Chromatographic and Mass Spectrometric Assessment of PFAS in Water-Resistant Winter Gloves

Winter gloves are often treated with fluoroacrylic surface coatings containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to enhance water resistance. Concern over exposure to water-soluble PFAS, which has the greatest toxicological and regulatory relevance, has grown considerably, particularly for children, who may experience higher relative body burdens due to lower body weight and frequent hand-to-mouth behaviors. This concern inspired a joint study conducted by TRC Companies (Jackson, Wyoming) and Claigan Environmental (Kanata, Ontario, Canada), which quantified PFAS in water-resistant gloves, evaluated their potential for detachment and migration from polymerized surface coatings under typical use conditions, and yielded a risk assessment for human health. The experimental data were generated through total fluorine analysis, liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS), and leachate testing of individual glove components across eight glove brands. A paper based on this work was published in Toxicology Reports (1).

As research continues to focus on the historical and current use of perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA) as water-resistant coatings for fabrics, concerns pertaining to PFAA exposure from clothing have increased. Fluorotelomer alcohols are starting chemicals and intermediate degradation by-products in the production of the majority of commercial PFAS, including fluorotelomer-based polymers, with their presence being an indicator of treatment with PFAS, even if the specific type of PFAS is not identified (2).

The regulatory landscape for PFAS in consumer products is rapidly evolving, especially in North America, with some U.S. states proposing the elimination of PFAS in textiles intended for extreme weather conditions and high-performance applications in occupational settings (3,4). The “essential-use” concept has been introduced in some cases as a framework to guide the phase-out of PFAS by assessing the essentiality of a given use based on three criteria: the function it provides; the necessity for health, safety, or critical societal functions; and the availability of technically and economically feasible alternatives (5).

“Given the increasing concern surrounding PFAS presence in clothing and other textiles,” write the authors in their study (1), “it is useful to thoroughly characterize potential human exposure from treated fabrics. Even if human exposure to textiles via clothing is deemed safe, because the PFAS will normally enter the water via washing of the clothing, bans due to their environmental persistence seem possible.”

For this study, a total of 13–36 distinct glove components per glove (including brand tags, inner linings, exterior palm and back fabrics, clasps, straps, cuffs, reflective strips, and other structural elements) were dismantled and assayed for PFAS across eight brands of American and Canadian-made gloves. Through their analysis, three fluorotelomer compounds were detected above the limits of detection in six out of 173 components, spanning three of the eight brands tested. No PFAS were detected in leachate samples, suggesting negligible migration under simulated use conditions. The calculated oral, dermal, and cumulative hazard indices, based on conservative, low-exposure scenarios using estimated concentrations below the detection limit, were all well below 0.001 (1).

“This study,” the researchers concluded (1), “contributes to the evidence base for PFAS risk assessment in consumer products and demonstrates that detectable PFAS residues do not necessarily translate to meaningful exposure or health risk. These findings support the use of risk-based regulatory approaches that incorporate realistic exposure scenarios in the evaluation of PFAS in treated textiles.”

However, the researchers believe that it should be noted that PFAS-specific testing was limited to a targeted analyte list consisting of 25 PFCAs and 13 PFSAs (38 analytes total); the potential presence of other unmeasured PFAS compounds thus cannot be fully excluded. Furthermore, their study did not assess the health hazards of volatile PFAS precursors that may have been present in the atmosphere, especially under storage conditions in poorly ventilated environments. Volatilization and subsequent exposure would probably depend on storage practices, proximity, and frequency of glove use by household members, and the team expects that any effects resulting from these factors would have been negligible in their present study. Nonetheless, they advise that future risk assessments incorporate inhalation exposure models adapted for volatile PFAS species forbetter characterization of this potential exposure route (1).

Read More on Similar Topics
Hot Topics in PFAS

References

1. Berlinski, S.; Calder, B.; Paustenbach, D. An Evaluation and Risk Assessment of Children's Exposures to Water-Soluble Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Through Winter Gloves. Toxicol. Rep. 2025, 15, 102095. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2025.102095
2. Strakova, J.; Brosché, S.; Grechko, V. et al. PFAS in Clothing: Study in Indonesia, China, and Russia Shows Barriers for Non-Toxic Circular Economy Mercury Monitoring Projects. Int. Pollut. Elimin. Netw. (IPEN) 2022, 27. https://ipen.org/documents/pfas-clothing-study-indonesia-china-and-russia-shows-barriers-non-toxic-circular-economy
3. Rothman, R. R.; Feingold, S. R.; Jordan, D. C. et al. New York and California: Bans on PFAS in Textiles and Apparel Begin January 1, 2025. Morgan Lewis website 2024. https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/11/new-york-and-california-bans-on-pfas-in-textiles-and-apparel-begin-january-1-2025
4. Sikorska, M.; Veres Somosi, M.; Pererva, P. G. Compliance-risks (Doctoral dissertation) 2017.https://repository.kpi.kharkov.ua/items/7f053e70-acbf-4d3b-bc1f-42a547e17405
5. Cousins, I. T.; De Witt, J. C.; Glüge, J. et al. Finding Essentiality Feasible: Common Questions and Misinterpretations Concerning the "Essential-Use" Concept. Environ. Sci. Process Impacts 2021, 23 (8), 1079-1087. DOI: 10.1039/d1em00180a