Worries about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or forever chemicals, tend to focus on food and water, but some experts say we shouldn’t dismiss exposure through the skin.

Many PFAS-containing products — from cosmetics to clothing— are the kind we willingly put on our skin. Emerging research suggests PFAS can be absorbed through the skin and released into the bloodstream, with potential consequences for the liver, immune system, and skin itself.

“It is easy to dismiss, but in my opinion it is still an important route to consider,” said Oddný Ragnarsdóttir, PhD, toxicologist at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik, Iceland, who specializes in chemical exposure to human skin. 

PFAS are synthetic chemicals with at least one atom of carbon bonded to an atom of fluorine. How many there are is hard to pin down, with estimates ranging from over 14,500 to 7 million. What we do know is that they are largely indestructible and accumulate in nature, infiltrating the water supply, meat, fish, packaged foods, and countless consumer goods. Research has linked PFAS to a laundry list of health concerns, including immune system suppression, osteoporosis, thyroid disease, diabetes, hypertension, and cancer. “Dermal exposure can contribute a significant amount when you think about a lifetime,” said Marta Venier, PhD, environmental chemist at Indiana University Bloomington, in Bloomington, Indiana.

What the Research Shows

PFAS make cosmetics and other personal care products, such as sunscreen and moisturizer, more durable, water-resistant, and easier to spread. “Some of the levels in cosmetics are extremely high,” said Jonathan Benskin, PhD, environmental chemist at Stockholm University in Stockholm, Sweden. When Benskin and his colleagues analyzed 31 Swedish cosmetics purchased in 2016 and 2017, they found some that contained as many as 24 PFAS. One foundation had up to 2.33 mcg/g of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — a level dozens of times higher than historically found in microwave popcorn bags. In another Swedish analysis — conducted in 2020, published in 2022— the scientists flagged a foundation with PFOA concentrations more than four times the tolerable intake limit established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The chemical shouldn’t have been present at all, considering it was banned from market use in 2019, Benskin said.

In the US and Canada, Venier and her colleagues found the highest PFAS levels in foundations, mascaras, and lip products. A study in Canada that sampled 38 cosmetics and personal care products with at least one PFAS ingredient found mean concentrations reaching 1080 mcg/g, a level the authors called “extremely high.”

Checking the label is a simple strategy for avoiding the chemicals — many (but not all) ingredients with “fluoro” or “fluor” in the name may indicate PFAS — but it’s not a foolproof one. While PFAS have been phased out in many newer products — a December 2025 report from the FDA found intentionally added PFAS in less than 0.5% of registered US cosmetics — this doesn’t account for trace contaminants. One 2021 study of cosmetics purchased in the US and Canada found PFAS even in products that didn’t list them on the label. “The structure that we detect analytically does not [always] match the ingredient on the list,” Benskin said.

How Much Makes It Into the Blood?

Several epidemiologic studies link frequent use of cosmetics and personal care products with PFAS in the blood. In Belgium, people who used seven or more cosmetics had higher blood levels of forever chemicals than those who used fewer such products. In Korea, “makeup was the one that stood out for women,” said Bomi Park, MD, PhD, epidemiologist at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, Korea — though makeup’s contribution was “modest” compared with seafood’s.

Scientists in search of more defined numbers have experimented with animals, human skin samples from surgical procedures, and synthetic three-dimensional tissue engineered to mimic human skin. Ragnarsdóttir and her colleagues exposed fake skin to 17 types of PFAS, finding that about half the dose gets absorbed in some cases. While short-chain PFAS are more water-soluble and pass right through to the bloodstream, longer-chain ones, such as PFOA, may get trapped in the skin, creating a reservoir for the chemicals. “This means that even though you wash off the product, you are still being exposed,” Ragnarsdóttir said. 

In one study, a researcher in Germany volunteered to dose himself with sunscreen containing PFOA with a molecular tracking label. The scientist applied the sunscreen all over, as if he were heading to a beach. Over the following weeks, his blood samples told an alarming story: The concentration of the PFAS slowly increased, peaking on day 22. On that day, the sunscreen was responsible for more than 9% of his total blood PFAS level. “It was coming from this one-time sunblock exposure,” Benskin said. “But with cosmetics, you’d be applying them daily. That ’s going to add up.” While the total absorption level was just 1.6%, PFOA’s long half-life means the chemicals from the experiment will take years to leave the researcher’s body.

