Table 2.

Removal technologies of PFAS from the environment.

Technologies	Process	Site	Advantages	Disadvantages	Source
Adsorption	Removal of PFAS compounds via adsorption to selective materials of adsorbing potential (e.g., Biochar, Resin, and modified clays)	Ex situ/in situ	Low operational cost and uses several materials which are commercially available	Ineffective for short-chain PFAS removal Interfere with other pollutants May require a large quantity of the adsorbent may be required, which causes a change in the land use.	Zhang et al., 2011
Filtration	Uses Reverse osmosis or Nanofiltration to remove PFAS compounds	Ex-situ	Effective under a wide range of pH	Expensive PFAS molecular weight dependant Creates high concentration waste	Tang et al., 2007
Thermal	Vaporizing the contaminants through increasing temperature to about 600 −1,000°C.	Ex situ	High destruction potential of the PFAS compounds	Time-consuming, high-cost and energy-intensive approach. Disturbs the soil and the ecosystem.	Yamada et al., 2005
Chemical oxidation/ reduction	Using chemical oxidants/reducing agents for the abiotic breakdown of contaminants	In situ and ex situ	Potential for PFAS mineralisation; effective in PFOA removal	Very expensive as it requires a large volume of chemicals and centralized equipment. Not applicable to treat all PFAS compounds. Short-chain PFAS could result. Interferes with other contaminants.	Yates et al., 2014; Arvaniti et al., 2015
Soil washing	Detaching PFAS from the soil by washing with water	Ex situ	Requires low technology Land reuse could be possible.	Expensive and time-consuming. Contaminated water results.	de Bruecker, 2015
Bioremediation	Use of biological agents (e.g., Microorganisms and Plants) to breakdown or accumulate PFAS compound	In situ and ex situ	Simple, cost-effective, and environmentally safe (Green) approach	Limited evidence that PFAS can be degraded. It could take a long time due to the slow biodegradation of PFAS.	Presentato et al., 2020