PFAS detected in US beers in new study, raising safety concerns
Frozan Tahiry
Background
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are non-aromatic organic compounds in which the hydrogen atoms have been either completely (perfluorinated) or partially (polyfluorinated) replaced by fluorine atom.1 These substances are entirely anthropogenic and do not occur naturally. Their synthesis has been widespread since the 1940s.1
There are more than 1,400 individual types of PFAS, each with diverse properties.2 PFAS are used in many areas of modern life, including food packaging, water- and stain-resistant fabrics, cosmetics and personal care products, electronics, lubricants, non-stick cookware, medical devices, and fire-suppressing foams.3
Most PFAS are highly resistant to decomposition and degradation under natural conditions, earning them the nickname “Forever Chemicals”.4 Due to their widespread use, they have been detected in many environmental matrices such as air, surface water, drinking water, and even human samples.5,6
Exposure to PFAS has been linked to numerous adverse health effects in humans, including cancer,7 toxicity to various organs, and endocrine dysfunction.8 This is because PFAS can bioaccumulate in humans and other organisms.9
Beer is the third most popular beverage in the world, after water and tea. It is made primarily of water, malted grains, hops, and yeast. On average, about 7 liters of water are used to produce 1 liter of beer.10 Therefore, if PFAS-contaminated water is used in brewing, the resulting beer could also contain PFAS.
Peer-reviewed Article
PFAS are pervasive in drinking water, food, and other beverages. This study was the first of its kind to use EPA Method 533: a detailed procedure employing liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to analyze PFAS in beer.
The study found that PFAS were present in beer at levels exceeding the U.S. EPA’s drinking water limits. The most frequently detected PFAS were PFSAs, PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), PFBS, and PFHxS. Beers from New Hanover County, North Carolina, also contained FTS and HFPO-DA. PFEESA was not detected in any beers.
Method of analysis in this study: The researchers evaluated beers from three countries (the U.S., the Netherlands, and Mexico), and within the U.S., from nine states and seventeen counties (shown in figure 1). Selection criteria included:
- Beer from North Carolina and other US states known for high PFAS levels in municipal water
- Popular national US beers (e.g. craft beer)
- International beers available in US stores
 |
| Figure 1: Potential PFAS sources during beer brewing, brewery locations studied in this article, and different PFAS in water that is then found in beer Some beers were brewed in multiple locations, so the team confirmed the actual brewing site based on can codes. PFAS were measured using solid-phase extraction (SPE) followed by LC-MS/MS. |
The researchers found that PFAS levels in beer correlated with both the type and concentration of PFAS in the local municipal drinking water used for brewing. By comparing the stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in the beers with the local meteoric water line, they determined that breweries primarily used local tap water, indicating that the water source was the main contributor to PFAS contamination. To test this statistically, Pearson Correlation Coefficients (r) was calculated.
However, since the brewing process involves several steps: malting, mashing, boiling, fermentation, storage, packaging, and cleaning; PFAS could also originate from other sources, such as ingredients, brewing equipment, or packaging materials. Bottles and cans may also contain PFAS-based liners or cleaning residues that contribute post-brewing contamination.
Because beer is composed of 90-95% water, drinking water standards can serve as a useful benchmark for assessing PFAS risk in beer, even though specific PFAS limits for beer do not yet exist.
The study also noted that PFOA can damage yeast cells, potentially impairing fermentation, which further highlights the importance of water treatment for both product quality and safety; but this also can be used as an incentive for the brewing companies to have PFOA-free beers.
The authors recommended the following water treatment technologies to achieve PFAS-free beer (noting that municipal treatment should ideally address this first):
- Anion exchange and activated carbon treatment: which is effective for longer-chain PFAS and PFSAs
- Reverse osmosis: which is effective for PFAS of various chain lengths, though more expensive
News Article
The Guardian article reports on Hoponick Redmon and colleagues’ study at RTI International, which examined PFAS contamination in beers brewed in the U.S. and abroad. Craft beers, a popular type in the U.S., were sampled from breweries in North Carolina, Michigan, California, Mexico, and the Netherlands. The majority of U.S. samples contained elevated PFAS levels.
