Central Mongolia’s Hangay Mountains have long posed a conundrum. Rising 4 kilometers above sea level, the dome-shaped range plays a key role in shaping the region’s climate. But it couldn’t have formed in the same way as most equally tall mountain ranges.
“These mountains in central Mongolia are very far from any plate boundary, about 5,000 kilometers away from the Pacific margin,” said Pengfei Li, a geologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry. “
Central Mongolia’s Hangay Mountains have long posed a conundrum. Rising 4 kilometers above sea level, the dome-shaped range plays a key role in shaping the region’s climate. But it couldn’t have formed in the same way as most equally tall mountain ranges.
“These mountains in central Mongolia are very far from any plate boundary, about 5,000 kilometers away from the Pacific margin,” said Pengfei Li, a geologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry. “It’s very hard to understand why we have such a mountain range so far from the plate boundary.”
Li recently led research finding that geochemical evidence supports a compelling explanation of how these oddball mountains formed. The researchers proposed that at the site of the future mountains, a U-shaped bend in a tectonic plate led to an extra-thick lithosphere. A chunk of that heavy lithosphere eventually broke off and sunk into the mantle. Free of the extra weight, the crust then rebounded upward as the Hangay Mountains.
Bend and Snap
“It’s the first discovery of volcanism for this period.”
Tectonic plates are far from rigid. As they move above, below, and against each other, sections of the plates far from the boundary can develop curves and folds like a scrunched up tablecloth. Curved sections, called oroclines, are common around the world. At about 6,000 kilometers long, the Mongolian orocline is one of the longest, and the Hangay Mountains sit right at the curviest part of the orocline’s U shape.
Li and his colleagues suspected that the Hangays’ location along the orocline is no coincidence. During multiple field expeditions from 2018 through 2026, the researchers collected rock samples from several sites in the Hangay Mountains that showed signs of ancient volcanic activity. Uranium-lead dating of zircons within those samples showed that the area experienced volcanic activity in the early Cretaceous period 124–114 million years ago.
“When I saw the age, I was surprised,” Li said. “120 million years—no one had ever reported volcanoes [in Mongolia] during this period.…It’s the first discovery of volcanism for this period.”
The team also analyzed the samples for major and trace elements to determine the depth at which the rocks formed. Their geochemical analysis revealed that the rocks formed in the lithosphere 80 kilometers below the surface. They published these results in Geology in April.
It’s pretty odd that the rocks originated so deep, Li said, because the modern-day lithosphere is only 70 kilometers thick.
The team proposed that when the continental plate folded and created the Mongolian orocline 200 million years ago, the lithosphere bunched up and became thicker in the curve of the U shape. That thicker section of lithosphere, a root at least 80 kilometers thick, would have been unstable in the long term, Li explained.
The lithospheric root would have been too heavy to remain attached to the crust above for long, and a chunk of it would have eventually snapped off. When it sunk, or foundered, into the deep mantle, it would have melted and generated the volcanic activity recorded in the rocks the team studied. Free from the weight of that lithospheric root, the crust above would have rebounded into the dome-shaped mountain range visible today.
Complicated Yet Compelling
“Their story, though complicated, makes a great deal of sense and in a way provides affirmation of a prediction made some time ago regarding oroclines.”
“The story that [the researchers] have put together to explain the massive Hangay topographic ‘dome’ of central west Mongolia is a compelling one that spans more than the past 200 million years of Earth history,” said Stephen Johnston, a tectonics researcher at the University of Alberta in Canada who was not involved with this research. Past research into the Iberian orocline suggested that oroclines might lead to lithospheric thickening, and this explanation of the Hangay Mountains fits that narrative.
“Their story, though complicated, makes a great deal of sense and in a way provides affirmation of a prediction made some time ago regarding oroclines,” Johnston added.
Johnston said that the new explanation of how the Hangay Mountains formed makes him wonder why it took so long—80 million years—between when the orocline formed and when the lithospheric root sank.
“This seems a long time for a gravitationally unstable mantle root to have remained attached to the overlying crust,” he said. He hopes that future work can help determine whether this process has taken place at other oroclines around the world and has simply been overlooked or whether there is something special about the Mongolian orocline.
