Sarah Schwartz
banner
flaskandquill.bsky.social
Sarah Schwartz
@flaskandquill.bsky.social
Environmental microbiologist + science writer.

Soon: Researcher @ Lancaster Environment Centre 🦠🧬🌍🦆
Previously: UC Berkeley, MIT, Science News, UCSD.
She/her, opinions my own, likes/saves aren't endorsements.

sarahlschwartz.com
Just a reminder: Many PFAS are well-known to be associated with neurological, immune, developmental, and reproductive problems, and cancers. Even types of PFAS that are designed or thought to be "safer" usually have some level of associated toxicity/carcinogenicity. 3/3 🧪
October 14, 2025 at 9:34 PM
PFAS are industrially profitable, and by now, pretty difficult to avoid. They're in many of the products we use, and they accumulate in our bodies. Without intervention (or sometimes, even with our best attempts at degradation), PFAS stick around in the environment for ages. 2/3 🧪
October 14, 2025 at 9:34 PM
😳
September 18, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Because PFAS stick around in the environment, and pose health risks even at very, very low concentrations, delaying regulation or research is an accumulative risk...and for the same reasons, this problem is going to be with us for a while. There will be a lot more to learn. (8/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
These 6 PFAS are a minuscule fraction of the PFAS in our environment and economy. There are *thousands* (>14,000) of PFAS species with varying toxicity, utility, and chemistry. So we definitely don't have a full picture of PFAS's human and environmental health risks yet. (7/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
The 4 PFAS that are now unrestricted in drinking water have been associated with risks of developmental, reproductive, and immunological problems, DNA damage, and/or cancer...and more. (6/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Some of these other PFAS were made to replace PFOA or PFOS, once the research revealed that those two PFAS were so toxic. These other PFAS may not be as extensively-studied or famous...but we have already learned a lot about their risks. Spoiler alert: They're ALSO toxic. (5/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
The 4 PFAS compounds that will have limits removed are less famous. They're nicknamed PFNA, GenX, PFBA, and PFHxS. (Their full names are a doozy... "hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid" doesn't really roll off the tongue.) (4/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
The 2 upheld drinking water limits are for PFOA and PFOS, probably the most (in)famous PFAS. They're well-studied and have serious health risks. They've been limited in the US for decades, but are still in some products...and other PFAS can turn into PFOA/PFOS in the environment. (3/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
For those unfamiliar with PFAS: These compounds are full of fluorine-carbon bonds, which give great stability and very useful properties (e.g. nonstick, waterproofing, flame suppression). This stability also makes PFAS linger in the environment, hence the term "forever chemicals." (2/8) 🧪
May 19, 2025 at 8:56 PM
🥲
December 7, 2024 at 7:46 PM