Because the carbon-fluorine link of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is the shortest and most vital connection in chemistry, many traditional treatment procedures cannot entirely remove or eliminate PFAS. Two treatment approaches are effective in treating PFAS, and each has benefits and downsides depending on the site characteristics. Furthermore, research into membrane technology is yielding promising outcomes. Here is everything you need to know about treatment of PFA’s, and the technologies used in the treatment of PFA’s.

Activated Carbon Granules (GAC)

GAC has been the most widely utilized treatment approach for more than 15 years. One of the most significant benefits of employing GAC is our general experience with spent GAC management or eliminating remaining carbon once it has fulfilled its function. In the PFAS Treatment, one downside of using GAC is that it is less effective for short-chain PFAS compounds. While short-chain PFAS laws have yet to be specified, it is critical to prepare for the likelihood that they may be regulated in the future.

Exchange of Anions (AIX)

AIX makes use of synthetic resins derived from hydrocarbons. These resins attract and retain polluted contaminants as they travel through a specific water source. Various parameters may influence AIX performance, including influent pollutant concentration, treatment design, and competing ion concentrations. AIX, like GAC, has been used effectively on active project sites. However, a new study indicates that AIX has a greater capacity to remove short-chain PFAS.

Membrane technologies

Although not as frequently used as GAC and AIX, Membrane technologies have also been explored for their ability to remove PFAS. The two most widely researched alternatives are reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF). Low-pressure RO has shown a strong ability to remove PFAS, particularly short-chain compounds. However, due to the high capital cost and energy requirement, this approach remains the most expensive way of PFAS removal. 

Further Considerations

Bench-scale and pilot-scale testing is essential for all three methods. Bench-scale testing results may be directly tied to long-term operational cost benefits. Recent column research found that AIX was more successful than GAC in removing short-chain PFAS from the water sample tested.

Some last considerations while deciding your PFAS treatment options:

  • A sense of size is essential. Because PFAS treatment targets are in the parts-per-trillion range, co-contaminants that may affect PFAS treatment efficacy must be considered.
  • Groundwater inorganic characteristics such as iron and manganese might impair performance.
  • Consider infrastructural considerations, including chemical consumption, hydraulics, and electrical capacity.

Bottom Line

PFAS Treatment technologies in environmental media are still evolving, so long-term solutions should implement with caution. The selection of corrective activities should prioritise preserving drinking water sources and human health while considering other goals (such as reducing risk to ecological receptors and environmental resources, liability, source area mass, mass flux, and generation of PFAAs from precursors). It may be appropriate at some sites to take short-term site stabilisation actions to implement more robust and cost-effective technologies as they become available. Membrane Systems Australia helps you in the treatment of PFAS.