November 5, 2024

If you’ve been following the news about the PFAS crisis, there were a lot of scary headlines earlier this month in response to an exciting development in PFAS degradation research (see here, here, and here, for recent reporting of a study reporting the destruction of a selected subset of PFAS using the base/DMSO process). Unfortunately most of these headlines mislead the near-term solutions to the PFAS crisis and reflect misconceptions or misunderstandings of the technology and its status.

It is important to evaluate new technologies critically with the entire context of the problem in mind as we outline below. And, while evaluating any technology, we must remember that we must stop add to the problem immediately if possible, because PFAS is forever. A comprehensive, reliable, economical, and easily deployable method for PFAS destruction is not yet imminent. Stopping the production, use, and release of PFAS is still the most efficient method to protect the public and the environment from PFAS exposure and harm.

PFAS, a class of thousands of man-made chemicals widely used in consumer products and industrial processes, are often referred to as “permanent chemicals” because of their extreme persistence and resistance to wear and tear. They are known to pollute our air, water, soil, and are found in the bodies of almost all people living in the US. PFAS have been linked to many health effects including, cancer, kidney and liver damage, and immune system destruction.

Although efforts have been initiated to clean up areas of PFAS contamination in our environment, we currently lack safe disposal methods for PFAS waste. Current disposal methods include: 1) burning, which does not completely destroy PFAS and often results in the release and spread of airborne PFAS and other toxins near the burning site; 2) landfilling or deep-well injection, which concentrates PFAS in the soil where they can leach and seep into groundwater supplies. What is needed is a technology that completely destroys, or “mineralizes” PFAS (breaks the carbon-fluorine bonds that give PFAS their strength) so that PFAS waste cannot re-enter the environment. .

Key considerations for evaluating PFAS degradation technologies

The field of PFAS degradation technology is moving rapidly and the study above is just one of many examples of the creative ways in which scientists are trying to solve this particular problem. As this field progresses, here are some important questions to ask when evaluating destruction technologies and the impact they can have on solving the PFAS crisis (some of which we’re happy to see already included in the EPA’s PFAS Thermal Treatment Database).

  • How broad is the technology response to the PFAS class? Does it destroy the entire class of PFAS or just a subset?
    • What specific PFAS were measured before and after the technology was used?
    • Non-targeted methods, such as total organofluorine, are also used?
    • Are volatile and ultra-short chain PFAS measured?
  • What are the full life cycle effects of this destruction technology?
    • If the technology is implemented in a large facility or in the field, are there any hazards to workers?
    • What products does the technology make?
    • Are other harmful chemicals required/used in this technology?
    • How energy and resource intensive is the process?
    • How does the use of this technology affect the communities around a facility that operates this technology?
  • What matrices can technology address?
    • Can the technology be used for contaminated water, soil, sludge, treatment filters, and/or commercial products and stockpiles such as water-based firefighting foam?
    • Does the technology require PFAS to be extracted and concentrated first?
    • Can the technology be deployed on site or does it need to be transported to a facility?
  • How far is the technology from field deployment?
    • Has this technology been tested on a laboratory scale only or in the field as well? What steps are left? What is the lead time to commercialize the technology?
    • How do performance and life cycle impacts differ when technology is used at different scales?
    • Has a third party verified the performance and safety of the technology?

These questions are necessary for describing the usefulness of new destruction technologies. In fact, they should completely destroy all PFAS, including ultra-short chains and volatile and polymeric ones. If destruction technologies cannot destroy all PFAS, the limitations of the technology must be made transparent (to scientists, agencies, and the news media) – and it is important that any remaining PFAS be accounted for and prevented from entering again around. The entire life cycle impacts of a technology should be investigated and also made transparent. For example, other chemicals used or created during the destruction process should be identified and their potential for ecosystem and health damage recognized and mitigated.

Applying these key considerations to the latest PFAS destruction technology

These questions can be used to evaluate the potential of a new technology (base/DMSO process) that generated all the headlines earlier this month, and to put its media coverage into better perspective. From a scientific standpoint, a novel breakdown pathway of selected PFAS has been demonstrated. The technology also shows the potential for PFAS degradation at much lower temperatures than required for combustion.

  • But how broad is the technology response to the PFAS class? Currently, the method only addresses a select subset of PFAS – perfluorocarboxylic acids, such as PFOA, and perfluoro ether carboxylic acids, such as GenX – although the study authors suggest that future changes of technology may increase the extent of PFAS destroyed by this method.
  • What about life cycle effects? An intermediate byproduct of the technology is an ultra-short-chain PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) that is toxic and has accumulated in the environment from other industrial activities (although running the reaction at high time, for example, more than 300 hours eases the generation of TFA.) It also requires the use of a toxic industrial solvent, DMSO, in eight times the amount of water containing PFAS to treat. As a prominent green chemist, Terry Collins, recently commented, “…the base/DMSO process is not pretty, and I don’t want to live anywhere near it.” Therefore, it is important for scientists and engineers to include mitigation measures to address them in terms of life cycle impacts.
  • What matrices can this technology address? The technology is demonstrated in an aqueous solution and the authors do not speculate on the use of other matrices. As described today, this technology requires the collection and concentration of PFAS prior to the degradation process.
  • How far is the technology from field deployment? Great ideas start in the laboratory, but significant work is needed to ensure that what works in the laboratory can also work in the field and on a larger scale. This technology has only been demonstrated in a laboratory setting.

So, while this new base/DMSO process is an exciting step forward, it is not the magic wand some media reports have made it out to be. In fact, framing it as a “powerful solution” to the PFAS problem, may prove detrimental to addressing PFAS by giving PFAS manufacturers and other responsible entities a “free pass” to continue polluting – ultimately delaying much needed health protection. Because of their persistence, movement, and widespread use over decades, PFAS have contaminated every aspect of our environment – the air, water, and soil – and our own bodies. When released into the environment, PFAS are expensive and energy-intensive to clean up, and these efforts cannot fully reverse the damage inflicted on public health and the environment. An The alarming report outlines evidence that the contamination of 4 PFAS has exceeded the planetary boundary, which means that the level of contamination exceeds a “safe operating space for humanity.”

Outside the Safe Operating Space of the New Planetary Boundary for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Cousins ​​et al. ES&T 2022 56 (16), 11172-11179
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c02765

There is no doubt that effective destruction methods are much needed, but by themselves, they cannot solve the PFAS crisis. Decommissioning is only one piece of a comprehensive approach to solving the PFAS crisis. As further detailed in the policy recommendations section of this report (specific to California, but applicable globally), there are several important actions that should be pursued in parallel:

  • Stop adding to the problem – The most efficient method to protect the public and environment from PFAS exposure and damage is to stop the production and use of PFAS whenever possible.
  • Monitoring is extensive – Testing is needed in more locations and for a wider range of PFAS to better understand the total burden of PFAS communities are dealing with.
  • Addressing PFAS contamination – Although it is impossible to collect all PFAS in our environment, in order to protect public health it is important to treat major routes of exposure, such as drinking water, as quickly and completely as possible.
  • Ensure safe disposal of waste – Highly contaminated waste should be stored until a safe destruction method is developed, scaled up and validated for performance and safety by a third party.
  • Hold polluters accountable – Federal, state and local entities must work to ensure that those responsible for polluting our environment and our bodies with PFAS must also shoulder a fair share of the costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *