Insights and strategic opportunities from the USGS 2024 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Interagency Workshop
Introduction In 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published Circular 1490 titled, “Integrated Science for the Study of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Environment: A Strategic Science Vision for the U.S. Geological Survey” (Tokranov and others, 2021). Circular 1490 was created to be a resource for USGS scientists prioritizing and planning research related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and to be a guide for developing partnerships with other scientists, State and Federal agencies, and stakeholders engaged in PFAS research and management and mitigation of the environmental and human-health effects of PFAS. This USGS PFAS Strategic Science Vision document was intended to be the foundation for a “living strategic vision,” periodically providing updates on the state of USGS PFAS research, emerging PFAS data gaps and needs, and progress on interagency and stakeholder PFAS partnerships and priorities. To meet this objective, the USGS planned to host an Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop every 2–3 years. During September 10–12, 2024, the USGS hosted the first Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The Workshop brought together experts from other Federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense [Air Force, Army]), State agencies (Washington Fish and Wildlife, Virginia Department of Transportation), and academia (Harvard University, University of Maryland) to address key challenges relating to the measurement and modeling of PFAS and the implications for environmental health. Participants engaged in in-depth discussions centered around six pivotal topics related to PFAS: (1) sampling protocols, methods and interpretation; (2) environmental sources, source apportionment, and occurrence; (3) environmental fate and transport; (4) human and wildlife exposure routes and risk; (5) bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification; and (6) ecotoxicology and effects. Each topic had three breakout sessions. A recurrent theme of workshop discussions was how data on a nationwide scale for PFAS occurrence in various environmental matrices, including air, water, food crops, biota, soil, and streambed sediment could help to advance scientific understanding. Participants noted significant geospatial data gaps, particularly in the midwestern and southern United States and the Pacific Northwest. PFAS data collection tends to be more robust along the eastern seaboard and in California. Participants stressed how enhancing the integration of large and small datasets across various agencies could help to support national scale understanding of PFAS. To address these gaps, attendees suggested leveraging datasets from Federal entities like the USGS and the U.S. Department of Defense, State agencies, and municipal utility services to develop predictive contaminant detection and transport models. Improved coordination between water quality programs and USGS research could help to facilitate access to valuable data, leading to comprehensive databases that inform PFAS point (wastewater treatment plants and landfills) and nonpoint (runoff from land, atmospheric deposition, food packaging) sources, environmental transport mechanisms, environmental detection and concentrations, potential exposure routes, and health effects on different biota, including humans. A specific request was made to develop a map demarking the depth of modern (1953 or later) groundwater, which is susceptible to surface-derived anthropogenic (that is, human-made) contamination, based on tritium-age dating. Emphasis was placed on incorporation of hydrology, groundwater flow paths, groundwater–surface water interactions, and landscape factors in predictive statistical models as a step to improve contaminant source identification and tracking. Molecular fingerprinting approaches garnered attention as techniques to link specific PFAS mixtures detected in a sample to environmental sources and levels in biota (Dávila-Santiago and others, 2022). Integrating data from abiotic (that is, water, soil, and air) and biotic (that is, living organisms) systems identified as a research opportunity. For example, understanding the composition of soils and sediments, which include a mixture of mineral, plant, and animal components, could advance understanding of exposure pathways. The discussions highlighted opportunities to explore and understand the potential redistribution and biotic exposures of PFAS from biosolid and wastewater treatment plant effluent land application practices, in addition to atmospheric releases and discharges from landfill and wastewater treatment plants. Participants identified research gaps surrounding how these sources may contribute to contamination and may affect surrounding ecosystems, including a better definition of anthropogenic background concentrations. Moving forward, the collection of co-occurrence data was noted as a means to improve understanding of complex mixtures and to leverage companion modeling efforts focused on areas with high and low contamination levels to identify areas of concern and unaffected resources. Participants emphasized how centralized USGS databases and the establishment of sample-metadata archives can help to ensure that samples are preserved and accessible for future research. In conclusion, the workshop participants identified opportunities to bridge data gaps and improve measurement techniques, modeling frameworks, databases, and communication, to enhance the understanding of PFAS and their effects on environmental and human health. Upon completion of the workshop, participants indicated an interest in developing strategic data collection, modeling, and analytical approaches to address these challenges.