So, you’re trying to avoid PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), the notorious "forever chemicals." You check labels for “PFOA-Free” or “PFOS-Free,” and you feel like you’re making a safer choice. But what if you found out that these labels are often a distraction—a magician’s trick that directs your attention away from the real problem?
The world of PFAS testing is complicated, and understanding the difference between the various methods is key to seeing through the marketing spin and understanding the true scale of contamination.
The Bullshit: "PFOA-Free" and Other Meaningless Labels
Let’s start with the most common misleading tactic.
The Claim: A product is labeled “PFOA-Free,” “PFOS-Free,” or “Made without PFAS.” This implies it's safe from forever chemicals.
The Reality: This is often greenwashing at its most frustrating. PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 PFAS compounds. When these two were phased out due to health concerns, manufacturers simply switched to other, less-studied PFAS chemicals from the same family.
A “PFOA-Free” non-stick pan might use a “new generation” PFAS like GenX. A “PFOS-Free” stain-resistant carpet likely uses another PFAS cousin. The problem hasn't been eliminated; the name has just been changed.
The Takeaway: Treat these specific claims with extreme skepticism. They are designed to make you feel safe about a specific, known chemical while ignoring the thousands of other, potentially just as harmful, chemicals in the same class.
The Different Kinds of Testing: Targeted vs. Total
To understand the testing, imagine you’re looking for needles in a haystack. There are two ways to do it.
1. Targeted Testing (Looking for Specific Needles)
This is the most common and widely accepted method. Labs use a technique called liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry ( LC-MS/MS) to to hunt for a specific list of known PFAS compounds.
- How it works: It’s like having a fingerprint database for 40 specific needles. The machine sifts through the haystack and only flags the needles whose fingerprints are in its database.
- What it's good for: It's excellent for detecting and quantifying specific, well-known PFAS like PFOA, PFOS, and Gen X. Regulatory agencies use this method to enforce drinking water standards for a handful of specific PFAS compounds.
- The Major Drawback: It has blind spots. If a PFAS compound isn't in the target list (and thousands aren't), it goes completely undetected. A test for 40 PFAS might come back "clean" even if the sample is full of other, unknown PFAS. You found zero of your 40 needles, but the haystack is still made of needles.
2. Total Fluorine Testing (Measuring the Whole Haystack)
This is the broader, more revealing approach. The most advocated method is Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) testing, specifically using a technique called Combustion Ion Chromatography (CIC).
- How it works: Instead of looking for specific needles, this method burns the entire haystack and measures all the fluorine gas released. Since the carbon-fluorine bond is the signature of PFAS, a high level of organic fluorine is a massive red flag for PFAS contamination.
- What it's good for: It exposes the true scale of PFAS contamination. It doesn't tell you which PFAS are present, but it tells you how much PFAS-like material is there. Studies using TOF testing on water and consumer products often find fluorine levels hundreds of times higher than targeted testing can explain, revealing the "chemical dark matter" we’re missing [1].
- The Drawback: It’s less specific. It can't distinguish between a harmful PFAS and a potentially inert fluorinated pharmaceutical, for example. It's a powerful screening tool—it tells you the haystack is full of needles and you shouldn't stick your hand in it.
A more advanced version, TOP Assay (Total Oxidizable Precursors), tries to bridge the gap. It uses a chemical process to break down unknown PFAS precursors into measurable terminal compounds before doing targeted testing. It helps account for some of the "dark matter," but it's still not a complete picture
The New Science in Action: How Mamavation is Changing the Game
This is where the story gets powerful. While regulators slowly debate which specific PFAS to ban next, citizen science initiatives are taking action.
Bloggers like Mamavation have partnered with EPA-certified laboratories to use Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) testing via CIC to test everyday consumer products. Their approach is groundbreaking:
- They Test the Right Way: They don't just test for 30 or 40 PFAS. They use the TOF/CIC method to screen for any organic fluorine above a certain threshold (often 10-20 parts per million).
- They Name Names: They test popular brands of sports bras, yoga pants, pasta sauce, period underwear, and more—and publicly report which ones have detectable levels of organic fluorine.
- They Force Transparency: Their work has repeatedly found PFAS in products from brands that market themselves as "green," "healthy," or "non-toxic." This holds companies accountable in a way that targeted testing never could.
The impact of this work cannot be overstated. Mamavation’s testing has:
- Led to major lawsuits against brands for false advertising.
- Spurred media investigations into PFAS in clothing and food.
- Empowered consumers with real, actionable data that goes beyond corporate marketing claims.
They are proving that TOF testing is not just an academic concept; it's a practical, available, and essential tool for protecting public health right now.
The group behind this website is also testing their products for organic fluorine and working with higher education to develop processes to change our world for the better.
The Good Stuff: What a Responsible Approach Looks Like
Cutting through the bullshit requires a multi-layered strategy from regulators, manufacturers, and consumers.
For Regulators & Manufacturers:
- Embrace a Class-Based Approach: Stop playing whack-a-mole with one chemical at a time. Regulate PFAS as a class due to their shared persistence.
- Adopt TOF as a Screening Standard: Mandate Total Organic Fluorine testing to get an honest baseline of contamination in products and the environment. First, measure the whole haystack.
- Practice True Transparency: Brands that are genuinely PFAS-free should be transparent about their testing methods. Did they only test for 30 chemicals, or did they use TOF to prove no organic fluorine is present?
For Consumers:
- See Beyond "Free-From" Labels: Ignore “PFOA-Free.” Look for explicit claims like "PFAS-Free," "No Fluorinated Chemicals," or "Free of Forever Chemicals." Even then, be cautious.
- Trust Citizen Science: Follow the work of investigators like Mamavation who are using the right tools to ask the right questions. Let their data guide your purchasing decisions.
- Prioritize Third-Party Certifications: Look for certifications from reputable organizations that have strict, class-based standards and likely use TOF testing.
- Choose Natural Materials: The simplest way to avoid the confusion? Opt for products made from inherently PFAS-free materials like untreated organic cotton, wool, glass, stainless steel, and cast iron.
The Bottom Line
Targeted testing tells a small, convenient part of the story. Total fluorine testing reveals the overwhelming, inconvenient truth. Thanks to the new science being applied by watchdogs like Mamavation, we no longer have to guess.
We have the tools to see the entire haystack. Now we must demand that companies and regulators stop pretending it's not there.
Source:
[1] Kotlarz, N., et al. (2020). Measurement of Novel Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in the Cape Fear River Watershed, North Carolina. Environmental Science & Technology