Li and his team have turned their attention to how the formation of the Hangay Mountains shaped the region’s ancient climate. Today, the towering mountain range prevents moist air from northern Mongolia from reaching the parched Gobi Desert in the south. They hope to connect how a process deep underground, like lithospheric foundering, affected the paleoclimate and, consequently, the region’s habitability.
“It’s very new to try to understand the Earth’s habitability from a deeper sense,” Li said.
This news article is included in our ENGAGE resource for educators seeking science news for their classroom lessons. Browse all ENGAGE articles, and share with your fellow educators how you integrated the article into an activity in the comments section below.
Citation: Cartier, K. M. S. (2026), Mongolian mountains rose when the crust bounced back, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260153. Published on 15 May 2026.
For decades, regulators built their ocean monitoring programs mainly around pesticides and pharmaceuticals, treating them as the primary chemical threat to ecological and human health.
That assumption left a much larger category of compounds largely unexamined: the industrial chemicals embedded in packaging, furniture, and everyday personal care products. Those chemicals, it turns out, have been spreading widely. And they’re now showing up even in the places some might consider pristine, suc
For decades, regulators built their ocean monitoring programs mainly around pesticides and pharmaceuticals, treating them as the primary chemical threat to ecological and human health.
That assumption left a much larger category of compounds largely unexamined: the industrial chemicals embedded in packaging, furniture, and everyday personal care products. Those chemicals, it turns out, have been spreading widely. And they’re now showing up even in the places some might consider pristine, such as coral reefs in the Caribbean.
These compounds are biologically active, some interfere with microbial metabolism, and according to a sweeping meta-analysis published in Nature Geoscience, they may be altering how the ocean cycles carbon, one of our planet’s most critical biogeochemical processes.
“Beyond the usual [pesticides and pharmaceuticals], what really surprised us was that everyday industrial chemicals are showing up at even higher levels and not just in coastal or polluted areas, but pretty much everywhere,” said Daniel Petras, a biochemist at the University of California, Riverside.
Led by Petras and Jarmo-Charles Kalinski, a postdoctoral fellow at the Rhodes University Biotechnology Innovation Centre, the study reanalyzed 21 publicly available datasets comprising seawater samples collected over more than a decade across the Pacific, Indian, and North Atlantic Oceans, including the Baltic and Caribbean Seas.
All groups the researchers examined—industrial pollutants, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides—belong to a class called xenobiotics: human-made organic compounds that are foreign to natural systems. Pesticides and pharmaceuticals were prevalent in coastal samples, as expected, given their well-documented entry through agricultural runoff and wastewater outfalls.
But industrial compounds behaved differently. Polyalkylene glycols used in hydraulic fluids, phthalates from polyvinal chloride (PVC) packaging, organophosphate flame retardants from furniture and electronics, and surfactants from personal care products proved far more widespread across all ecosystem types than either pesticides or pharmaceuticals. “These are chemicals we use all the time,” Petras said, “so they end up spreading widely.”
Glimpsing What Was Always There
To map the ocean’s full chemical landscape, the researchers analyzed more than 2,300 samples from temperate coastal zones, coral reefs, and the open ocean, searching for the presence of xenobiotics and examining the share of dissolved organic matter (DOM), a pool of carbon-containing molecules dissolved in seawater. In total, the team identified 248 known xenobiotic molecules. Their work offers the most comprehensive chemical map of anthropogenic organic pollution in the ocean to date.
Researchers used nontargeted mass spectrometry paired with scalable computational tools. Unlike conventional targeted analysis, which tests only for a predefined list of known hazardous molecules, this open-ended approach can detect thousands of chemicals simultaneously, even at low concentrations. The team then applied molecular networking, a computational technique that enables the identification of not only known substances but also their “families” or derivatives.
Coral Reefs as Far-Flung Hot Spots
“Our traditional idea of ‘pristine’ needs a serious rethink, as anthropogenic potential sources are now present nearly everywhere.”
