PFAS alternatives: A formulation challenge
PFAS are under scrutiny, but replacing them is complex, requiring full reformulation to maintain performance, not simple substitution.
Market Strategy Manager
Over recent years, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have shifted from obscure industrial chemicals to front-page health concerns. Their persistence in the environment, combined with increasing evidence of potential health risks, has created significant pressure on industry to identify and implement viable alternatives.
PFAS are often treated as an ingredient issue: remove a problematic substance and replace it with a safer alternative. In practice, however, PFAS have rarely been used in isolation. They’re typically embedded within carefully engineered, complex and proprietary formulations designed to deliver specific performance characteristics under demanding conditions. Removing PFAS, therefore, isn’t simply a matter of substitution, but rather of reconfiguring an entire formulation.
Drop-in replacements
The search for PFAS alternatives often begins with a familiar question: What materials can deliver the same performance without the risks associated with PFAS? This approach assumes that PFAS functionality can be replicated by introducing a single compound, or set of compounds, which deliver comparable properties.
However, PFAS are distinctive in that they combine multiple performance attributes, including thermal stability, chemical resistance, low surface energy and durability. Replicating this combination, even with a small number of alternatives, is not feasible in many cases.
As a result, drop-in replacements frequently fall short. A candidate material, or set of materials, may successfully reproduce some aspects of performance but fail to deliver others. For example, a coating may repel water but not oil; or a firefighting foam may spread effectively but lack stability.
These outcomes aren’t simply a reflection of poor material substitution, but a deeper mismatch between how the problem is framed and how performance is achieved in practice.
Formulation architecture
In most applications, performance doesn’t arise from a single ingredient. Instead, it emerges from the interactions between multiple components within a formulation.
Systems such as coatings, lubricants and foams are typically composed of binders, surfactants, solvents, stabilisers and functional additives. PFAS often play an important role within these systems, but they’re only one part of a broader formulation architecture. When PFAS are removed, this architecture is disrupted. The consequences can include:
- Changes in surface tension and wetting behaviour.
- Reduced compatibility between formulation components.
- Impacts on stability and shelf life.
- Altered application performance, such as spreading, adhesion or curing.
In this context, introducing a new ingredient into an existing formulation rarely restores overall performance. Instead, the system itself must be reconsidered.
A systems-level design challenge
Reframing the PFAS substitution problem as a formulation challenge expands the available design space and enables more effective problem-solving. Rather than seeking a replacement, the approach should consider how all formulation components can work together to deliver the required functionality. This encourages the redesign of formulations from first principles rather than adapting existing systems, while also enabling informed trade-offs between competing performance requirements. Ultimately, a redesign supports the development of solutions tailored to specific applications, rather than pursuing universal substitutes.
One of the challenges in transitioning away from PFAS is the expectation that alternatives should match existing performance across all criteria. In practice, formulation science is inherently about managing trade-offs. The objective isn’t to replicate the performance of the existing product, but to optimise performance against the needs of a specific use case.
In this context, a PFAS-free formulation may deliver the required enhanced performance in certain areas while accepting reduced performance in others. These performance outcomes should be interpreted as deliberate design choices aligned to application needs, rather than as inherent limitations.
Collaboration across disciplines
Reframing PFAS substitution as a formulation challenge also has implications for how we approach innovation.
Ingredient substitution can often be addressed within a single technical function. In contrast, reformulation typically requires coordinated input from multiple disciplines, including chemistry, process engineering, product development and end-use application.
As such, effective progress depends on collaboration, both within organisations and across the wider innovation ecosystem. This could also include engagement with customers to redefine performance requirements entirely. While this approach may increase complexity, it also leads to more robust outcomes aligned with customer needs.
The National Formulation Centre at CPI
Recognising that such challenges are fundamentally formulation issues, the UK has invested in dedicated capabilities to support industry.
CPI’s National Formulation Centre was established to help companies develop complex products and processes across a wide range of market sectors, including coatings, fast-moving consumer goods, advanced materials and energy.
Moving beyond simple ingredient substitution to system-level design, the National Formulation Centre combines materials and processing expertise, digital formulation tools and collaborative delivery models to support companies in:
- Rebuilding formulations from first principles.
- Identifying multi-component solutions that deliver required performance.
- Accelerating testing and optimisation.
- Managing trade-offs between functionality, cost and environmental impact.
Automation plays a critical role in this process, helping companies to learn small, learn fast, and learn thoroughly. Small-scale high-throughput experimentation, data-driven modelling and iterative testing workflows reduce risk and cost, allowing rapid screening, optimisation and validation of formulations.
This capability is particularly important in accelerating the development of PFAS-free formulations, where multiple interacting variables must be optimised simultaneously. Rather than relying on slow, trial-and-error approaches, automated experimentation enables faster exploration to determine the most viable solutions.
For organisations seeking to re-formulate without PFAS, the National Formulation Centre can provide the specialist expertise required to fully re-engineer established products, where speed, precision and depth of learning are essential to solving complex materials challenges.
The future is formulation
The challenge associated with PFAS isn’t solely a question of chemistry; it’s fundamentally a systems-level formulation issue. Reframing the need in these terms shifts the focus away from idealised drop-in replacements and towards the design of integrated, application-specific solutions.
The capabilities required to address this challenge are already well established, particularly within the UK’s strengths in formulation science, materials engineering and collaborative innovation. While the urgency around PFAS alternatives has increased in recent years, the underlying principles for responding to it aren’t new.
At its core, this is a formulation challenge in which performance will be achieved through the deliberate design of the system as a whole, rather than through material substitutions.
Explore more on PFAS:
Enjoyed this article? Keep reading more expert insights...
CPI ensures that great inventions gets the best opportunity to become a successfully marketed product or process. We provide industry-relevant expertise and assets, supporting proof of concept and scale up services for the development of your innovative products and processes.