Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lucas Adheron (00:00):
Welcome to the
Deep Dive.
Today we're plunging into,well, a really critical topic.
It's quietly reshaping wholeindustries, especially
adhesives, the big shift awayfrom forever chemicals.
Our goal here is to take apretty dense report, PFAS-free
adhesives, the EU roadmap, andreally unpack its key insights
for you.
Think of this as your shortcutto understanding a huge
(00:22):
regulatory and tech shift that'shappening right now.
Elena Bondwell (00:25):
That's
absolutely right.
The adhesives industry is,frankly, at a crossroads.
There's this unprecedentedregulatory push to get rid of
per- and polyfluoroalkylsubstances, PFAS, you know, the
forever chemicals, they lastforever, basically.
And they've been super usefulin adhesives, great for wetting,
adhesion resistance, all sortsof things.
Lucas Adheron (00:43):
But that
usefulness comes at a cost,
right?
Elena Bondwell (00:45):
Huge cost.
There's mounting scientificevidence linking PFAS exposure
to some really serious healthand environmental problems.
And the EU's REACH proposal,that's set to fundamentally
change We could see bans asearly as mid-2027.
Lucas Adheron (00:59):
Mid-2027.
Wow.
So the big question for anyonelistening who works with these
materials is probably, will myadhesive even be legal then?
That's what we're digging into.
We'll explore what PFASactually are, why they're such
a, well, a big deal, where theEU is going with regulation,
what this essential use thingmeans for exemptions.
And maybe the most interestingpart.
the innovations, the surprisingways companies are finding
(01:22):
PFAS-free alternatives.
That's where things get reallyfascinating.
Okay, so let's start at thebeginning.
To really get this, we need toknow What are PFAS exactly?
Elena Bondwell (01:33):
Right.
So PFAS isn't one thing.
It's a massive group,incredibly varied, of synthetic
chemicals, organofluorinecompounds.
The defining thing is they havemultiple fluorine atoms stuck
onto an alcohol chain.
And that bond, thecarbon-fluorine bond, is
exceptionally strong.
Lucas Adheron (01:48):
Super strong.
And that's the key to theirproperties.
Elena Bondwell (01:50):
Exactly.
That bond gives them amazingresistance, heat, oil, stains,
grease, water.
You know, the stuff that madeTeflon famous back in, what,
1938?
That's the origin.
Lucas Adheron (01:59):
Okay, so a huge
group.
How huge are we talking?
Elena Bondwell (02:01):
Well, that's
part of the challenge.
Estimates are all over theplace.
Some say 8,000 distinctchemicals.
Others suggest maybe up to 7million.
The U.S.
EPA, their database, DSS Docs,lists around 14,735 unique ones.
But the tricky part, there's nosingle universally agreed upon
definition.
Lucas Adheron (02:21):
No single
definition.
That sounds like a nightmare ofcompanies.
Elena Bondwell (02:24):
It is,
especially multinationals.
The OECB might define itbroadly.
The U.S.
EPA uses a more specificstructural definition.
It creates a huge complianceheadache.
And within that huge group,there's a really critical
subgroup for adhesives,fluorosurfactants.
Lucas Adhero (02:41):
Fluorosurfactants,
okay.
Elena Bondwell (02:42):
Yeah, think of
them like having two parts, a
hydrophobic tail, that's thefluorinated bit that hates
water, and a hydrophilic headthat loves water.
This structure makes themincredibly effective
surfactants.
What's really amazing is howmuch they lower surface tension
in water, sometimes down to halfof what you'd get with typical
hydrocarbon surfactants.
Yeah, and that's key foradhesives.
It means superior wetting,spreading, leveling, basically
(03:05):
making the adhesive flow andcover perfectly.
But here's the catch.
That same incredible stability,the thing that makes them work
so well, is also why theypersist for so long and have
toxicity concerns.
Lucas Adheron (03:18):
Right, which
brings us back to that name.
Elena Bondwell (03:20):
Yeah.
Lucas Adheron (03:20):
Forever
Chemicals.
Because they literally stickaround forever.
Elena Bondwell (03:24):
Pretty much.
Their resistance to breakingdown means some PFAS can hang
around in the environment forover a thousand years.
Lucas Adheron (03:31):
A thousand years.
