Public concern about PFAS pollution often centres on drinking water, streams, rivers, and household exposure. This focus is understandable, but it can miss a key group: workers who disturb contaminated ground.
On construction sites, soil, ‘made ground’, sediment, concrete dust, drainage material, and groundwater may all become sources of direct exposure. Where a site has a history of firefighting foam use, aircraft activity, fuel handling, military use, or fire-training, PFAS risk is not a remote public health issue. It has to be treated as an occupational health issue.
Workers can encounter PFAS not through drinking local water, but through daily contact with contaminated soil and dust. During excavation, trenching, piling, landscaping, spoil movement, and waste handling, buried material can reach the surface. Dry soil can become dust. Wet soil can become mud. Both can be carried on gloves, boots, tools, vehicles, phones, and work clothes.
The main likely routes of exposure are hand-to-mouth transfer, inhalation of dust, skin contact with contaminated mud or water, and poor separation between dirty work zones and welfare areas. These pathways matter because construction work can involve repeated low-level exposure across long shifts and over many weeks or months. Research on PFAS and occupational exposure shows that workers who handle PFAS or PFAS-contaminated materials can have higher exposure than the general public (Christensen et al., 2023). Firefighter studies are also relevant because they show that PFAS from firefighting foam and related materials has become an established occupational concern (Graber et al., 2021; Hossain et al., 2023).
Previous PFAS cases show why a precautionary stance is justified. PFAS contamination linked to defence and airfield use has led to major legal, clean-up, and public health disputes in the United States and Australia. In Australia, defence-base contamination has led to large-scale remediation costs and legal claims linked to historic firefighting foam use. These cases show a common pattern: contamination can remain hidden or underplayed for years, while affected workers and residents carry the uncertainty and risk.
The importance of union involvement
Union involvement is particularly relevant because construction workers often lack the power, information, or security needed to challenge unsafe practice. Subcontractors, agency staff, and migrant workers often face added pressure to keep working even when site risks seem unclear.
Trade unions can press for a proper Construction Worker PFAS Risk Assessment; demand soil, dust, groundwater, sediment, and spoil testing; clear site briefings; dust control; clean and dirty zones; suitable PPE; handwashing and welfare facilities; waste controls; and independent review of risk assessments.
UK health and safety law already gives worker representatives a role in raising such concerns. The Health and Safety Executive states that hazardous substances in construction include dusts and other harmful substances, and that health and safety representatives have legal functions in the workplace (Health and Safety Executive, 2024, 2025). In this context, union involvement is not an intrusion. It is a practical safeguard for the people most likely to disturb, breathe, handle, and transport contaminated ground before the wider public sees the finished development.
References
Generally, I rely on what are known as ‘meta analyses’ as they tend to be more reliable than individual pieces of research. I have also tried to make sure that these are accessible without going through a pay-wall – if you hit one, do get in touch and let me know before you spend any money.
Christensen, B. T., et al. (2023). Occupational exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Current Environmental Health Reports, 10, 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-023-00402-x
Graber, J. M., et al. (2021). Prevalence and predictors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a large sample of firefighters. Environmental Research, 203, 111893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111893
Health and Safety Executive. (2024). Hazardous substances: Construction health risks. https://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/hazardous-substances/index.htm
Health and Safety Executive. (2025). Health and safety representatives. https://www.hse.gov.uk/involvement/hsrepresentatives.htm
Hossain, M. T., et al. (2023). Firefighters’ exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: Sources and implications. Environment International, 181, 108270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108270
