Which Apple Watch bands contain PFAS?

The catastrophic affects of PFAS in the human body are well documented. So too are the cynical attempts by industry insiders to downplay them, in a way that is all too often extremely similar to the most popular answer to this question.

I would go out of my way to avoid a watch band that contains PFAS. The sheer volume of forever chemicals that we're all exposed to in our daily lives, means that it has accumulated in everyone's bodies.

Avoiding any exposure you CAN control is the best defense against it. This includes steering clear of watch bands that contain it.

I would like to see the analysis of a swab taken from human wrist after 24 hours of wearing rather than solvents on the strap.

solo loops are silicone, sport bands are fluoroelastomer which by definition may contain some PFAs. I am confident that my fluoroelastomer sport band is the best and most comfortable strap I have ever worn in 60 years of watch wearing.

The recent academic study you are implicating is

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00907

which lacks any per manufacturer data or any real evidence that any PFAs have ever been absorbed in practice. They had to use solvents to extract them.

According to the page below, the Sports Loop bands contain:

Tech Specs - Material: 100% recycled nylon, 100% recycled polyester, 100% recycled spandex

40mm Plum Sport Loop - Apple

There is no mention of PDAS. If this does not answer your question, please contact Apple Support.

popular=badservice wrote:

The scientific fact is not my or anyone's else's opinion.

It's just a fact.

That might be difficult to understand, but it doesn't change that it's a fact.

It is NOT a fact that PFAs in Apple watch bands specifically are absorbed through the skin. It is at best a hypothesis, and really only a conjecture.

How would you determine whether PFAs in Apple Watch bands affect the level of PFAs in the body, given that you have already claimed (correctly) that everyone carries PFAs in their bodies, and all in varying amounts? Perhaps some secluded Amazon tribe would volunteer to wear Apple Watches.

I’ll accept the fact that researchers could not detect PFAs without heating to the melting point. And current measurements can detect down to 1 part per billion.

You should really focus on the well known sources: fast food delivery containers, plastic kitchen tools, Teflon pans…

@Carol B Yes, those are the three main ingredients.

It is the fluoroelastomer makeup of watch bands, especially sports loop, sold by Apple that, by definition, contain PFAS. This characteristic is what makes the band so comfortable by resisting moisture etc. Many moisture-resistant products are made by adding PFAS which have been shown to be dangerous to health in a variety of ways.

It is important to distinguish marketing from reality.

Sunrise250 wrote:

@LD150 Most watch people wear watches constantly for decades. 24 hours??? They are called "forever chemicals" for a reason.

Everything in nature is toxic, even water. What determines toxicity is how much.

So is mine , I'm not worried by this kind of study, same as I didn't stop using saccharin sweeteners because feeding a stomach load to rats every day might give them cancer.

Sunrise250 wrote:

Really? "Academics." that would be in contrast to ("the uneducated?") I'd be happy to consider your opinion if you would state your qualifications on the subject. The truth is what I am after and experts on the subject of chemical additives are who I am inclined to listen to.

We all seek the truth and the empirical result here is that fluoroelastomer used by some strap makers contain PFAs in variable quantities

What we don't have yet is whether Apple Watch straps release PFAs and whether human skin can absorb those particular PFAs in any significant quantity.

You can bet your sweet bippy that Apple will be on this.

LD150 wrote:

Academics sometimes freak out having to work with real people.

I work with a lot of scientists. They have to start somewhere and they're generally not allowed to start with people. So, they release a preliminary study. Then the popular press goes "We're all going to die!!!!!" bananas. It's frustrating and annoying because it increases public distrust in science and the scientific method.

We need to better educate people on how to understand this kind of story. Unfortunately, a lot of scientists aren't good at communicating with non-scientists. Or, they're just too busy writing a grant for the next project. Or teaching. Or serving on university committees. Or occasionally spending time with their own families. Dr. Paul Offit, in addition to developing an important pediatric vaccine, has spent enormous amounts of time writing and lecturing on scientific literacy. Worth picking up one of his books.

/end rant

LD150 wrote:

No PFAs back then, just lead, mercury and asbestos to worry about.

And radium painted digits on the face.

And remember that we used Carbon Tetrachloride as as a cleaning solvent and in fire extinguishers.

In The Wizard of Oz do you remember the snow spread by Glinda on the poppy field? That was asbestos.

Sunrise250 wrote:

Really? "Academics." that would be in contrast to ("the uneducated?") I'd be happy to consider your opinion if you would state your qualifications on the subject. The truth is what I am after and experts on the subject of chemical additives are who I am inclined to listen to.

LD150 was responding to a post I made when they said that. I find it very helpful to make sure that the sorting order of the thread is set to "Oldest." Threads tend to make more sense that way. You can change the sort order at the top of the page just under the original post.

Lawrence Finch wrote:

And remember that we used Carbon Tetrachloride as as a cleaning solvent and in fire extinguishers.

I know a lot of older organic chemists for whom benzene was the standard cleaner for lab benches.

I shouldn't think the approx 30,000 cigarettes I smoked at university did me much good. You'd think "academics" at England's most prodigious scientific centre of learning would have more bloody sense.

popular=badservice wrote:

I would go out of my way to avoid a watch band that contains PFAS. The sheer volume of forever chemicals that we're all exposed to in our daily lives, means that it has accumulated in everyone's bodies.

Avoiding any exposure you CAN control is the best defense against it. This includes steering clear of watch bands that contain it.

Everyone needs to make their own risk/benefit calculation.