PFAS in Pennsylvania: Impacts and efforts to clean up the chemicals
Credit: iStock

PFAS in Pennsylvania: Impacts and efforts to clean up the chemicals

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are increasingly found in water supplies throughout the United States.


The class of chemicals, known as PFAS, includes more than 4,000 individual chemicals with similar properties. PFAS don't readily break down once they're in the environment or human bodies, so they can accumulate in animal and human tissues.

The compounds, used in products such as stain- and water-resistant clothing, nonstick pots and pans, firefighting foam, carpets and furniture, are linked to health effects including testicular and kidney cancers, decreased birth weights, thyroid disease, decreased sperm quality, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, asthma and ulcerative colitis.

In Pennsylvania, there are 20 known contaminated sites, including at least two in Southwestern Pennsylvania.

The stories below are part of an ongoing collaboration between Environmental Health News and PublicSource tracking the impacts of PFAS contamination in Pennsylvania and efforts to clean up the chemicals.


Become a donor
Today's top news

Chemicals linked to birth defects are being dumped in Pittsburgh’s rivers: Report

Chemicals linked to cancer and developmental harm are also released in large quantities into the city’s three rivers.

From our newsroom

Chemical recycling grows — along with concerns about its environmental impacts

Industry says chemical recycling could solve the plastic waste crisis, but environmental advocates and some lawmakers are skeptical.

Universities are failing us

Our educational systems are failing to prepare people for existential environmental threats

Peter Dykstra: The good news that gets buried by the bad

On the environment beat, maybe it’s right that the bad news dominates. But the good news is out there, too.

LISTEN: Ashley Gripper on growing food to fight systemic oppression

“They never felt more resilient, more confident, more grounded in terms of their mental health, than they did when they were growing food.”

Peter Dykstra: Does climate action need a king?

Tradition could silence Charles III’s passionate voice on climate change. But should it?