Talk:PFAS

Requested move 24 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There appears to be consensus for the PFAS title. While some appear to prefer the plural form, there is about equal support for both and enough non-specific supporting comments to justify going with the title named in the original request. A further discussion may be needed to clarify the singular vs plural issue. (closed by non-admin page mover) Garsh (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances → PFAS – Did this a few years ago, discussion resulted in a no consensus. I still believe this should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME, and MOS:ACROTITLE. The latter says: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for several reasons:
  • It is against long-standing practice to use the acronyms of classes of chemical compounds instead of the full name. Examples:
    • Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, not PAHs (redirect)
    • Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins, not PCDDs (redirect)
    • Polychlorinated dibenzofurans, not PCDFs (redirect)
    • Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, not PBDEs (redirect)
    • Volatile organic compound, not VOCs (redirect)

  Any user/reader who is interested in the topic, easily finds the article via the redirects PFASs and PFAS.

  • This case is not really covered by WP:COMMONNAME. Also the example, i.e. Aspirin, is totally different from this request here.
  • The OECD and other multinational organizations use the full name.

--Leyo 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

There is also a reason I am not proposing moving the other compound ls, because those aren't commonly featured in the media. The purpose of an article title is also assuring users there are om the right page and the current title is not doing that for the majority of our readers. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

There are also examples to the contrary:

• TNT, not Trinitrotoluene or 2-methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene

• DDT, not Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane -jakeyounglol (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Leaning toward support: Just as an observation, we have DDT and TNT, but Polychlorinated biphenyl instead of PCBs. I don't recognize most of the others that have been discussed above except Volatile organic compound. That one is different in at least two ways. One is that it is not a very obtuse and unfamiliar chemical name. Another is that it seems relatively important for people to understand what the abbreviation means in order to achieve any level of understanding about the subject – the basic idea is to refer to the group of organic compounds that easily evaporate – that's pretty simple and memorable. For the others, it does not seem important at all for a non-specialist to know what the abbreviation stands for. For this substance, I have seen "PFASs" in mainstream publications, but there is no hope of the average person remembering "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances", and no good reason for them to try. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

With the full name, it is clear that they consist of two types of substances perfluorinated and polyfluorinated. They are merged into one group, because the latter are transformed into the former under environmental conditions (also not quickly). --Leyo 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that is all very helpful to understand, but it is way beyond what we can expect of most readers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Many of the same readers are likely to mistake "PFAS" for a single chemical, because of its similarity to e.g. PFOS, PFOA. BTW: This wouldn't happen with PFASs, which is consistent with e.g. PFSAs, PAHs, PBDEs, PCDDs, PCDFs etc. --Leyo 09:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that PFASs is better than PFAS. This falls under WP:SINGULAR's exception for classes of things. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I do notice that "PFAS" is sometimes used without the 's' for the plural, as observed by Mdewman6. However, adding the 's' might make it more clear that this is about a class rather than a particular compound, as suggested by Gtoffoletto. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:CONCISE. I do see some official website using the full name, while most either use the abbreviation (EPA, UK gov), or use both (NIH, UNEP, Canada gov). In news article titles, it's almost always the abbreviation or 'forever chemicals': (Guardian, NYT). Happy to go for the plural here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support in either singular or plural (though slight preference for singular). PFAS appear in the media, and are abbreviated consistently enough, to justify the use of the acronym here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCA and WP:COMMONNAME. Previously, in the last RM discussion I was on the fence about using the acronym, but ultimately, the acronym is the common name and should be used as the title. Most readers are searching the acronym and come to the article to learn its definition, not the other way around. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I oppose a move to PFASs. PFAS is by far the more common term, used for both the singular and the plural. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That might be true for the US, but not globally. For example, a group of leading scientists in the field of PFASs has just published the following paper: Scientists’ Statement on the Chemical Definition of PFASs (doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.5c00478) --Leyo 15:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per the WP:COMMONNAME, when a usage, especially in this case where the abbreviation is so overwhelmingly dominant, we should ensure that the title is the same as that used by nearly every reliable source. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  Also, per the one "oppose" !vote, there is no reason that "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances" could not be a redirect instead. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• SUPPORT easier to find and common enough.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose:

• Redirects are fine.
• It is about chemicals, not a brand.

See: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Redirects Charles Dong (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(chemistry) has more about naming conventions about chemicals. Charles Dong (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support and PFASs is better than PFAS as it makes it clear this is a category rather than a single chemical. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  There is previous discussion on this here: Talk:Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances#Inconsistent - PFAS vs. PFASs I don't have a strong opinion on this but since I think the move has consensus for support we might as well also decide for PFAS or PFASs once and for all. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Support: PFAS is by far the most recognisable name and is what most people will be searching for. Especially with all the (warranted) media attention that PFASs have been getting. Dual The Eggist (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

PFAS or PFASs though? You used both in your comment. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the title should be PFAS, with a redirect for PFASs. However, the opening sentence sentence should mention both the plural form PFASs and the full name. This way PFAS - the most commonly used name - becomes the title; however the opening sentence still notes that this is a class of chemicals, and not one singular chemical. Dual The Eggist (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Sustainable Water Resource Engineering

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2025 and 10 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luke3x33 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Elizsullivan.

