PFAS Risk Map

Context

What are PFAS and why do they persist?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals valued for resistance to heat, oils, stains, grease, and water. The same stability makes them persistent in the environment and the human body, earning the nickname “forever chemicals.”

Decades of use and disposal have led to widespread detection across the U.S. Our dashboard focuses on helping people understand exposure—not just contamination locations.

Regulatory landscape

Policy timeline: evolving standards

Apr 10, 2024 — EPA sets first nationwide PFAS drinking water standards

Legally enforceable limits for five PFAS compounds; recognition of no safe level for PFOA/PFOS.

May 14, 2025 — EPA announces plan to roll back parts of the rule

Delays for PFOA/PFOS compliance and rescission plans for other PFAS in the original rule.

Michigan

2018 — Launches Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART).
2020 — Adopts enforceable MCLs for 7 PFAS compounds in drinking water, stricter than federal levels.
2023 — Expands monitoring of all public water systems; results included in EPA’s UCMR5 program.

Pennsylvania

2019 — DEP initiates statewide PFAS sampling of public water systems.
2022 — Proposes MCLs for PFOA (14 ppt) and PFOS (18 ppt).
Jan 2023 — Final rule takes effect with required monitoring and compliance.

New York

July 2020 — Adopts MCLs of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
2021–22 — Provides grants to municipalities for PFAS treatment upgrades.
2024 — DEC & DOH expand monitoring to additional PFAS with potential group standards.

Four channels

Exposure pathways we track

PFAS-emitting facilities near communities raise local exposure concerns. Our map reports facility counts and density around each ZIP code.

PFAS facility density by state
State	Avg. facility density (per mi2)
New York	1.1658
Michigan	0.5279
Pennsylvania	0.4363

Public water systems (PWS) in MI, NY, and PA show varied PFAS detections. Of 2,593 tested systems, 1,272 reported PFAS, serving ~23 million people.

Relative contamination index by area
Area	Concentration (ppt)
Pennsylvania	3.9669
New York	2.8809
Michigan	0.2153
Flint, MI	0.035
Buffalo, NY	1.585
New York City, NY	1.208
Philadelphia, PA	0.055
Harrisburg, PA	0.093

Water-based activities in contaminated lakes/rivers create additional exposure via incidental ingestion and skin contact. Our map highlights PFAS-affected sites near recreational waters.

Recreational Exposure Maps

PFAS-affected recreational sites in New York — Figure A. Recreational PFAS-affected sites in New York.

PFAS-affected recreational sites in Pennsylvania — Figure B. Recreational PFAS-affected sites in Pennsylvania.

PFAS-affected recreational sites in Michigan — Figure C. Recreational PFAS-affected sites in Michigan.

Dietary intake is a major component of exposure. Despite seafood’s high concentrations, consumption volume makes staples like butter and olive oil important contributors.

Illustrative PFAS levels in common foods
Food	PFAS	Notes
Butter	535 ng/kg	National market
Olive Oil	1,800 ng/kg	National market
Shrimp	~532 ng/kg	Multiple studies
Clams	~2,685 ng/kg	High concentration
Walleye	12,960 ng/kg	North Central market

References & further reading

Show / hide references

Bedi, M., et al. (2023). PFAS in seafood. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 459, 132062.
Chow, S. J., et al. (2021). PFAS in bottled water. Water Research, 201, 117292.
Dimitrakopoulou, M.-E., et al. (2024). PFAS from environment to plate. npj Science of Food, 8(1), 80.
Hill, N. I., et al. (2022). PFAS in dairy milk. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 414(3), 1235–1243.
Ruffle, B., et al. (2020). PFAS in US market basket fish & shellfish. Environmental Research, 190, 109932.
Schecter, A., et al. (2010). PFAS & other contaminants in composite foods. EHP, 118(6), 796–802.
U.S. FDA (2021). Total Diet Study (PFAS results). Dataset 1–7.
Young, W. M., et al. (2012; 2013; 2022). PFAS in milk, fish & shellfish. JAFC.
EPA PFAS Analytic Tool — echo.epa.gov/trends/pfas-tools
EWG PFAS Map — ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/

Comparisons

State & city patterns

Pennsylvania currently shows the highest combined intake from food and water; Michigan the lowest (reflecting lower PWS contamination and proactive testing). Dietary intake in New York and Pennsylvania is elevated by greater consumption of olive oil and seafood.

