This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits
copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.

Letter
pubs.acs.org/journal/estlcu

Fluorinated Compounds in U.S. Fast Food Packaging
Laurel A. Schaider,*,† Simona A. Balan,‡ Arlene Blum,§,∥ David Q. Andrews,⊥ Mark J. Strynar,#
Margaret E. Dickinson,∇ David M. Lunderberg,∇ Johnsie R. Lang,○ and Graham F. Peaslee@
†

Silent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts 02460, United States
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95814, United States
§
Green Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States
∥
Department of Chemistry, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, United States
⊥
Environmental Working Group, Washington, D.C. 20009, United States
#
National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
United States
∇
Chemistry Department, Hope College, Holland, Michigan 49423, United States
○
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, United States
@
Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, United States
‡

S Supporting Information
*

ABSTRACT: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are
highly persistent synthetic chemicals, some of which have been
associated with cancer, developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity,
and other health effects. PFASs in grease-resistant food
packaging can leach into food and increase dietary exposure.
We collected ∼400 samples of food contact papers, paperboard
containers, and beverage containers from fast food restaurants
throughout the United States and measured total fluorine using
particle-induced γ-ray emission (PIGE) spectroscopy. PIGE can
rapidly and inexpensively measure total fluorine in solid-phase
samples. We found that 46% of food contact papers and 20% of
paperboard samples contained detectable fluorine (>16 nmol/
cm2). Liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis of a subset of 20 samples found perfluorocarboxylates, perfluorosulfonates, and other known PFASs and/or unidentified polyfluorinated compounds (based on nontargeted
analysis). The total peak area for PFASs was higher in 70% of samples (10 of 14) with a total fluorine level of >200 nmol/cm2
compared to six samples with a total fluorine level of <16 nmol/cm2. Samples with high total fluorine levels but low levels of
measured PFASs may contain volatile PFASs, PFAS polymers, newer replacement PFASs, or other fluorinated compounds. The
prevalence of fluorinated chemicals in fast food packaging demonstrates their potentially significant contribution to dietary PFAS
exposure and environmental contamination during production and disposal.

■

INTRODUCTION

studies in animals have linked PFOA and/or PFOS exposure
to altered mammary gland development, reproductive and
developmental toxicity, testicular cancer, obesity, and immune
suppression.15−19 Because of long half-lives in the human body
and concerns about adverse health effects, major U.S.
manufacturers have voluntarily phased out20 production of
PFOA, PFOS, and some other long-chain PFASs (defined as
C6 and longer sulfonates and C7 and longer carboxylates)21 for
the majority of uses, although long-chain PFASs are still

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are widely used in
nonstick, stain-resistant, and waterproof consumer products
because of the hydrophobic and lipophobic properties of the
PFASs. Their characteristic carbon−fluorine bonds make them
extremely resistant to degradation, even at high temperatures.
The most commonly used PFASs have been detected globally
in water, soil, sediment, wildlife, and human blood samples.1−7
Epidemiological studies have found associations between
exposures to the long-chain PFASs perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and/or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and
kidney and testicular cancer, low birth weight, thyroid disease,
decreased sperm quality, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and
immunotoxicity in children.8−14 In addition, toxicological
© 2017 American Chemical Society

Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
105

November 16, 2016
December 20, 2016
December 23, 2016
February 1, 2017
DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

longer a reasonable certainty of no harm.49 However, this
restriction is not expected to have a significant impact because
the FDA had already worked with manufacturers to phase out
use of these compounds in 2011.50 While some European
countries also list individual compounds approved for use in
food contact materials,51 in 2015 the Danish Ministry of
Environment and Food issued a recommended limit for total
organofluorine in paper and paperboard FCMs (0.35 μg of F/
dm2 or 0.18 nmol of F/cm2).52 The Supporting Information
provides additional information about the Danish limit.
Prior studies that found PFASs in fast food packaging have
been based on relatively few samples and inconsistent analytical
methods. Here we applied a novel technique using particleinduced γ-ray emission (PIGE) spectroscopy as a rapidscreening method53 to test more than 400 samples of food
packaging from fast food restaurants across the United States
for fluorinated chemicals. To evaluate whether samples with
elevated total fluorine levels contained known PFASs and other
compounds likely to be PFASs, we analyzed a subset of samples
using conventional solvent extraction and liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis of PFASs.
This study provides a proof-of-concept application of the PIGE
method for rapidly screening a large number of packaging
samples and prioritizing samples for compound-specific
analyses. Our results provide the most comprehensive assessment to date of the prevalence of fluorinated compounds in
U.S. fast food packaging and the availability of nonfluorinated
alternatives.

