Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become a lightning rod in environmental and public health discussions globally, so much so that PFAS have earned a formidable nickname: ‘forever chemicals.’

This term, however, is misleading and, in fact, a misnomer. PFAS can be treated and even destroyed. While the PFAS chemistry and uses are as complex as the dialogue surrounding them, a simple structured approach to managing them is essential — and attainable. The key is to employ a three-pronged strategy that will achieve worldwide success: prevention, control and elimination.

A three-pronged strategy for PFAS

When strategizing how to break the PFAS cycle, we must consider what we know about PFAS to date — how prevalent they are, the illnesses they can contribute to, their persistence in the environment, and their resistance to destruction. With PFAS already present throughout the environment and occurring in a lot of everyday materials and products, we need to focus on disrupting the relentless cycle of PFAS in the environment far into the future.

Eliminating PFAS from drinking water through regulation is a highly targeted approach. It’s a big task but very narrow in its scope, and barely a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of PFAS management. To see the bigger picture, we need to step back a few paces and explore how and why PFAS enter the environment. Controlling those mechanisms via prevention and bookending that with cleaning up what PFAS are already out there.

This three-pronged approach — prevent, control, eliminate — can help us tackle what otherwise seems like an enormous problem.

Prevention: Stopping PFAS at source

PFAS are synthetic compounds, which means humankind has 100 percent control over whether they are made, how they are made, and how they are used; they don’t occur naturally, but they are present throughout nature because PFAS are released from goods that humans use. So, with this control, what do we do? In the early 2000s, manufacturers in the U.S. agreed to stop making two of the most common PFAS of concern: PFOS and PFOA. Was this enough? Not quite. First off, manufacturing continued elsewhere, and the global marketplace continued to distribute those PFAS in goods. Secondly, other PFAS were introduced as substitutes, and that didn’t eliminate other PFAS of concern from being released into the environment.

Beyond outright production bans, another response is a societal commitment to no longer make or use PFAS unless absolutely necessary for the benefit of humankind or the planet. This is the recommendation currently under consideration in the European Union, with a decision on what uses might be exempted still pending. In Canada, a less restrictive limitation on importation of goods with certain PFAS is in place. One thing seems certain: by weaning ourselves from the non-essential applications of PFAS, we can lessen the burden of these fluorinated organic compounds for future generations.

That’s made defining PFAS — and the extent of their prevalence — an essential part of the prevention solution.

Control: Managing existing PFAS

PFAS are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic, creating a perfect storm for human health and the environment. Controls are being implemented for addressing the PFAS already in the environment, products that end up in landfills, and even drinking water.

Some countries already have regulations in place to control PFAS by understanding where we are using them. In the U.S., for instance, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires manufacturers to report past PFAS usage, and the Toxics Release Inventory requires reports on current use including within every product supply chain. Such measures help track and manage these substances and create opportunities to control their unnecessary use.

We also have regulatory mechanisms that control PFAS. Regulations set limits on PFAS concentrations in water, soil, and biosolids to minimize exposure and contain their spread. I already mentioned the drinking water limits. Those are intended to control PFAS from water consumption, which makes up about 20 percent of a typical person’s PFAS exposure. Imagine, though, that PFAS are also present as aerosols, occur in soil and rainwater — and the list grows daily. In response to these broad exposures, we are beginning to see additional regulations. In some European countries (Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark), PFAS concentrations in soil are regulated for human exposure. In other geographies, soil PFAS concentrations are limited to meet groundwater or surface water criteria. In the U.S., there are limits in a handful of states on the application of biosolids on agricultural lands based on their PFAS levels. These are all components of methods to control PFAS that are already implemented and protect people and the environment from exposure.

Elimination: Removing PFAS from the environment

The goal is to eliminate PFAS from the environment. Removal technologies used in treatment, such as granular activated carbon filtration, ion exchange foam fractionation, and membranes, can effectively separate PFAS from many liquids. These engineered solutions are tailored to specific conditions — high-volume drinking water with low PFAS versus leachate with higher PFAS levels and many other organic and inorganic contaminants versus intermittent stormwater applications — ensuring efficient and cost-effective removal.

