prodchem
Jul 10, 2026
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have become a key concern for regulators worldwide. In the United States, several states have enacted labelling and reporting rules that spill over into federal export documentation. For companies shipping chemicals across state lines or internationally, understanding how these state‑level requirements interact with federal forms is essential to avoid penalties and maintain supply‑chain integrity.
Connecticut’s PFAS Law, effective from 2023, mandates that any product containing more than 10 parts per trillion of any PFAS must carry a label indicating the presence of these chemicals. The law applies to both consumer goods and industrial chemicals, including those destined for export. The required label must be placed on the product’s outer packaging, and detailed information must be included in the accompanying shipping documents.
When a shipment is destined for Connecticut, the exporter must:
Include a PFAS disclosure statement in the commercial invoice and packing list.
Attach a copy of the product safety data sheet (SDS) that lists PFAS concentrations if the substance is a hazardous chemical.
Ensure that the shipping manifest contains a “PFAS‑Free” or “Contains PFAS” flag.
Failure to provide these details can result in customs delays, shipment seizure, or fines up to several thousand dollars per incident.
Minnesota’s Public Resource Information System for Materials (PRISM) is a state database that collects information on chemicals used by businesses. Companies that import or distribute chemicals in Minnesota must submit annual reports detailing PFAS content.
Even if a product is shipped to a customer outside Minnesota, the exporter may still need to:
Record the shipment in the PRISM database if the final destination is within Minnesota.
Provide a PRISM‑compliant shipping label that lists the PFAS concentration and source.
Submit a reporting form within 30 days of the first shipment in the calendar year.
These steps ensure that Minnesota authorities can track PFAS exposure and enforce remedial actions when necessary.
Start by identifying which of your products contain PFAS above the state thresholds. Use analytical data from your internal quality control or from third‑party labs to confirm concentrations.
Incorporate the following template into your commercial invoice and packing list:
Product Name
PFAS Concentration (parts per trillion)
Label Statement (e.g., “Contains PFAS – 12 ppt” or “PFAS‑Free”)
Compliance Certification (signature of the responsible manager)
Ensure that the safety data sheet reflects the same PFAS concentrations that appear on the shipping label. Discrepancies can trigger compliance audits.
Many ERP and logistics platforms now support automated PFAS flagging. Configure your system to:
Flag shipments destined for Connecticut or Minnesota.
Generate the required PDF addendums for the invoice.
Push data to the PRISM portal via API.
Conduct quarterly workshops for procurement, shipping, and compliance staff. Emphasize the following:
Understanding state thresholds.
Proper label assembly.
Timely PRISM reporting.
State‑level PFAS labelling and reporting requirements are tightening. By proactively auditing your product lines, updating shipping documents, and integrating compliance workflows into your logistics software, you can navigate Connecticut’s PFAS Law and Minnesota’s PRISM system with confidence. The result is smoother customs clearance, reduced risk of penalties, and a stronger reputation for толк compliance across the supply chain.
Featured Product
Found this useful?
Continue Reading
Scope 3 emissions have become a strategic priority for chemical manufacturers, traders and procurement teams. Understand value chain accounting, supplier engagement and practical approaches to reducing emissions across global chemical supply chains.
The revised Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) significantly narrows the number of companies required to publish mandatory sustainability reports. For chemical procurement professionals, the most important implication is not simply who leaves the reporting scope—but how buyers should continue collecting supplier ESG information from companies no longer subject to mandatory disclosure.
For most chemical companies, the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions does not originate inside their own facilities. Instead, it occurs across the wider value chain. Understanding why Scope 3 emissions dominate the sector helps procurement professionals focus ESG efforts where they can have the greatest long-term impact.
