PFAS have quietly moved from obscure industrial chemicals to front-page news. In the US, the EPA now talks about “the most significant drinking water rule in 30 years”. In Europe, regulators are tightening standards and lawsuits are piling up. For utilities, industries and even households, the question is no longer if we should reduce PFAS in drinking water, but how fast and with which tools.
This article looks at the emerging technologies, the regulatory shift and the realistic options available at home. Objective: help decision-makers – from water utilities to facility managers and informed consumers – navigate a field where the science is complex, the stakes are high and the business models are still evolving.
PFAS 101: why “forever chemicals” are now a business issue
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a family of more than 10,000 synthetic chemicals used since the 1950s for their resistance to heat, water and oil. They are found in firefighting foams, non-stick coatings, waterproof textiles, food packaging, industrial processes, semiconductors and more.
Three facts explain why they are now a priority for water policy and corporate risk management:
- They persist: the carbon–fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry. PFAS barely degrade in the environment, hence the term “forever chemicals”.
- They travel: PFAS migrate through air, soil and water. Once in groundwater or surface water, they can contaminate drinking water sources far from the initial point of use.
- They accumulate: some PFAS bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife. Studies link long-term exposure to increased risks of certain cancers, immune effects, reduced vaccine response, and developmental issues.
For companies, this is no longer only a health or environmental theme, but a concrete balance sheet risk. In the US, several chemical manufacturers have agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements with water utilities. In Europe, insurers are starting to reassess coverage for PFAS-related liabilities. On the other side of the ledger, billions are being invested in new treatment technologies and home filtration solutions.
Regulation is shifting from guidance to hard limits
The regulatory environment around PFAS is moving fast, with direct impacts on utilities’ capex decisions and industrial compliance strategies.
United States: EPA’s new drinking water standards
In 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency finalized national drinking water standards (MCLs) for several PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, at extremely low levels (4 parts per trillion). This is forcing thousands of public water systems to:
- Monitor for PFAS on a regular basis
- Notify consumers if standards are exceeded
- Install treatment or find alternative water sources when needed
For utilities already under financial pressure, PFAS treatment can represent tens to hundreds of dollars per customer per year, depending on the technology and contamination level. For industrial sites, discharges may also be subject to stricter permits, forcing investment in on-site treatment or changes in production processes.
Europe: towards broader bans and group restrictions
The EU Drinking Water Directive already sets a limit of 0.1 μg/L for individual PFAS and 0.5 μg/L for total PFAS in drinking water. In parallel, a broad restriction proposal under REACH could progressively phase out many PFAS uses, with exceptions for “essential uses” (for instance in some medical devices or critical electronics).
Several member states (Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany) have gone further, setting stricter national thresholds or initiating litigation against polluters. The UK is also revisiting its PFAS strategy after recent contamination cases.
What this means for organisations
- Water utilities must prioritize source protection and treatment upgrades, and prepare communication strategies to manage public expectations.
- Industrial players using PFAS face a dual challenge: reduce emissions and anticipate potential product bans or substitution needs.
- Real estate & facility managers increasingly need to account for PFAS in ESG reporting, especially for assets near historical industrial sites or airports (firefighting foam contamination).
In this context, the race is on for reliable, cost-effective treatment technologies.
Emerging technologies: from containment to destruction
PFAS are notoriously difficult to treat. Traditional drinking water processes (coagulation, standard filtration, disinfection) do almost nothing to them. The solutions now being deployed or tested fall into two big categories: removal (separating PFAS from water) and destruction (breaking the carbon–fluorine bond).
1. Granular activated carbon (GAC) and ion exchange resins
Today’s workhorses are still adsorption technologies:
- GAC filters capture PFAS onto activated carbon. They are widely used because they fit into existing filter designs and can treat large flows. However, performance is PFAS-specific: long-chain PFAS are removed more efficiently than short-chain ones.
- Ion exchange resins use charged polymer beads that selectively bind PFAS. They generally offer higher capacity and faster kinetics than GAC, but resins are more expensive and need regeneration or disposal.
Both approaches raise a key question: what to do with the spent media loaded with PFAS? Incineration is increasingly controversial due to the risk of incomplete destruction and new regulations on high-temperature emissions.
2. High-pressure membranes: nanofiltration and reverse osmosis
Nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) physically separate PFAS from water, achieving high removal efficiencies even for short-chain compounds. They are already standard in desalination and some advanced treatment plants.