produced globally. Common replacements include shorterchain PFASs that have shorter human half-lives22 and are less
bioaccumulative,23 as well as polyfluorinated polyether-based
polymers.24 Alternative PFASs are also persistent in the
environment22,25 or degrade into persistent molecules. Shortchain PFASs are harder to remove from drinking water.26 While
health effect data are limited, results from preliminary studies
and structural similarities to long-chain PFASs have raised
concerns about exposure to short-chain PFASs,22,27−31
prompting efforts to support the development and use of
nonfluorinated alternatives.30,32
PFASs have been detected in a wide range of products,
including food contact materials (FCMs), carpeting and carpet
cleaners, upholstery, floor waxes, and outdoor apparel.33−35
PFASs in household products that migrate into food, indoor air,
and dust can contribute to human exposure,36−40 although
these contributions are difficult to assess given the wide range
of concentrations and relative abundances in exposure media.
PFAS-containing FCMs such as fast food packaging and
microwave popcorn bags can contribute to indirect dietary
exposure via migration into food.36,37,41 Prior studies of fast
food packaging such as wrappers, paperboard, and paper cups
found a wide range of PFASs, including PFOS and other
perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFSAs), PFOA and other perfluoroalkyl carboxylates (PFCAs), fluorotelomer alcohols (FTOHs),
and polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs).42−46 Relative
abundances of PFASs vary among product types and studies.
For instance, paper cups had relatively low PFAS concentrations compared to other types of packaging in some
studies,42,43 but relatively high concentrations in another.46
Product formulations varied among countries, reflecting
differences in production patterns. For instance, a 2016 study
found that 6:2 FTOH was the most common FTOH in U.S.
FCMs, whereas long-chain FTOHs were more common in
samples from China, a difference attributed to the U.S. phaseout of long-chain PFASs.43
The extent of migration of PFASs from FCMs into food
depends on the amount, type, and chain length of PFASs used,
the type of food (e.g., fat- vs water-based), the contact time, and
the temperature.36,41,43 Despite brief contact times between
FCMs and fast food, high temperatures and use of emulsified
fats can significantly increase the extent of migration of PAPs
and other PFASs into food.36 Short-chain FTOHs and PFCAs
were found to have migration efficiencies from paper bowls
higher than those of long-chain analogues.43
Exposure to PFASs from fast food packaging is especially
relevant for children, because one-third of U.S. children
consume fast food daily47 and children may be more susceptible
to the adverse health effects.13 Regulations in the United States
specify which PFASs are allowed in FCMs. The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) currently approves more than 90
unique monomer and polymer PFASs for use in FCMs such as
paper and paperboard,48 including 20 PFASs approved to
impart oil, grease, and/or water resistance that are listed in
Table S1. Since 2008, 11 substances have been approved and
registered by the FDA on the Inventory of Effective Food
Contact Substance (FCS) Notifications; nine of these
substances from four different chemical manufacturers are
polymers that utilize a 6:2 fluorotelomer component.48 In
January 2016, in response to a petition filed by the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmental
organizations, the FDA rescinded approval for three families of
long-chain PFASs used in FCMs, concluding there was no

■

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sample Collection. In 2014 and 2015, we collected 407
samples of paper and paperboard food wrappers and related
food packaging at U.S. fast food restaurants. The study was
designed to represent a broad distribution of packaging types
and geographic locations but did not necessarily reflect the
overall distribution of total F concentrations in fast food
packaging; 98% of samples were collected in five regions:
western Washington (25%), eastern Massachusetts (24%),
western Michigan (20%), northern California (17%), and
metropolitan Washington, DC (12%). Three hundred ninetyfive samples came from 27 large fast food chains (with ≥100
U.S. stores); each chain was sampled in up to five regions at up
to three stores per region. Another 12 samples came from four
individual fast food restaurants. Samples were 100−2500 cm2 in
area, and each was placed into a zip-lock bag or wrapped
separately in aluminum foil to avoid fluorine transfer among
samples.
Samples were divided into six categories: (1) food contact
paper (e.g., sandwich wrappers and pastry bags), (2) noncontact paper (e.g., outer bags), (3) food contact paperboard
(e.g., boxes for fries and pizza), (4) paper cups (for hot or cold
drinks), (5) other beverages (e.g., milk and juice containers),
and (6) miscellaneous (e.g., lids and applesauce containers).
Food contact papers were further divided into three categories
on the basis of likely uses: (1) sandwiches, burgers, and fried
foods, (2) Tex-Mex food, and (3) desserts and breads.
Sample Analysis. Details of analytical methods and results
of QA/QC analyses are provided in the Supporting
Information. All samples were analyzed using PIGE spectroscopy at Hope College. PIGE previously has been used to
measure fluorine in geological and biological samples.54−57 An
analytical method for application of PIGE to papers and textiles
(Figure S1) was developed by Ritter et al.53 and applied to
106

