3 ms·

> Most manufacturers assumed that PFOA burns off during the process of manufacture, but traces of PFOA were found in some Teflon-coated cookware. > A 1999 stud

by tedivm 2y ago

> Most manufacturers assumed that PFOA burns off during the process of manufacture, but traces of PFOA were found in some Teflon-coated cookware. > A 1999 study found that 98% of people in the United States had PFOA in their blood. This was due to environmental exposure to the chemical. As a result, the US EPA put up a program to eliminate the use of PFOA by 2015. https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/is-teflon-coating-safe https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/is-teflon-coating-safe They just assumed it burned off, but never tested it. It wasn't until 2021 that they had to actually test and report for extra chemicals left in, well after it was banned. What happens when you actually test it? > In this study, we identified and measured perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs), particularly PFOA, and fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs; 6:2 FTOH and 8:2 FTOH), released from nonstick cookware into the gas phase under normal cooking temperatures (179 to 233 degrees C surface temperature). PFOA was released into the gas phase at 7-337 ng (11-503 pg/cm2) per pan from four brands of nonstick frying pans. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17593716/ So yes, it absolutely contained residual PFOA, and no it didn't wash off.

timr 2y ago
Hilariously, the webmd link you cited repeats what I said above: > The use of PFOA in the manufacturing of Teflon-coated cookware has been completely stopped. But, even when PFOA is used, it poses little or no harm to your health. Teflon on its own is safe and can’t harm you when you ingest it. ...not that I think webmd is worth citing. But OK, one paper you dug up found an incredibly tiny amount (500 picograms per square centimeter, at the highest), which they said declined over time for half the pans tested (I'm guessing the ones with the highest initial readings). Meanwhile, other groups didn't see the same thing: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16096677/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16096677/ > Commercial grade cookware was obtained, then extracted with water and ethanol/water mixtures at 100 and 125 degrees C, and the resulting extracts were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Detection and quantification limits as low as 100 pg cm(-2) were demonstrated. None of the fluoropolymer treated cookware samples analyzed showed detectable levels of PFOA when extracted under simulated cooking conditions. Anyway, I'm not going to get excited over a single paper, showing incredibly minute amounts of something which, as you say, is now ubiquitous in the environment (hello, cross-contamination risk!). The paper may or may not have been methodologically valid. You do you.

by tedivm 2y ago

timr 2y ago

Hilariously, the webmd link you cited repeats what I said above: > The use of PFOA in the manufacturing of Teflon-coated cookware has been completely stopped. But, even when PFOA is used, it poses little or no harm to your health. Teflon on its own is safe and can’t harm you when you ingest it. ...not that I think webmd is worth citing. But OK, one paper you dug up found an incredibly tiny amount (500 picograms per square centimeter, at the highest), which they said declined over time for half the pans tested (I'm guessing the ones with the highest initial readings). Meanwhile, other groups didn't see the same thing: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16096677/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16096677/ > Commercial grade cookware was obtained, then extracted with water and ethanol/water mixtures at 100 and 125 degrees C, and the resulting extracts were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Detection and quantification limits as low as 100 pg cm(-2) were demonstrated. None of the fluoropolymer treated cookware samples analyzed showed detectable levels of PFOA when extracted under simulated cooking conditions. Anyway, I'm not going to get excited over a single paper, showing incredibly minute amounts of something which, as you say, is now ubiquitous in the environment (hello, cross-contamination risk!). The paper may or may not have been methodologically valid. You do you.