For Petras, it was surprising to find these compounds in coral reefs like those in French Polynesia, which are typically viewed as perfect, “postcard-style” paradises. Yet closer examination reveals that these areas are, indeed, rarely isolated. Agriculture, urban runoff, hotel infrastructure, and cruise ship traffic all contribute pollutants. Remnants of human activity, such as sunscreen, wastewater, and boat fluids, are concentrated near reefs.
“We specifically detected plasticizers and flame retardants even in these remote areas,” Petras said. “This suggests that our traditional idea of ‘pristine’ needs a serious rethink, as anthropogenic potential sources are now present nearly everywhere.”
Anastazia T. Banaszak, a researcher at the Reef Systems Unit of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México who was not involved in the study, stressed the broader implications for reef conservation: “Inadequately treated urban wastewater discharges pose a risk to coral reefs and the success of restoration projects,” she said. Such discharges raise nutrient levels, fueling macroalgal blooms that grow faster than corals and compete with them for space. This pressure on ecosystems is intensifying as climate change shifts the baseline against which restoration outcomes are measured, Banaszak noted.
Carbon…and Microbes?
Beyond reefs, these synthetic compounds could be affecting the ocean’s carbon cycle. DOM is one of Earth’s largest carbon reservoirs, comparable in size to all the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Marine microbes transform it from readily degradable forms into biologically resistant ones; refractory DOM that escapes microbial consumption accumulates in the ocean and acts as an important climate regulator.
But with industrial compounds representing up to 63% of DOM in some estuarine samples (with a global estimate of 10%), the microbial loop is, perhaps, facing chemical conditions it did not evolve to handle. This shift means the efficiency of the ocean’s carbon pump, the mechanism that pulls CO2 from the atmosphere, could be compromised in ways that are not yet understood.
“The data suggest they are present at substantial levels,” Petras said. “Enough that they should be considered in models of carbon cycling.”
Handling the Invisible
Finding xenobiotics is only the first step, the authors say. They laid out several suggestions for next steps. For instance, governments should mandate open-ended approaches as a standard monitoring tool, not just targeted testing of preselected chemicals. Oceanographic data also should be publicly available and standardized, following FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles.
“There’s already a strong track record of building long-term datasets for things like trace metals and nutrients. I hope that nontargeted analysis could become part of such long-term efforts,” Petras concluded. “We’ve been quite active in establishing these tools for the community.”
Citation: Mastache-Maldonado, M. (2026), Have we been focusing on the wrong ocean pollutants? This study maps what we’ve been missing, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260151. Published on 13 May 2026.
Source: Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems
About 600 million years ago, the continents wandered Earth, yet to settle into their current positions. Their locations during the Ediacaran (as this time is called) have been tough for scientists to pin down. Earth’s magnetic field appears to have behaved in erratic ways, and applying standard techniques to calculate the continents’ positions based on records of the magnetic field yields implausible results. In particular, scientists debate the l
About 600 million years ago, the continents wandered Earth, yet to settle into their current positions. Their locations during the Ediacaran (as this time is called) have been tough for scientists to pin down. Earth’s magnetic field appears to have behaved in erratic ways, and applying standard techniques to calculate the continents’ positions based on records of the magnetic field yields implausible results. In particular, scientists debate the location of an ancient continent called Baltica, which is now part of Europe.
To investigate, Xue et al. traveled to Egersund, Norway, to collect samples of rock that formed during a time when Baltica’s crust was being pulled apart, allowing magma to percolate up from below. As that magma hardened, it recorded snapshots of Earth’s magnetic field, storing information about Baltica’s position in the process.
The results of studying these samples revealed a much more complex picture of the ancient rocks than the scientists initially envisioned. The rocks contained a messy mix of at least six magnetic signals. Several appeared to have formed when more modern geological processes altered the original rocks. Three distinct signals may have survived from the Ediacaran period, two of which diverge from the most plausible Ediacaran signal, which places Baltica near the equator. These conflicting signals further support the idea that Earth’s magnetic field was behaving strangely at the time, adding new complexity to an already puzzling picture.