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters
carpet and clothing samples.58 In short, each sample was
irradiated with approximately 10 nA of 3.4 MeV protons for
180 s. The characteristic γ-rays emitted from the de-excitation
of 19F at 110 and 197 keV had background-subtracted
integrations summed for each sample irradiation. Integrated
γ-ray counts in the 110 and 197 keV peaks per microcoulomb
of beam on target (counts per microcoulomb) were converted
to concentrations of total fluorine (in nanomoles of F per
square centimeter) using PFAS standards dissolved in methanol
and dried onto filter paper.53 The limit of detection (LOD) was
16 nmol of F/cm2, and the limit of quantification (LOQ) was
50 nmol of F/cm2.
The ion beam typically penetrates 100−200 μm into a solid
material. For wrapper samples, our analyses indicate that the
beam can completely penetrate the samples, whereas the beam
did not appear to completely penetrate paperboard samples
that are much thicker; therefore, we analyzed thick samples on
both sides and selected the higher concentration to capture the
total fluorine signal associated with surface treatments.
As part of the quality assurance protocol, 10% of samples
were replicated (two or three identical samples obtained
simultaneously from the same restaurant and analyzed
independently and blindly) to assess the reproducibility of
analytical results and potential sample-to-sample variability
(Table S2 and Figure S2). To assess analytical reproducibility,
5% of samples were analyzed repeatedly [two to five times per
sample (Table S3)]. Results for replicates were combined prior
to data analysis so that all samples were weighted identically
regardless of the number of analyses.
To explore the extent to which PIGE analyses indicate the
presence of PFASs, we analyzed 20 of our food packaging
samples for PFASs using conventional solvent extractions
followed by liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass
spectrometry analysis. The identities of samples with high
and low fluorine levels were unknown to the analyst conducting
these measurements. We conducted methanol extractions on
14 samples with a total F concentration of >200 nmol of F/cm2
and six samples with a total F concentration below the LOD.
Extracts were analyzed for 89 PFASs with known structures and
for unidentified polyfluorinated compounds using suspect
screening analyses with liquid chromatography/time-of-flight
mass spectrometry (LC/TOF MS) following methods
described by Rager et al.59 (see the Supporting Information
for more details). Five samples (25%) were analyzed in
duplicate.

Table 1. Percentages of Fast Food Packaging Samples with
Total Fluorine above the Limit of Detection (16 nmol of F/
cm2)

food contact paper
(by category)
sandwich/
burger
dessert/
bread
Tex-Mex
food contact paper
(all)
food contact
paperboard
noncontact paper
paper cups
other beverage
containers
miscellaneous
total

no. of
samples
tested

no. of
brands
tested

no. of states
tested

% with F

138

20

5

38

68

9

5

56

42
248

3
27

5
5

57
46

80

15

5

20

15
30
25

9
9
10

3
4
1

0
0
16

9
407

7
29

1
5

0
33

Figure 1. Total F concentrations (in nanomoles of F per square
centimeter) based on PIGE analyses of fast food packaging samples.
Only samples with concentrations of total F above the LOD (16 nmol
of F/cm2) are plotted; detection frequencies are listed in Table 1.
Concentrations between the LOD and LOQ (50 nmol of F/cm2) are
considered estimated.

PFASs and to validate the results of the PIGE analyses. The
most commonly detected types of PFASs were PFCAs (e.g.,
PFOA and PFHxA), PFSAs (e.g., PFBS), and fluorotelomer
sulfonates (e.g., 6:2 FTS) (Table S5). Six of the 20 samples
(collected in 2014 and 2015) contained detectable levels of
PFOA, even though U.S. manufacturers voluntarily agreed to
stop distributing products containing C8 perfluorinated
compounds for food contact purposes in interstate commerce
in 2011 through a U.S. FDA initiative.60 Unknown polyfluorinated compounds were indicated by a homologous series
of compounds whose molecular weight differed by 49.9968
(accurate mass of the -CF2 group) and/or had a negative mass
defect. Total peak areas for known and unknown PFASs varied
by more than 3 orders of magnitude. For many samples, the
signal for unknown polyfluorinated compounds was similar to,
and sometimes much larger than, the signal for known PFAS
compounds, suggesting that a substantial portion of organofluorine in these samples cannot be ascribed to known PFASs.
In general, the LC/MS analyses supported the PIGE results,
because total peak areas associated with known and unknown

■

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Of 407 samples, 33% had detectable total F concentrations
(Table 1), ranging from 16 to 800 nmol of F/cm2 (Figure 1).
Detection frequencies varied among packaging types, from 0%
for papers not in contact with food (N = 15) and paper cups (N
= 30) to 46% for food contact papers (N = 248). Among food
contact papers, detection frequencies ranged from 38% for
sandwich/burger wrappers to ~57% for Tex-Mex food
packaging and dessert/bread wrappers. Overall, fluorine was
more commonly detected in grease-proof products (e.g., food
contact papers) than in products holding liquids or not
intended to come into contact with food. These detection
frequencies indicate the presence of fluorinated food packaging
currently in use but are not necessarily representative of the
marketplace.
We analyzed a subset of 20 samples using LC/TOF MS
methods to provide more specific identification of individual
107