Drawbacks are well known:
- High energy consumption, especially for RO
- Concentrated brine stream containing PFAS, which still requires disposal or further treatment
- Scaling and fouling issues, requiring robust pre-treatment and maintenance
For utilities with severe PFAS contamination and limited alternative sources, NF/RO can be a “last resort” option. For industrial users, they are often used in closed-loop systems to minimize discharges and water consumption.
3. Advanced oxidation and plasma-based processes
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) are widely used to degrade many organic pollutants, but PFAS are resistant to most conventional oxidants like ozone or hydroxyl radicals. This has pushed research towards more radical methods:
- Plasma reactors generate high-energy electrons and radicals at the gas–liquid interface, capable of breaking carbon–fluorine bonds. Several start-ups are testing plasma units on PFAS-concentrated streams.
- Electrochemical oxidation applies high potentials on specialized anodes (e.g. boron-doped diamond) to mineralize PFAS. Pilot plants show promising results, but electrode costs and by-product control are key challenges.
These destruction techniques are often used after a primary separation step (e.g. GAC, RO) to treat concentrated residuals rather than the full water flow, reducing energy use.
4. Supercritical water oxidation and thermal methods
Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) treats PFAS-rich waste streams at high temperature and pressure, where water becomes a powerful reaction medium. PFAS can be decomposed into harmless salts and gases, with appropriate gas cleaning.
Compared to conventional incineration, these systems offer better control and higher destruction efficiencies, but at the cost of complex high-pressure equipment and skilled operation. They are currently more suited to centralized waste treatment (e.g. dealing with PFAS-laden resins, contaminated sludges) than to standalone municipal drinking water plants.
5. Novel sorbents and hybrid systems
On the materials front, research is exploding:
- Functionalized activated carbons, tailored for short-chain PFAS
- Novel ion-exchange materials with higher selectivity and capacity
- Engineered clays and metal–organic frameworks (MOFs)
In practice, utilities will often adopt hybrid trains: for example, combining GAC with ion exchange for a broader PFAS spectrum, or coupling RO with a destruction step for the concentrate. The winning configuration depends on local conditions: PFAS profile, flow rates, available space, energy prices, and regulatory targets.
Case studies: how utilities and industries are responding
Several real-world examples help illustrate the trade-offs.
Mid-sized US utility facing new EPA limits
A utility serving around 80,000 people detected PFAS levels above the new federal MCLs. It evaluated three options:
- GAC with frequent media change
- Ion exchange resins with off-site regeneration
- RO for a portion of the supply, blended with non-contaminated sources
After pilot testing, the utility chose ion exchange, balancing capex and opex over 20 years. Negotiations with resin suppliers included performance guarantees and take-back of spent media, shifting part of the risk upstream in the value chain.
Industrial site moving to “zero PFAS discharge”
A European manufacturer using PFAS-based surfactants in its processes faced local community pressure and stricter discharge permits. Instead of a minimal compliance approach, it opted for a “zero discharge” roadmap:
- Substitution of some PFAS with less persistent alternatives
- Closed-loop recycling of process water with nanofiltration
- Off-site treatment of PFAS concentrate using advanced oxidation
This strategy required significant investment but provided strategic benefits: improved relations with regulators, better ESG ratings and reduced long-term liability. It also created a new internal expertise that can later support product redesign or consulting offers.
Home filtration: what really works against PFAS?
While large infrastructure projects move slowly, households and small businesses are looking for immediate solutions. Not all filters are equal, and marketing claims are sometimes ahead of the science.
1. Certification matters
For drinking water filters, the first step is to look for independent certifications, mainly:
- NSF/ANSI 53 for reduction of health-related contaminants (including some PFAS)
- NSF/ANSI 58 for reverse osmosis systems
- NSF/ANSI 401 for emerging contaminants, which may include certain PFAS
A filter “tested to reduce PFOA/PFOS” with clear performance data is more credible than vague promises like “removes up to 99% of contaminants”. Always check the list of contaminants and conditions (flow rate, cartridge life) for which the claim is valid.
2. Activated carbon filters: pitchers, faucet, under-sink
Many pitchers and faucet-mounted filters use activated carbon. Some can reduce PFAS to varying degrees, but:
- Performance depends on carbon type and contact time
- Cartridges must be replaced at the recommended interval, or even sooner in heavily contaminated areas
- Short-chain PFAS are generally harder to remove
For households in moderately affected areas, a certified under-sink carbon filter (with larger media volume and slower flow) can be a practical compromise between cost and efficacy.