The news article noted a strong correlation between PFAS concentrations in beer and those in the local water supply. In some cases, PFAS levels in beer (~40 ppt) exceeded those in local drinking water (~4–10 ppt). However, international beers from Mexico and the Netherlands showed little to no PFAS contamination.
Possible sources of PFAS contamination mentioned include:
- Cape Fear River Basin, NC: High PFAS levels from industrial discharges from the chemical plant in Fayetteville
- Kalamazoo County, MI: High PFOA concentrations from local water contamination
- Firefighting foam hot spots: Military bases, airports, and military training sites
- Agricultural and manufacturing sources: Fertilizer residues and PFAS in tubing or packaging
The article encouraged consumers to be mindful of their beer choices and urged brewers to test their products for PFAS. It also called on policymakers to strengthen regulations and ensure that municipal water supplies are PFAS-free.
Evaluation
The key takeaway is that PFAS are extremely widespread in our environment, and we must be conscious of their presence in everyday products. This study highlights that beers can contain high PFAS concentrations, largely because they are made with large volumes of contaminated water. Interestingly, some beers showed even higher PFAS levels than the water used to make them - likely due to additional contamination sources, such as fertilizers in grains, brewing equipment, or packaging materials.
I would rate the Guardian article 9/10. It effectively conveyed the message of the peer-reviewed paper, covering most of the key issues, explaining what PFAS are, and outlining their health risks (e.g., cancer, birth defects, reduced immunity, high cholesterol, and kidney disease). It also discussed the study’s limitations and offered practical suggestions for brewers and consumers.
I deducted one point because the article mentions “22 out of 23 beers” testing positive for PFAS - a figure not supported by the journal article, which reported 11 out of 19 in phase one and 13 out of 15 in phase two of the study. There is no mention of “22 out of 23” in the actual study.
Additionally, the news article's reporter did not include any opinions from other scientists in this area of research, which is something commonly done. The reporter only summarized the findings of the peer-reviewed article without incorporating input from other scientists.
References
(1) Brunn, H.; Arnold, G.; Körner, W.; Rippen, G.; Steinhäuser, K. G.; Valentin, I. PFAS: Forever Chemicals—Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Mobile. Reviewing the Status and the Need for Their Phase out and Remediation of Contaminated Sites. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35 (1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00721-8.
(2) Evich, M. G.; Davis, M. J. B.; McCord, J. P.; Acrey, B.; Awkerman, J. A.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Lindstrom, A. B.; Speth, T. F.; Tebes-Stevens, C.; Strynar, M. J.; Wang, Z.; Weber, E. J.; Henderson, W. M.; Washington, J. W. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment. Science 2022, 375 (6580), eabg9065. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg9065.
(3) Glüge, J.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J. C.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C. A.; Trier, X.; Wang, Z. An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2020, 22 (12), 2345–2373. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G.
(4) Habib, Z.; Song, M.; Ikram, S.; Zahra, Z. Overview of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), Their Applications, Sources, and Potential Impacts on Human Health. Pollutants 2024, 4 (1), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/pollutants4010009.
(5) Podder, A.; Sadmani, A. H. M. A.; Reinhart, D.; Chang, N.-B.; Goel, R. Per and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) as a Contaminant of Emerging Concern in Surface Water: A Transboundary Review of Their Occurrences and Toxicity Effects. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 419, 126361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126361.
(6) Chow, S. J.; Ojeda, N.; Jacangelo, J. G.; Schwab, K. J. Detection of Ultrashort-Chain and Other per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in U.S. Bottled Water. Water Res. 2021, 201, 117292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117292.