On the basis of the new results, the researchers place the Egersund paleomagnetic pole at 20.8°N, 89.0°E during the Ediacaran—which diverges from previous results—and suggest that Baltica was located near the equator, adjacent to the ancient continent Laurentia, but rotated slightly clockwise relative to previous reconstructions. The study demonstrates the convoluted nature of the magnetic signals preserved in ancient rocks and the importance of dissecting those records into their constituent components. Doing so, the researchers suggest, can shed new light on the enigmatic behavior of Earth’s magnetic field during the Ediacaran. (Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GC012730, 2026)
Seeking Solutions to PFAS Pollution
Chemical Companies Are Churning Out New PFAS. Where in the World Are They Ending Up?
The Persistence of PFAS
A Peculiar Polymer Paired with Sunlight Could Remove PFAS
Tracing the Path of PFAS Across Antarctica
Pollution Is Rampant. We Might As Well Make Use of It.
This month, Eos is taking a long look at “forever chemicals.” Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been percolating through our industrial environment since the 19
This month, Eos is taking a long look at “forever chemicals.” Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been percolating through our industrial environment since the 1940s. They help make products nonstick, waterproof, and stain resistant. They also make their way into air, soil, and water, as well as our bodies, where they have been linked to impaired immune systems, developmental delays in children, and some cancers.
Since discovering that PFAS might be harmful to human and environmental health, researchers and industries have reformed the chemicals into novel substances. The behaviors of these novel PFAS are proving difficult to pin down, as Grace van Deelen explores in her feature “Chemical Companies Are Churning Out New PFAS. Where in the World Are They Ending Up?”
From the deep ocean to alpine glaciers, scientists are being forced to play “chemical Whac-A-Mole” to study novel PFAS, one scientist told van Deelen. Researchers are also searching for—and finding—PFAS in the isolated interior of the White Continent, as described in Rebecca Owen’s “Tracing the Path of PFAS Across Antarctica.”
Another option is to put PFAS to work. Read about how scientists are using trifluoroacetic acid, a less toxic PFAS, to gain a rough idea of how recently an aquifer has been recharged in Saima May Sidik’s “Pollution Is Rampant. We Might As Well Make Use of It.”
As PFAS permeate our environment in different ways, scientists are taking the lead in developing proactive approaches to search for, study, and maybe take the “forever” out of “forever chemicals.”
Seeking Solutions to PFAS Pollution
Chemical Companies Are Churning Out New PFAS. Where in the World Are They Ending Up?
The Persistence of PFAS
A Peculiar Polymer Paired with Sunlight Could Remove PFAS
Tracing the Path of PFAS Across Antarctica
Pollution Is Rampant. We Might As Well Make Use of It.
On a rocky archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean, staff at the Faroese Environment Agency and the Faroe Marine Research Institute regularly sample tissues from the North At
On a rocky archipelago in the North Atlantic Ocean, staff at the Faroese Environment Agency and the Faroe Marine Research Institute regularly sample tissues from the North Atlantic long-finned pilot whales that roam the waters around the islands. The archive of these samples stretches back to the 1980s and has helped researchers determine the reach of human-made contaminants in the remote marine environment.
Jennifer Sun is one of those researchers. Sun studies PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as “forever chemicals”—at Harvard University and is the lead author of a recently published study that analyzed how these toxic chemicals have accumulated in pilot whale tissue over the past 2 decades.
Using samples of whale tissue collected between 2001 and 2023, Sun and her colleagues measured a parameter called bulk extractable organofluorine, which shows the overall amount of organofluorine-containing chemicals (including PFAS) in the tissue. They then used a more targeted analysis able to confirm the identity of 28 specific chemicals out of thousands of possible PFAS formulations.
The pilot whale tissue showed an expected decrease in the concentrations of older PFAS but an unexpected scarcity of newer PFAS chemicals. Credit: Jennifer Sun
The study’s results showed an expected decrease in the concentrations of older PFAS but an unexpected absence of newer PFAS chemicals. This anomaly could be indicative of an emerging question in PFAS research: Where are the newest PFAS going?
Prolific PFAS
There are two general categories of PFAS. The first includes legacy PFAS such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Chemical manufacturers produced these compounds in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s for products including nonstick cookware and food packaging and in industries such as fabric waterproofing, industrial manufacturing, and firefighting.