Elena Bondwell (03:32):
Once they're out
there, they move, they get into
water, soil, groundwater, andthey build up in living things,
bioaccumulation in wildlife andin us.
Lucas Adheron (03:40):
That's
unsettling.
I saw a stat that over a thirdof watercourses in England have
medium to high risk levels ofPFAS contamination.
Elena Bondwell (03:48):
That's the kind
of thing we're seeing.
And the health impacts, they'renot trivial.
We're learning more all thetime.
and it's quite alarming.
The truly worrying part is thateven tiny amounts, really low
concentrations, are being linkedto a whole spectrum of serious
health issues.
Lucas Adheron (04:02):
Okay, like what
specifically?
Elena Bondwell (04:04):
Well, elevated
risks for certain cancers,
kidney, prostate, testicular,thyroid, ovarian.
Liver damage is another bigone.
They tend to accumulate there.
Then there's immune systemproblems, weaker antibody
responses, maybe even affectinghow well vaccines work.
Wow.
And reproductive anddevelopmental issues, too.
Things like decreasedfertility, pregnancy
complications like preeclampsia.
(04:24):
Small changes in birth weight,disruption of female hormones,
menstrual cycles.
Lucas Adheron (04:29):
I just keep
going.
Elena Bondwell (04:30):
Yeah.
And also links to things likeulcerative colitis, thyroid
disease, changes in cholesterol,obesity, type 2 diabetes.
There's even early researchlooking at potential links
between prenatal exposure andneurodivergence like autism or
ADHD.
Plus, mixtures of differentPFAS might actually be more
toxic than just one type on itsown.
Lucas Adheron (04:49):
So they're
potentially harmful in many ways
and they're everywhere.
Where do we actually encounterthem day to day?
It's
Elena Bondwell (04:55):
pervasive,
really.
Food packaging is a big one.
Clothing, especiallywater-resistant stuff.
Shampoos, cosmetics.
Firefighting foams have been amajor source.
Even some pesticides.
We get exposed mostly by eatingor drinking contaminated food
or water, using products thatcontain them, maybe even
breathing contaminated air.
Lucas Adheron (05:16):
Skin contact,
too.
Like you mentioned bandages.
Elena Bondwell (05:19):
Yeah, even
something like the flap on a
bandage could potentially leachPFAS into the body.
And here's somethingcounterintuitive.
Boiling your water, it doesn'tget rid of the regulated PFAS.
It might even concentrate themin whatever you're cooking.
Lucas Adheron (05:32):
So boiling
doesn't work.
Yeah.
Elena Bondwell (05:34):
And the
economics of not changing are
just staggering, cleaning thisstuff up.
The projected annual costs inthe EU alone are in the hundreds
of billions of euros.
Over 20 years, if emissionskeep going, it could reach a
cumulative total of twotrillion.
Lucas Adheron (05:49):
Two trillion
euros.
Elena Bondwell (05:50):
Trillion.
That financial burden plus thehealth and environmental costs,
it just makes to continuing touse them unsustainable.
It's really aboutintergenerational
responsibility, isn't it?
We're creating a permanentcontamination legacy.
Lucas Adheron (06:01):
Absolutely.
That $2 trillion figure reallydrives home the incentive for
change.
Bringing it back to adhesivesspecifically, why are PFAS so
useful there?
What are they actually doing?
Elena Bondwell (06:13):
Well, they've
been deliberately added for
those exceptional properties wetouched on.
That superior wetting andspreading is key, letting the
adhesive flow evenly.
They improve penetration andbond strength, especially on
surfaces that are normally hardto stick things to, those low
surface energy plastics.
Lucas Adheron (06:29):
Right.
Makes sense.
Elena Bondwell (06:30):
And they boost
resistance to water, oil,
stains, heat.
Think about a medical bandageneeding to resist blood soaking
through.
That's often PFAS at work.
They can also prevent bubblesforming in the adhesive, help
keep emulsion stable, and reducefriction.
PTFE or Teflon is used for thatlow friction property.
Lucas Adheron (06:49):
Okay.
So where do we find these PFAScontaining adhesives?
What kind of applications?
Elena Bondwell (06:54):
Oh, it's
incredibly diverse.
