PFAS Blood Test: I Did Everything Right and Still Tested at 5.45 ng/mL
I have been drinking reverse osmosis water for years. I threw out my old nonstick pans long ago and I write a whole guide to PFAS-free cookware. I rarely eat seafood. So when I finally ran a PFAS blood test, I expected a low number.
It came back at 5.45 ng/mL. That puts me squarely in the middle tier of the national clinical guidance, the one where the recommendation is to reduce exposure, even though my dashboard showed the result in green. This is what my PFAS blood test results showed, how to read your own, what the test costs and what the research says can bring the number down.
My PFAS Results at a Glance
NASEM summation: 5.45 ng/mL
Clinical tier: 2 to 20 ng/mL, where the guidance is exposure reduction plus routine screening
Compared to others: Above the 4.65 ng/mL median in Quest’s 2024 sample, below the 7.74 ng/mL national median from 2017 to 2020
Biggest contributors: PFOS and PFOA, the legacy compounds, at about 69% of everything detected
Test: Quest Diagnostics 9 analyte PFAS panel, ordered as a Function Health add-on, drawn October 2026
The surprise: Years of RO water and PFAS-free cookware did not get me under 2 ng/mL
Table of Contents-Click to Expand
- My PFAS Blood Test Results
- How the NASEM Summation Works
- Why “In Range” Is Not the Lowest Tier
- How My Result Compares to Other Americans
- Why I Still Tested at 5.45 After Years of Changes
- PFAS Blood Test Cost and Where to Get Tested
- How to Lower PFAS in Your Body
- Should You Get a PFAS Blood Test?
- Frequently Asked Questions
Disclaimer: Links may contain affiliate links, which means we may get paid a commission at no additional cost to you if you purchase through this page. Read our full disclosure here.
My PFAS Blood Test Results
I ran this as an add-on to my Function Health membership, which sends the sample to Quest Diagnostics for a nine analyte PFAS panel. These are the exact numbers from my dashboard.
| PFAS compound | My result (ng/mL) | Dashboard flag |
|---|---|---|
| PFOS, linear | 1.66 | Above range |
| PFOA, linear | 1.22 | Above range |
| PFOS, branched | 0.78 | Above range |
| PFHxS | 0.78 | Above range |
| PFNA | 0.54 | Above range |
| PFUnDA | 0.18 | Above range |
| PFDA | 0.15 | Above range |
| PFOA, branched | Not detected | In range |
| MeFOSAA | Not detected | In range |
| NASEM summation | 5.45 | In range |
My PFAS blood test results, drawn October 2026 and run by Quest Diagnostics through Function Health.
Seven of the nine compounds flagged above range while the total flagged in range. That looks contradictory and it is the first thing that confused me. The individual flags light up for anything detected and nearly everyone in the US has detectable PFAS in their blood. The number that carries clinical meaning is the summation at the bottom. That is the one to read first.
How the NASEM Summation Works
In 2022 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine published clinical guidance on PFAS testing that tells doctors to interpret a PFAS blood test by adding up seven specific compounds rather than reading each one alone. PFOA and PFOS are each measured in two forms, linear and branched, which is why the panel reports nine results for seven chemicals.
My detected values add up to 5.31 ng/mL, but my reported total is 5.45. The difference is a lab convention. Quest’s PFAS panel documentation explains that any compound below the 0.10 ng/mL detection cutoff is counted as 0.07 ng/mL in the sum. I had two compounds not detected, so 0.14 gets added. That lands exactly on 5.45. If your total does not match your own arithmetic, that is almost certainly why.
The guidance sorts the total into three tiers:
- Under 2 ng/mL: adverse health effects are not expected. Usual care for your age.
- 2 to under 20 ng/mL: potential for adverse effects, especially in sensitive groups. The recommendation is to reduce exposure and to make sure screening such as a lipid panel happens as part of routine care.
- 20 ng/mL and above: increased risk. Exposure reduction plus prioritized screening.