(7) Li, S.; Oliva, P.; Zhang, L.; Goodrich, J. A.; McConnell, R.; Conti, D. V.; Chatzi, L.; Aung, M. Associations between Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and County-Level Cancer Incidence between 2016 and 2021 and Incident Cancer Burden Attributable to PFAS in Drinking Water in the United States. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.2025, 35 (3), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-024-00742-2.
(8) Wee, S. Y.; Aris, A. Z. Revisiting the “Forever Chemicals”, PFOA and PFOS Exposure in Drinking Water. Npj Clean Water 2023, 6 (1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-023-00274-6.
(9) Houck, K. A.; Patlewicz, G.; Richard, A. M.; Williams, A. J.; Shobair, M. A.; Smeltz, M.; Clifton, M. S.; Wetmore, B.; Medvedev, A.; Makarov, S. Bioactivity Profiling of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Identifies Potential Toxicity Pathways Related to Molecular Structure. Toxicology 2021, 457, 152789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.152789.
(10) Redmon, J. H.; DeLuca, N. M.; Thorp, E.; Liyanapatirana, C.; Allen, L.; Kondash, A. J. Hold My Beer: The Linkage between Municipal Water and Brewing Location on PFAS in Popular Beverages. Env. Sci Technol 2025.
Hi Frozan! Thank you for sharing this study! I think the figures in the journal article are really beautiful! PFAS have been known to be in almost everything due to their amphiphilic nature that makes them particularly useful in consumer products. However, their widespread use has led them to be in water supplies, as you mentioned in your post. Even areas that are not near a point source can be polluted by PFAS because some of them are volatile, resulting in them to be transported in the atmosphere. This raises a question about a potential limitation of this study. The beer cans were degassed overnight, so could this lead to the loss of some PFAS species, resulting in an underestimation of their concentrations? Are any PFAS species measured by EPA 533 volatile? I am also curious about the relationship between PFAS chain length and their respective concentrations (e.g. were longer chain PFAS found at higher concentrations than shorter chain PFAS?). Additionally, did the study mention anything about the MS/MS mode used to differentiate between the PFAS species, or what do you think the best mode would be?
ReplyDeleteHi Shyleigh! Thank you for your very thoughtful comment and questions! I agree that the figures are really nice and summarize the study very well. Yes, PFAS use is very widespread, and they can be found in many everyday materials. Below I have done my best to answer some of your questions:
Delete1. Could degassing cause loss of PFAS in beer?
It is difficult to study gas-phase PFAS because their concentrations in the air are very low. Additionally, airborne PFAS are mostly precursors, not the toxic end products, as they degrade into more persistent PFAS over time. The PFAS measured in water have a more direct impact on human blood levels; as a result, they are seen to be more important to study. The EPA 533 method used in this study specifically targets PFAS in drinking water, so volatile PFAS were not within the scope of the study. They also used LC-MS/MS, which would not detect volatile PFAS in the gas phase. It is likely that neutral, volatile PFAS may not be present in beer at all, as they could have evaporated during fermentation, storage, or other processes. This could be considered in future studies to check for volatile PFAS.
2. Are any PFAS measured by EPA 533 volatile?
No, the EPA 533 method measures ionic, water-soluble PFAS, primarily short-chain species (C4–C12). These include: Perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCA); Perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECA); Perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSA); Fluorosulfonic acids (FTSA); Perfluoroalkyl ether sulfonic acids (PFESA). Examples analyzed in this study included thoe categories of PFAS and speficically; PFOS, PFBS, PFHxS, and PFEESA. These are ionic, very water-soluble, and not volatile, so they remain in water and beer. In contrast, volatile PFAS (not measured by this study) normally include FTOHs, FTACs, FOSEs, and FOSAs. These can evaporate and be transported in the atmosphere.
3. Relationship between PFAS chain length and concentrations
Short-chain PFAS in this study are more water-soluble and less easily removed from water, so their concentrations in water (and subsequently beer) are typically higher than long-chain PFAS. That’s why the study focused on short-chain PFAS in drinking water-derived beverages, such as beer. However, it should be mentioned that, long-chain PFAS, although less water-soluble, are more bioaccumulative and potentially more toxic, as they persist in organisms and protein-rich tissues.