Medical uses, like we said,bandages, absorbent pads,
industrial and structural stuff,thread lockers, sealants,
coatings like paints andvarnishes.
Electronics are a big area.
Die attach adhesives forsemiconductors, printed circuit
board.
Lucas Adheron (07:09):
Packaging too.
Elena Bondwell (07:10):
Definitely
packaging.
Automotive parts, constructionsealants and caulks, pressure
For other sensitive adhesives,think about the release liners
on sticky labels.
Even components inside machinesthat dispense hot melt
adhesives like seals might usePFAS.
Lucas Adheron (07:25):
Okay, so they're
intentionally added for
performance.
Yeah.
But you mentioned anotherchallenge.
unintentional presence.
Elena Bondwell (07:31):
Yes, and this is
critical.
PFAS might be used asprocessing aids during the
manufacturing of the adhesive orits ingredients, or they could
be part of the manufacturingequipment itself, like coatings
on chemical tanks or pipes,seals, gaskets, filter media.
These can all containfluoropolymers.
Lucas Adheron (07:49):
So even if you
think your adhesive formulation
is PFAS-free.
Elena Bondwell (07:52):
Exactly.
You might have contaminationfrom the process or the
equipment.
Claiming PFAS-free requireslooking at the entire picture
production, supply chain, Andreplacing them isn't easy.
That incredible surface tensionreduction fluorosurfactants
provide getting it down to halfwhat other surfactants can do.
That's a major technicalhurdle.
It's often not just swappingone chemical for another.
(08:14):
It's reengineering the wholeadhesive system.
Lucas Adheron (08:16):
Right.
It's a systems problem.
Okay.
Okay.
So we understand the what andthe why of the problem.
Let's shift gears to what'sbeing done about it.
The regulations.
You mentioned the EU is leadingthe charge.
Elena Bondwell (08:27):
They really are.
This proposed restriction underREACHUGE is groundbreaking.
It targets over 10,000 PFASsubstances.
And importantly, that includesfluoropolymers.
Lucas Adheron (08:38):
Fluoropolymers,
too.
That's the Teflon-like stuff,right?
Elena Bondwell (08:40):
Exactly.
And including them makes this,as they say, the broadest
restriction proposal underREACH-H so far.
It was formally submitted backin January 2023.
And a really significant aspectis the group approach.
Instead of tackling PFAS one byone, which would take forever.
Lucas Adheron (08:58):
Literally
forever, given how many there
are.
Elena Bondwell (09:00):
Right.
They're grouping them based ontheir high persistence and
similar structures, arguing theypose hazards collectively.
The idea is to regulate PFAScomprehensively, including
chemicals that can break downinto PFAS.
It really makes you wonder,will this set a global
precedent?
Could we see this groupapproach apply to other
persistent chemical classes downthe line?
It's a potential game changerfor chemical regulation
(09:22):
worldwide.
Lucas Adheron (09:23):
But including
fluoropolymers is controversial,
isn't it?
I've heard industry pushback.
Elena Bondwell (09:27):
Oh, absolutely.
Industry groups argue that anear total ban on fluoropolymers
is problematic.
They point out how vital thesematerials are for, well, green
technologies.
Things like batteries forelectric cars, heat pumps,
making hydrogen fuel, windturbines.
They argue viable alternativesjust aren't there yet for these
critical applications.
Lucas Adheron (09:46):
So there's a real
tension there, phasing out
harmful chemicals versusenabling the green transition.
Elena Bondwell (09:51):
Precisely.
And the European ChemicalsAgency, ECHA, is right in the
middle of evaluating all this.
Their committees, RAC for Riskand S for socioeconomic impact
started reviewing in March 2023.
They held a massive publicconsultation, got way more
feedback than expected, over5,600 comments.
Now they're sifting through allthat sector by sector.
Lucas Adheron (10:13):
What have they
found so far?
Elena Bondwell (10:15):
Well, they've
reached some provisional
conclusions for medical devicesand lubricants.
And the estimated emissions aresubstantial, like 12,000 tons
of PFAS for medical uses over 30years, 50,000 tons from
lubricants.
And here's an interestingdevelopment They seem to be
considering a third option forsome sectors.
Not just ban or no ban, butfocusing on preventing emissions
(10:38):
where a full ban might bedisproportionate or alternatives
truly don't exist.