Why “In Range” Is Not the Lowest Tier
Here is the part I most want you to see if you just got your own results back. My dashboard shows the summation in green with the words “In Range.” By the framework the panel itself is built on, 5.45 sits in the middle tier, the one that comes with a recommendation to reduce exposure.
“In range” on a dashboard usually means below the line where more urgent follow-up kicks in. It does not mean below 2 ng/mL, which is the only tier where the guidance says no particular action is needed. If you read the green label and move on, you miss the actual instruction attached to your number.
For me the screening piece was already covered, since my regular panels include ApoB, lipoprotein(a) and a full lipid breakdown. The exposure reduction piece is where it got interesting, because I thought I had already done it.
How My Result Compares to Other Americans
The most useful comparison comes from Quest Diagnostics itself, the lab that ran my panel. Its validation study, published in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, tested 1,023 clinical samples using the same NASEM summation method. The median was 4.65 ng/mL, 82.2% of samples fell between 2 and 20 ng/mL and 2.5% were at 20 or above. The same paper notes the median in national CDC survey data from 2017 to 2020 was higher, at 7.74 ng/mL.
So at 5.45 I am a little above the median in the more recent sample and below the national one. So I am in the same tier as most Americans. That was both reassuring and a little deflating, because it means the habits I’ve been implementing for years to reduce these toxins did not set me apart in the way I assumed.
Why I Still Tested at 5.45 After Years of Changes
This was the question I could not answer when the results came in, so I went to the research. Three things explain most of it.
Most of my number is legacy PFAS
PFOS and PFOA together account for 3.66 of my 5.31 ng/mL detected, about 69%. These are the old compounds, largely phased out of US manufacturing. They leave the body slowly. A study of Swedish residents whose contaminated drinking water was replaced, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, estimated average half-lives of 3.4 years for PFOS, 2.7 years for PFOA and 5.3 years for PFHxS. Changing my pans changed what goes in. It did nothing to speed up what was already there.
Even so, half-lives that short mean my levels would keep falling if nothing new were coming in. My read is that both things are true: some of this is old and some of it is still arriving from sources none of us can fully control, like food packaging, household dust and the general environment. RO water and good pans remove two significant sources, but not all of them.
Newer compounds rose as the old ones fell
The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation tracked PFAS in midlife women from 1999 to 2011 and the results published in Environment International show legacy compounds falling while newer ones climbed. Linear PFOS dropped about 14.8% a year and linear PFOA about 6% a year, but PFNA rose about 16% a year and PFDA and PFUnDA were detected twice as often by the end. All three of those newer compounds show up on my panel.
So where did the older compounds come from? A review of human exposure pathways, published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, explains that most of the drop in blood levels came from pulling PFOS and PFOA out of consumer products. Exposure through seafood and drinking water has held steady or even risen in many regions. Firefighting foam also keeps turning up as a water contaminant near airports and military bases. CDC national survey data, published in Environmental Science and Technology, showed PFOS falling after US manufacturers stopped producing it in the early 2000s while PFNA kept climbing through 2008.
The newer compounds have a different backstory, because some of them are not made directly at all. A lab study, also published in Environmental Science and Technology, showed that a class of chemicals called fluorotelomer alcohols breaks down in the atmosphere into a whole series of these longer-chain acids, PFNA included. They also build up in fish. A Swedish study of first-time mothers, published in Environment International, found fish and seafood consumption was significantly tied to blood levels of PFNA, PFDA and PFUnDA.
That seafood link stands out to me because I rarely eat it. For me the more likely routes are the ones none of us fully control, like air, household dust and food packaging. There is also some encouraging news the SWAN data could not show, since it stopped in 2011. In the Swedish mothers, PFNA, PFDA and PFUnDA rose 3 to 7% a year until roughly 2007 to 2010, then started falling 2 to 3% a year once restrictions on their use took hold.