Potential Effects

No studies link topical application of PFAS with detrimental health effects in humans. Some have established this link in mice, though they tend to use very high doses of PFAS “unlikely for the general population,” Benskin said. These studies suggest that skin exposure to PFAS — including both long-chain legacy PFAS (such as PFOA) and the short-chain alternatives manufacturers sometimes use to replace them — can damage the liver. In mice exposed to topical PFAS, liver weight increases, sometimes doubling, and changes occur in the expression of genes involved in fatty acid metabolism and inflammation. The immune system suffers, too — the numbers of B cells and natural killer cells may drop, leaving the rodents more vulnerable to infection.

Exposure could damage the skin itself. PFAS caused lesions when applied to lab-grown human skin and stripped the tissue of its ability to maintain moisture and defend itself. This could heighten susceptibility to PFAS, since a compromised skin barrier is easier to infiltrate. 

Clothing and Dust

Even if you never wear makeup, PFAS can still make contact with your skin. Tests have detected PFAS in swimsuits, waterproof jackets, hiking pants, and children’s garments. When Venier and her colleagues tested North American school uniforms, she was surprised to find high levels of PFAS. According to their calculations, total daily PFAS exposure would equal 1.03 ng per kilogram of body weight — which, if completely absorbed, would exceed the EFSA’s tolerable intake limit of 0.63 ng for the sum of just four key PFAS. In another experiment, Venier and her colleagues showed that PFAS can migrate from fabric into synthetic sweat — the sweat helps transfer chemicals to the skin, she said. 

Then there’s dust. “All products that contain PFAS can shed,” Venier said. This includes carpets, furniture, tablecloths, pillowcases, you name it. Inhaling or ingesting dust is the bigger risk, but skin contact could make for an additional route of exposure. Ragnarsdóttir and her colleagues calculated that for adults, dermal uptake of PFOS and PFOA from household dust during the summer can make up 18% of the EFSA’s recommended tolerable weekly intake (in the winter the levels are lower because we tend to cover more of our skin with clothes). Dermal contact with dust may be a bigger deal for toddlers, who both spend more time on the floor and have “a higher skin surface area to body weight,” she said. For now, though, studies are lacking. “It’s something to keep an eye on for sure,” Venier said. In the meantime, research shows that regular dusting, vacuuming, and mopping can lower PFAS concentrations in household dust — even by as much as 66%, depending on the type of PFAS.

What to Do

Michelle Hure, MD, MS, dermatologist and owner of OC SkinLab in San Juan Capistrano, California, likes to discuss individualized risk levels with her patients — particularly those with psoriasis, eczema, and other conditions that compromise the skin barrier. “I explain that products marketed as ‘waterproof,’ ‘long-wear,’ or ‘smudge-proof’ may have a higher likelihood of containing PFAS,” she said. Patients can also look for products that say “PFAS-free” on the label. As for sunscreen, Hure counsels patients to use the product that will best protect them from ultraviolet radiation. “If a surfer needs a more water-resistant sunscreen for a short period of time, that protection should take priority, regardless of the possibility that the product may contain PFAS,” she said.

Keeping track of all potential PFAS sources is challenging for consumers — and their doctors, Venier said. “What I tell people is, do the best you can with the resources that you have,” she said. Individual circumstance matters. “If you live in an area where water is contaminated with PFAS, that is your main concern.”

If we want real change, we need to “fight for more stringent regulation,” Benskin said. Some states, such as California, Vermont, and Colorado, and some countries, such as France, have banned PFAS in cosmetics. That’s important, Benskin said, since what you put on your skin is just part of the story. The other is that when we wash off these chemicals, they end up in wastewater and ultimately our food and drinking water. “It’s this vicious cycle,” he said.

The experts cited in this article reported having no relevant disclosures.