Michael S. Wong, the Tina and Sunit Patel Professor in Molecular Nanotechnology at Rice University, is available to speak with media about emerging strategies to address PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), widely known as "forever chemicals." His research focuses on catalytic and low-energy approaches that aim not only to capture PFAS from water but to break them down into benign components - a shift that could reshape how communities and industries manage these persistent contaminants. Below, Wong answers some general questions about why PFAS are so difficult to destroy and what the future of decontamination might look like.
Q: PFAS are often called "forever chemicals." Why are they so difficult to eliminate?
PFAS are a large family of compounds valued for their unusual properties: They repel water, resist stains and tolerate extreme conditions. These characteristics make them useful in products ranging from cookware to textiles and industrial materials. But those same properties come from the fluorine atoms and the extremely strong carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds are among the most durable in chemistry, which also make PFAS remarkably resistant to natural degradation. As a result, PFAS can persist in water, soil and air long after their original use.
Q: Why has PFAS contamination become such a concern?
Researchers began detecting PFAS in places where they were never intentionally applied - in water, wildlife and human populations. Subsequent studies showed that certain PFAS compounds are associated with adverse health effects, prompting regulatory scrutiny and growing public concern. While not all PFAS are equally harmful, some legacy compounds have documented risks, raising urgent questions about exposure and long-term management.
Q: Most remediation efforts focus on filtering PFAS from water. Why is your work emphasizing the need for destruction?
Sorption technologies, such as activated carbon, are effective at removing PFAS from water. The challenge comes afterward: Once the sorbents are full of PFAS, they must be landfilled or incinerated. At municipal or industrial scales, this generates enormous volumes of waste and significant costs, making "capture-and-dispose" and "capture-and-incinerate" strategies difficult to sustain. Destructive approaches aim to eliminate PFAS without capturing or disposing, addressing the root of the persistence problem.
Q: Why is water the starting point for many PFAS solutions?
Water is often the most practical intervention point because it serves as a primary transport pathway for contaminants. Treating water allows for controlled, centralized mitigation before PFAS spread further through ecosystems or drinking supplies. It is also where many existing treatment infrastructures already operate, making it a logical platform for new technologies.
Q: What makes PFAS destruction scientifically challenging?
Breaking down PFAS requires overcoming their exceptionally strong chemical bonds and also their nonstickiness. Conventional tools developed for other contaminants often prove less effective. Even when PFAS are degraded, researchers must ensure complete conversion to harmless end products - ideally water, carbon dioxide and fluoride - without generating problematic intermediates. Avoiding the creation of new environmental risks is a central concern.
Q: Your team has investigated light-driven catalytic systems. What is promising about this approach?
Photocatalysis uses light to drive chemical reactions that would otherwise require extreme conditions and significant energy input. In our studies, materials such as boron nitride have shown previously unreported effectiveness in accelerating PFAS breakdown compared with traditional photocatalysts. These findings suggest that carefully engineered catalysts could reduce energy demands while improving degradation efficiency by capturing and destroying PFAS in a single step.
Q: Are all PFAS equally hazardous?
No. PFAS encompass tens of thousands of compounds with a myriad of structures and properties. Certain legacy PFAS have documented health concerns and are the primary focus of regulation. Others remain under study. A balanced scientific perspective recognizes both the legitimate risks posed by specific compounds and the functional roles PFAS have played in critical technologies, from electronics to medical devices.
Q: Looking ahead, how might PFAS treatment evolve?
The long-term goal is a portfolio of adaptable technologies - systems capable of addressing different concentrations, chemistries and operational constraints. Destructive methods could complement or replace disposal-heavy practices, particularly where sustainability and lifecycle costs should be prioritized. There is a lot of promise in a "concentrate-and-destroy" approach. Over time, advances in chemistry and engineering may enable practical, field-ready solutions deployable at municipal, industrial or site-specific scales.
