6 ms·

Penguin 'Toxicologists' Find PFAS Chemicals in Remote Patagonia

giuliomagnifico 7mo ago
They fitted some penguins with chemical-sensing silicone passive samplers.
- greenavocado 7mo ago
  Did they wear gloves when installing the samplers?
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - themafia 7mo ago
    One of the issues I see with PFAS testing is that the legal limit is right at the lower limit of detectability for most test equipment. Signals at that level are difficult to read reliably and the accuracy of detection at that level is worse than at higher levels. It's almost like legislators saw that the machines could ostensibly detect 4 parts-per-trillion and decided that should be the limit without continuing to read the machine manual to describe the reduction in accuracy at that threshold level. The levels in this test were close to this threshold and there was one outlier sample that severely changed the average results. The testing methodology also involved several laboratory steps where contamination could have occurred. https://media.sciltp.com/articles/2603003293/2603003293.pdf https://media.sciltp.com/articles/2603003293/2603003293.pdf
alex43578 7mo ago
Is this going to be like the micro-plastics-are-actually-contamination-from-lab-gloves news all over again? I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.
- nslsm 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- giuliomagnifico 7mo ago
  Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves. The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
  - alex43578 7mo ago
    The animal angle is fun and interesting, and my quip about the gloves is mostly a joke. My frustration comes from the fact that we don't (or shouldn't) need to know that PFAS is in Patagonia to care about it. 45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years. In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
    - littlexsparkee 7mo ago
      The point for the lay reader is that the pollution has reached extremely remote places, so the stuff is absolutely pervasive and/or the method of travel should concern us.
      - alex43578 7mo ago
        And my point still remains that people don’t even care that it’s in their tap water, to-go food containers, and dental floss. The research is academically interesting, but immaterial to actually doing anything about the issue of PFAS.
- hvb2 7mo ago
  > if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more. To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials... Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc
klevertree1 7mo ago
Two notes for cynical HN crowd: 1. Why you/penguins should care about this: PFAS suppress immune function and reduce reproductive success in birds [1]. They transfer from mothers to eggs and disrupt thyroid hormones and immune organ development in avian embryos [2]. In humans, IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023, which means there is the highest classification (i.e. International Agency for Research on Cancer is convinced PFAS causes cancer). A 2x increase in serum PFAS is associated with a 49% drop in vaccine antibody levels in children [3]. These are the same compounds showing up in >90% of penguin samples in remote Patagonia. They don't break down. They bioaccumulate up the food chain. And the "safer replacements" like GenX are clearly reaching the ends of the earth too. This is bad for penguins and for people. 2. This is a problem I'm taking seriously. My startup, NeutraOat (neutraoat.com) is developing a modified oat fiber that selectively binds PFAS and plasticizers in the GI tract without stripping nutrients like charcoal does. It will also remove PFAS from the blood. Early-stage, binding data is promising. Clinical trial happening in ~6-9 months. Website has our early data and a pre-order signup form. [1] Vendl et al., "Profiling research on PFAS in wildlife," Ecol Solut Evid, 2024. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12292 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002... [2] Halldin et al., "Developmental exposure to a mixture of PFAAs affects the thyroid hormone system and the bursa of Fabricius in the chicken," Sci Rep, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56200-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56200-9 [3] Grandjean et al., JAMA 2012;307(4):391–397. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/
- NotGMan 7mo ago
  Interesting, best of luck with this, microplastics really are the modern lead. You said it removes them from the blood: does the body dump microplastics in the gut for your product to remove them from the blood or how does it work (if you can answer due to proprietary reasons)? Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this?
  - ben-schaaf 7mo ago
    It's a common misconception, but microplastics and forever-chemicals (PFAS) are not the same thing. They're two similar, but distinct pollutants. > Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this? Yes, plasma & blood donations are good at reducing PFAS blood concentration. Some(?) firefighting foam contains PFAS, so they tend to have high blood concentrations. Donations have shown to significantly reduce that: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/
eblair 7mo ago
Are they sure it's not from their gloves? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.h...
- amelius 7mo ago
  Outdoor gear also contains pfas.
burnte 7mo ago
I don't tryst penguin toxicologists, I've never heard of any reputable penguin colleges or labs.
- falcor84 7mo ago
  That's speceist. The whole idea with good science is that you don't need to trust the person. You can evaluate the penguins' study's results and reasoning on its own merits.
  - azinman2 7mo ago
    It’s a joke
    - tiagod 7mo ago
      That's also a joke
  - lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
    That's an abstract ideal. In practice, it is not feasible for most people to verify a study. It is difficult enough for colleagues in the field. Hence why we have to use proxies like trustworthiness of a source.
amatecha 7mo ago
PFAS, aka endocrine disruptors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor
- DoneWithAllThat 7mo ago
  This is a massive oversimplification and is not anything even approaching settled science.
  - amatecha 6mo ago
    Is any science ever "settled"? Regardless, it's a wikipedia page, so of course it's simplified. There are countless citations on the page referring to various published papers, so.. /shrug