— Assignment last updated by Elizsullivan (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The new subsection Constructed Wetlands is too detailed for this article. It should either be shortened or moved to Remediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. --Leyo 09:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

PFOS and PFOA

PFOS and PFOA have a (reasonably lengthed) perfluorinated tail, and acidic head. The acidic head makes them somewhat reactive, and will stick to appropriately reactive substrates. On the other hand, pure perfluorocarbons, such as Teflon, have no reactive end, and so will not. It seems to me that in general discussion, and especially in this article, the distinction is not made. Without any distinction, all PFASs are equally dangerous. Gah4 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Tidying up

This article contains a very large number of sources and an extremely long text, long enough to prevent its becoming a GA on recent experience. It's also quite disorganised, with extensive detail on US state legal matters, overlapping sections, misplaced subsections, and a mass of citations and 'new' materials in the lead (not summarizing anything in the article body). I'm accordingly doing a bit of tidying up and rearranging, and will split out some of the longest sections to subsidiary articles. The goal is that any reader can grasp the article's message in a single sitting, and can find more information with a single click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a pain to go through your many, many edits. --Leyo 13:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it. There is a great deal of work involved, and it's best to think of one thing at a time in a major restructuring, rather than try to make one humongous giga-edit which is bound to go wrong or get edit-conflicted. You can of course get a single diff by comparing before and after states in the article history. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It's also about the pace you do these edits. But certainly, you are generally improving the article, although I'm not convinced by each edit, such as this removal. It's an important information that moving away from single-use plastics comes with other disadvantages. --Leyo 14:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. Fast or slow, it's a matter for volunteer editors with different amounts of time at their disposal. It may help to know that I've worked on hundreds of Good Articles over the years. We can of course discuss or tweak any individual edit. The removed paragraph seems to me excessively specific; we have covered the environmental aspect pretty thoroughly, and if we need yet more, it would be best to find sources which cover a table's worth of materials and foods to give an idea of the range of things affected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you think would be the best way to make the article more succinct? I have begun to make some changes regarding citations, but could use some inspiration on shortening the article itself. NDStudent (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the article is in much better shape than it used to be. It has haunted me, but I didn't find the time to start on it. Great work! Gahundle (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Multimedia Writing and Rhetoric

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2026 and 29 April 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NDStudent (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ND902359864 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Important Modern PFAS Findings

I am adding sections to the article on PFAS sustainability and contamination. I have found a variety of academic sources that agree on what PFAS is doing to the environment today. I plan to add new headers, in addition to adding more citations throughout the entire article as well.

Does anyone have any thoughts, concerns, or comments? NDStudent (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Health Effects cleanup

I recently made an edit to this section because of two main concerns: excessive subheadings without sufficient information to justify them (1-2 lines), and many of them were highly specific/technical for a general overview article like PFAS (the ulcerative colitis subheading is a good example of this). @Leyo has just reverted this, so I thought it might be worth bringing up for discussion.

My opinion is the health effects section, as it is now and was prior to the edit, makes the page significantly longer without providing very much useful information. By condensing it down, you can get at the major points (associations with certain health impacts), and link to sources, without it becoming unweildy. I wouldn't be opposed to having a Health Effects of PFAS page separately that goes into further detail, but much like the state-specific regulatory issues, it did not seem like what I think most readers would be looking for on this page. If we are going to keep it in a similar format to how it is now, I still think it needs some condensation (for example, pregnancy/breastfeeding/fertility can all just be "Reproductive Issues" so there's a little more content per subheading) and expansion of each topic beyond one or two lines. Gahundle (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposing your suggestion about Reproductive issues (or maybe rather Reproductive effects). --Leyo 22:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with @Gahundle on this one. I didn't notice this discussion before making some edits, but I had the same thoughts. Even on keeping reproductive effects as its own section. Scary.

Almost every subheading was already listed as a finding of the C8 Panel, and didn't add that much information (or added way too much information!). I would second having a spin-off page for Health Effects of PFAS. LLBean Couch (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Health, Equity, and Sustainability section

I don't think that the claim that the (deleted) Health, Equity, and Sustainability section text not supported by the sources provided is entirely accurate. --Leyo 09:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

The major thrust of the argument was that those in developing nations and environmental justice communities were most threatened by PFAS exposures. One of the sources found that its actually those with higher incomes that tend to have higher body burdens of PFAS, and didn't find a trend on other predictors

One of the claims was that people in developing nations have more PFAS and were at a greater risk than developed nations. They cited a paper finding that less than half of people in Nepal have PFAS in their bodies (as opposed to ~98% in the United States) and that PFAS exposure was just constrained to those that sometimes ate fish.

I won't go through line by line every claim that wasn't supported, but I do think this section has potential. There's certainly an argument to be made re: the need for greater research in developing nations. There's also an interesting commentary to be added about how PFAS diverge from previous environmental justice trends in that they often impact wealthier people rather than poorer folks. Those arguments just need to be grounded in facts/research that don't actively contradict the claims being made. LLBean Couch (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with removing this section for the time being. If a source suggests some equity aspect, that can be a sentence in the relevant section rather than its own subheading until the time there is enough important information to justify re-creating it (or making another page and linking it). Gahundle (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Remediation Section Cleanup

The remediation section has several subsections that I'm not certain are necessary and it overall feels unfocused/disjointed. For example, the "Destruction" section seems to primarily reference supercritical water oxidation, which is listed above in water treatment and linked to another article on the topic. The "Constructed Wetlands" section too seems overly detailed for a strategy that could similarly just be linked to like in the water treatment section. I'm a little skeptical of the incorporation of the "Theoretical and early-stage methods" section, as the literature is riddled with tons of early methods for PFAS destruction, and trying to make this section comprehensive would result in another whole article's worth of content. I'm leaving the foam fractionation section, just because it's relatively unique to PFAS. LLBean Couch (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

We seem to be on the same page, because I think these edits are a huge improvement. Gahundle (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)