PFAS: A decisive factor with an uncertain future

PTFE machining in the 5-axis machining center (Image source: IDT)

Just as the deadly button mushroom should not be confused with edible mushrooms and the poisonous honeysuckle should not be confused with the nutritious elderberry, the plant world is rich in species that require different assessments. Some are poisonous, others are a source of vitamins and health. Fortunately, the differentiated classification of ingredients and trace elements allows us not to view the world as a general danger zone in which mushrooms and berries are generally considered to be life-threatening.

The situation is similar in the current debate about PFAS, the so-called “eternity chemicals”. They are often in the media and cause alarm. The simplified and sensationalist presentation of these chemicals clearly shows their effect: PFAS are found in cosmetics, in mineral water and even in human blood. According to surveys, three quarters of consumers generally reject products containing PFAS, without realizing that they benefit from the many uses of these substances on a daily basis.

Innovations for long-lasting products

It is crucial to recognize that PFAS comprises an extensive group of over 10,000 different chemicals. Not all of them are harmful to health and the environment. In fact, many of these compounds are essential for safety and technological progress. Their stability and durability give consumer and industrial products exceptional properties. PFAS contribute significantly to the implementation of the energy transition, they support innovations in medical technology and diagnostics and accelerate the transformation to electromobility. They can be found in wind turbine components, pacemakers, computer tomographs and in many products that require a long service life.

PTFE semi-finished products (Image source: IDT)

According to the major industry associations VDA, VDMA and ZVEI, perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances are essential for the production of key technologies that are needed to implement the climate and mobility transition. A general ban on PFAS would also affect 38 fluoropolymer substances, which would jeopardize the production of semiconductor chips, car batteries and seals for hydrogen production. A differentiated view of PFAS is therefore critical. Questions need to be clarified: By what criteria are they considered harmful to the environment and health? How do the different chemicals behave over their useful life and at the end of their life cycle, especially in the recycling process? Which compounds are already banned and where could PFAS possibly be replaced? What alternatives are available?

Some PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA (both C8), PFHxS (C6) are already comprehensively regulated by the EU POP Regulation of June 20, 2019. Since February 25, 2023, the placing on the market, production and use of perfluorinated carboxylic acids with nine to fourteen carbon atoms (e.g. PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA) have also been restricted. All CF2 and CF3 chains are also PFAS (e.g. PTFE, eTFE, PVDF, FFKM, FKM). They are affected by the procedure for universal regulation of all PFAS, which was sought at the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) at the beginning of 2023.

Are modern recycling plants disappearing?

The potential consequences of a comprehensive PFAS ban in the EU could have a profound and far-reaching impact on products and entire value chains. The decision to stop the production of fluoropolymers by companies such as Dyneon and Solvay could lead to a loss of more than 50 percent of the production capacity for fluoropolymers in Europe. This does not only affect the production level. With the closure of the Dyneon plant, one of the most advanced chemical recycling facilities in Europe would also disappear.

PTFE powder (Image source: IDT)

Within the Technical Plastics Working Group, supported by the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) and initiated by the seal manufacturer IDT, well-known companies from the chemical-pharmaceutical industry and plant engineering work together. This committee is intensively involved in researching alternatives to Dyneon materials and expanding the range of substitutes for fluoropolymers. So far, however, no substitute has been found that has the same resistance and mechanical and thermal properties as the original fluoropolymers. Furthermore, no PFAS-free PTFE exists. The result is a significant gap in the available solutions for high-performance seals that cannot simply be replaced by known alternatives such as graphite, fiber materials or metal.

Extensive test series are time-consuming and costly

In the case of specific materials such as TFM 1600 from 3M/Dyneon, there are no clearly defined minimum technical specifications, which makes the development of replacement materials more difficult. In such cases, extensive and expensive test series are required to determine the necessary parameters that an alternative material must fulfill. This is particularly challenging as there are many different areas of application with diverse requirements. For example, the requirements for materials for static seals differ significantly from those for dynamic applications such as stem seals in valves, where the same material may not be effective.

IDT is actively researching the use of alternative plastics that are not affected by PFAS regulation. The complexity of this endeavor is illustrated by three examples:

In the chemical industry, gaskets are used at temperatures of 100-200 °C. However, some users believe that PE can be used. However, the application temperature of this thermoplastic material is limited to 80°C, so it cannot be used.

Some media, such as sulphuric acid, require a resistant plastic. There is currently no known plastic that can be used as a substitute.

In sealing technology, we need resistant and adaptable plastics. If you look at PEEK, for example, it has a high temperature resistance, but as a sealing material PEEK is far too hard to meet the technical requirements. It is also not universally resistant to chemicals: In contact with sulphuric acid, the plastic dissolves completely at room temperature.

In addition to the challenges of the processing properties and performance of alternative materials under operating conditions, there are also fundamental issues that go far beyond this. These include the availability and deliverability of these materials, the development of appropriate testing and test procedures for operators, the consideration of critical media such as HCl, H2SO4, H3PO4, HF in the tests and the achievement of a universally valid approval for all operators.

PTFE quality test (Image source: IDT)

It seems unrealistic to answer these complex questions reliably within the original timetable of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which envisages delivering a final proposal to the EU Commission by 2025. The evaluation and processing of the more than 5,500 comments received during the objection period will further delay the process. Realistically, it will probably take until at least 2028 to fully define the rules for the EU's phase-out of PFAS.

Uncertainty favors thoughts of emigration

The uncertainty surrounding the PFAS restriction process and the unclear timeframe for a final decision are causing considerable planning uncertainty in the economy, especially in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. A report by the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber in September highlights how a ban or severe restrictions on PFAS, without timely availability of alternatives, could severely affect the competitiveness of these sectors. Companies face difficult investment decisions without clarity on the extent to which PFAS may still be used in the future. There is a real risk that companies from key industries such as the chemical and automotive sectors will relocate their production to countries with less stringent PFAS regulations. Such a trend towards migration could be devastating for Germany, as it would lead to job losses, an outflow of specialist knowledge and a weakening of innovative strength.

In a climate characterized by media disaster alerts and general PFAS panic, such scenarios are particularly damaging. At IDT, we are working intensively with the members of the Technical Plastics Working Group, authorities and agencies to ensure that technological progress does not become a step backwards for people and the environment. This requires not only an appropriate planning and development horizon, but also a differentiated view of the complex PFAS issue. It is clear that the PFAS problem can only be solved through a joint effort by the authorities, industry and science. Only through continuous research, nuanced regulation and a willingness to innovate can the ecological and health risks of PFAS be minimized and at the same time the economic potential of new technologies be exploited.