Lucas Adheron (10:42):
Okay, that sounds
pragmatic.
Adapting the approach.
Elena Bondwell (10:45):
It shows they're
grappling with the complexity.
But the overall direction isclear.
A comprehensive phase-out iscoming.
Lucas Adheron (10:51):
So the crucial
bit, the timeline.
When is this likely to hit?
Elena Bondwell (10:55):
ECHA's final
opinion is expected maybe late
2025, possibly early 2026.
Then the European Commissionand the member states could
formally adopt the restrictionssometime in 2026 or 2027.
And
Lucas Adheron (11:07):
then what
happens?
Is it an immediate ban?
Elena Bondwell (11:09):
No, there's
usually an 18 month transition
period after adoption before thebans actually take effect.
So for many uses, that pointsto prohibitions starting around
mid 2027.
But for specific sectors thatget exemptions or derogations,
the phase could be much longer,maybe five years, 12 years, even
13.5 years in some cases.
Lucas Adheron (11:28):
Mid-2027 still
feels very close for many
applications.
Elena Bondwell (11:32):
It is.
The takeaway is companies needto be preparing now.
Don't wait.
Lucas Adheron (11:36):
And there are
other deadlines too, right?
Not just the big RECH proposal.
Elena Bondwell (11:40):
Yes, absolutely.
For you listening, keep thesedates in mind.
January 12, 2026, EU rules kickin for PFAS limits in drinking
water.
April 2026, restrictions on aspecific PFAS, PFHXA, hit the EU
EA.
impacting things like consumertextiles, food packaging.
Phase-outs there range from 18months to five years.
Lucas Adheron (11:58):
Okay, food
packaging is a big one.
Elena Bondwell (12:00):
Huge.
And by August 12th, 2026,there's a full ban on PFAS in
food contact materials under theEU's Packaging and Packaging
Waste Regulation, the PPWR.
End of 2026, December 31st,cosmetics with intentionally
added PFAS can't be imported ormade.
January 1st, 2028, bans oncertain outdoor apparel and
(12:21):
household textiles with PFAS.
And France is going evenfurther with a broader national
textile ban in 2030.
Lucas Adheron (12:27):
So it's a wave of
regulations, not just one big
one.
And this isn't purely an EU
Elena Bondwell (12:31):
thing.
Not at all.
The US EPA has its own PFASstrategic roadmap research,
restriction remediation.
They've got new rules underTSEA requiring companies to
report PFAS use going back to2011.
They're working on preventingunsafe new PFAS from hitting the
market and finalizing toughdrinking water limits targeting
four parts per trillion forPFAOA and PFOS by 2027 with
treatment solutions needed by2029.
(12:52):
Four parts
Lucas Adheron (12:53):
per trillion.
That sounds incredibly low.
Elena Bondwell (12:55):
It is extremely
low.
And even the U.S.
military, the DOD, is phasingout PFAS firefighting foams by
October 2025.
Lucas Adheron (13:01):
And then there
was that big move by 3M.
Elena Bondwell (13:03):
Yes, that was
significant.
In December 2022, 3M,historically a major PFAS
producer, announced they'regetting out, completely stopping
all PFAS manufacturing andphasing it out of their entire
product line by the end of 2025.
Wow.
Lucas Adheron (13:18):
When a giant like
3M makes a move like that.
Elena Bondwell (13:21):
It sends a
powerful signal to the whole
market.
They already phased out PFOAand PFOS back in 2000, but this
is a complete exit.
Now, woven into all theseregulations is this concept of
essential use.
This is really key tounderstanding potential
exemptions.
Lucas Adheron (13:36):
Essential use.
How does that work?
Elena Bondwell (13:37):
It's about
balancing environmental
protection with things societygenuinely needs.
For a use to be consideredessential, it has to meet two
criteria and both have to bemet.
First, the use has to benecessary for health, safety, or
it must be critical for societyto function.
Think hospitals, emergencyservices, clean water, defense,
key infrastructure like energyor transport.
(13:58):
Second, there must be noacceptable alternatives
available that can do the jobconsidering both technical
performance and safety.
Lucas Adheron (14:05):
Okay, so it's a
high bar.
