Sponsored by:
Texas Association of Environmental Professionals (TAEP)
TAEP is the premier organization for environmental
professionals in the State of Texas. The goals of TAEP include
the advancement of the environmental profession and the
establishment of a forum to discuss important environmental
issues. TAEP members receive a 10% discount. Please call
713.522.6300 for the code.
Published: 2025
Authors: Charles J. Newell, John S. Cook, David T. Adamson, Paul B. Hatzinger
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of current per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) groundwater remediation approaches based on an understanding of the distinct chemical properties and transport behavior of PFAS, and the limitations of existing treatment technologies. We evaluate remediation strategies for PFAS sources and plumes through technical, economic, and social lenses, with an emphasis on comparing conventional pump-and-treat systems with in situ permeable sorptive barriers. Our modeling of potential remedial alternatives and associated costs and benefits for the more than 10,000 hypothetical contaminated sites across the United States reveals counterintuitive findings regarding optimal strategies. While high-cost, “Intensive” remedial actions can achieve greater contaminant reduction at each site, our analysis demonstrates that “Efficient” strategies—focused on rapid containment at a greater number of sites—may achieve greater overall risk reduction nationwide with substantially lower costs. A strategic approach employing containment technologies in the near term (15 years), followed by targeted mass removal as destructive technologies improve, could be the most promising for addressing the expected scale of PFAS contamination. These findings challenge conventional remediation paradigms and suggest a necessary reevaluation of how limited resources should be allocated across contaminated sites. Continued research into in situ destructive technologies remains important to help improve long-term outcomes at PFAS sites, while present efforts should prioritize risk management through containment and exposure prevention.