PFAS research activity at the 2026 IWA Congress and Exhibition, Glasgow
Simon Judd has over 35 years’ post-doctorate experience in all aspects of water and wastewater treatment technology, both in academic and industrial R&D. He has (co-)authored six book titles and over 200 peer-reviewed publications in water and wastewater treatment.
PFAS mitigation research
There’s little doubt that PFAS − its characterisation, fate and abatement − represents a huge topic within both the industrial practitioner and academic research communities. The subject cropped up in many of our conversations with exhibitors at the IWA Congress and Exhibition, Glasgow (October 2026) event, and was the focus of a significant number of the research posters.
What follows is a brief overview of the 25 poster presentations dedicated to PFAS that we encountered at the event (with apologies to any we may have missed).
Unfortunately, we were only able to talk to two of the authors, and our thanks go to Ali Hydar of UNIVPM and Priya Dharwadkar of Cranfield University for their time. The summary below is therefore largely constrained by our understanding and interpretation of the posters alone. It should also be acknowledged that there are many published recent reviews of PFAS mitigation – more than 50 in 2026 alone – which are far more extensive than this snapshot of work presented at the Congress.
Across all the 25 posters we encountered on display (Table 1):
- Two were paper reviews (Callaghan et al; Prisciandaro et al)
- Three concerned PFAS fate or analysis, including pathways for transport in potable water production (Vorstius & Leith), sample contamination during analysis (Fuller et al), and residues in biosolids (Ward et al), with one other dedicated to analytical methodology (Leroy et al)
- 15 were based on PFAS removal with either RO/NF (Cirne et al; Hydar et al; Steinmann et al), adsorption (Bond et al; Fecher & Walczyk; Grandre; Jeong & Jeong; Lo et al; Martijn et al; Puupponen et al) or both of these (Bruun & Nielsen; Dharwadkar et al;, Hercule-Bobroff et al; Jarvis et al; Rubirola et al)
- Two included foam flotation for PFAS removal (Bruun & Nielsen; Ismail et al)
- Eight were based on or encompassed PFAS destruction from the concentrate (Bruun & Nielsen; Dharwadkar et al; Urkiaga; Hydar et al; Ismail et al; Kweon et al; Mathon et al; Steinmann et al).
| Author(s) | Affiliation | PFAS removal | Concentrate treatment | Fate | Feed / study | Scope / performance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF | Ads | NF/RO | AP | EO | HTG | Inc | Plas | Pyr | |||||
| Bond et al | WRc | X | Analogue raw water | Optimum GAC material identified using RSSCT. | |||||||||
| Bruun & Nielsen | Ultraaqua | X | X | X | Firefighting effluent | >7000× concentration by duplicating FF step. Subsequent destruction SEC <0.1 kWh/m³. | |||||||
| Callaghan et al | RSE | X | X | X | Paper review | Comparison of IEX, GAC, novel adsorbents, NF and RO. | |||||||
| Cirne et al | VITO | X | Laundry effluent | >90% rejection by polymeric NF from MBR permeate; >98% from NF concentrate at 70% recovery. | |||||||||
| Dharwadkar et al | Cranfield | X | X | X | Raw water | IEX vs RO for removal; EO, SWCO, plasma, HALT and UVS for destruction. | |||||||
| Fecher & Walczyk | Veolia | X | Potable water | Full-scale GAC filter implementation, including costs. | |||||||||
| Fuller et al | Heriot-Watt | X | — | PFAS contamination from various sources during sampling and analysis. | |||||||||
| Gandre | Veolia | X | RO concentrate | Bench-scale testing to predict full-scale breakthrough. | |||||||||
| Hercule-Bobroff et al | Veolia | X | X | WTW site survey | GAC more prevalent at WTWs than other methods. | ||||||||
| Hydar et al | UNIVPM | X | X | Landfill leachate | 75–98% rejection across six PFAS by NF; pyrolytic destruction at 600°C. | ||||||||
| Ismail et al | Swansea | X | X | Secondary sewage | 80–95% removal by FF; >99% by non-thermal plasma in 50 min, 50–130 kWh/m³. | ||||||||
| Jarvis et al | Cranfield | X | X | Potable water | Short-chain PFAS less effectively removed by GAC than by SMC and IEX. | ||||||||
| Jeong & Jeong | Pusan | X | 100 ppb PFOA | Modified chitosan adsorbent removed 99.9% PFOA. | |||||||||
| Kweon et al | Konkuk | X | — | Up to 19% removal in 120 min at 12 kV by underwater arc plasma. | |||||||||
| Leroy | Veolia | Industrial GAC effluent | Non-targeted screening using LC–high-resolution MS for 16 target PFAS. | ||||||||||
| Lo et al | Imperial | X | — | LCA of novel adsorbent; climate-change footprint 32–85% lower than GAC. | |||||||||
| Martijn et al | Dunea | X | Potable water | Correlation of residual toxicity with OPEX, based on GAC performance. | |||||||||
| Mathon et al | Treewater | X | X | Various | UVS and enhanced EO applied to groundwater, laundry effluent and RO concentrate. EO more effective. | ||||||||
| Prisciandaro et al | L'Aquila | Paper review | Colorimetric and fluorimetric monitoring vs LC–MS. | ||||||||||
| Puupponen et al | Kemira | X | — | Metal-organic framework adsorbents screened for synthesis feasibility and adsorption performance. | |||||||||
| Rubirola et al | Aigües de Barcelona | X | X | WTW site survey | Complete removal by RO; short-chain PFAS poorly removed by GAC. | ||||||||
| Steinmann et al | Suez | X | X | X | X | — | >90% removal by RO; 99.99% destruction by thermochemical methods. | ||||||
| Urkiaga | Gaiker | X | PFOA and pharmaceuticals | 5 h photooxidation removed 85–97% PFOA, vs 84% using 5 kDa MWCO UF. | |||||||||
| Vorstius & Leith | Scottish Water | X | Raw water | PFAS transport pathways in Scotland; seasonal variation. | |||||||||
| Ward et al | HRSD | X | Biosolids | PFAS risk; PFOA measured at 35–40 µg/kg. | |||||||||
Key – removal: FF = foam fractionation; Ads = adsorption; GAC = granular activated carbon; IEX = ion exchange; SMC = modified clay media; NF/RO = nanofiltration/reverse osmosis.