What kind of uses are beingproposed as potentially
essential?
Elena Bondwell (14:09):
Well, in medical
devices, things like
propellants and asthma inhalers,dialysis membranes, special
coatings on implants, orsurgical tool where alternatives
might not prevent bloodsticking or infection.
Semiconductors are anotherarea, specific materials needed
for advanced manufacturing stepslike photolithography.
Also things like cables ortouch panels and automotive
(14:31):
electronics.
Lucas Adheron (14:32):
And those green
technologies you mentioned.
Elena Bondwell (14:34):
Right.
EV batteries, heat pumps,hydrogen production, wind
turbines, areas wherefluoropolymers are currently
seen as vital and durablealternatives aren't readily
available.
Also some industrial uses likecertain lubricants for extreme
conditions, materials andindustrial plants like pipes or
gaskets, and of course, militaryapplications and spare parts
for existing equipment.
Lucas Adheron (14:55):
So there's this
list of potential exemptions,
but there's still conflict,right?
Elena Bondwell (14:58):
Definitely.
Industry groups are pushing fora more nuanced, risk-based
approach.
They're worried about theimpact on European
competitiveness and supplychains.
On the other side,environmental and health groups
want the restrictions to bebroad, with very few exemptions
and a fast phase-out, pointingto past problems with just
trying to limit emissions.
Lucas Adheron (15:18):
really highlights
that challenge.
How do you avoid regrettablesubstitutions?
You ban one harmful thing onlyto replace it with something
just as bad or maybe worse.
Elena Bondwell (15:28):
Exactly.
The classic example is PFOAbeing replaced by Gen X
chemicals like HFPODA, whichthen turned out to have their
own set of health concerns.
It's a cautionary tale forregulators and industry alike.
We need to be careful what weswitch to.
Lucas Adheron (15:42):
Okay, so the
regulatory landscape is complex.
The deadlines are looming.
But here's where hopefully weget some positive news.
The innovation side.
You said there are realsolutions emerging.
Elena Bondwell (15:51):
Absolutely.
And this is where it getsreally interesting.
Despite all the challenges, thepath towards a PFAS-free future
is actually being paved withsome clever innovations.
The key insight, I think, isthat it's not always about
finding a direct drop-inchemical replacement.
It's often about functionalsubstitution.
Lucas Adheron (16:09):
Functional
substitution.
Elena Bondwell (16:10):
Meaning finding
a different way using
non-fluorinated chemistry toachieve the same performance
that PFAS provided.
In my involve differentmaterials, different
formulations, even differentprocesses.
Lucas Adheron (16:22):
Soterios Johnson
Before we dive into those, what
does PFAS-free actually mean?
You mentioned earlier there'sno single definition.
Does that apply to PFAS-freeclaims too?
Elena Bondwell (16:30):
Amy Quinton It
does.
There's nuance there as well.
Some certifications, maybe forcompostable packaging, might
allow a very small amount oftotal fluorine, say under 100
parts per million.
But stricter certifications,like Intertech's PFAS-free
label, require total organicfluorine, or TOF, to be below
the detection limit, maybearound 20 ppm.
So understanding the standardbehind the claim is important
(16:52):
for transparency.
Lucas Adheron (16:53):
Okay, good point.
So let's talk specifics.
What kinds of PFAS-freeadhesive technologies are
emerging?
Elena Bondwell (16:59):
We're seeing
progress on several fronts.
Waxes, for instance.
Companies like Clarient havedeveloped modified polyethylene
waxes, even rice brand waxadditives.
These can provide low friction,good temperature resistance,
improve scratch resistance,often performing well even at
lower concentrations than thePFAS they replace.
Minzing also has polymer blendsand micronized waxes replacing
(17:23):
PTFE and things like inks.
Lucas Adheron (17:25):
Waxes.
Interesting.
What else?
Elena Bondwell (17:27):
Silicones and
silicone polyether blends are
showing a lot of promise.
Momentive has additives,Kodosilla, that can get water
surface tension down really low,maybe 22 millinewtons per
meter, which is in the ballparkof fluorosurfactants.
Lucas Adheron (17:40):
Getting close to
that fluorosurfactant
performance.
Elena Bondwell (17:42):
Exactly.