Legacy PFAS were phased out in the early 2000s, and novel PFAS were made to replace them. The term “novel” is independent of chemical properties and instead refers to when the chemicals’ production began, though novel PFAS typically have formulations meant to reduce their persistence in the environment. For example, many novel PFAS molecules have shorter chains of fluorinated carbons than their legacy counterparts.
Novel PFAS include possibly millions of different chemical structures, and their production and use are increasing globally.
A generic PFAS molecule includes a compound head connected to a tail of fluorinated carbons. Older PFAS generally have longer tails (seven or eight carbons) than newer ones. Credit: Mary Heinrichs/AGU, after https://bit.ly/pennstate-ext-pfas
In the United States and elsewhere, regulatory structures that limit PFAS production target specific chemicals, such that every new formulation by a company must be tested individually before restrictions are put in place. With companies continually conjuring new PFAS formulations—which environmental advocates often call “regrettable substitutions” for their sometimes harmful effects—understanding the fate and transport of novel PFAS is difficult and time-consuming. Research on the behavior of specific PFAS may be a drop in the bucket when millions of potential PFAS, with millions of potential behaviors, pose current and future risks to people and the environment.
Scientists like Sun are determined to untangle how the fate of these new chemicals differs from their predecessors. As Sun expected, the phaseout of legacy PFAS was reflected in the pilot whale tissue she tested. These results are good news; they clearly show that the bans on legacy PFAS are working.
“We’re still finding [older] compounds, but clearly, they are no longer as abundant in the environment as they used to be, which is a positive,” said Bridger Ruyle, an environmental engineer at New York University who studies PFAS and assisted Sun and her coauthors in deciding which methods to use for the new study.
But Sun and her colleagues also expected an overall increase in concentrations of novel PFAS—after all, production of these chemicals is higher than ever, and researchers finally had the analytical tools to catch them.
“The inference is, if it’s not in the whales, and it’s not in the ocean…where is it?”
That wasn’t what they found. Instead, all but two of the emerging PFAS they tested for were virtually nowhere to be seen in the whale tissue, leaving the scientists leading the study to wonder where novel PFAS were accumulating or if instrumentation was limiting their detection.
“We do know that the novel PFAS are being produced, which means they’re going somewhere. Where they are, and how exposed people and other wildlife are, is not as clear,” Sun said.
“The inference is, if it’s not in the whales, and it’s not in the ocean…where is it?” asked Elsie Sunderland, an environmental scientist at Harvard University and coauthor of the new study.
Sun and Sunderland’s question—asking where novel PFAS are going—is one scientists are probing from multiple angles. Those who study particle transport are asking how novel PFAS might travel through Earth’s water and air. Those on the chemistry side of the investigation are deducing how novel PFAS might break down. And those who monitor environments are looking for traces of novel PFAS in various corners of Earth.
The answers to their questions have direct, practical implications for human and environmental health and could indicate whether a growing proportion of harmful PFAS may be ending up in close proximity to humans—where we work and eat and breathe.
A Toxic Legacy
The chemical properties of PFAS have made the chemicals useful since the 1940s. These same properties also make them highly persistent—the most durable types may not break down in the environment for several thousand years.
PFAS are linked to certain cancers and other human health harms. Much of the available data linking PFAS to poor health come from analyses of legacy PFOA and PFOS. They show an association between increased exposure to these chemicals and altered immune and thyroid function, liver and kidney disease, reproductive system disruptions, and more.
Chemical manufacturers phased out production of legacy PFAS after scientific evidence emerged associating PFAS and human health harms, businesses began to lose money in massive lawsuits, and regulations tightened. Novel PFAS were intended to show properties similar to legacy PFAS but were meant to break down more easily in the environment (lower persistence) and accumulate less easily in living tissue (lower bioaccumulative ability), though studies have shown mixed results about whether novel PFAS are actually safer for humans or break down more easily.
Because PFAS production data are often proprietary, scientists who study PFAS, like Sun, must rely on partial inventories of PFAS production or reverse-engineer those numbers from observations in the environment.
“We call it chemical Whac-A-Mole.”