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

total fluorine concentrations above the LOD for PIGE of 16
nmol of F/cm2 (∼60 μg/g in wrappers, ∼14 μg/g in
paperboard). This LOD, which is equivalent to 30 μg of F/
dm2 (or 44 μg of PFOA/dm2), is well above the Danish
Ministry of Environment and Food’s guideline of 0.35 μg of F/
dm2 for total organic fluorine,52 which may include both
intentionally added and background PFASs. Samples with
detectable total fluorine based on the PIGE method were likely
treated with PFASs or other fluorinated compounds; according
to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food, diPAP
concentrations of 600−9000 μg of F/g in food packaging
(∼360−5400 μg of F/g of paper) were attributed to intentional
additions to paper pulp, and diPAP concentrations of 1−100 μg
of F/g (∼0.6−60 μg of F/g of paper) were hypothesized to be
associated with surface coatings.61,62 However, the PIGE
method may not be sufficiently sensitive to identify all samples
with intentionally added PFASs. We detected PFASs in all of
our samples with a total F concentration below the LOD using
a more sensitive LC/MS method, which may capture both
PFASs that are intentionally added to packaging materials and
background levels, for instance, from recycled paper or
unintentional cross contamination. At this point, there is no
clear distinction between PFAS or total F concentrations
associated with intentional addition to food contact materials
and unintentional background levels. Thus, while we found that
the concentration of total F in many samples was below the
LOD for the PIGE method (54% of papers and 80% of
paperboard), we cannot determine the proportion of these
samples that are free of the addition of PFAS-containing greaseproofing additives.
It is difficult to assess exposure and risk associated with
PFASs in fast food packaging because the extent of exposure
from FCMs and the toxicity of most fluorinated chemicals in
FCMs are poorly characterized. While much of the U.S.
production of PFOS and PFOA was phased out between 2000
and 2015, these compounds are still produced in other regions
of the world. Some food packaging approved by the U.S. FDA
is labeled “PFOA-free” but contains shorter-chain C6 PFASs63
or long compounds with perfluorinated subunits linked by
ether groups.25 PFHxA, the C6 homologue of PFOA, has a
much shorter human half-life (32 days compared to 3.5
years),64 but preliminary toxicity testing suggests it has some of
the same adverse effects.29,31 In general, very little information
about human half-lives and potential health effects of other
replacement PFASs is available, despite widespread exposures
and documented toxicity of related long-chain PFASs.28,30
Fluorinated FCMs are also a source of PFASs to the
environment. Manufacturing facilities for PFAS-containing
paper products may release PFASs into air and wastewater.51
PFASs in consumer products that end up as municipal solid
waste can be transported to groundwater through landfill
leachate.65 Because of their environmental persistence, PFASs
should be considered incompatible with compostable food
packaging.66 However, ASTM compostability standards D6400
and D6868 do not consider PFASs, so they are currently
allowed in compostable foodware.67,68 Direct land application
of compost with PFAS-containing food packaging may result in
elevated soil concentrations and enhanced phytoaccumulation.
PFASs in land-applied biosolids have been shown to
accumulate in crop plants.69−72 PFASs are mobile in groundwater systems and have been detected in drinking water wells
globally.73−76

PFASs in 70% of samples (10 of 14) that had a PIGE total F
concentration of >200 nmol/cm2 were greater than peak areas
in six samples with a total F concentration below the LOD
(Figures S3 and S4 and Table S4). However, some samples
with high levels of total fluorine according to PIGE did not
contain elevated levels of PFASs according to LC/MS analyses.
Four samples with a total F concentration of >200 nmol/cm2
contained peak areas for known and/or unknown PFASs that
were at or below levels detected in six samples with a total F
concentration below the LOD. One explanation for these
findings is that much of the total fluorine in these samples was
present as inorganic fluorine or non-PFAS organofluorine
compounds. Another explanation is that our extraction and
LC/TOF MS analyses failed to capture a substantial portion of
the PFASs present in the samples. For instance, FTOHs have
been among the most frequently detected PFASs in FCMs,43
but they are volatile and form adducts with LC modifiers,
making their measurement erratic as determined by LC/MS.
We screened for but did not find detectable FTOH-acetate or
formate adduct ions (4:2 through 10:2), which are expected to
form if FTOHs were present, although FTOHs may have been
lost during sample preparation. Food packaging also can
contain newer replacement compounds, such as polyfluorinated
polyether-based (PFPEs) polymers,24 which were not among
our target analytes because of a lack of authentic standards and
difficulties in their analysis. We found evidence that PFPEs
were present in some of our sample extracts via the detection of
repeating units consistent with -C2F4O- (115.989 units). Paper
and paperboard may also contain other fluorinated polymers
(Table S1) that may not be readily extractable in methanol.
Among regions, detection frequencies for total F ranged from
38 to 55% for food contact papers and from 10 to 33% for
paperboard containers (Table S6). A logistic regression for the
presence of fluorinated chemicals did not find significant
differences among regions (Table S7), using region and
product type as categorical independent variables. Dessert/
bread wrappers and Tex-Mex food packaging had a percentage
of fluorinated samples higher than those of all other categories
of food contact samples (Table 1 and Table S7). To evaluate
short-term temporal variability, we collected nine sets (N = 2−
6) of identical samples from the same locations over the course
of 1−8 weeks. We observed little variation in fluorine detection
on this time scale. Five sets all contained quantifiable fluorine
(above the LOQ); three sets all were below the LOD, and in
one set, one sample was below the LOD and the other between
the LOD and LOQ.
We attempted to investigate the fast food chains’ knowledge
of their use of fluorinated food packaging. For each of the fast
food chains that we sampled, we submitted questions through
Web sites and by phone regarding company use, sourcing, and
general policies on fluorinated products. Only two companies
provided a substantive response: one stated that they believed
none of their food packaging contained fluorinated chemicals,
and the other stated that they verified with their suppliers that
their food packaging did not contain PFASs. However, we
found a substantial portion of fluorinated food contact papers
from these two chains. While it is difficult to draw conclusions
on the basis of so few responses, this suggests a lack of
knowledge in the fast food industry about the use of fluorinated
packaging.
Study Implications. We found that fluorinated compounds
are common in food contact papers and other fast food
packaging in the United States; 33% of samples we tested had
108