Concentrate treatment: AP = advanced photolysis; EO = electro-oxidation; HTG = hydrothermal gasification; Inc = incineration; Plas = plasma treatment; Pyr = pyrolysis; HALT = hydrothermal alkaline treatment; SWCO = supercritical water oxidation; UVS = UV sulphide advanced oxidation.
Other: WTW = water treatment works; RSSCT = rapid small-scale column testing; SEC = specific energy consumption; LCA = life-cycle assessment; OPEX = operating expenditure; MWCO = molecular weight cut-off. X = technology or subject covered; blank = not identified in the study summary.
Removal
Foam fractionation appears to be an elegant and effective solution provided surfactant can be added or is present, which would seem to rule out its use for potable water treatment. GAC is evidently the most implemented technology currently, since it is very well understood, but has been shown to have limited efficacy for short-chain PFAS molecules such as trifluoro acetic acid. Also, conventional steam regeneration does not destroy the PFAS or even completely remove it from the GAC medium: reactivation temperatures well above 600 deg C are required for this. RO seems to remove PFAS completely, including short-chain molecules, but generates significant volumes of concentrate. NF provides slightly lower removals and a little less concentrate.
All this suggests that a selective PFAS sorbent is needed – a massive challenge, given that PFAS is present at far lower concentrations than organic carbon in surface waters and wastewater. Ion exchange resins are being explored, with the dual aim of maximising the resin capacity while minimising the quantity of regenerant needed to elute the captured PFAS. The PFAS in the spent regenerative solution must then be destroyed.
Destruction
A number of methods have been proposed and tested for PFAS destruction, all of them chemically or thermochemically oxidative. Although less well represented than removal, a few of the posters included outcomes of practical measurements on advanced photolysis (Bruun & Nielsen; Mathon et al), electrooxidation (Mathon et al), hydrothermal gasification and incineration (Steinmann et al), plasma-based processes (Ismail et al; Kweon et al) and pyrolysis (Hydar et al; Steinmann et al). These processes all achieve a level of destruction commensurate with the reaction time and energy consumption. What is apparent, though, is that the energy and/chemical consumption of these methods significantly adds to the carbon footprint of the water or wastewater treatment process. This makes the degree of concentration achieved by the removal/extraction step critical in reducing the overall process carbon footprint to something palatable.
Membrane and MBR research
There were, naturally, a few posters dedicated to membrane and MBR technology. The MBR presentations included a UASB-based AnMBR sewage treatment pilot study (Cardoso et al) and a comparative LCA of CAS and MBR performed at Henriksdal (Baresel et al). These studies both warrant a more extensive appraisal and a wider audience than a poster presentation.
Summing up
As for the city itself, returning to Glasgow after many years away from the city was a true joy, offering as it does some iconic architecture (City Chambers, the Cathedral, Central Station), a pleasant stroll around the Necropolis and along the river and, of course, numerous pubs. The Scottish Event Campus venue for the exhibition, staged in one of the SEC's five halls, was very conveniently located.
We found that the IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition 2026 was well organised, well laid out, well attended and – from what we could gather – well received. The organisers deserve some credit for this, as do the booth holders for their bestowed knowledge, dedication and enthusiasm: the reserves of energy required for an event such as this should not be underestimated.
From a personal point of view, it was truly heartening to bump into so many past colleagues, clients and alumni – far more than would normally be the case at the larger exhibitions and those held outside the UK. The posters made for absorbing reading, and there's always much to learn from those that took the time and trouble to produce them. As much as all the other elements of an event such as this, the poster presentations afford a great opportunity for learning - especially if the authors are on hand to discuss them.
If you missed out this year and are tempted to attend the next event in two years' time, stick the dates 12–19 September 2028 in your diary and start looking for flights to Kuching in Sarawak. Sarawak, it transpires, is a region in the north west of Borneo. A different vibe to Glasgow, one would think, with possibly less Irn Bru. But maybe a few more orangutans.