Menstruation is one of the body’s exits and menopause closes it
The same SWAN analysis found that women who were still menstruating consistently had lower PFAS concentrations. The Swedish half-life study also found women cleared PFOS and PFHxS faster than men. Blood loss is thought to carry PFAS out with it. That is good news for younger women and a quiet disadvantage for the rest of us, because once periods stop, that route stops with them.
It applies to me more than most. I had a hysterectomy at 33, so I have not had that route for almost two decades. I cannot say how much of my 5.45 that explains and no single test could tell me. For women in perimenopause and menopause reading this, it is a reason to expect your number might drift up even if you change nothing and a reason to treat exposure reduction as more important now, not less.
PFAS Blood Test Cost and Where to Get Tested
There are three realistic routes for testing PFAS itself and the price difference is smaller than it first looks. The last row in the table is a different kind of test, which I explain below it.
| Option | Price | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| Quest consumer PFAS panel | $350 | The same nine analyte panel with NASEM summation, ordered directly, with a physician consult |
| Function Health add-on | $299 plus the $365 membership | The same Quest panel, added to a draw that also covers 100+ other biomarkers |
| At-home blood spot kits | Varies | Finger-prick collection mailed to a lab; compound lists and methods differ by company |
| Superpower Environmental Toxins (urine) | $399 plus the $199 membership | Not a PFAS test. Measures 27 urine markers for phthalates, bisphenols, parabens, pesticides and volatile organic compounds, the everyday chemicals a PFAS panel does not cover |
PFAS blood test pricing checked November 1, 2026; Superpower checked November 2, 2026. Prices change.
If PFAS is the only thing you want to know, the Quest PFAS test is the simplest path: you can order Quest’s forever chemicals blood test directly. If you were already considering broader blood work, the Function add-on is the same panel for $51 less, though it requires the membership. I broke down every Function add-on price in my Function Health cost breakdown. If you join, my Function Health link skips the waitlist.
The Superpower panel is easy to misread, so to be clear: it does not measure PFAS. Superpower’s Environmental Toxins panel is a urine test for a separate group of everyday chemicals, including BPA and BPS, phthalates, parabens, pesticides like glyphosate and 2,4-D and several volatile organic compounds. If your PFAS result made you wonder what else is in your system, this covers the ground a PFAS blood test cannot see. Members can add it to their next urine sample with no extra lab visit. I have used Superpower for blood work, which I wrote about in my Superpower review, but I have not run this panel myself.
Two cost questions come up constantly. First, insurance usually does not cover PFAS testing (however, the blood services mentioned here are HSA/FSA eligible). Second, free testing does exist, but mostly through research studies in communities with known water contamination, so it is worth checking whether your area has one.
How to Lower PFAS in Your Body
Most of what ranks for this question is lists of products to avoid or detox claims. Here is what the evidence supports, as plainly as I can put it.
Reduce what comes in
If you want to reduce PFAS in your body, this is where to start. It is the core NASEM recommendation for anyone at 2 ng/mL or above. It is also where the controllable sources are: drinking water, cookware and food packaging. My own result is a fair warning that it will not get you to zero on its own, but it is still the foundation, because nothing else matters if the intake stays high. My PFAS-free cookware guide covers the kitchen side and my Berkey water filter review is a starting point on water.
Blood and plasma donation
This is the only intervention I found with randomized trial evidence. In a year-long trial of 285 Australian firefighters, published in JAMA Network Open, donating plasma every six weeks lowered PFOS by 2.9 ng/mL and donating blood every 12 weeks lowered it by 1.1 ng/mL, while the group that did neither saw no change. Plasma donation also lowered PFHxS.
Two caveats before you book an appointment. Nearly all the participants were men with high occupational exposure, starting well above my levels, so the size of the effect may not translate. And the authors were clear that the health implications of lowering levels this way still need study. It also works by a similar route to menstruation, which is part of why the menopause finding above makes sense. If you’d like to see me donate plasma and retest, let me know!
