From PFAS Pressure to Practical Substitution

Pressure to reduce and replace PFAS continues to intensify, but for industry the challenge is increasingly moving beyond awareness of the problem. The practical questions are now: Where are PFAS performing critical functions? 

What alternatives can deliver those functions? 

How can we demonstrate that a substitute is genuinely safer and sustainable while maintaining the required technical performance?

Recent developments illustrate why PFAS substitution needs to be approached as an innovation and evidence challenge rather than simply a chemical replacement exercise.

Europe: the direction of travel is becoming clearer

The proposed EU-wide PFAS restriction continues to advance. ECHA's Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) adopted its opinion in March 2026, while the Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) agreed its draft opinion. Both support EU-wide action, while recognising the need for targeted derogations and measures addressing emissions. ECHA aims to complete the scientific evaluation of the restriction proposal by the end of 2026.

For companies, the important message is not simply to wait for the final regulatory text. The continuing regulatory process creates a strong case for identifying PFAS dependencies now, understanding which functions are genuinely critical, and developing evidence-based substitution strategies.

Alternatives are moving from research towards commercial implementation

Several recent industry developments demonstrate that PFAS substitution is increasingly becoming a practical materials-innovation challenge.

In coatings, NOF Metal Coatings recently highlighted an existing portfolio of PFAS-free zinc-flake basecoats and water-based topcoats, together with newer PFAS-free technologies designed to combine corrosion protection with properties such as controlled friction, lower curing temperatures and reduced VOCs.

This is significant because substitution cannot normally be evaluated simply by asking whether one chemical can replace another. The relevant question is whether an alternative system can deliver the required combination of corrosion protection, friction control, adhesion, durability, processing characteristics and environmental performance.

A similar development is taking place in coatings additives. Borchers recently highlighted non-PFAS approaches to functions traditionally supported by fluorinated additives, including wetting, flow and levelling, pigment distribution, slip, scratch and mar resistance, defoaming and adhesion.

Packaging provides another interesting example. In July, Avient launched Cesa™ Solvent Barrier Technology for HDPE bottles, describing it as a drop-in technology formulated without intentionally added PFAS. According to Avient, testing showed reductions in solvent permeation of up to tenfold compared with unmodified HDPE while allowing converters to continue using conventional extrusion blow-moulding equipment.

These examples suggest an important shift: PFAS substitution can increasingly become an opportunity for product and process innovation rather than simply a compliance cost.

TFA reminds us why substitution needs a lifecycle perspective.

A particularly important development came from EFSA in July concerning trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). TFA can arise from several sources, including degradation of some PFAS substances and certain pesticide active substances, and is highly persistent and mobile in the environment. EFSA reduced its acceptable daily intake for TFA from 0.05 to 0.014 mg/kg body weight/day and established an acute reference dose of 0.07 mg/kg body weight.

This highlights a wider lesson for substitution.

It is not sufficient to evaluate only the starting material or the immediate hazard profile of a proposed alternative. A credible assessment should also ask:

What happens during manufacture, use, ageing, recycling and disposal? What transformation products may be generated? Where could persistent or mobile substances ultimately end up?

This is why lifecycle thinking and transformation pathways should increasingly form part of PFAS substitution assessment.

Substitution needs evidence — not just a “PFAS-free” label

A candidate alternative may eliminate PFAS and still create other problems. A robust substitution workflow should therefore evaluate several dimensions together:

• technical functionality and performance;

• human health and environmental hazards;

• exposure and release across the lifecycle;

• persistence, mobility and degradation products;

• manufacturing and processing requirements;

• durability and product lifetime;

• recyclability and circularity;

• energy and resource requirements;

• regulatory acceptability; and

• the quality and uncertainty of the available evidence.

This is closely aligned with Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) thinking. Instead of substituting substance A with substance B and discovering another problem later, alternatives can be compared systematically across safety, environmental, sustainability and performance dimensions.

The process should also be tiered and iterative. Initial screening can rapidly eliminate unsuitable alternatives. More detailed experimental, computational and lifecycle evidence can then be generated where uncertainty remains.

Prevention, substitution and dealing with the legacy

Substitution prevents future PFAS use and releases, but society must simultaneously deal with the enormous legacy of PFAS already present in water, soil and industrial waste streams.

That is creating a second innovation ecosystem around detection, separation and destruction. 

One recent indication of commercial momentum came from Claros Technologies, which announced a $55 million Series B financing in July to accelerate commercialisation of its PFAS destruction technology and expand its mobile analytical laboratory capabilities.

The two challenges therefore need to be pursued together:

prevent future releases through better materials and substitution, while developing effective technologies for detecting and destroying existing contamination.

Long-term prevention of persistent pollution at source is preferable to repeatedly trying to remove it after release.

Upcoming Webinar, 1 September 2026

From PFAS Pressure to Practical Substitution: Best Practices, Evidence Workflows and Safer Alternatives

https://saferworldbydesign.com/webinars/77/from-pfas-pressure-to-practical-substitution-best-practices-evidence-workflows-and-safer-alternatives/ 

On 1 September, SaferWorldbyDesign will host a webinar focused specifically on moving from PFAS awareness and regulatory pressure towards practical substitution.

We will explore how organisations can:

• identify PFAS uses and the functions they provide;

• define substitution requirements before searching for alternatives;

• identify candidate chemicals, materials and technologies;

• combine existing knowledge with experimental and computational evidence;

• compare alternatives across safety, sustainability and technical performance;

• manage uncertainty and evidence gaps;

• avoid regrettable substitution; and

• build transparent evidence packages supporting material selection and substitution decisions.

The goal is not simply to ask:

“What can we replace this PFAS?”

but rather: “How can we identify and demonstrate a safer and more sustainable solution that performs the function we actually need?”