Without a clear list of the chemical structures of novel PFAS, scientists don’t always have the analytical standards necessary for routine detection. And once scientists do understand the behavior of a PFAS chemical, it may be quickly replaced by another, unknown alternative. “We call it chemical Whac-A-Mole,” Sunderland said.
Legacy PFAS tend to have a high affinity for water and typically end up in the ocean, the place scientists refer to as the chemicals’ “terminal sink.” Many legacy PFAS also entered the ocean through atmospheric transport such as rain or snow. But because of the sheer number of chemical formulas and the chemical differences between legacy and novel PFAS, the pathways that novel PFAS take through the environment are less clear.
Tracking the movement and accumulation of novel PFAS in the environment is crucial for understanding how these chemicals may affect ecological and human health.
Still, the science is inconclusive about whether novel PFAS are moving or accumulating differently than their legacy counterparts, whether they have a different terminal sink, and where that terminal sink may be.
Close to Home
One possible answer to the question of the missing novel PFAS may have to do with geography. The chemicals may not have reached pilot whales in the Faroes because something about the new chemistry has led them elsewhere in the environment. To Sun, evidence suggests “that a lot of these novel PFAS, which we know are being produced, may not be transporting out into this more remote environment either at all or as quickly.”
Novel PFAS might be accumulating closer to their sources—and closer to us. “It may simply be that some of the replacement PFAS don’t make it all the way out into the open ocean. But if they are still in the terrestrial environment and the near-coastal environment, then wildlife and people who live close to the sources can be exposed, said Frank Wania, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto Scarborough.
For example, one study monitored PFAS in coastal beluga whales in Canada’s St. Lawrence Estuary, relatively close to human communities and PFAS manufacturing sources. The study showed increasing concentrations of unregulated novel PFAS in whale tissue from 2000 to 2017, while concentrations of legacy PFAS declined.
The suggestion that novel PFAS are accumulating close to human communities is supported by measurements of PFAS in human tissue, too. Studies show that a high proportion of detectable organofluorine chemicals in human tissue are increasingly unidentifiable, suggesting that some of the novel PFAS production “is in us,” Sunderland said.
Far and Away
Though there are some indications that novel PFAS may be retained closer to human communities, there are also reasons to think some novel PFAS chemistries have resulted in substances that can actually travel farther and more easily than their legacy counterparts.
Anna Kärrman, an environmental chemist at Örebro University in Sweden, said that some novel PFAS may be more easily transported in the environment: “The more novel chemistries are increasing the properties of being very mobile in water, very mobile in the atmosphere, and not necessarily very bioaccumulative.”
The mobility of novel PFAS was on full display in a 2020 study that Sunderland coauthored, in which researchers reported detecting hexafluoropropylene oxide-dimer acid, a novel PFAS chemical more commonly known as GenX, in the Arctic for the first time. GenX, produced by chemical manufacturer Chemours, was meant to replace the legacy compound PFOA. The 2020 study suggested GenX “has already moved quite a bit,” said Rainer Lohmann, a marine geochemist who leads the STEEP (Sources, Transport, Exposure and Effects of PFAS) Center at the University of Rhode Island.
A pulley system mounted on a red beam pulls a small envelope filled with water along a string. Credit: Thomas Soltwedel
The 2020 study also found higher concentrations of PFAS in the Arctic Ocean’s surface water, suggesting that the atmosphere was a particularly important transport pathway for chemical transport. This idea is supported by studies of High Arctic ice caps, which experience contamination only from atmospheric sources, and polar bear tissue. Atmospheric transport of novel PFAS is a subject “at the edge” of PFAS research, Sunderland said.
Wherever researchers look, they’re finding that atmospheric transport is an important pathway by which some PFAS, especially PFAS precursors—chemicals that break down in the environment and become PFAS (either novel or legacy)—move. One idea called the PAART (precursor atmospheric and reaction transport) theory was developed by Scott Mabury, an environmental chemist at the University of Toronto, and others. The PAART theory proposes that many of the harmful PFAS that end up in the most remote parts of Earth are the result of the breakdown of volatile precursor PFAS that have traveled in the atmosphere.