3. Reverse osmosis (RO) at home
Under-sink RO systems pass water through a semi-permeable membrane, removing a broad range of contaminants including many PFAS. Advantages:
- High removal efficiency, including for some short-chain PFAS
- Reduction of other pollutants (nitrates, some heavy metals, etc.)
Limitations to keep in mind:
- RO wastes some water (typically 2–4 litres rejected per litre of purified water, depending on system and pressure)
- It also removes beneficial minerals, slightly altering taste (often mitigated by remineralization cartridges)
- Maintenance is more involved (pre-filters, membrane replacement)
For households near known PFAS hotspots, RO is often the most robust home option, especially if combined with proper pre-filtration and certified PFAS performance data.
4. Whole-house vs point-of-use systems
Another strategic choice is between:
- Point-of-use (e.g. under-sink filter for drinking and cooking water)
- Point-of-entry (whole-house systems treating all incoming water)
Given that the main exposure pathways for PFAS are ingestion rather than skin contact, many experts recommend prioritizing drinking and cooking water. Whole-house systems make sense if you want to protect appliances, reduce PFAS in showers or are managing a small business (e.g. café, childcare facility) where water is used in multiple ways. They are also significantly more expensive and require professional sizing.
How to choose a home PFAS reduction solution in practice
For households and small businesses, a simple decision framework can help:
- Check your water quality data: is PFAS monitored in your area? Are there published results from the utility, regional authorities or independent labs?
- Clarify your objectives: do you mainly want to protect a vulnerable person (pregnant woman, infant, immunocompromised) or broadly reduce exposure for everyone?
- Define practical constraints: available space under the sink, budget, tolerance for maintenance, rental vs owned property.
- Shortlist certified products: focus on NSF/ANSI-certified filters with explicit PFAS reduction data.
- Plan maintenance: a cheap filter poorly maintained is often worse than a slightly more expensive system that you can realistically service on schedule.
In many cases, the “80/20” solution is a certified under-sink carbon filter or a compact RO system for drinking and cooking water, combined with regular review of local PFAS data.
Business opportunities and strategic risks
Reducing PFAS in drinking water is not only a technical challenge, it is also a powerful driver for new markets and new risks.
Growing markets
- Water treatment equipment: utilities and industries will invest billions worldwide in PFAS mitigation over the next decade, from GAC systems to advanced oxidation units.
- Analytical services: as regulatory limits go lower, demand increases for sensitive, reliable PFAS testing and monitoring tools.
- Home filtration: the consumer segment is highly competitive, with room for differentiation via transparency, certification and service models (subscription filters, remote monitoring).
Strategic risks
- Regulatory lag: companies that wait for final, detailed rules before acting may find themselves facing compressed compliance timelines and higher retrofit costs.
- Reputation gap: in communities affected by PFAS, public expectations often move faster than regulations. A minimal technical approach may be legally sufficient but socially unacceptable.
- Technological lock-in: investing heavily in one treatment train without flexibility can become problematic if standards tighten or new PFAS are added to watchlists.
For boards and executives, PFAS should now be treated like other structural environmental transitions (carbon, plastics, micro-pollutants): anticipate, pilot solutions early, and integrate them into long-term asset and product strategies.
Taking action now: a practical roadmap
Whether you run a utility, manage an industrial site or simply want safer tap water at home, the logic is the same: assess, prioritize, act, and iterate.
- For water utilities:
- Map PFAS sources and concentrations across your catchment area.
- Start pilot tests of at least two treatment options (e.g. GAC vs ion exchange) to generate local performance and cost data.
- Integrate PFAS into your capital investment plans and risk registers, with clear communication to regulators and the public.
- For industrial operators:
- Conduct a PFAS inventory: where are they used, emitted, and in which products?
- Explore substitution and process changes in parallel with end-of-pipe treatment options.
- Engage early with technology providers and consider long-term partnerships that include media take-back or destruction guarantees.
- For households and small businesses:
- Inform yourself via local water quality reports and credible public health sources.
- Choose a certified point-of-use filter aligned with your needs, and commit to its maintenance schedule.
- Stay alert to updates: PFAS regulation and knowledge evolve quickly, and so do available solutions.
PFAS in drinking water are emblematic of 21st-century environmental challenges: complex, slow-moving but with very tangible impacts once they reach the public debate. The technologies to reduce them exist, the regulatory framework is tightening, and an entire ecosystem of innovators is emerging. The key differentiator, now, is not access to information, but the speed and clarity with which each actor turns that information into action.