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters

on concentrations and distribution coefficients. Chemosphere 2013, 91
(6), 725−732.
(2) Ahrens, L.; Bundschuh, M. Fate and effects of poly- and
perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: A review.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2014, 33 (9), 1921−1929.
(3) Giesy, J. P.; Kannan, K. Perfluorochemical surfactants in the
environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36 (7), 146A−152A.
(4) Houde, M.; De Silva, A. O.; Muir, D. C.; Letcher, R. J.
Monitoring of perfluorinated compounds in aquatic biota: An updated
review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (19), 7962−7973.
(5) Kato, K.; Wong, L. Y.; Jia, L. T.; Kuklenyik, Z.; Calafat, A. M.
Trends in exposure to polyfluoroalkyl chemicals in the U.S.
population: 1999−2008. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (19), 8037−
8045.
(6) Lau, C.; Anitole, K.; Hodes, C.; Lai, D.; Pfahles-Hutchens, A.;
Seed, J. Perfluoroalkyl acids: A review of monitoring and toxicological
findings. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 99 (2), 366−394.
(7) Rankin, K.; Mabury, S. A.; Jenkins, T. M.; Washington, J. W. A
North American and global survey of perfluoroalkyl substances in
surface soils: Distribution patterns and mode of occurrence.
Chemosphere 2016, 161, 333−341.
(8) Barry, V.; Winquist, A.; Steenland, K. Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) exposures and incident cancers among adults living near a
chemical plant. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013, 121 (11−12), 1313−
1318.
(9) Fei, C.; McLaughlin, J. K.; Tarone, R. E.; Olsen, J. Perfluorinated
chemicals and fetal growth: A study within the Danish National Birth
Cohort. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (11), 1677−1682.
(10) Stein, C. R.; Savitz, D. A.; Dougan, M. Serum levels of
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate and pregnancy
outcome. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2009, 170 (7), 837−846.
(11) Joensen, U. N.; Bossi, R.; Leffers, H.; Jensen, A. A.; Skakkebaek,
N. E.; Jørgensen, N. Do perfluoroalkyl compounds impair human
semen quality? Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117 (6), 923−927.
(12) Lopez-Espinosa, M.-J.; Mondal, D.; Armstrong, B.; Bloom, M.
S.; Fletcher, T. Thyroid function and perfluoroalkyl acids in children
living near a chemical plant. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120 (7),
1036−1041.
(13) Grandjean, P.; Andersen, E. W.; Budtz-Jørgensen, E.; Nielsen,
F.; Mølbak, K.; Weihe, P.; Heilmann, C. Serum vaccine antibody
concentrations in children exposed to perfluorinated compounds.
JAMA, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2012, 307 (4), 391−397.
(14) Vested, A.; Ramlau-Hansen, C. H.; Olsen, S. F.; Bonde, J. P.;
Kristensen, S. L.; Halldorsson, T. I.; Becher, G.; Haug, L. S.; Ernst, E.
H.; Toft, G. Associations of in utero exposure to perfluorinated alkyl
acids with human semen quality and reproductive hormones in adult
men. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013, 121 (4), 453−458.
(15) Hines, E. P.; White, S. S.; Stanko, J. P.; Gibbs-Flournoy, E. A.;
Lau, C.; Fenton, S. E. Phenotypic dichotomy following developmental
exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in female CD-1 mice:
Low doses induce elevated serum leptin and insulin, and overweight in
mid-life. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2009, 304 (1−2), 97−105.
(16) Fair, P. A.; Driscoll, E.; Mollenhauer, M. A. M.; Bradshaw, S. G.;
Yun, S. H.; Kannan, K.; Bossart, G. D.; Keil, D. E.; Peden-Adams, M.
M. Effects of environmentally-relevant levels of perfluorooctane
sulfonate on clinical parameters and immunological functions in
B6C3F1 mice. J. Immunotoxicol. 2011, 8 (1), 17−29.
(17) Macon, M. B.; Villanueva, L. R.; Tatum-Gibbs, K.; Zehr, R. D.;
Strynar, M. J.; Stanko, J. P.; White, S. S.; Helfant, L.; Fenton, S. E.
Prenatal perfluorooctanoic acid exposure in CD-1 mice: low-dose
developmental effects and internal dosimetry. Toxicol. Sci. 2011, 122
(1), 134−145.
(18) Tucker, D. K.; Macon, M. B.; Strynar, M. J.; Dagnino, S.;
Andersen, E.; Fenton, S. E. The mammary gland is a sensitive pubertal
target in CD-1 and C57Bl/6 mice following perinatal perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure. Reprod. Toxicol. 2015, 54, 26−36.
(19) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. HealthBased Maximum Contaminant Level Support Document: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) (Public Review Draft); Health Effects

Our study demonstrates the utility of the PIGE spectroscopic
method for measuring total fluorine concentrations in food
packaging and identifying samples most likely to contain high
levels of PFASs. In addition to consumer products, PIGE also
can be used to analyze environmental samples for the presence
of PFASs and delineate impacted areas. Because sample
preparation and analysis take only a few minutes, we were
able to rapidly screen more than 400 packaging samples for
PFASs. The PIGE method is nondestructive and can be used as
an inexpensive screening technique to prioritize samples for
more time- and labor-intensive chemical analyses to identify
individual PFASs and characterize their migration into food. In
addition, because PIGE measures total fluorine, it can detect
unidentified PFASs that are not included in conventional mass
spectrometry-based analyses. This technique can be applied to
provide information to food packaging distributors, restaurants,
and consumers who prefer truly compostable products and
wish to avoid PFAS-containing FCMs because of concerns
about potential adverse human and ecological health effects.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information
*

