 they tested. But the vast majority of it was on "RC-1" through "RC-6", and "FF". RC here stands for reusable cloth, and the FF is a mask designed for, and marketed to, firefighters.

Let's deal with the firefighter's one first. Firefighters are, unfortunately, laden with PFAs. Firefighting foams for Class B fires are basically PFA foams. While they're being phased out, they still exist. Firefighting equipment then is often soaked in PFAs. I assume the mask in the study for firefighters is soaked in PFAs for some fire resistance.

Now, the reusable cloth masks. I hope no one's using those today. But, let's stop and think this through for a moment. If cloth masks have PFAs, what does that say about my clothes? I hate to tell you, but, a lot of clothes have PFAs.

Yes, so does bedding. Carpets. Paints. The seats in your car.

I've had a series of revelations in my life through my research. In the 90's and the following decades I removed everything that I could that off gassed VOCs. Then I removed plastics. Then I got rid of everything that I could find that had PFAs.

Proportionally, the first two weren't that hard. PFAs are damn near impossible.

So what do you really need to focus on? *Not ingesting them*. I think that's intuitively clear. Sure, you don't want to touch poison, but you REALLY don't want to pour a glass of it and drink it, right?

In order of most important:

Clean your water. I think I've discussed this ad nauseam and everyone's probably tired of it.

Remove it from your food sources. Yes, the FDA banned it from food packaging in February, but that doesn't take effect until around 2026. When I worked in the national lab system you know what we called that? Not today's problem. Because anything that was funded or unfunded during the next presidential administration was just as likely to happen as not happen in the end.

Look out for cosmetics. If not ingesting it is the main goal, not rubbing it on yourself everyday is the next goal.

@ScienceCommunicator

It's really not. You just keep on blaming climate scientists and virtue signaling. Those of us who have put our whole lives into this and don't just pontificate blithely online just didn't do enough for you, I guess. I've seen you make some really nutty arguments before, but this takes the cake.

I have to admit, once I was probably pretty similar to you, but, go ahead and grow up, get a real job, step out of your academic bubble for a bit and you'll get it.

You don't even know the relevant literature, but here you are complaining that people aren't citing sources for you. I'm not writing a paper here. I've written plenty of them, even on the subject at hand, and don't need to continue further with you.

@ScienceCommunicator

Every person saying something is a lottery ticket, agreed.

@ScienceCommunicator

Normally I'd tell you to find it yourself, especially because we've discussed this, but I typo'd that. "14%" is what I was referencing and it's well cited Ipsos study that looked at people who claimed to understand and believe in climate science, but only 1 in 7 would actually do things like stop flying to help. This is because what people "understand" about climate change is that if they have some solar panels, recycle and maybe buy an EV eventually that everything will be fine. When told "Actually, you need to do more than that" very few people are on board.

If you want to blame this on scientists for not controlling the narrative then you've lost the narrative. That's all. There's plenty of scientists who are damn near suicidal that no one's listened for decades.

If I do a study, on, say, PFAs in water and the people who fund it decide to bury it, that's out of my control.

If I do a study that shows a certain polluter is wrecking waterway, and it gets published, a PR piece goes out, and the local newspaper puts it on the front page, sure, more people read it, but we're still talking thousands in a country of 330 million.

Scale matters. To your original point why would that 70% of people who are concerned do anything more than they've been told is enough? That's where the disconnect is.

@ScienceCommunicator

In terms of how people are even aware of anything, in general, people do research and their organization puts out a press release. Those are covered by whatever press feels like picking it up, or no one. I know you know this.

@ScienceCommunicator

The reason that about 4% of people understand what actually needs to be done is precisely because scientists don't control the narrative, what I say doesn't matter, and why maybe 1% of people in the US could identify Michael Mann. We're all talking in a small bubble hoping that what we find important makes it to a larger bubble controlled by other people. This isn't my opinion, this is just the actual numbers of people vs. organizations reach.