4. MS/MS mode used to differentiate PFAS species
The study used solid-phase extraction followed by LC-MS/MS, with negative electrospray ionization (ESI) and Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) mode. MRM allows detection and quantification of specific PFAS compounds by monitoring known parent and fragment ion transitions, which reduces background noise from the sample matrix and increases specificity. So, I do think that is the best mode in this case, if we have multiple species, but we also are looking the ones that are specifically seen harmful by EPA. EPA 533 lists exactly which PFAS species are measured using this method. The study notes the following limitations:
• “Concentrations of each compound represent the sum of branched and linear isomers.”
• “Due to analytical challenges including matrix effects and interferences, the resolution needed for detection and quantification of several PFAS from Method 533 was not achieved with beer.”
Thanks for sharing this, Frozan! I found it particularly interesting to learn that for some samples, the PFAS levels in beer exceeded those in the drinking water supply. I understand the connection between PFAS in drinking water and beer, as you noted that many breweries use tap water. I wonder where this extra contamination comes from. I appreciate your critique of the article, as I agree with you that it should not make such a broad claim, stating that 22 out of 23 tested positive for PFAS contamination, especially since that statement is in the subheading and first line of the news article. It is essential that news outlets accurately convey information from published studies, as more people will read the news article than the peer-reviewed journal article. Despite that, I think the news article did a great job of sharing the news about this study and will bring attention to PFAS pollution because beer is such a widely consumed beverage.
ReplyDeleteHi Caroline, thank you for your comment! It is definitely surprising that many of the beers had higher PFAS concentrations than the tap water. Historically, people often consumed beer because it was safer than many available water sources. Because the brewing process, especially the boiling step and the alcohol and acidity from fermentation, killed harmful microbes that could otherwise cause diseases. Although PFAS is of course not a microbe!
DeleteThe study suggests that the grains used in brewing may contribute additional PFAS, since crops can take up PFAS from soil or irrigation water. PFAS may also be introduced during other stages of production, such as brewing equipment, filtration materials, bottling, packaging, and storage. All of these can potentially increase PFAS levels beyond what is found in the source water.
I completely agree that while simplifying scientific findings is important, news coverage should avoid misleading statements. I am also unsure how they arrived at the “22 out of 23 beers tested positive” framing, especially given the nuances in the data. However, I understand that such wording can make the severity of contamination clearer to the general audience.
Hi Frozan,
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis! I’m curious how many of the cities’ drinking-water samples actually exceeded the EPA’s PFAS limit (a quick google search shows 4 ppt as the EPAs limit). You mentioned that “PFAS levels in beer (~40 ppt) exceeded those in local drinking water (~4–10 ppt).” If only one city is at 4 ppt, then I agree with the author’s choice of call to action, grouping the outlier with the rest makes sense. But if multiple cities are at 4 ppt, then they’re technically compliant with EPA standards, and the call to action should be split. For the case of 4 ppt, the responsibility isn’t on the city but on the company. Even at 10 ppt, while that exceeds the EPA limit, the main call to action still seems like it should focus on the breweries because they will concentrate the PFAS from the water. So yes, cities should work to reduce PFAS levels, but companies also need to take action regardless of how cities address the issue.
Hi Grace, thank you for your comment! I apologize if I don’t fully understand your question, but I will address the parts that I am confident about.
DeleteBased on the study, the highest total PFAS concentrations in beer (around 40 ppt) were associated with Mecklenburg County, NC and Chatham County, NC. Some beer samples connected to Kalamazoo County, MI also had elevated levels, ranging from about 10 to 30 ppt. The study noted that these elevated values could be linked to additional PFAS sources, such as industrial discharge from chemical plants in Fayetteville, NC, contamination from military bases, or PFAS in agricultural soils from fertilizers. These factors can contribute to higher PFAS levels in the water or in the grains used for brewing, which helps explain why PFAS concentrations in beer can exceed those measured in the local tap water.
