Study Finds TFA, an Ultra-Short PFAS, in Most NJ Tap Water Samples

Short answer: researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) tested 70 tap water samples from all 21 New Jersey counties and found trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an ultra-short-chain PFAS, in 64 of them. The study, in Environmental Science & Technology Letters (online September 12, October 2026 issue), is a first snapshot, not a health assessment. As study author Arjun Venkatesan put it, detecting a chemical in drinking water “does not necessarily mean there is an immediate health risk.” TFA isn’t one of the PFAS the federal drinking water rule covers, routine PFAS testing has largely missed it, and a filter certified for PFOA and PFOS doesn’t tell you anything about it.

What did the study find?

The team, with lead author Siwei Gu and Arjun Venkatesan, who directs NJIT’s Emerging Contaminants Research Laboratory, screened 113 samples for five ultra-short-chain PFAS: 70 tap water samples and 43 bottled drinks. According to the paper’s abstract and NJIT’s announcement of October 13, 2026:

• TFA was the main finding. It turned up in 64 of the 70 tap samples and 34 of the 43 bottled drinks. At least one tap sample from every county had it.
• Tap water levels ranged from 74 to 1,360 nanograms per liter (the same as parts per trillion) where TFA was found, with a median of 352. County averages were higher in several northern and northeastern counties, such as Essex, Hudson and Bergen.
• Bottled drinks varied a lot. The 31 bottled waters averaged 295 ng/L. The 12 “formulated” drinks, such as sports drinks and electrolyte waters, averaged 15,400 ng/L, about 52 times more, with a top reading of 94,100. The researchers didn’t analyze ingredients or manufacturing, so they can’t say where that TFA came from.
• The other four compounds were found less often, and one of them not at all.

The researchers call it the first statewide US monitoring study of these compounds. NJIT’s release calls it “an initial snapshot of contamination rather than a comprehensive assessment” of New Jersey’s water systems, and says more sampling is needed to see how levels change over time and what explains the differences between areas. It covered one state, with about three tap samples per county on average. NJIT says the work was supported in part by a faculty start-up grant from the university.

What is TFA, and is it harmful?

TFA is a PFAS with a very short carbon chain. NJIT’s release says it can form when certain fluorinated refrigerants, pesticides and other chemicals break down, that rain can carry it into surface water and drinking water sources, and that it’s hard to remove in conventional water treatment. It’s also hard to measure with the standard PFAS lab methods, which is one reason it has rarely been tested for.

On health, the honest answer is that little is known. The release says the science on its long-term effects in humans “remains limited,” although some toxicological studies have raised concerns about potential developmental and reproductive effects. Venkatesan put it this way: “The potential health implications depend on the concentration, frequency of exposure, and how much of the chemical is consumed over time.” The study measured levels, not health effects, so it can’t tell you whether the amounts found matter.

Does it change the rules for your water?

No. The EPA’s 2024 drinking water rule sets limits for six PFAS, and TFA isn’t one of them. In May 2026 the EPA proposed keeping the PFOA and PFOS limits (with an option for systems to request until 2031 to comply) and dropping the other four; that is still a proposal, as our update on the EPA’s PFAS proposals explains. Neither touches TFA. The authors say the findings support “coordinated nationwide surveys.”

What it means for your filter

This is the practical part. The lead author says TFA “does not bind strongly to many filter materials that work well for capturing traditional PFAS,” and the release says the PFAS treatment utilities use, granular activated carbon and ion-exchange resins, is generally less effective on it than on many longer-chain PFAS.

An older German study of TFA in drinking water supplies points the same way (Scheurer and colleagues, 2017). At full-scale waterworks and in lab tests, granular activated carbon was “inappropriate for TFA removal,” ion exchange removed part of it, and reverse osmosis “completely retained” it. Those were waterworks and lab tests, at TFA levels more than ten times the highest New Jersey reading, not home units, so they don’t show what a particular under-sink RO system does.

So:

• Know what your water shows first. Your utility’s yearly report shows any PFAS it has measured, and under the federal rule, utilities must give the public information on PFAS levels starting in 2027. Here’s how to read your water quality report. On a private well, only a lab test will tell you. If PFOA or PFOS show up near or above the EPA limits, a filter certified for them is one option; many readers won’t need one. Our PFAS in drinking water guide covers what the health research says about those.
• A PFAS certification covers the compounds it names. A listing for PFOA and PFOS under NSF/ANSI 53 or 58 tells you about those two, not TFA. Our guide to filters that remove PFAS shows how to read those claims.
• Don’t buy a filter on this study alone. There’s no federal limit for TFA, and this study doesn’t show whether the levels found carry a health risk.

Bottom line

TFA was found in most New Jersey tap samples in one small, early study, at levels whose health meaning isn’t known yet. There’s no federal limit for it and no change to your water rules today. If you already have a filter certified for PFOA and PFOS, it still does that job; just don’t assume it covers TFA too.