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the
ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435.
A list of PFASs approved by the U.S. FDA for food
contact materials, additional information about analytical
methods, QA/QC results, regional comparisons of PIGE
detection frequencies, and LC/MS results (PDF)

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +1-617-332-4288. Fax: +1-617-332-4284. E-mail:
schaider@silentspring.org.
ORCID

Laurel A. Schaider: 0000-0003-1988-0012
Mark J. Strynar: 0000-0003-3472-7921
Notes

This article was reviewed in accordance with the policy of the
National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the view
and policies of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the National Science
Foundation (Grant RUI-1306074) and charitable contributions
to Silent Spring Institute. We thank Alex Stone, Cody
Berkobien, Rochelle Cameron, Veronica Chin, Caroline Clarke,
Morgan Dashko, John Harron, Nick Hubley, Eileen Kramer,
Zoe Laventhol, Brieana Linton, Don Lucas, and Evelyn Ritter
for assistance in sample collection and analysis, Alex Stone and
Ruthann Rudel for constructive feedback on earlier versions,
and Xenia Trier for helpful discussions about the development
of the Danish guideline.

■

REFERENCES

(1) Zareitalabad, P.; Siemens, J.; Hamer, M.; Amelung, W.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS) in surface waters, sediments, soils and wastewater - A review
109

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters
Subcommittee, New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute: Trenton,
NJ, 2016; p 475.
(20) Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC (http://www.epa.
gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program) (accessed July 9, 2016).
(21) Buck, R. C.; Franklin, J.; Berger, U.; Conder, J. M.; Cousins, I.
T.; de Voogt, P.; Jensen, A. A.; Kannan, K.; Mabury, S. A.; van
Leeuwen, S. P. J. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the
environment: Terminology, classification, and origins. Integr. Environ.
Assess. Manage. 2011, 7 (4), 513−541.
(22) Wang, Z.; Cousins, I. T.; Scheringer, M.; Hungerbuehler, K.
Hazard assessment of fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their precursors: Status quo, ongoing
challenges and possible solutions. Environ. Int. 2015, 75, 172−179.
(23) Conder, J. M.; Hoke, R. A.; De Wolf, W.; Russell, M. H.; Buck,
R. C. Are PFCAs bioaccumulative? A critical review and comparison
with regulatory lipophilic compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42
(4), 995−1003.
(24) Dimzon, I. K.; Trier, X.; Fromel, T.; Helmus, R.; Knepper, T. P.;
de Voogt, P. High resolution mass spectrometry of polyfluorinated
polyether-based formulation. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2016, 27 (2),
309−318.
(25) Wang, Z.; Cousins, I. T.; Scheringer, M.; Hungerbühler, K.
Fluorinated alternatives to long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids
(PFCAs), perfluoroalkane sulfonic acids (PFSAs) and their potential
precursors. Environ. Int. 2013, 60, 242−248.
(26) Sun, M.; Arevalo, E.; Strynar, M. J.; Lindstrom, A. B.;
Richardson, M.; Kearns, B.; Smith, C.; Pickett, A.; Knappe, D. R. U.
Legacy and emerging perfluoroalkyl substances are important drinking
water contaminants in the Cape Fear River Watershed of North
Carolina. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, 3, 415.
(27) Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Cousins, I. T.; de Voogt, P.; Fletcher,
T.; Wang, Z.; Webster, T. F. Helsingør Statement on poly- and
perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs). Chemosphere 2014, 114,
337−339.
(28) Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Short-chain Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A literature review of information on
human health effects and environmental fate and effect aspects of
short-chain PFAS. Environmental Project 1707; Danish Ministry of
the Environment: Copenhagen, 2015.
(29) Rosenmai, A. K.; Taxvig, C.; Svingen, T.; Trier, X.; van VugtLussenburg, B. M. A.; Pedersen, M.; Lesné, L.; Jégou, B.; Vinggaard, A.
M. Fluorinated alkyl substances and technical mixtures used in food
paper-packaging exhibit endocrine-related activity. Andrology 2016, 4
(4), 662−672.
(30) Birnbaum, L. S.; Grandjean, P. Alternatives to PFASs:
Perspectives on the science. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123 (5),
A104−A105.
(31) Rice, P. A. C6-Perfluorinated compounds: The new greaseproofing agents in food packaging. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2015, 2
(1), 33−40.
(32) Blum, A.; Balan, S. A.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Goldenman, G.;
Cousins, I. T.; Diamond, M.; Fletcher, T.; Higgins, C.; Lindeman, A.
E.; Peaslee, G.; de Voogt, P.; Wang, Z.; Weber, R. The Madrid
statement on poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Environ.
Health Perspect. 2015, 123 (5), A107−A111.
(33) Kotthoff, M.; Müller, J.; Jürling, H.; Schlummer, M.; Fiedler, D.
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in consumer products.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22 (9), 14546−14559.
(34) Liu, X.; Guo, Z.; Folk, E. E.; Roache, N. F. Determination of
fluorotelomer alcohols in selected consumer products and preliminary
investigation of their fate in the indoor environment. Chemosphere
2015, 129, 81−86.
(35) Guo, Z.; Liu, X.; Krebs, K. Perfluorocarboxylic Acid Content in
116 Articles of Commerce. EPA/600/R-09/033; Office of Research
and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC,
2009.