They help with wetting,leveling, foam control, and add
resistance to abrasion, water,oil.
DuPont also has high puritysilicone adhesives for attaching
semiconductor dyes, offeringgood moisture resistance and
adhesion without needing aprimer.
Lucas Adheron (17:57):
So silicones are
stepping up.
What about entirely newchemistries?
Elena Bondwell (18:00):
We're seeing
hybrid chemistries.
Henkel, for example, has aproduct called Loctite Obustic
2025 DNP.
It's a proprietary PFAS-freeversion replacing an older
product designed specificallyfor advanced semiconductor
packaging.
It offers strong adhesion andstability at high temperature
Lucas Adheron (18:18):
OK.
And surfactants.
Since fluorosurfactants were sokey.
Elena Bondwell (18:22):
Yeah,
non-fluorinated surfactants are
definitely a focus.
Behrens has their EcoShield andFlexiWet lines.
These are low-viscosity wettingand leveling agents for paints,
coatings, adhesives, designedto give smooth, defect-free
finishes without PFAS.
Lucas Adheron (18:37):
What about those
heavy-duty industrial adhesives
like threadlockers?
Elena Bondwell (18:40):
Even there.
The Glutec Group offersPFAS-free anaerobic adhesives
now.
These are for critical jobslike securing bolts or sealing
pipe threads.
and they still offer highresistance to water, gas, oil,
chemicals.
Lucas Adheron (18:51):
And packaging.
You mentioned starch.
Elena Bondwell (18:53):
Yes, this is
really exciting.
Sustainable barrier starches,made from a specific type of
potato starch, are beingdeveloped for paper and board
packaging to resist oil andgrease.
And the performance looksreally good, comparable, or even
better than fluorochemicals insome tests.
Plus, they can act as an oxygenbarrier, too.
So potentially amultifunctional, bio-based
(19:14):
solution.
Lucas Adheron (19:15):
That sounds very
promising.
Are there non-chemicalapproaches to
Elena Bondwell (19:18):
Absolutely.
Things like physical vapordeposition, PVD, and
plasma-enhanced chemical vapordeposition, PACVD.
IonBond offers these advancedcoating techniques.
They're essentiallynon-chemical processes that
create super thin,high-performance layers.
They can replace PTFE coatings,offering great chemical
stability, wear resistance, lowfriction, non-stick properties.
(19:39):
It's a totally different way toachieve the function.
Lucas Adheron (19:41):
So the solution
isn't always in the adhesive.
It might be on the surface.
Elena Bondwell (19:45):
Exactly.
It highlights a strategicshift.
We're moving beyond justswapping ingredients to
developing multi-componenttailored solutions and even
entirely new application methodslike PVD.
It demands a deeperunderstanding of material
science.
And what's becoming reallyhelpful are these online
databases popping up.
They're systematicallycataloging PFAS uses, their
(20:08):
functions, and documentedalternatives, including
performance data, availability,and any safety concerns.
These are crucial tools to helpcompanies find viable options
and avoid those regrettablesubstitutions.
Lucas Adheron (20:20):
That makes sense.
Databases to navigate theoptions.
Now, you mentioned earlier thatachieving PFAS-free isn't just
about the adhesive formula.
What else needs consideration?
Elena Bondwell (20:29):
Right.
It goes way beyond theformulation.
Remember those unintentionalsources.
PFAS might be used asprocessing aids, or they could
be part of the manufacturingequipment itself.
Fluoropolymers are commonlyused in things like chemical
storage tanks, pipes, seals,gaskets, filtration systems.
Lucas Adheron (20:45):
Because they're
so chemically resistant.
Elena Bondwell (20:47):
Precisely.
There was a case studyinvolving OmniSeal highlighting
the need for PFAS-free sealsinside hot melt adhesive
dispensing machines.
If the machine itself containsPFAS, your PFAS-free adhesive
might not be PFAS-free by thetime it comes out.
Lucas Adheron (21:04):
Wow, that's
complicated.
Elena Bondwell (21:05):
It adds layers
and another layer.
Even the packaging the adhesivecomes in could be a source of
contamination.
Research has shown that PFAScan leach out of fluorinated
plastic containers like thoseHDPE bottles into liquid
products.
stored inside them.