Figures

Figure 1. PFAS Intake (ng) by Food and State (MI, NY, PA).

Figure 2. PFAS Intake (ng) by Food and City (Detroit, Flint, New York City, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Erie).

Summary

Key takeaways

PFAS are persistent

Used since the 1940s for water/grease resistance; chemical stability means they persist in the environment and humans.

Exposure ≠ just water

Policy debates focus on drinking water, but food and recreation can materially contribute to total intake.

Food vs. water

Typical annual intake is similar magnitude — Water ≈ 3,088 ng vs. Food ≈ 3,440 ng.

Regional patterns

Pennsylvania’s intake is highest; Michigan’s lowest. Northeast diets (olive oil & seafood) increase dietary contributions.

City nuances

Detroit’s diet (bacon, sausage, crab) and regional items (walleye) elevate intake; NYC & Philly show minimal city PWS risk vs. suburbs.

Actionable data

The map provides ZIP-level context across industrial, water, recreation, and food pathways to support decisions.

Mitigation

What you can do

Water: If your PWS shows PFAS, consider certified filtration systems designed to reduce PFAS.
Food: Moderate high-risk seafood and pay attention to frequently consumed items like butter and oils.
Recreation: Avoid PFAS-highlighted water bodies for water-based activities.

Explore your ZIP code on the map.

See nearby facilities, PWS results, recreation sites, and food-related insights.

Go to PFAS Map

Personalized

Get your individual PFAS exposure assessment

Use our built-in survey to input your ZIP code, recreation history, and diet. You’ll receive an estimated total intake from food and water, with tailored suggestions to reduce exposure.

Start your assessment

Appendix

Market PFAS concentration table

Concentrations are illustrative values (ng/kg) compiled from cited literature and datasets.

PFAS concentrations (ng/kg) by food item with sources
Food	PFAS (ng/kg)	Source	Food	PFAS (ng/kg)	Source
NATIONAL MARKET
Bacon	240	Schecter et al. (2010)	Mussels	360	Bedi et al. (2023)
Bay Scallop	742	Ruffle et al. (2020)	Olive Oil	1800	Schecter et al. (2010)
Bluefish	323	Ruffle et al. (2020)	Peanut Butter	50	Schecter et al. (2010); TDS (2021)
Bottled Water	0.39	Chow et al. (2021); TDS (2021)	Powder Protein	140	TDS (2021)
Butter	535	Schecter et al. (2010); TDS (2021)	Sausages	90	Schecter et al. (2010)
Canned Chili	10	Schecter et al. (2010); TDS (2021)	Shrimp	531.5	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020); Young et al. (2013; 2022)
Canned Sardines	190	Schecter et al. (2010)	Smelt	980	Bedi et al. (2023)
Canned Tuna	76	TDS (2021)	Striped Bass	1844	Young et al. (2013)
Clam	2685	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020); Young et al. (2013; 2022)	Tilapia	2875	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020); Young et al. (2013; 2022)
Cod	47.56	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020); Young et al. (2013; 2022)	Tuna	14.47	Bedi et al. (2023); Young et al. (2012; 2022)
Crab	1731	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020); Young et al. (2013; 2022)	Walleye	12960	Ruffle et al. (2020)
Fish Sticks/Patty	121.5	Schecter et al. (2010); TDS (2021)	Whitefish	9400	Ruffle et al. (2020)
Flounder	1703	Bedi et al. (2023); Young et al. (2012)	Yellow Perch	6810	Ruffle et al. (2020)
Haddock	445	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020)	Ham	20	Schecter et al. (2010)
Hamburger	150	Schecter et al. (2010)	Mackerel	129.5	Bedi et al. (2023); Ruffle et al. (2020)
Margarine	95	Schecter et al. (2010); TDS (2021)	Milk	1.3	Hill et al. (2022); Young et al. (2012)
NORTH CENTRAL MARKET
Ground Beef	41	TDS (2021)	Tilapia Baked	233	TDS (2021)
NORTHEAST MARKET
Shrimp Cooked	216	TDS (2021)	Tilapia Baked	28	TDS (2021)