I agree that reducing PFAS contamination should not fall solely on government agencies. Breweries and other industries also play an important role. As the article suggested, breweries could further treat their water using anion-exchange and activated carbon, or reverse osmosis to remove PFAS before brewing.
I think another point the article was making is that you can infer, based on the PFAS levels detected in beer, that tap-water concentrations in some regions may be higher than the EPA guidelines allow (or reported), even if the study did not directly measure every water sample. The authors also aimed to highlight that PFAS can enter beverages from many sources besides drinking water, such as contaminated soils, industrial emissions, or packaging materials - sources that EPA drinking-water limits do not directly address.
Ultimately, I agree that breweries should take responsibility for minimizing PFAS levels in their products, but coordinated action from both industry and government is important to address PFAS contamination fully.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis, Frozan! Although it's clear from this research that the PFAS content in beer is due to PFAS content in drinking water, I think it was a smart move by both the peer-reviewed article and the news article to focus on beer as opposed to other drinks due to its popularity. Headlines that involve beer potentially being contaminated will likely garner much more interest from the general public than just talking about the safety of drinking water. Do you know if is there any part of the beer-making process that could potentially reduce PFAS content as opposed to add more PFAS from machines/other additives? On that note, do you think there are other drinks that do not undergo processes of fermentation or as much processing that might be more strongly impacted by PFAS in water supplies and are underreported on? Finally, I'm curious if you think this issue should be addressed more by public infrastructure or by the corporations that work with chemicals including PFAS?
ReplyDeleteHi Eliza, thank you for your comment and the thoughtful questions you raised. I fully agree with you that focusing on beer was a smart choice, since it is such a popular beverage in the U.S. and the third most consumed beverage in the world after water and tea. To answer your questions:
Delete1. Part of the beer-making process that could reduce PFAS concentration:
The main part of the beer-making process that could reduce PFAS concentrations is water treatment before brewing. Because water makes up the majority of beer, using PFAS-free or PFAS-reduced water dramatically lowers the final PFAS levels. Other parts of the brewing process are much harder to control unless breweries use equipment specifically designed to minimize PFAS contamination (e.g. their the cans they use or the tubings), which can be challenging. Additionally, ensuring that the grains used for brewing are grown with PFAS-free irrigation water could further reduce PFAS concentrations in the final product.
2. Non-fermented drinks with PFAS:
There are several non-fermented drinks that may be affected by PFAS in water supplies yet are underreported. These include soft drinks, fruit juices, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, bottled water, plant-based milks (almond milk and other milks), sports drinks, and energy drinks. Essentially any beverage that relies heavily on water during production. If the water source contains PFAS, the final beverage is likely will have that contamination.
3. Responsibility of the corporations or improved public infrastructure?
I think both government (as a proxy for the public infrastructure) and industry need to work together to address this issue. PFAS contamination comes from many sources - military sites, industrial facilities, food packaging, textiles, cosmetics, electronics, non-stick cookware, medical devices, and fire-suppressing foams. Eliminating PFAS entirely is difficult because they are used so widely and often lack good alternatives. However, the government can reduce the impact by preventing PFAS from entering water systems, for example through improved waste management, monitoring, and treatment of contaminated water.
At the same time, corporations that manufacture or use PFAS should be held to strict standards. They should be required to prevent PFAS releases into the environment and to treat contaminated water, air, and waste before disposal. These processes are technologically possible, but companies often avoid them because they are expensive. Strong regulation and enforcement are therefore essential to ensure that both public health and the environment are protected.
Hi Frozan! Thank you for posting this study, I think beer and other non-water drinks are often overlooked in studies in regards to drinking water contamination. PFAS, and other forever chemicals, are a lot like microplastics in my brain, in that they are so prevalent and in everything at this point. It's so hard to identify ways to accurately track their sources, because they're so prevalent. I wonder if there would be similar results for wine or other alcoholic drinks, not just beer? I find it fascinating, though, that PFAS have been shown to limit yeast fermentation. In that vein, I'm also curious to know if the concentration of PFAS makes a difference in taste.
