Why an Analytic-First Approach Is Key to Solving the PFAS Problem

PFAS are critical to the manufacture of many of the products we continue to rely on today. However, once PFAS enter the waste stream, the very nature that makes them so useful also makes them incredibly hard to break down. In recent years, scientists have discovered traces of PFAS as far away as the Arctic Circle and as close as in human blood.
The solid waste industry faces a dual challenge. It is both a passive receiver and a key solution provider for PFAS removal from the environment.

Between those two things is a critical component: accurate data.

PFAS are present in landfills and wastewater streams because of the manufacturing process and the disposal of PFAS-containing waste from domestic and industrial sources.

The PFAS compounds leach into wastewater or landfill leachate, operators then send it to water treatment plants for processing. Those plants produce biosolids for use in farming, for disposal in a landfill or for destruction technology. The PFAS leach from these processes, and the cycle begins again.

In this symbiotic relationship, it’s becoming clearer that dealing with the contamination at the level of solid waste operations can break this cycle.

In its 2023 study, the EPA found that PFAS were present in leachate at over 95% of the 200 landfills it analyzed. The findings prompted the EPA to assess new effluent limitation guidelines and pretreatment standards.

Landfills are passive receivers of PFAS, which is why accountability is so complex. Where does the responsibility for contamination removal lie in a cycle with passive receivers? Everybody agrees on one thing: regulations in the solid waste sector will tighten, and public pressure, heightened by scientific findings on PFAS’ impact on humans, will only grow. This is driving a more responsible approach to PFAS removal. In a feasibility study we recently completed at a landfill in northern Wisconsin, we found that treating the leachate removed over 90% of the PFAS contamination, mitigating the total amount of contamination entering the next stage of the cycle: the wastewater treatment plant. That, in turn, drastically reduced PFAS in the biosolids. It was a symbiotic win-win: the leachate is now much less of a concern, and the landfill has reduced its risk profile.

That risk profile could include litigation concerns, as evidenced by Fort Worth’s actions following the discovery of PFAS in its wastewater streams.

In this feasibility study, we demonstrated that we could break the PFAS cycle, but key to our success was knowing precisely what we were dealing with at every point. That meant getting the testing and data right.

We conduct life cycle analyses: feedwater analysis and effluent testing to ensure we’re hitting the removal target. That allows us to determine life cycle costs over time.

We don’t just model the treatment against a single technology. We model it against all the treatment technologies that would make sense in that particular scenario, then we can estimate the capital cost of each system.

That analysis is crucial, but it must be done right, and that data must be trustworthy.

For the past several years, PFAS analysis has dominated our testing work. Mostly, that work involves helping landfill operators, consultants and site owners determine which emerging contaminants they are dealing with and which testing methods make the most sense. It also involves ensuring those results meet regulatory requirements or larger project goals.

What we’ve seen across the industry is a lot of money spent generating data from testing, but not enough time spent on setting that testing up for success.

It’s an adage, but a true one: when it comes to data, it’s “garbage in, garbage out”. If you don’t make sure that the quality of the data you are using is excellent, the outputs you get will be much less useful. It’s a real concern across the industry.

Onterris recently commissioned a survey examining the overall impact of targeted environmental strategies. The survey, of 500 senior decision-makers involved in sustainability strategy across multiple sectors, found that companies are increasingly focused on data robustness and partnerships. Over three-quarters (77%) say their progress toward environmental goals is publicly available and regularly updated.

However, there is a lack of confidence in the data underpinning those goals. In the solid waste sector, less than half (44%) reported high confidence in the data supporting key performance indicators (KPIs), such as operational efficiency and compliance. This really matters, not least because three-quarters (75%) said that investors and lenders regularly challenge them on environmental data.

So how do we develop trustworthy data? It’s about knowing how to collect and submit samples, understanding the limitations of certain analytical methods and addressing the challenges posed by specific waste types, such as landfill leachate. It’s also about ensuring the data is valuable for its intended purpose and understanding what that purpose is in the first place.

Leachate is a notoriously difficult substance to test, so it’s important to question the data. What makes things easier for us is having access to subject matter experts in the lab. If a client comes back and questions a historical anomaly, we can get straight on the phone, answer that question directly, and make sure we’re giving clients what they need and that they’re comfortable with the data and understand it.

On the analytical side, technologies are constantly emerging. Several methods have emerged over the last few years, along with new instruments. We have recently added eight brand new ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometers to our high-resolution PFAS laboratories. This new technology enables us to deploy and develop methods that redefine what is achievable, such as our rapid direct-inject approach. They are some of the most sensitive instruments available.

We’ve pushed detection limits as far as they can go. For instance, the original iteration of EPA Method 1633 (for use under the Clean Water Act) for the determination of PFAS required 500 milliliters of sample to be extracted. We have just updated our 1633A method to include a new solid-phase extraction cartridge, enabling reduced-volume extraction without compromising sample integrity or reporting limits. Cutting-edge technology is essential, especially for solid waste and leachate samples.

Returning to the PFAS life cycle, it might be easy to say that banning the use of biosolids in farming is the solution. States like Maine have banned the spreading of biosolids on any farms. Other states have much larger farmland areas that have been using biosolids as fertilizer for a very long time. The better approach is to prevent PFAS from entering the cycle in the first place and create a solution that allows sustainability to continue without the environmental impact.

They might be passive receivers, but solid waste operators play a critical role in breaking the PFAS contamination cycle. Forward-thinking landfills are testing groundwater, leachate and treated leachate and gathering as much data as possible, using that quality data and analysis to make good decisions on treatment technology.

The case for acting now is compelling. Going forward, treatment technology costs will likely rise as demand increases. Grant funding available today may not be available tomorrow. Solid waste operators that move ahead of regulatory deadlines reduce their litigation exposure, strengthen relationships with their communities and shift from passive receivers to active problem solvers.