Lucas Adheron (21:19):
So the container
itself could contaminate the
product.
Elena Bondwell (21:20):
Potentially,
yes.
That EU ban on PFAS in foodcontact materials starting
August 2026 under the PPWR, thatdirectly targets this kind of
issue for food packaging.
It raises a really importantquestion for any company making
a PFAS-free claim.
How can you be sure whencontamination could happen at so
many points?
It really forces you to do athorough PFAS footprint analysis
(21:43):
of your entire operation, fromraw materials to final
packaging.
Lucas Adheron (21:46):
Okay, so this is
clearly a massive undertaking
for companies, what's thestrategic roadmap look like?
If you're an adhesivesmanufacturer, where do you even
start?
Elena Bondwell (21:53):
The report lays
out a framework, and it really
begins with a deep dive intoyour own portfolio, a
comprehensive assessment.
That means identifying everysingle instance where PFAS might
be present, intentionallyadded, used as a processing aid,
part of equipment, potentialcontaminant across all your
products, all your processes,and your entire supply chain.
Lucas Adheron (22:14):
How do you even
find all that?
Elena Bondwell (22:16):
It takes
meticulous auditing.
You need to leverage internaldata, maybe info gathered for
regulatory reporting like theUSTSCA requirements for PFES
used since 2011.
You need to consult thoseexternal databases of
alternatives we mentioned.
And crucially, you need toproactively talk to your
suppliers.
Lucas Adheron (22:32):
Talking to
suppliers seems key.
And testing, how do companiesverify?
Elena Bondwell (22:37):
Testing is
essential.
There are two main approachesyou need to know about.
First is total fluorine or TOFtesting.
Think of it as a broad screen.
Techniques like P-I-G-E orcombustion ion chromatography,
look for the presence of anyfluorine.
It tells you if fluorine isthere, but not which specific
PFAS chemicals.
Lucas Adheron (22:54):
Okay, so it's a
red flag test.
Elena Bondwell (22:56):
Exactly, a first
pass.
Then, if you get a positive, orfor specific compliance, you
move to targeted PFAS testing.
This uses sophisticated labmethods like GCMS or LCMS to
identify and measure the amountsof specific PFAS compounds.
The limitation here is thatthese methods can typically only
look for maybe less than 100specific So neither
Lucas Adheron (23:20):
test alone gives
the full picture.
Elena Bondwell (23:21):
Correct.
The crucial insight is thatcompanies really need to use
both TOF for that comprehensivescreening and targeted testing
for quantifying specificregulated PFAS and ensuring
compliance.
Relying on just one methodcould mean you miss something
important.
Lucas Adheron (23:36):
Okay, so
identify, test, Then what?
Elena Bondwell (23:39):
Then comes risk
mapping.
You take what you found andassess it against current
regulations and also what youanticipate coming down the line.
You evaluate potential legalrisks, reputational damage.
This helps you prioritize whichapplications are highest risk,
which ones need action rightnow.
Lucas Adheron (23:53):
Makes sense.
Prioritize based on risk andregulation.
Elena Bondwell (23:56):
And from there,
you develop a phased
substitution strategy.
You can't do everything atonce.
Focus on the high impact areasfirst, especially things like
consumer products that oftenface the earliest deadlines.
And for those uses where youthink you might need an
exemption, that's where a reallyrigorous essentiality
assessment comes in.
You have to build a strong caseshowing why it's truly
(24:18):
necessary and why there are noviable alternatives.
Your R&D team and yourregulatory team need to be
working hand in glove.
Lucas Adheron (24:25):
And how much time
might companies get if they do
secure one of those essentialuse derogations?
Elena Bondwell (24:30):
It varies.
The transition periods could bethe standard 18 months plus
maybe five years, or for somereally critical applications, it
could be 12 years, possiblyeven So quite a range.
Yes.
The staggered approach isdesigned to allow industries to
adapt in a more orderly way,hopefully minimizing major
disruptions.
Lucas Adheron (24:50):
And throughout
this, companies need to be
constantly looking atalternatives, right?
What should they focus on whenevaluating them?
Elena Bondwell (24:56):
Continuous
evaluation is key.
First, performance matching.
Can the alternative deliver theneeded function?
Often this might mean using ablend of several PFAS-free
additives, not just one.