ReplyDeleteHi Elena, thank you for your comment! I totally agree with you – it is a bit discouraging to realize how widespread these chemicals are in our everyday lives, which makes them incredibly difficult to avoid or remove.
Delete1. I would assume that any drink produced with large amounts of water or made from crops irrigated with PFAS-contaminated water, could also contain PFAS. This would include wine, spirits, and other alcoholic beverages if the grapes or grains were exposed to contaminated water sources.
2. Yes, PFAS can affect taste because they influence water chemistry and can interfere with fermentation processes. The peer-reviewed article even emphasizes this point, stating: “Water quality and water filtering are important aspects of brewing beer to ensure proper water chemistry for taste, efficiency, and avoidance of scaling and corrosion.”
Hi Frozan, Excellent analysis—well done on summarizing both articles. I have one question: do you know of any research that examines whether PFAS exposure from beer may disproportionately impact communities located near industrial PFAS sources, potentially raising environmental justice concerns?
ReplyDeleteHi Arup, thank you so much for your comment!
DeleteThis particular study did not address that question directly, but it is reasonable to expect that populations living closer to industries that release PFAS are more heavily affected. For example, the article noted that the highest total PFAS concentrations in beer (around 40 ppt) were associated with Mecklenburg County, NC, and Chatham County, NC. These elevated levels could be linked to additional PFAS sources, such as industrial discharges from chemical plants in Fayetteville, NC. From this, we can infer that communities in Mecklenburg and Chatham counties may experience greater exposure than those in other regions of the state.
More broadly, but not always, lower-income communities are often disproportionately affected, as zoning practices due to socio-economic status can place them closer to industrial sites and other pollution sources - therefore raising environmental justice concerns.
Hi Frozan! This was a really interesting study, thanks for your analysis! I thought the scientific article was very well-written, and I especially liked that they had clear sections on the study's limitations and on actions that could be taken by brewers and consumers. I'm curious about the fact that the international beers showed little to no PFAS contamination, because to my understanding PFAS have been found basically everywhere around the globe. The authors do mention that it might be because of lower PFAS levels in drinking water in those areas, but I wonder if there are also differences in other steps in the process that might introduce PFAS. I think it would be interesting to expand the reach of the study to a broader range of countries, particularly because the international beers were a small fraction of the sample. As a side note, I was curious about the Michigan connection – do you know why Kalamazoo has such high levels of PFOA?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting that one of the areas that they identified of PFAS contamination was in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and that two of the international brands in Mexico and the Netherlands showed low or no levels of PFAS. I was wondering if there was any reason for why a few of these international brands had these low amounts of PFAS? It does seem like the filtration systems that were put in place to lower PFAS work, so maybe there should be some enforcement for better filtration systems?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Frozan! I think this was a very well-rounded study and is relevant both because of the dangers of PFAS and the universal love for beer around the world. A study like this could do well bringing needed concern towards the issue of pollutants in our tap water supply. I also agree that it did a good job with its call to action, letting brewers know what they need to do to make their product safer. I am wondering what policy measures could be taken to make sure that brewing companies do not continue to take shortcuts with this issue, knowing that a large percentage of the world population is affected by the purity of the water used to make beer, let alone the tap water around the world. Also, It seems that Kalamazoo has high levels of PFAS in beer, and I'm wondering if that has to do with the amount of industry that goes on there or has gone on in the past.
ReplyDeleteYou mention in your introduction that 7 liters of water go into making 1 liter of beer. It would definingly make sense that the pfas could be concentrated in the beer if none of the processes affect the pfas. You also give some ranges which seem like the pfa concentration in beer is 4-10x the concentration in the local water. I'd assume that's from the initial water and additional sources during processing. Was there anything differentiating the two, like how much exactly comes from the water and how much is from other sources?
ReplyDelete