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