According to Lohmann, atmospheric transport means the ocean remains a terminal sink because many novel PFAS transported in rain or snow will ultimately be deposited in the ocean.
In this scenario, the question of why novel PFAS are not bioaccumulating in Faroese pilot whales remains a mystery. While Lohmann suggests the novel compounds simply don’t accumulate in living tissue, Sunderland isn’t sure that’s the whole story: “As apex predators, the whales are sentinels for what is available and being taken up from the ocean,” she wrote in an email. “Since we don’t see [novel PFAS], it seems unlikely there are large quantities of these chemicals present.”
Profuse PFAS
Another possible explanation for the surprising results of Sun’s whale study could be that there’s just a lag; that is, novel PFAS will end up in Faroe Island pilot whales someday but haven’t yet. Chemicals that could eventually end up in the ocean may be temporarily trapped in soils or recycled back into terrestrial ecosystems via sea spray aerosols, for example.
“The delay we are seeing in the ocean response may in fact be [PFAS] precursors being retained in source zones,” Sunderland wrote in an email. These chemicals may be “taking a really long time to be transformed into more mobile compounds.”
In their pilot whale study, Sun and her colleagues modeled the transport of PFAS to the subarctic and found a 10- to 20-year lag existed between the production of a legacy PFAS compound and its detection in whale tissue. We’re still within that range for many novel PFAS. Sun said she would have expected them to show up in pilot whale tissue by now if they behaved like their legacy counterparts, though it’s possible that it has taken time for the volume of novel PFAS production to ramp up, increasing the time it would take for the substances to be detected in tissues.
The anomaly documented in the pilot whale study has led researchers to call for more investigation (and perhaps greater regulation) of novel PFAS. Credit: Bjarni Mikkelson
Still, the number of possible novel PFAS chemistries—again, there could be several million different compounds—makes it difficult to generalize how these new substances are, as a group, moving through the environment. “Because the exact structures of all [novel] PFAS remain unknown, some compounds may simply not be captured by the methods used,” Heidi Pickard, an environmental engineer at the consulting firm Ramboll and coauthor on the new whale study, wrote in an email.
Another reason novel PFAS are harder to study is that companies release lower concentrations of more kinds of the chemicals, rather than the “monstrously high” emissions of some legacy PFAS in the 1970s–1990s, noted Mabury, who was not involved in the new pilot whale study.
A New Regulatory Approach
According to Sun and Sunderland, cataloging differences between novel and legacy PFAS misses the broader point: We simply need to produce less PFAS. We’ve known for decades that PFAS harm human health, and some scientists have even argued that humans’ continual production and release of novel chemical compounds could drive Earth beyond a “safe operating space.”
“Researchers are critical for exposing the problem. But that, to me, is not the central issue here. The central issue here is a societal issue.”
Where scientists probe next may be less urgent than how policymakers decide to tackle the PFAS problem, Sunderland said: “Researchers are critical for exposing the problem. But that, to me, is not the central issue here. The central issue here is a societal issue.”
Chemical manufacturers are actively creating novel PFAS all the time. Kärrman, for example, has noticed patent applications for PFAS compounds with chemistries that “are nothing like we have seen before” that may start entering our environment in 5 or 10 years.
To Kärrman, that’s a reason for governments to push for chemical regulation based on properties such as persistence and bioaccumulation, rather than the chemical-by-chemical formula used in most countries, including the United States.
Such an approach has gotten traction in Europe via a proposal by the European Chemicals Agency to restrict the entire class of PFAS chemicals. The proposal is still under evaluation, and a final decision is expected by the end of the year.
In the United States, PFAS regulation and remediation are a key aspect of the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again movement, according to the EPA, and the federal government and some states already limit the concentrations of individual PFAS in drinking water. However, the EPA also said it planned to weaken some of those limits last year.
“We’re in a cycle of picking these regrettable alternatives [to legacy PFAS] and then figuring out that it was regrettable decades later,” Sunderland said. “We’re never going to catch up using this chemical-by-chemical approach.”
Citation: van Deelen, G. (2026), Chemical companies are churning out new PFAS. Where in the world are they ending up?, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260136. Published on 30 April 2026.
Login
