欢迎访问《日用化学工业(中英文)》,今天是

日用化学工业 ›› 2020, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (1): 49-53.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-1803.2020.01.009

• 专论与综述 • 上一篇    下一篇

我们该如何看待全氟或多氟烷基物质(PFAS)?

邢航,窦增培,肖子冰,肖进新()   

  1. 北京氟乐邦表面活性剂技术研究所,北京 100096
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-06 修回日期:2019-12-19 出版日期:2020-01-22 发布日期:2020-01-16
  • 通讯作者: 肖进新
  • 作者简介:邢 航(1981-),女,黑龙江大庆人,博士,电话:(010)62561871,E-mail: xinghang@fluobon.com

Do we need to regard PFAS as evil? Our points of view

XING Hang,DOU Zeng-pei,XIAO Zi-bing,XIAO Jin-xin()   

  1. Beijing FLUOBON Surfactant Institute, Beijing 100096, China
  • Received:2019-12-06 Revised:2019-12-19 Online:2020-01-22 Published:2020-01-16
  • Contact: Jin-xin XIAO

摘要:

全氟辛基磺酰氟/全氟辛烷磺酸/全氟辛烷磺酸盐及其衍生物(PFOS)和全氟辛酸/全氟辛酸盐及其衍生物(PFOA)在全球及生物圈内的广泛分布引起了环境学家和毒理学家的批判,国际社会已出台相应法案和行动措施对其进行淘汰和限制,而如今国际上一些学者又将目标扩大到了整个全氟或多氟烷基物质(PFAS)领域,公众也对此产生了激烈的争论。并非所有PFAS都有明确的健康风险,但它们的通性是非常稳定,难于降解,因而受人诟病。近日在全球化学化工领域最具影响力的新闻杂志“化学与工程新闻”(Chemical & Engineering News, C&EN)的网站上,发表了题目为《如何摆脱PFAS》的文章。其中的很多观点反映了主流看法,即反对“一刀切”,应对具体物质根据其必要性和可替代性进行区分对待,同时反对无限制的生产和应用PFAS,积极寻求替代品。我们赞同该文的思路,但也有异议,主要体现在视角的差异以及区分标准上,以及对其中激进观点的反对。《如何摆脱PFAS》一文更多侧重来自环境学家的主张,我们则是PFAS的科研工作者及技术开发者,同时也是PFAS一个小量的、细分产品的生产者;上文的作者采取的是发达国家视角,我们则认为发展中国家要更细致地、深入地看待分类的问题。中国应努力在这场标准制定的历史进程中积极参与,结合自身实际状况,不要盲从,制定出适合自己的执行方案,尤其不能冒进。

关键词: 含氟有机物, 含氟聚合物, 氟烷基物质, PFAS, PFOS, PFOA, 持久性有机污染物

Abstract:

The ubiquitous distribution of PFOS and PFOA in the globe and biota has induced the criticism from environmental scientists and toxicologists. The international community has established laws and supervision measures to eliminate PFOS and PFOA. Now some scholars begin to fire at the whole class of PFAS (per-,polyfluoroalkyl substances) , and the public argues intensely (fear arise from being not understood). Not all PFAS are verified with health risk, but they are surely blamed by being too stable and thus too difficult to degrade. Recently, a paper titled “How to say goodbye to PFAS” is published on the website of the world’s most influential news magazine in the field of chemical industry named Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN). Many of the view points therein reflect the prevailing opinion, which is against “one-size-fits-all”, that specific substances should be treated differently according to their necessity and substitutability, and that the unchecked growth in production and application of PFAS should be turned around, and that substitutes should be actively pursued. We agree with the thought of this paper, but also have objections mainly addressed on the different view angle and the standard of classification. The author of that paper has focused on the views of environmentalists, while we are researchers and technology developers of PFAS, as well as a manufacturer of some narrow-category PFAS products; the author of that paper takes the perspective of developed countries, while we consider that developing countries should weigh well the way of categorization more carefully and deeply before action. China should positively participate in this historical argument of standard-setting, take into account our own actual conditions, and work out a suitable implementation plan, particularly, do not blindly follow or go ahead radically and rashly.

Key words: fluorinated organic compound, fluoropolymer, fluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, PFOS, PFOA, POPs

中图分类号: 

  • TQ423.4