(36) Begley, T. H.; Hsu, W.; Noonan, G.; Diachenko, G. Migration
of fluorochemical paper additives from food-contact paper into foods
and food simulants. Food Addit. Contam., Part A 2008, 25 (3), 384−
390.
(37) Tittlemier, S. A.; Pepper, K.; Seymour, C.; Moisey, J.; Bronson,
R.; Cao, X. L.; Dabeka, R. W. Dietary exposure of Canadians to
perfluorinated carboxylates and perfluorooctane sulfonate via consumption of meat, fish, fast foods, and food items prepared in their
packaging. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55 (8), 3203−3210.
(38) Langer, V.; Dreyer, A.; Ebinghaus, R. Polyfluorinated
compounds in residential and nonresidential indoor air. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2010, 44 (21), 8075−8081.
(39) Björklund, J. A.; Thuresson, K.; De Wit, C. A. Perfluoroalkyl
compounds (PFCs) in indoor dust: Concentrations, human exposure
estimates, and sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (7), 2276−2281.
(40) Beesoon, S.; Genuis, S. J.; Benskin, J. P.; Martin, J. W.
Exceptionally high serum concentrations of perfluorohexanesulfonate
in a Canadian family are linked to home carpet treatment applications.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (23), 12960−12967.
(41) Begley, T. H.; White, K.; Honigfort, P.; Twaroski, M. L.;
Neches, R.; Walker, R. A. Perfluorochemicals: Potential sources of and
migration from food packaging. Food Addit. Contam. 2005, 22 (10),
1023−1031.
(42) Trier, X.; Granby, K.; Christensen, J. H. Polyfluorinated
surfactants (PFS) in paper and board coatings for food packaging.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2011, 18 (7), 1108−1120.
(43) Yuan, G.; Peng, H.; Huang, C.; Hu, J. Ubiquitous occurrence of
fluorotelomer alcohols in eco-friendly paper-made food-contact
materials and their implication for human exposure. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2016, 50 (2), 942−950.
(44) Gebbink, W. A.; Ullah, S.; Sandblom, O.; Berger, U.
Polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters and perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids
in target food samples and packaging-method development and
screening. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013, 20 (11), 7949−7958.
(45) Shoeib, T.; Hassan, Y.; Rauert, C.; Harner, T. Poly- and
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in indoor dust and food packaging
materials in Egypt: Trends in developed and developing countries.
Chemosphere 2016, 144, 1573−1581.
(46) Poothong, S.; Boontanon, S. K.; Boontanon, N. Determination
of perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoic acid in food
packaging using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass
spectrometry. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 205−206, 139−143.
(47) Vikraman, S.; Fryar, C. D.; Ogden, C. L. Caloric Intake From
Fast Food Among Children and Adolescents in the United States,
2011−2012. NCHS Data Brief 213; National Center for Health
Statistics: Hyattsville, MD, 2015.
(48) Inventory of Effective Food Contact Substance (FCS)
Notifications; U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring,
MD (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=fcn) (accessed
July 9, 2016).
(49) Indirect Food Additives: Paper and Paperboard Components
Final Rule. 81 FR 5, 2015-33026; U.S. Food and Drug Administration:
Washington, DC, 2016.
(50) Update on Perfluorinated Grease-proofing Agents; U.S. Food
and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, 2012 (http://www.fda.
gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/
Notifications/ucm308462.htm) (accessed July 9, 2016).
(51) Annex XV Proposal for a Restriction: Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), PFOA salts and PFOA-related substances; European
Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, 2014.
(52) Fluorinated substances in paper and board food contact
materials (FCM); Danish Veterinary and Food Administration,
Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark: Glostrup, Denmark,
2015.
(53) Ritter, E. E.; Dickinson, M. E.; Harron, J. P.; Lunderberg, D. M.;
DeYoung, P. A.; Roebel, A. E.; Field, J. A.; Peaslee, G. F. Novel total
fluorine detection method, Particle Induced Gamma Ray Emission
(PIGE) Spectroscopy, for papers and textiles in commerce. Manu110

