The research that found this didn’t identify PFAs in any dental floss but instead found a correlation in blood levels in the (small number of) participants.
They detected fluorine in the floss and assumed that meant PFAs (Perfluoroalkoxy). This is a really bizarre leap because the floss is made of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), which has fluorine, but is unrelated to PFAs even if you squint, despite both being fluropolymers.
PTFE is safe unless heated to over 300C, which doesn’t happen in your mouth. At one point in history the manufacturing process used PFOA, which is not an awesome chemical, but has not been used since 2013.
However it carries a reputational stigma from that time to this day. It’s otherwise chemically stable and non reactive. It’s also important to note that the study that everyone is basing these conclusions on was in the range of time that PFOA was used to produce PTFE, possibly explaining the PFOA detected in higher amounts.
I mean these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Interdental-Original-0-4-1-5mm-effe... The problem is that when they encounter a sharp edge, they get torn or cut off. I doubt there has been any research on the ingestion of nylon cuttings, which is why I would prefer to find something as effective but known to be safe.
Yeah sorry I was referring to the dental floss comment I responded to. There’s a lingering belief that PTFE is bad for you, which had more to do with its original production method than the substance itself. Modern PTFE is safe.
They detected fluorine in the floss and assumed that meant PFAs (Perfluoroalkoxy). This is a really bizarre leap because the floss is made of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), which has fluorine, but is unrelated to PFAs even if you squint, despite both being fluropolymers.
PTFE is safe unless heated to over 300C, which doesn’t happen in your mouth. At one point in history the manufacturing process used PFOA, which is not an awesome chemical, but has not been used since 2013.
However it carries a reputational stigma from that time to this day. It’s otherwise chemically stable and non reactive. It’s also important to note that the study that everyone is basing these conclusions on was in the range of time that PFOA was used to produce PTFE, possibly explaining the PFOA detected in higher amounts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y