Aspidia

We destroy PFAS forever chemicals — not just capture them. Engineering next-generation enzymes and remediation tech, from clean water to clean energy.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: Li S, Rene ER, Lu P, Ma W. Organ-specific carcinogenic risk heterogeneity of perfluorooctanoic acid exposure. J Hazard Mater. 2026;514:142831. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2026.142831

[Aspidia @aspidia]

New PFOA meta-analysis, 34 datasets:

Kidney → OR 1.27 (1.01–1.59)
Breast → borderline
Liver, thyroid → no signal

Risk isn't uniform. Nonlinear curves on so few datasets are easy to over-read.
The endpoint isn't a prettier curve. It's less PFOA in blood: destroyed at source.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

@g_caprotti Passo importante. Ma i limiti impongono di togliere i PFAS, non di distruggerli: filtri a carbone e resine li concentrano soltanto, spostando il problema. In Aspidia sviluppiamo metodi a basso costo per distruggerli davvero, trasformandoli in composti inorganici innocui.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/5jrgfbTNaq

[Aspidia @aspidia]

A safety screen once rated PFOA, a "forever chemical," as negative. New work on human skin cells finds it activates Nrf2, the cell's oxidative-stress alarm, and tests positive for oxidative stress. That test just watched the wrong mechanism.
#PFAS

[Aspidia @aspidia]

https://t.co/XWAAcov2wq

[Aspidia @aspidia]

A PFAS filter looks like a one-way trap.

This study shows it's a competition: dissolved organic matter knocks PFAS off carbon, phosphate off resin, stronger PFAS displace weaker ones.

If a filter can release what it caught, when is it actually full?
Source👇

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/2g12N07Ybz

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Higher PFOS was linked to a modest reduction in antibody binding, about 5%, not to proven clinical harm. The key question is mechanistic: how may some PFAS influence specific parts of the immune response?

[Aspidia @aspidia]

In China's Yellow River, suspended sediment doesn't just move PFAS downstream, it concentrates them.

Fine particles trap these chemicals on the riverbed, where bottom-feeding fish are most exposed.

A clean water sample can sit above the real contamination.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/WOFuwz7haB

[Aspidia @aspidia]

A wastewater network can halve its PFAS mass and still discharge more PFAS species than it takes in.
Reverse osmosis then strips 99% from the water, only to concentrate it 40-fold into a brine no one can safely dispose of.
Removal isn't destruction. It's relocation.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/9WOr8BrTTh

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Replacing one PFAS with another does not automatically remove risk.

In female zebrafish, 6:2 FTS showed lower bioaccumulation and lower overall toxicity than PFOS, yet still disrupted the HPG axis and impaired reproduction.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/hJyCUKYXuV

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Hormesis is the counterintuitive idea that low doses can stimulate biology while higher doses inhibit it.

A new PFAS review finds this biphasic pattern across ecological models, below toxic thresholds in some cases.

That makes risk assessment harder, not exposure safer.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/FmBDtv7Jpm

[Aspidia @aspidia]

PFAS exposure and child growth may be linked in ways that BMI alone does not capture.
In NHANES 2013–2014 data, higher serum PFAS concentrations were associated with lower height-for-age and weight-for-age percentiles, while no clear BMI pattern was observed.

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Source: https://t.co/kBoPmscGvO

[Aspidia @aspidia]

Not all reducing environments support PFAS biodegradation equally.

A new study found ~60% defluorination of CTFE3 under nitrate- and sulfate-reducing conditions versus ~30% under iron-reducing and methanogenic conditions.
Environmental conditions matter.