“Water filters are capable of removing these chemicals.”
Water molecule size: 2.75 angstroms.
Covalently bonded fluorine - e.g., PFAS - molecule size: 0.72 angstroms.
I don’t think so, at least certainly not in the consumer sense. Some claim high filtration rates, but it’s physically impossible to reach some of the advertised rates of reduction (e.g., ‘93%’). Fluoride easily passes the blood-brain barrier; so do most of the >4000 other chemicals of similar structure.
Anyone interested in the latest research should note this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520144703.htm
One point: If we’re to eradicate a future threat - banning PFAS etc. - then it must include fluoride in water.
By the way, the feds regulate the amount of fluoride added to bottled water. Yeah, you read that correctly, and the bottlers are not required to list it on the label.
The results demonstrate that ‘purified’ bottled waters can’t eliminate the fluoride...or that it’s added post-filtration.
https://fluoridealert.org/content/bottled-water/
(let the games begin)
One has to test each method to filter water to see if it removes teflon residues. The statement in the first post is useless. People would have been better off not reading it.
“I don’t think so, at least certainly not in the consumer sense. “
I agree with that.
In my case, I really don’t drink any water to speak of, not even the local Columbia River fed city water, whether filtered at consumer endpoint or not. I drink only Diet Coke, so if a chemical is in Diet Coke, I get it, otherwise not. So it would depend on where the water in the Diet Coke comes from.
Many filters can attract molecules, meaning pore size can be irrelevant.
PFAS molecules are much larger than just fluorine would be.
https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/CBC/MONO(2021)25/En/pdf
Then the probability that you get PFAS by just adding HF in water is extremely small and can be approximated by zero.
Many types of PFAS are probably not good for our health, while some are more or less harmless in concentrations that are common.
In 2018, the OECD/UNEP Global PFC Group prepared a new list of PFASs that may have been on the global market. In total, a set of substances with over 4730 CAS numbers have been identified, including substances that contain such fully fluorinated carbon moieties, but do not meet the PFAS definition in Buck et al. (2011) due to a lack of a –CF3 group in the molecular structures. In addition, recent advancement of non-target screening analytical techniques using high-resolution mass spectrometry has enabled identification of many unknown substances in different environmental and product samples.
(from the link above)
I prefer wine and beer in bottles...