Fluorinated organic chemicals have become a flashpoint in environmental health. Treatment methods exist to remove them from water supplies, but there remain a host of technical, scaling and regulatory questions associated with them. This article offers practical insight on technology comparisons amid a shifting regulatory landscape
When first introduced in the 1940s, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were celebrated as a technical marvel for their durability, slippery properties and resistance to heat, water, stains and grease. Many industrial processes were improved using PFAS chemicals and they were used to enhance numerous household consumer products.
As studies gradually uncovered and confirmed the toxicity of PFAS, the properties that gave desired longevity to nonstick cookware, raincoats and firefighting foams became a costly liability. Today, removing these “forever chemicals” from our lives is one of the biggest global environmental dilemmas we face. Due to their extraordinary environmental persistence, highly toxic PFAS accumulated in soil, water and living organisms pose serious health risks that have been linked to cancer, immune suppression and developmental harm.
Industrial sites — manufacturing plants, airports, logistics hubs and military installations — became critical points where PFAS entered groundwater and surface water systems. Addressing PFAS at these locations and eliminating its presence became an essential priority to protect public health, maintain compliance and safeguard resource recovery programs.
Once in the environment, these substances leach into groundwater and migrate through water, bioaccumulate in wildlife and enter human bodies through drinking water and food chains. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; Washington, D.C.; www.epa.gov) and select U.S. states regulate select PFAS compounds in drinking water and in environmental media and mandate remediation where unacceptable levels have been identified. Still, hundreds of PFAS variants remain unregulated.
PFAS contamination has already triggered billions of dollars in drinking-water treatment and management costs, as well as litigation worldwide. By all accounts, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg thus far.
Current treatments
PFAS molecules are built on carbon-fluorine bonds, among the strongest chemical bonds in organic chemistry. This creates the bond strength that makes PFAS resistant to heat, water and chemical reactions — ideal for industrial uses, but a concern for human health and ecosystems.
PFAS is not a single chemical but a family of thousands, each with unique properties. Short-chain PFAS — subgroups that contain fewer than six perfluorinated carbon atoms in their fluorinated chain — are especially challenging, as their smaller molecular size makes them harder to capture with conventional treatment technologies, such as activated carbon filtration.
Short-chain PFAS — like perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) — do not bioaccumulate as strongly as long-chain PFAS, so they leave the body faster. Despite their lower bioaccumulation, they remain extremely persistent in the environment. In the body they can cause oxidative stress, endocrine disruption and developmental effects, though they generally require higher doses to produce similar toxicity compared to long-chain PFAS.
Further complicating treatment strategies, PFAS can also interact and co-occur with other contaminants, such as microplastics, pharmaceuticals and industrial solvents, creating a group of pollutants that challenge traditional water treatment paradigms.
Removing these stubborn substances requires technology that falls into two categories: separation (removing PFAS from water) and destruction (breaking the carbon-fluorine bond). Most conventional treatment methods focus on separation, which solves the immediate problem but creates PFAS-laden waste streams.
Currently, there are three preferred ways that PFAS are being treated at contaminated locations, each with its own share of pros and cons:
- Granular activated carbon (GAC), which adsorbs PFAS from water;
- Ion-exchange resin, which creates an ionic charge to attract and bind PFAS molecules, selectively removing them from the water; and
- Reverse osmosis (RO) filtration, which uses high-pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane to filter out the harmful substances, similar to what is used in desalination.
GAC, which has proven effective for treating long-chain PFAS compounds, can be performed with moderate cost and is scalable for drinking water treatment. Unfortunately, it does not perform well with short-chain PFAS. It also removes — but does not destroy — PFAS.
Ion-exchange resin is highly effective for some types of PFAS, can be performed at a moderate cost and is good for targeted applications. On the other hand, disposal and regeneration of resin can be challenging, some PFAS types are not captured adequately and, like GAC, it removes, but does not destroy, PFAS.
RO has shown to be the most effective method of removing a broad spectrum of contaminants in water. But its high operational cost and substantial energy demand limit its use. The large volume of concentrated waste it generates also requires careful disposal and it has limited scalability for large-source water flows due to cost and infrastructure needs.
Since these methods do not destroy PFAS, waste streams must still be managed to prevent recontamination. Managing these waste streams is very costly and not likely to remove all generator liability.
Additionally, ultrashort-chain PFAS, a subset characterized by extremely short carbon chains of one to three carbons, is an emerging concern. These compounds are highly water-soluble and exceptionally mobile, allowing them to migrate rapidly through soil and groundwater. Several states are considering actions that will address ultrashorts as part of their broader PFAS restrictions and regulatory efforts.
Traditional methods of remediation have been generally ineffective for ultrashort-chain PFAS, which are classified as persistent, bioaccumulative, mobile and toxic (PBMT).
Regulatory landscape
Naturally, reducing the use of PFAS in consumer and industrial products remains a critical first step in addressing the presence of this class of toxic substances in our environment.
Dozens of jurisdictions from around the globe have implemented or are implementing restrictions on PFAS content in products to prevent further discharges and worsening impacts on human health and the environment. Removing PFAS from thousands of products will be challenging for manufacturers, but necessary to comply with restrictions in export markets.
Policies restricting PFAS content in products vary by jurisdiction and include restricting use of certain PFAS, restricting use of nearly all PFAS in certain products, or broadly banning the use of all PFAS in nearly all products. Public pressure is driving these “PFAS-free” actions by regulators. Retailers are also responding to consumer pressure, with at least 30% of major retailers committed to eliminating PFAS in key product sectors.
PFAS can enter manufacturing operations through recycled materials, impacted process water, packaging or third-party materials. Confounding the ubiquity of PFAS in supply chains is that PFAS concentrations often fall below antiquated reporting thresholds or are hidden in proprietary formulation exceptions in disclosure documents such as safety data sheets.
Implementing tactics to identify hidden PFAS through supply-chain auditing, digital screening and analytical assessment in advance of regulatory implementation dates is essential for manufacturers to perform corrective actions, such as reformulating and retooling to maintain regulatory compliance and their customer base.
Scenario-planning tools
One way that organizations are navigating the complex and evolving landscape of PFAS regulation and treatment is through systematically identifying PFAS asset exposures and the use of scenario planning tools.
These tools enable industrial operators, utilities and public agencies to make informed decisions about PFAS remediation by modeling different regulatory, technical and financial scenarios.
Effective scenario planning tools include the following:
- Lifecycle-cost modeling. This allows clients to compare capital and operating costs for various PFAS replacement or treatment options over time. It helps avoid sunk costs and ensures investments remain effective as regulations change.
- Regulatory scenario analysis. Testing how different regulatory futures — such as tighter standards, expanded lists of regulated PFAS compounds or new disposal requirements — would impact compliance, risk and cost.
- Risk-tolerance assessment. Agencies can evaluate their risk profile and tolerance, balancing near-term compliance with long-term resilience. It identifies the most cost-effective and future-ready strategies for PFAS management.
- Strategic decision support. By simulating a range of regulatory and operational scenarios, scenario planning tools support proactive — rather than reactive — decision-making. This empowers clients to select solutions that align with sustainability goals, resource recovery programs and evolving requirements.
Scenario planning ensures that investments in PFAS treatment are robust, adaptable and aligned with both current and anticipated regulatory demands. It helps organizations stay ahead of compliance requirements, optimize lifecycle costs and position themselves as leaders in sustainable water management.
Avoiding obsolescence
A major challenge for local agencies and industrial operators is navigating the options and evaluating the risk of investing in infrastructure that may become obsolete as regulations evolve. The least expensive option today may not be the most cost-effective approach in 10-20 years. Both agencies and industry must balance near-term compliance with long-term resilience, evaluating both lifecycle costs and regulatory risk, as well as customer demands, with budgetary limitations.
As governments and consumers continue to shift their focus, PFAS manufacturers, industrial users, passive receivers and drinking water utilities should take notice and prepare for regulatory actions requiring treatment to drinking water federal/state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), as well as wastewater, biosolids and stormwater sampling and pollution minimization planning activities.
MCLs have been established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for PFOS and PFOA, which are also designated as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). However, with litigation pending on both SDWA and CERCLA, the future of the designations and associated regulations for these chemicals is unclear.
But what is clear is that regulatory standards will be tightened by federal, state or local officials, that both consumer preferences and litigation risk favor reduction in PFAS use, and that the need for scalable solutions will continue to grow. These technologies will play a critical role in the next generation of PFAS water treatment, with increasing pressure to treat PFAS at both drinking water and wastewater plants.
As research continues, separation methods remain the industry standard. But emerging technologies for PFAS destruction are being piloted and show promise. Proactive planning and investment in scalable solutions will be key for industrial operators facing the PFAS challenge.
Author
Alex Shannon is a senior vice president and West Region Water business leader at WSP in the U.S. In this role, Alex oversees strategic planning, client engagement and delivery of innovative water solutions across a diverse portfolio of projects. With extensive experience in water infrastructure and environmental services, Alex drives initiatives that address critical challenges such as climate resilience, adaptive planning and sustainable resource management. He is based in Seattle.