What I am skipping
You will find claims that saunas (which I use several times a week), sweating or specific supplements flush PFAS out. I could not find controlled human trial evidence that any of them meaningfully lower blood levels, so I am not recommending them. If that changes, I will update this page.
Get My Free Non-Toxic Product Swap Checklist
Cookware and water were the two swaps I had already made. My result says they are not the whole picture. This checklist covers the rest of the house room by room, with the simpler swap for each one.
Should You Get a PFAS Blood Test?
NASEM recommends offering testing to people likely to have had elevated exposure: living near contaminated water, working with firefighting foam or in industries that use PFAS. If that is you, it is worth doing and worth discussing with your doctor.
For everyone else, be clear about what a result can and cannot do. It tells you where you sit today. It cannot tell you where the PFAS came from or predict a specific health outcome. For me the value was knowing that my exposure habits are necessary but not sufficient, that I am not in a high-risk tier and that lipid screening, which I already do, is the right follow-up. I will retest in a year to see whether the number moves.
If you are tracking a broader set of markers, my Function Health results show how this fits alongside everything else I test.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a normal PFAS level in blood?
Nearly everyone in the US has detectable PFAS. Clinical guidance from the National Academies sums seven compounds. Under 2 ng/mL is the tier where no adverse effects are expected. From 2 to under 20 ng/mL the guidance calls for exposure reduction and routine screening. At 20 ng/mL or above, risk is increased. In a 2024 Quest Diagnostics study of 1,023 samples the median was 4.65 ng/mL and 82.2% fell in the middle tier. My own result was 5.45 ng/mL.
How much does a PFAS blood test cost?
Quest’s consumer PFAS panel was $350 when I checked in November 2026. The same Quest panel is a $299 add-on through Function Health, though that requires the $365 annual membership. At-home blood spot kits vary in price and in which compounds they measure. Insurance usually does not cover PFAS testing.
Why does my PFAS total not match the numbers I add up?
Labs following the NASEM method count any compound below the detection cutoff at a fixed value rather than zero. Quest adds 0.07 ng/mL for each compound below its 0.10 ng/mL cutoff. My detected values added to 5.31 ng/mL and I had two non-detects, so 0.14 was added for a reported total of 5.45.
Why do individual PFAS show above range when my total is in range?
Individual compounds tend to flag whenever they are detected and nearly everyone has detectable PFAS. The clinically meaningful number is the NASEM summation. An in range label on the total does not necessarily mean you are in the lowest tier. My total showed in range at 5.45 ng/mL, which falls in the 2 to 20 tier where the guidance is to reduce exposure.
How long do PFAS stay in your body?
Longer than most people expect. A study of Swedish residents after their contaminated water was replaced, published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, estimated average half-lives of 3.4 years for PFOS, 2.7 years for PFOA and 5.3 years for PFHxS. Women cleared PFOS and PFHxS faster than men.
Can you flush PFAS out of your body?
The only approach with randomized trial evidence is blood or plasma donation. In a trial of 285 firefighters published in JAMA Network Open, plasma donation every six weeks lowered PFOS by 2.9 ng/mL over a year and blood donation every 12 weeks lowered it by 1.1 ng/mL. I could not find controlled trial evidence that saunas, sweating or supplements meaningfully lower blood levels.
Do PFAS levels go up after menopause?
Menstruation is one way the body sheds PFAS. The Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation found women who were still menstruating consistently had lower PFAS concentrations. Once periods stop, that route closes, which is one reason exposure reduction matters more in perimenopause and menopause.
Is there a free PFAS blood test?
Sometimes. Free testing is mostly offered through research studies in communities with known PFAS water contamination. Outside those programs, expect to pay out of pocket since insurance usually does not cover it.
My PFAS blood test did not give me the clean result I expected. That is exactly why I am glad I ran it. A green label would have told me I was fine. The number, read against the guidance it comes from, told me something more useful: the obvious changes help but they do not finish the job. For women past menopause the body also has one fewer way to clear what is already there.