Why PFAS are Challenging to Manage

Manufacturing plating environment
Manufacturing plating environment
Electroplating facilities often found to contain high levels of PFAS.

Recently, Golder has seen increased concern from our clients about a risk they’re facing – soil, sediment, water and air impacted by Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, collectively known as PFAS. In helping our clients respond to these issues, we find a multidisciplinary approach including geology, hydrogeology, toxicology, risk assessment and remediation provides the breadth of knowledge and experience needed to address the emerging issues with these substances and provide a basis for developing new solutions.

The issues surrounding PFAS are complex, as shown in a case in which Golder was called upon to assess the unintended consequences of a fire response at an oil storage depot almost 15 years ago, when PFAS were still unknown to many. Fighting the fire had involved use of aqueous film forming foams comprised of a mixture of chemicals that included PFAS. The depot was located over an aquifer used as a drinking water source. A year after the fire, PFAS were detected in a sentinel well near the depot, and Golder was called in to determine the extent of the contamination and perform assessments of risks to groundwater. Two years later, Golder was retained as an expert witness in a trial regarding the fire and its aftermath.

  • Stefano Marconetto

    Senior Environmental Engineer, PFAS Global Practice Leader

In projects such as this, Golder draws on experience dealing with a wide range of materials including asbestos, PCBs and chlorinated solvents — all of which entered the market as innovations.  In time, however, they were eventually found to have the potential for unintended environmental or human health impacts. This has led to legislation to curtail or stop the use of these substances, and to mandate the investigation, risk evaluation and remediation of sites affected by chemicals of concern.

In a similar vein, PFAS compounds were first developed over 50 years ago and became popular due to their resistance to oil, heat and water.  Thousands of different PFAS have been manufactured over the years and incorporated into a host of industrial processes and products – non-stick cookware, paints, cosmetics, electronics, construction materials, breathable waterproof outerwear and firefighting foam, to name just a few.

Then, researchers began to associate certain PFAS with a range of potential health and environmental effects, bringing increased pressure to stop the production and use of some types of PFAS (starting with Perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoate (PFOA)), and to clean up PFAS-contaminated soil and water.  Regulatory environmental criteria for some PFAS are now in effect in several jurisdictions around the world and are often orders of magnitude lower than those for chlorinated solvents.  While current criteria generally target a small number of PFAS and are typically limited to soil and drinking water, governments are working on environmental criteria for a larger number of individual PFAS and maximum concentrations for the sum of certain PFAS, environmental media and exposure pathways.

To assess and manage their environmental liability, our clients are coming to us with questions about how best to assess and treat PFAS in soil, water and other matrices, and why dealing with PFAS can be so challenging.  There are several reasons why including their widespread use and persistent nature, which may result in migration over long distances. Consequently, it’s extremely important to differentiate impacts from multiple PFAS sources or background concentrations. To assist with this, Golder has developed rigorous, but practical Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to collect representative samples for a variety of media and limit the high potential for cross-contamination.  We have also assisted clients with the development of specific SOPs for their sites portfolio and helped them with the prioritization of sites for PFAS investigation based on potential environmental liability.

When it comes to PFAS investigations, the approach is unique in view of their different properties compared to most conventional contaminants and considering the large number of compounds, precursors and breakdown products, the evolving regulatory environment, complex source compositions, fate and transport as well as the potential effect of historical site remediation.  To efficiently tackle these complexities, Golder has developed a flexible site investigation framework that sequentially leads the assessor through site identification, conceptual site model development, identification of PFAS of concern, site investigation methods and data interpretation.  By using a novel visualization tool to analyze PFAS signatures in the context of a multiple lines of evidence approach, we can efficiently differentiate multiple PFAS sources or background concentrations within the same site and across sites, illustrate how mixtures of PFAS can vary as a result of fate and transport, and assess PFAS partitioning between different environmental media (e.g., surface water vs. sediment vs. fish tissue concentrations).

Due to the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond, the large number of PFAS and their varying properties, and the very low regulatory criteria, remediation of PFAS is facing several challenges.  Landfills are closing their gates to PFAS-impacted soil because of the concern that the chemicals will migrate into leachate. Also, in some jurisdictions legislation regulates what levels of PFAS-contaminated soil the landfills can accept.  The same is happening with PFAS-impacted water where only specialized wastewater facilities and a few industrial liquid waste contractors are able to accept and effectively deal with water contaminated with PFAS.

When it comes to PFAS investigations, the approach is unique in view of their different properties compared to most conventional contaminants and considering the large number of compounds, precursors and breakdown products, the evolving regulatory environment, complex source compositions, fate and transport as well as the potential effect of historical site remediation.  To efficiently tackle these complexities, Golder has developed a flexible site investigation framework that sequentially leads the assessor through site identification, conceptual site model development, identification of PFAS of concern, site investigation methods and data interpretation.  By using a novel visualization tool to analyze PFAS signatures in the context of a multiple lines of evidence approach, we can efficiently differentiate multiple PFAS sources or background concentrations within the same site and across sites, illustrate how mixtures of PFAS can vary as a result of fate and transport, and assess PFAS partitioning between different environmental media (e.g., surface water vs. sediment vs. fish tissue concentrations).

Due to the strength of the carbon-fluorine bond, the large number of PFAS and their varying properties, and the very low regulatory criteria, remediation of PFAS is facing several challenges.  Landfills are closing their gates to PFAS-impacted soil because of the concern that the chemicals will migrate into leachate. Also, in some jurisdictions legislation regulates what levels of PFAS-contaminated soil the landfills can accept.  The same is happening with PFAS-impacted water where only specialized wastewater facilities and a few industrial liquid waste contractors are able to accept and effectively deal with water contaminated with PFAS.

Related Projects


Treatment effectiveness and costs vary depending on regulatory criteria that must be achieved and PFAS contamination levels. Granulated activated carbon (GAC) is one of the most frequently used options for treating PFAS-impacted water. However, treatment involves the use of large amounts of GAC, meaning costs are often higher than for more conventional contaminants.  Furthermore, this technology is not always effective for all types of PFAS and requires costly regeneration or disposal of the spent carbon.  Incineration is technically feasible, but requires high temperatures of over 1,000 degrees C to break down the compounds, making it appropriate for small volumes only.  Other solutions such as ion exchange resins, membrane filtration, colloidal carbon injection, advanced oxidation/reduction and others have been tested, but no effective solution that can successfully breakdown most PFAS has been found.

Innovative solutions are needed to effectively remediate PFAS impacted soil and water.  Beyond optimizing currently available technologies, Golder is collaborating with universities and research groups in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific to develop new, cost-effective solutions and to advance science and knowledge on PFAS.

We find that while PFAS management presents specific challenges and each site demands consideration of its unique aspects, the innovative tools and experience we have developed are yielding positive results for our clients.

If you would like to know more about the PFAS regulatory challenges faced in the USA, check out this article co-authored by Golder’s Nikki Delude Roy (Senior Geologist, Manchester, New Hampshire) co-authored this article “Regulatory Challenges Posed by Emerging Contaminants” published in the March 2018 American Bar Association newsletter.

  • Stefano Marconetto

    Senior Environmental Engineer, PFAS Global Practice Leader

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stefano Marconetto, is an Associate and Senior Environmental Engineer at Golder, working out of Ottawa, Ontario. His experience on PFAS includes site characterization, risk assessment and remediation at military bases, firefighting training facilities, airports, manufacturing plants, power plants and waste disposal sites. Stefano has provided technical training as well as support to clients in their liaison with project stakeholders on PFAS related issues. He has authored presentations and guidance documents on PFAS.

Related Projects