They fitted some penguins with chemical-sensing silicone passive samplers.

greenavocado 7mo ago
Did they wear gloves when installing the samplers?
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- themafia 7mo ago
  One of the issues I see with PFAS testing is that the legal limit is right at the lower limit of detectability for most test equipment. Signals at that level are difficult to read reliably and the accuracy of detection at that level is worse than at higher levels. It's almost like legislators saw that the machines could ostensibly detect 4 parts-per-trillion and decided that should be the limit without continuing to read the machine manual to describe the reduction in accuracy at that threshold level. The levels in this test were close to this threshold and there was one outlier sample that severely changed the average results. The testing methodology also involved several laboratory steps where contamination could have occurred. https://media.sciltp.com/articles/2603003293/2603003293.pdf https://media.sciltp.com/articles/2603003293/2603003293.pdf

Is this going to be like the micro-plastics-are-actually-contamination-from-lab-gloves news all over again? I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.

nslsm 7mo ago
[flagged]
giuliomagnifico 7mo ago
Yes, it could be (I posted the article about the gloves), but PFAS are different from microplastics, and not all the studies are contaminated by gloves. The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
- alex43578 7mo ago
  The animal angle is fun and interesting, and my quip about the gloves is mostly a joke. My frustration comes from the fact that we don't (or shouldn't) need to know that PFAS is in Patagonia to care about it. 45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years. In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
  - littlexsparkee 7mo ago
    The point for the lay reader is that the pollution has reached extremely remote places, so the stuff is absolutely pervasive and/or the method of travel should concern us.
    - alex43578 7mo ago
      And my point still remains that people don’t even care that it’s in their tap water, to-go food containers, and dental floss. The research is academically interesting, but immaterial to actually doing anything about the issue of PFAS.
hvb2 7mo ago
> if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more. To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials... Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc

klevertree1 7mo ago

Two notes for cynical HN crowd: 1. Why you/penguins should care about this: PFAS suppress immune function and reduce reproductive success in birds [1]. They transfer from mothers to eggs and disrupt thyroid hormones and immune organ development in avian embryos [2]. In humans, IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023, which means there is the highest classification (i.e. International Agency for Research on Cancer is convinced PFAS causes cancer). A 2x increase in serum PFAS is associated with a 49% drop in vaccine antibody levels in children [3]. These are the same compounds showing up in >90% of penguin samples in remote Patagonia. They don't break down. They bioaccumulate up the food chain. And the "safer replacements" like GenX are clearly reaching the ends of the earth too. This is bad for penguins and for people. 2. This is a problem I'm taking seriously. My startup, NeutraOat (neutraoat.com) is developing a modified oat fiber that selectively binds PFAS and plasticizers in the GI tract without stripping nutrients like charcoal does. It will also remove PFAS from the blood. Early-stage, binding data is promising. Clinical trial happening in ~6-9 months. Website has our early data and a pre-order signup form. [1] Vendl et al., "Profiling research on PFAS in wildlife," Ecol Solut Evid, 2024. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12292 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002... [2] Halldin et al., "Developmental exposure to a mixture of PFAAs affects the thyroid hormone system and the bursa of Fabricius in the chicken," Sci Rep, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56200-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56200-9 [3] Grandjean et al., JAMA 2012;307(4):391–397. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/

NotGMan 7mo ago
Interesting, best of luck with this, microplastics really are the modern lead. You said it removes them from the blood: does the body dump microplastics in the gut for your product to remove them from the blood or how does it work (if you can answer due to proprietary reasons)? Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this?
- ben-schaaf 7mo ago
  It's a common misconception, but microplastics and forever-chemicals (PFAS) are not the same thing. They're two similar, but distinct pollutants. > Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this? Yes, plasma & blood donations are good at reducing PFAS blood concentration. Some(?) firefighting foam contains PFAS, so they tend to have high blood concentrations. Donations have shown to significantly reduce that: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/

eblair 7mo ago

Are they sure it's not from their gloves? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.h...

amelius 7mo ago
Outdoor gear also contains pfas.

burnte 7mo ago

I don't tryst penguin toxicologists, I've never heard of any reputable penguin colleges or labs.

falcor84 7mo ago
That's speceist. The whole idea with good science is that you don't need to trust the person. You can evaluate the penguins' study's results and reasoning on its own merits.
- azinman2 7mo ago
  It’s a joke
  - tiagod 7mo ago
    That's also a joke
- lo_zamoyski 7mo ago
  That's an abstract ideal. In practice, it is not feasible for most people to verify a study. It is difficult enough for colleagues in the field. Hence why we have to use proxies like trustworthiness of a source.

amatecha 7mo ago

PFAS, aka endocrine disruptors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor

DoneWithAllThat 7mo ago
This is a massive oversimplification and is not anything even approaching settled science.
- amatecha 6mo ago
  Is any science ever "settled"? Regardless, it's a wikipedia page, so of course it's simplified. There are countless citations on the page referring to various published papers, so.. /shrug