As highly toxic chemical compounds found in everything from clothing to cookware
to firefighting foam, per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) have
recently gained steam as the latest class of dangerous compounds companies are
looking to phase out of their products.
The pressure has become so strong, even the EPA took the formal step of
issuing wide-ranging
guidance through the
first part of this year to create a roadmap towards phasing out PFAS — which
have been nicknamed “forever chemicals” for their perceived inability to be
destroyed — and proposing strict limits of 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for
public drinking
water.
“It’s such a contaminant that it spreads across product lines,” Jesper
Danielsson, Head of
Design and Product at Houdini, told
Sustainable Brands®. The Swedish outdoor apparel company phased out
PFAS
from its products in 2018 — a rare example of proactive PFAS stewardship in the
apparel industry, where use of the compounds are rampant, especially in
waterproof
coatings.
As the research has revealed the hazardous concentrations of
PFAS
across many aspects of our most critical natural resources and everyday
interactions, there have been more accelerated efforts to remove the compounds;
but massive work still remains in what to do with them after that.
The 'best of the worst' remediation pathways
Transforming fashion through materials innovation
Join us as leaders from Crocs, Hilos, Marchon Eyewear, Planet FWD and Target discuss real-world examples, practical strategies, and supply chain considerations for developing eco-friendly clothing, shoes, and accessories that minimize waste and protect the planet — Tuesday, Oct. 15, at SB'24 San Diego.
Much of the remediation conversation is focused on groundwater and surface water
improvement, using two methods: “Pump and treat” is when a water supply is
literally pumped through an activated carbon filter in an energy-intensive
process that cleans water to return to the ground storage, or brought to the
surface for later use. “In situ” treatment injects small, particle-size
activated carbon into a water supply to stop a plume of PFAS from infiltrating
the water. Both remedies have proven effective, but don’t solve the issue of
what to do with PFAS once the compounds are isolated.
According to Joe Wong, Chief
Technology Officer at carbon filter supplier Advanced Emissions Solutions
(AES), solutions to date have
involved either
incinerating
the remaining PFAS or sending them to
landfill
— neither of which destroy or neutralize the compounds.
“Right now, it’s a ‘what’s the best of the worst?’ situation,” he told
Sustainable Brands. “You have to immobilize the PFAS to keep it from moving; but
then you have to decide what to do with it.”
Regenesis VP of Quality and Process Improvement
Kristen Thoreson
admits that currently, it’s a case of “moving the liability around” when it
comes to what to do with PFAS post-removal. She cited a couple of case studies
where Regenesis products stopped the migration of PFAS long term (in Ontario,
Canada in one example); but that
doesn’t solve the secondary issue, where plumes of these compounds can be miles
long.
“They can certainly hit some kind of sensitive receptor (such as a municipal
water supply point) — and at the ppt level, that concentration (and its impacts)
can be hard to grasp,” she adds.
Then, there’s cost
AES VP of Sales Oscar
Velasquez notes how
cost-prohibitive PFAS removal remains at a broad scale.
“That’s probably the single biggest question outside of environmental impact,”
he told SB.
A broader issue for apparel companies, specifically, is that PFAS are such a
rampant contaminant that suppliers would need to completely rebuild some
factories to eliminate them entirely, according to Danielsson. It’s another cost
factor — especially since PFAS continue to be integral to performance gear
production, even as more companies attempt to answer the growing consumer and
regulatory calls to phase them out. Some apparel suppliers also make non-apparel
items that retain PFAs and crossover to the apparel manufacturing lines.
Since there’s no uniform PFAS-removal solution that’s widely applicable, every
entity must take a different approach; and that means cost could be anywhere
from $5
million
up into the trillions over a longer period of time.
A potential way forward
However, as we covered last
year,
researchers at Northwestern University may have uncovered a more
cost-effective and energy-efficient solution: Using a fairly straightforward
chemical process, they devised a way to turn certain chain sections keeping PFAS
together into simple fluoride. If the process proves scalable, it would lead to a
much easier and safer end product to dispose of (Northwestern researchers did
not respond to a request for comment as of press time).
Get the latest insights, trends, and innovations to help position yourself at the forefront of sustainable business leadership—delivered straight to your inbox.
Geoff is a freelance journalist and copywriter focused on making the world a better place through compelling copy. He covers everything from apparel to travel while helping brands worldwide craft their messaging. In addition to Sustainable Brands, he's currently a contributor at Penta, AskMen.com, Field Mag and many others. You can check out more of his work at geoffnudelman.com.
Published Apr 20, 2023 8am EDT / 5am PDT / 1pm BST / 2pm CEST