Abcam Inc and PFAS, what the company told Minnesota
Abcam Inc has filed 3 PFAS disclosures with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, covering 1 product and naming 3 distinct compounds across 3 components. 3 of those filings report the part is 90 to 100% PFAS by mass. Everything below is the company’s own statement to a regulator, not our assessment.
- Disclosures filed
- 3
- Products covered
- 1
- Compounds named
- 3
- Declared uses
- 1
All 3 filings
- Where in the product,
- ICI 182,780, Estrogen receptor antagonist
- What it is doing,
- Other
- Compound,
- (7R,8R,9S,13S,14S,17S)-13-methyl-7-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)nonyl]-6,7,8,9,11,12,14,15,16,17-decahydrocyclopenta[a]phenanthrene-3,17-diol (CAS 129453-61-8)
- How much the filer reports,
- 90 to 100%
Product code AB120131 · Minnesota disclosure MN-CS5TAKN · published 2026-08-28
- Where in the product,
- Isoflurane, Anesthetic agent
- What it is doing,
- Other
- Compound,
- 2-chloro-2-(difluoromethoxy)-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (CAS 26675-46-7)
- How much the filer reports,
- 90 to 100%
Product code AB145581 · Minnesota disclosure MN-CS5TAKN · published 2026-08-28
- Where in the product,
- Sulfluramid, Perfluorinated pesticide
- What it is doing,
- Other
- Compound,
- N-ethyl-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-heptadecafluorooctane-1-sulfonamide (CAS 4151-50-2)
- How much the filer reports,
- 90 to 100%
Product code AB142699 · Minnesota disclosure MN-CS5TAKN · published 2026-08-28
Other companies that have filed
- Franklin Electric9,127
- Logitech Inc.8,590
- Oriental Motor USA Corp4,047
- Infinite Electronics International, Inc.3,860
- Kaeser Compressors, Inc.3,655
- Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC2,694
- Bose Corporation2,017
- Electro-Voice Dynacord LLC1,982
- Vertiv Holdings Co.1,822
- IMI Plc. 1,755
- Amphenol CS1,586
- Hydro-Gear1,511
Source, manufacturer filings made to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency under the state’s PFAS in Products law and published through PRISM, run by the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse. These are the manufacturers’ own statements, not our grades and not laboratory results. A filing covers the product as sold in Minnesota and says nothing about products or formulations the company did not file. Reporting was still open when this was pulled, so absence from the set is not evidence a product is PFAS-free.