Second, and absolutelycritical, is the safety
assessment.
You must evaluate the safetyprofile of the alternative, its
persistence, bioaccumulation,toxicity, PBT properties, to
(25:19):
avoid those regrettablesubstitutions.
Lucas Adheron (25:21):
Don't swap one
problem for another.
Elena Bondwell (25:22):
Exactly.
Third is commercial viability.
Is it available at scale?
Is it cost-effective?
effective?
Can it be easily integratedinto existing processes?
This requires real investmentin R&D, collaboration, pilot
testing and potentiallyrequalifying products,
especially for demanding sectorslike electronics or automotive,
where reliability is paramount.
Lucas Adheron (25:43):
And you keep
mentioning the supply chain.
Sounds like that's a huge pieceof this puzzle.
Elena Bondwell (25:46):
It's absolutely
vital.
You need a resilient supplychain.
That means mapping yoursuppliers, including their
suppliers, the sub tiers.
You need to understand theirPFAS phase out plans.
And you need to demandtransparency.
Ask for detailed materialdisclosures.
Regulations like that EPA TSCAreporting role will help push
this transparency, making iteasier to track substances.
Lucas Adheron (26:09):
So you really
need to know what's happening
upstream.
Elena Bondwell (26:11):
Completely.
And it shifts the dynamic.
If PFAS can leach frompackaging supplied by someone
else, or if a processing aidused by a supplier contains
PFAS, your PFAS-free claim iscompromised.
It really forces a move awayfrom just transactional supplier
relationships towards truepartnerships, maybe even
co-developing new PFAS-freematerials together.
Lucas Adheron (26:32):
Elaboration
becomes essential.
Elena Bondwell (26:34):
It does.
And it brings up trickyquestions too, like the right to
repair issue.
How do you support olderproducts out in the field that
were designed using PFAScomponents without undermining
the overall goal of eliminatingthese chemicals?
There aren't always easyanswers.
Lucas Adheron (26:47):
No easy answers,
definitely.
So wrapping this up, it's clearthe pieces industry is facing,
well, a massive, unavoidableshift away from PFAS.
It really isn't a matter of ofif anymore, but when and how.
And that mid-2027 date islooming large for many.
Elena Bondwell (27:03):
It is.
But what I find genuinelycompelling is that even with all
the complexity, the sheernumber of PFAS, the definitional
challenges, the fact that theywork so well, companies are
finding ways forward.
These pioneers are proving thathigh-performance,
non-fluorinated alternatives areviable.
We're seeing real innovation inwaxes, silicones, new
chemistries, those advancedcoatings.
(27:24):
They are bridging theperformance gap.
Lucas Adheron (27:26):
So So this isn't
just about ticking a regulatory
box, is it?
It sounds more like afundamental strategic shift.
Elena Bondwell (27:31):
I think it
absolutely is.
It's an imperative forlong-term sustainability and
increasingly for marketleadership.
The companies that get ahead ofthis that proactively find and
implement effective PFAS-freesolutions, especially for those
non-essential uses, they'repositioning themselves as
leaders.
Lucas Adheron (27:46):
Attracting
customers, investors.
Yeah,
Elena Bondwell (27:48):
exactly.
Attracting environmentallyconscious customers, investors,
talent, and differentiatingthemselves from competitors who
might be dragging their feet.
And if you zoom out evenfurther, this whole shift away
from PFAS, it's bigger than justadhesives, bigger than just one
class of chemicals.
It feels like part of a globalrace to the top on environmental
(28:09):
protection.
It's forcing innovation andit's fundamentally about taking
responsibility for the long-termhealth of the planet and future
generations.
Lucas Adheron (28:17):
A race to the
top.
I like that framing.
So maybe here's a final thoughtfor you, our listener, to chew
on.
As industries everywhere adaptto this new reality, where
sustainability and safety aren'tjust nice-to-haves but core
requirements, could masteringthis transition, becoming truly
PFAS-free, actually become theultimate competitive advantage?
Could it be what separates thereal forward-thinking leaders
(28:40):
from everyone else in the yearsto come?
Lots to think about there.
Thanks for diving deep with ustoday.
We really hope this gave yousome valuable insights and maybe
a few aha moments about thiscomplex but crucial transition.