Once removed, the PFAS concentrate needs further attention. Incinerating spent media has raised concerns about aerosolization and incomplete destruction. Putting concentrated materials into landfills still generates PFAS-containing leachate in the future. There is a need for a permanent destructive solution coupled with the separation.

Complete PFAS elimination also involves remediating contaminated sites and developing methods to destroy PFAS completely. A handful of destructive solutions have entered the clean-up market as commercially available and reliable. Environmental engineers are focused on selecting the best overall technology for each specific PFAS site. There is not likely to be a single destructive treatment solution — as some of my colleagues say: there’s no silver bullet. But there is promise, and there is ongoing innovation being spurred by the prospect of breaking the PFAS cycle permanently.

Global efforts

Just as important as selecting the right technologies is adapting to each region’s unique regulatory and methodological ecosystems. Different countries adopt strategies aligned with the prevent, control, eliminate approach to manage PFAS. For instance, Canada, the UK, Australia, and the U.S. have methodologies reflecting these principles.

Even as regions vary in their approaches, addressing the PFAS challenge requires coordinated global efforts focusing on prevention, control and elimination. By stopping the production and use of PFAS, managing their spread, and removing existing contaminants, we can mitigate their impact on human health and the environment. This structured approach, supported by regulatory frameworks and technological advancements, paves the way for a cleaner, healthier future.

How we can help

Breaking the PFAS cycle is challenging, but with innovation, commitment and collaboration, we can transform the PFAS problem into a solution, ensuring a safer environment for generations to come.

At ArchTam, we have the expertise and technologies to help the public and private sector as well as government agencies to understand the PFAS regulations currently applicable to their operations, anticipate amendments and implement solutions that future-proof their ability to respond.

Learn more about how our experts are innovating the next generation of PFAS solutions — and breaking the cycle of contamination: ArchTam – PFAS | Home

The post Breaking the PFAS Cycle: Prevent, Control, Eliminate appeared first on Blog.

Humans have taken steps to transcend our planet’s boundaries, but for the majority of the 7.7 billion people on Earth, this is it. Anything humans consume or discard is limited to our earthly home.

My parents were raised in the 1930s and in our house growing up, behaviors reflected being raised in a time of scarcity. Many people have joked about Depression-era folks saving short pieces of string. Indeed, growing up we had a closet and drawer with string, rubber bands, short pencils, yarn, paper sacks, computer punch cards and various odds and ends that came in handy for home or arts and crafts projects. Very little was wasted and creative reuse was encouraged.

This sort of behavior — which goes back centuries — is what I consider the original sustainability initiative. Having limited resources drives conservation and the mantra of “reduce, reuse, recycle” (or the 3-Rs) contributes to grassroots (or household) conservation. In my home, like that of my parents and grandparents, wecompost food waste, reuse packaging and are generally more conscientious about consumption, also known as ethical consumerism.

To achieve the goal of sustainability, or the balanced coexistence of the Earth’s resources with human civilization, it’s not going to be as simple as saving bits of string, but it is rooted in the same sensibility on a larger scale. As we celebrate this year’s theme for International Women’s Day, #EachforEqual, I’m interested in how the ideology of collective individualism informs the need for a balanced coexistence with resources. I’ve always been told and strongly believe that maximizing opportunities for each person to contribute — irrespective of gender, age, race, ethnicity — benefits all people. #EachForEqual is meant to encourage individual actions that collectively support equality, which I feel is intertwined with sustaining our planet and resources.

At the intersection of my two interests — sustainability and gender equity — I am encouraged by the empowerment of every individual to contribute to a better planet. I have been inspired by recent developments to that end, such as improved small loan availability globally to women entrepreneurs, a group historically and culturally limited by access to capital and business networks. Who better to solve the world’s problems than those most affected by them? Consequently, we may see the greatest improvements coming from those who feel the greatest need for change.

The post How #EachforEqual Aligns with Sustainability appeared first on Blog.