The discussion surrounding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), driven by the persistence and bioaccumulation of these ‘forever chemicals’ in ecosystems and human bodies, has reached a critical juncture.
With some 5000 PFAS compounds being utilised in industries from food packaging to semiconductors, concerns over their environmental and health risks – linked to cancer, hormonal disruption and developmental delays – have created demands for action; however, solving this crisis requires more than a single strategy.
A dual approach is emerging: regulating PFAS usage to stem the flow of new chemicals into the environment, and advancing treatment technologies to destroy or remove existing contamination.
Together, these approaches form a comprehensive framework to mitigate the PFAS problem.
Regulating PFAS usage: closing the tap on PFAS pollution
Global regulatory momentum
Regulatory bodies worldwide are considering shifting from reactive measures to proactive bans on PFAS production and use. The European Union’s (EU’s) proposed universal PFAS restriction is the most aggressive regulatory effort to date.
Introduced in 2023 and still under revision by the European Chemicals Agency as of 2025, this sweeping regulation aims to ban nearly all PFAS except for ‘essential uses’ in critical applications and sectors, such as in semiconductors and renewable energy. While industries such as fuel cells (reliant on PFAS‑based proton exchange membranes) and batteries (using PFAS-containing binders) may secure exemptions, most applications, including food packaging and textiles, may face strict phase‑out timelines.
In the United States, federal action lags, but state-level initiatives are filling the gap. Maine and Minnesota have adopted EU-style universal PFAS bans, while California targets PFAS in consumer goods like cosmetics and food containers. Even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had set unprecedented drinking water limits (four parts per thousand for PFOA/PFOS), signalling a tightening regulatory landscape. Even the new EPA administrator under the Trump Administration has indicated a willingness to keep pursuing action to address PFAS contamination.
Industry shifts and alternatives
Regulations may force industries to pivot toward PFAS‑free alternatives. For example, with the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation banning PFAS-coated materials, companies are adopting biowax, nanocellulose, or non-PFAS-containing polymer-based coatings for grease resistance.
In addition, fluoropolymer membranes in fuel cells could face substitution by hydrocarbon alternatives, though cost, performance and scalability remain major hurdles.
In data centres, non-PFAS coolants and dielectric fluids are emerging for immersion cooling systems as key fluorochemical manufacturers like 3M exit the market.
IDTechEx’s ‘PFAS 2025: Emerging Applications, Alternatives, Regulations’ report highlights that while alternatives exist, their commercial viability hinges on overcoming technical limitations and cost barriers. For businesses, preparing for both best-case (targeted bans) and worst-case (universal bans) scenarios is critical to navigating this uncertain terrain.
Treating PFAS contamination: cleaning up the past
The scale of the challenge
PFAS contamination is ubiquitous. Treatment is complicated by the chemical diversity of PFAS:
- Long-chain PFAS (e.g., PFOA/PFOS): legacy contaminants regulated globally, but persistent in soil and water.
- Short-chain PFAS (e.g., PFBA/PFBS): mobile replacements for long-chain PFAS, now under scrutiny for similar risks.
- Ultra-short-chain PFAS (e.g., TFA): by-products of degradation, highly mobile and largely unregulated.
Traditional treatment methods like granular activated carbon and ion exchange resins effectively capture long‑chain PFAS, but struggle with shorter variants. Moreover, these methods risk recontamination if transferred to landfills.
Emerging destruction technologies
A spotlight is being shone on permanent destruction technologies that break carbon-fluorine bonds – the strongest in organic chemistry. Key innovations emerging include (but are not limited to):
- Electrochemical oxidation: uses reactive species to degrade PFAS in water.
- Supercritical water oxidation: heats contaminated water beyond 374 degrees Celsius to mineralise PFAS into harmless by-products.
- Plasma treatment: leverages thermal or non-thermal plasma to cleave PFAS molecules.
- Hydrothermal alkaline treatment: combines heat and catalysts like sodium hydroxide for efficient breakdown.
Challenges, however, persist. Incineration, the incumbent method for PFAS destruction, faces scepticism due to incomplete combustion risks. This presents an opportunity for emerging destruction technologies, but while they are promising, they also lack data from commercial deployments that would be important to reassure potential adopters.
Market growth and regulatory synergy
IDTechEx forecasts that the global PFAS treatment market for municipal drinking water will reach US$2.3 billion by 2035, driven by stringent regulations like the EPA’s four-parts-per-thousand limit.
Regulations not only mandate clean-up, but also incentivise innovation on the PFAS clean-up problem, which could cost US$2 trillion in Europe alone. Globally, water utilities are increasingly investing in advanced treatment technologies, with PFAS removal expected to become a standard requirement in all new and upgraded plants.
Conclusion: a synergistic path forward
The issue of PFAS contamination cannot be solved through regulation and treatment alone. Preventing PFAS pollution through bans and alternatives reduces future contamination, while treatment technologies can address legacy pollution.
This two‑pronged approach is already reshaping several industries:
- Companies in high-tech sectors are investing in research and development to replace PFAS without compromising performance.
- Water utilities and environmental firms are piloting advanced destruction systems to meet regulatory standards.
Yet, gaps remain; ultra-short-chain PFAS lack regulatory oversight, and alternatives for many critical applications like fuel cells are nascent. Collaboration between policymakers, industries and researchers will be essential to balance environmental health with technological progress.
The road map to a cleaner future is complex but achievable, provided both prongs of the strategy advance in lockstep.