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111

 Letter

Environmental Science & Technology Letters
script submitted for publication to Environmental Science & Technology
Letters.
(54) Hyvö nen-Dabek, M. Proton-induced prompt gamma-ray
emission for determination of light elements in human bone. J.
Radioanal. Chem. 1981, 63 (2), 367−378.
(55) Brissaud, I.; de Château-Thierry, A.; Frontier, J. P.; Lagarde, G.
Analysis of geological standards with PIXE and PIGE techniques:
Applications to volcanic rocks. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 1986, 102 (1),
131−141.
(56) Roelandts, I.; Robaye, G.; Delbrouck-Habaru, J. M.; Weber, G.
1996., Determination of total fluorine in five coal reference materials
by proton-induced gamma-ray emission spectrometry. Talanta 1996,
43 (3), 439−449.
(57) Sastri, C. S.; Banerjee, A.; Sauvage, T.; Courtois, B.;
Schuhmacher, T. Fluorine determination in different types of ivory
by PIGE technique. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2013, 298 (1), 311−315.
(58) Lang, J. R.; Allred, B. M.; Peaslee, G. F.; Field, J. A.; Barlaz, M.
A. Release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from carpet
and clothing in model anaerobic landfill reactors. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2016, 50 (10), 5024−5032.
(59) Rager, J. E.; Strynar, M. J.; Liang, S.; McMahen, R. L.; Richard,
A. M.; Grulke, C. M.; Wambaugh, J. F.; Isaacs, K. K.; Judson, R.;
Williams, A. J.; Sobus, J. R. Linking high resolution mass spectrometry
data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput
environmental monitoring. Environ. Int. 2016, 88, 269−280.
(60) Update on Perfluorinated Grease-Proofing Agents; U.S. Food
and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, 2015 (http://www.fda.
gov/food/ingredientspackaginglabeling/packagingfcs/notifications/
ucm308462.htm) (accessed November 30, 2016).
(61) Proposal for Maximum Levels for Total Organic Fluorine in
Paper and Cardboard Food Packaging (in Danish); Technical
University of Denmark: Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, 2015.
(62) Trier, X. Polyfluorinated surfactants in food packaging of paper
and board. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Basic Sciences and
Environment, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 2011.
(63) ChemicalWatch. US FDA approves PFOA-free additive for food
packaging. Global Risk and Regulation News, 2015 (https://
chemicalwatch.com/23028/us-fda-approves-pfoa-free-additive-forfood-packaging) (accessed July 9, 2016).
(64) Russell, M. H.; Nilsson, H.; Buck, R. C. Elimination kinetics of
perfluorohexanoic acid in humans and comparison with mouse, rat and
monkey. Chemosphere 2013, 93 (10), 2419−2425.
(65) Allred, B. M.; Lang, J. R.; Barlaz, M. A.; Field, J. A. Physical and
biological release of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) from
municipal solid waste in anaerobic model landfill reactors. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2015, 49 (13), 7648−7656.
(66) Responsible Purchasing Network. Green Purchasing Opportunities: Compostable Food Service Ware. Technical Report for
Washington State Department of Ecology and Washington State;
Department of Enterprise Services: Olympia, WA, 2012.
(67) Standard Specification for Labeling of End Items that
Incorporate Plastics and Polymers as Coatings or Additives with
Paper and Other Substrates Designed to be Aerobically Composted in
Municipal or Industrial Facilities. ASTM D6868-11; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.
(68) Standard Specification for Labeling of Plastics Designed to be
Aerobically Composted in Municipal or Industrial Facilities. ASTM
D6400-12; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
(69) Brandli, R. C.; Kupper, T.; Bucheli, T. D.; Zennegg, M.; Huber,
S.; Ortelli, D.; Mueller, J.; Schaffner, C.; Iozza, S.; Schmid, P.; Berger,
U.; Edder, P.; Oehme, M.; Stadelmann, F. X.; Tarradellas, J. Organic
pollutants in compost and digestate. Part 2. Polychlorinated dibenzop-dioxins, and -furans, dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls, brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated alkyl substances, pesticides, and
other compounds. J. Environ. Monit. 2007, 9 (5), 465−472.
(70) Lee, H.; Tevlin, A. G.; Mabury, S. A.; Mabury, S. A. Fate of
polyfluoroalkyl phosphate diesters and their metabolites in biosolidsapplied soil: Biodegradation and plant uptake in greenhouse and field
experiments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48 (1), 340−349.

(71) Krippner, J.; Falk, S.; Brunn, H.; Georgii, S.; Schubert, S.; Stahl,
T. Accumulation potentials of perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCAs)
and perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSAs) in maize (Zea mays). J.
Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63 (14), 3646−3653.
(72) Blaine, A. C.; Rich, C. D.; Hundal, L. S.; Lau, C.; Mills, M. A.;
Harris, K. M.; Higgins, C. P. Uptake of perfluoroalkyl acids into edible
crops via land applied biosolids: Field and greenhouse studies. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (24), 14062−14069.
(73) Loos, R.; Locoro, G.; Comero, S.; Contini, S.; Schwesig, D.;
Werres, F.; Balsaa, P.; Gans, O.; Weiss, S.; Blaha, L.; Bolchi, M.;
Gawlik, B. M. Pan-European survey on the occurrence of selected
polar organic persistent pollutants in ground water. Water Res. 2010,
44 (14), 4115−4126.
(74) Lindstrom, A. B.; Strynar, M. J.; Delinsky, A. D.; Nakayama, S.
F.; McMillan, L.; Libelo, E. L.; Neill, M.; Thomas, L. Application of
WWTP biosolids and resulting perfluorinated compound contamination of surface and well water in Decatur, Alabama, USA. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (19), 8015−8021.
(75) Post, G. B.; Louis, J. B.; Lippincott, R. L.; Procopio, N. A.
Occurrence of perfluorinated compounds in raw water from New
Jersey public drinking water systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47
(23), 13266−13275.
(76) Schaider, L. A.; Ackerman, J. M.; Rudel, R. A. Septic systems as
sources of organic wastewater compounds in domestic drinking water
wells in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547,
470−481.

111

DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00435
Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2017, 4, 105−111