A recent study by the University of Notre Dame has uncovered concerning levels of toxic PFAS chemicals in 22 common brands of smartwatch and fitness tracker bands. Researchers discovered that 40% of these bands contained PFAS, with particularly high levels of PFHxA, a synthetic chemical within the PFAS group. Notably, PFHxA was detected in 15 out of the 22 bands, at concentrations significantly higher than those typically found in consumer goods.
PFAS, often used in consumer products for their waterproofing properties, pose potential health risks due to their ability to absorb through the skin. The prolonged contact of watch bands with the wrist raises concerns about exposure levels. According to Graham Peaslee, a researcher from Notre Dame, the levels detected were "much higher than most PFAS we have seen in consumer products." Some watch bands even exhibited PFAS concentrations comparable to those found in firefighting gear.
The study also identified the presence of PFOA, a compound with no safe exposure level in drinking water, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in some bands. The research suggests that synthetic rubber, commonly used in these bands, likely contains PFAS to prevent sweat stains and dirt build-up. Conversely, natural rubber is unlikely to contain PFAS. As a safer alternative, watches with silicone bands showed lower PFAS levels.
The European Union has proposed a ban on PFHxA in consumer products, including watch bands, highlighting the growing concern over these chemicals. The exact rate at which PFAS are absorbed through the skin remains uncertain. However, existing studies indicate significant absorption rates, prompting researchers to label the findings as "concerning." Research on skin models demonstrated absorption rates as high as 60% for certain PFAS compounds applied via creams.
Graham Peaslee emphasized caution when purchasing smartwatch bands, advising consumers to avoid those containing PFAS. He stated:
“I don’t need someone to rush to throw away their Christmas gifts, but next time you buy one, move away from those with PFAS.” – Graham Peaslee
He further noted the irony of paying more for these chemicals:
“It’s pretty clear that they are charging extra for all this beautiful PFAS.” – Graham Peaslee
The study highlights the under-researched nature of PFHxA, partly due to its detection challenges in human blood compared to other PFAS types. This revelation calls for increased scrutiny and regulation of PFAS in wearable technology to safeguard consumer health.