Talk:Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed[edit]

The article states that PFOS is very stable and toxic. While I agree that it is very stable and unreactive, what is the toxic dose of PFOS? untill an unbiased, reputable source is found stating the dose of PFOS in the enviornment is toxic to humans and other animals and organisms, it is a violation of the NPOV and original reaserch policies to make such claims. Also, PFOS is not on the list of the 12 persistent organic pollutants. Polonium 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PFOS is frequently listed as a persistent organic pollutant in many documents. It is a suspect endocrine disruptor, cancerogen, and it undergoes bioaccumulation. It is not on the List of Twelve, but its inclusion is being considered. [1] After all, it is persistent, it is organic, and it is pollutant. Or isn't it? --Shaddack 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Still, it is not on the list of 12 so far, therefore it should not be listed unless it becomes offically listed as a POP. Also, is it really a pollutant? Polonium 14:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The list is named "initial", not "exhaustive". According to the definition of pollutants, they have to be damaging to the environment; as I doubt endocrine disruptors won't be considered as damaging, I therefore believe PFOS can be considered a pollutant. --Shaddack 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Where is a reputable, unbiased source that states that PFOS is an endocrine disruptor? Also, if it is not yet on the list, the article should not state that it is (unless it is added to the list). Also, some industry front groups, like the ACSH, claim that PFOS is harmless. While these groups are certainly biased, the EWG is also biased. Polonium 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Does this count as a reputable source? [2] Or an abstract here: [3]. According to SourceWatch, ACSH is little more than a bunch of industry shills [4]. What about setting up a Category:Suspected persistent organic pollutants or something like that? That should satisfy everybody. --Shaddack 18:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I will create the proposed category Category:Suspected persistent organic pollutants. Polonium 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of Polonium's comments above. To me, the current article is almost hysterical. Being extremely stable and toxic are not mutually exclusive, but the combination is exceptional. And it is risky to conclude that long-lived molecules are super-bad. Of course it is also risky to ignore such persistent species. I dont think that PFOS is toxic in the sense that a casual reader would expect, i.e. like cyanide or strychnine. --Smokefoot 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Suspected persistent organic pollutants[edit]

I thought contributors to this article might be interested in this CFD notice. Cgingold 10:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


what is the probablity that this could cause renal cancer to the kidney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Most of the discussion above is no more specific or accurate than the article that it is criticizing. However, there is a clear (minor) technical error in the article. The article says "Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOA)". This is incorrect nomenclature: PFOA is actually a different chemical: "Perfluorooctanoic acid" (it has no sulfur). PFOS refers to both perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (the dry form) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (the aqueous anion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I undid this incorrect change. --Leyo 09:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Exposure to perfluorinated compounds[edit]

Please consider adding this recent study to the article:

“Serum Vaccine Antibody Concentrations in Children Exposed to Perfluorinated Compounds”. Grandjean et al. Journal of the American Medical Association 307(4):391-397, 2012.

Thanks. (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For everyone interested in this article: It may be accessed at doi:10.1001/jama.2011.2034. --Leyo 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

synthesis, presursor sections[edit]

Hi Leyo, I saw you undid my edit here. yes, the 2 things are separate processes, I know. And I think you know I know. -:) My intention was, to not have one-sentence major sections, as you know, and I know you know this is not ok. PLease let's find a section heading that you can live with for these 2 sentences. Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

These two things (industrial synthesis vs. transformation of precursors to form PFOS in e.g. WWTPs) may not be merged into one section, even though both sections are short. Both may be extended, see e.g. ENV/JM/MONO(2006)15 (Lists of PFOS, PFAS, PFCA, related compounds and chemicals that may degrade to PFCA, 157 pages) or this review article. --Leyo 19:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Did you even read what I wrote , man? PLease reply to teh question instead of repeating your opinion...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote, but there is no question. If you like to have a direct statement addressing your last sentence: There is no such section heading. --Leyo 09:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)