Use and release of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in consumer food packaging in U.S. and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) occur in consumer food packaging due to intentional and unintentional addition, despite increasing concern about their health and environmental hazards. We present a substance flow analysis framework to assess the flows of PFASs contained in plant fiber-based and plastic food packaging to the waste stream and environment. Each year between 2018 and 2020, an estimated 9000 (range 1100-25 000) and 940 (range 120-2600) tonnes per year of polymeric PFASs were used in 2% of food packaging in the U.S. and Canada, respectively. At least 11 tonnes per year of non-polymeric PFASs also moved through the food packaging life cycle. Approximately 6100 (range 690-13 000) and 700 (range 70-1600) tonnes per year of these PFASs were landfilled or entered composting facilities in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, with the potential to contaminate the environment. The results suggest that minimal food packaging contains intentionally added PFASs which, nonetheless, has the potential to contaminate the entire waste stream. Further, this indicates that PFASs are not needed for most food packaging. These results serve as a benchmark to judge the effectiveness of future industry and government initiatives to limit PFAS use in food packaging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".