contamination in water sources, public drinking water providers and industrial facilities are racing to implement treatment solutions. According to recent reporting from Water Online, this urgency is leading many decision-makers to make hasty assumptions about the best removal methods, potentially resulting in unnecessarily high capital and life cycle costs.
Water treatment experts emphasize that PFAS removal is a complex challenge requiring customized approaches. “There is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to PFAS remediation,” notes the report. “The effectiveness of treatment technologies varies significantly depending on specific water quality factors and operational circumstances.”
Key Factors Influencing Technology Selection
The report identifies several critical considerations that should guide PFAS treatment decisions:
Water Quality Matrix: The background composition of the water has perhaps the greatest influence on technology selection. When high levels of iron and manganese are present, they typically require pre-treatment through chlorine oxidation, which can damage certain treatment media. In these scenarios, FLUORO-SORB media offers advantages over alternatives.
Specific PFAS Compounds: Different states have varying treatment goals and target different PFAS compounds. The effectiveness of each media solution must be evaluated against the specific PFAS parameters present in the water.
System Size and Footprint: Space constraints can significantly impact technology choices. GAC systems generally require larger footprints for a given flow rate, whereas ion exchange and FLUORO-SORB systems can operate in more compact spaces.
Waste Disposal Logistics: Once treatment media is exhausted, it must be properly disposed of—a process complicated by varying local and state regulations. Similarly, reverse osmosis systems produce reject water concentrated with contaminants that requires careful management.
Life Cycle Costs: Beyond initial capital expenses, facility managers must consider long-term operating costs including media replacement, labor, energy demands, and maintenance requirements.
Four Primary Treatment Technologies
According to the report, four main technologies have proven effective for PFAS removal:
- Granular Activated Carbon (GAC): Particularly effective when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also present
- Ion Exchange (IX): Offers a smaller footprint but may be sensitive to certain pre-treatment methods
- FLUORO-SORB Media: Well-suited for waters with high iron and manganese content
- High Recovery Flow-Reversal Reverse Osmosis (FR-RO): Ideal for high salinity waters and provides protection against future emerging contaminants
Selecting the Right Partner
The report emphasizes that choosing an experienced PFAS removal partner is perhaps the most crucial decision facility managers will make. “Cost-effectively treating PFAS requires a thorough understanding of how to combine process design and equipment design,” states the article.
Some providers offer additional services like Treatment as a Service (TaaS), which can be deployed quickly on a monthly fee basis. This approach can serve as an intermediate solution while permanent systems are designed and constructed.
Hero Photo by Vanessa Garcia