Regulatory pressure, public concern and materials innovation are creating innovation opportunities in the nonwovens sector.
The health and environmental impact of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) will only become an increasingly important consideration for all those in the nonwovens sector. As much as action is driven by regulatory changes, public attitudes are also forcing the agenda. At England-based NIRI — a developer of fibers, nonwovens and advanced materials — this is seen not only as a compliance challenge, but as a driver for innovation in materials design, product engineering and supply chain strategy. In this article, the legislative landscape in Europe and the United Kingdom is considered, as well as how forward-thinking companies can turn the PFAS challenge into a market opportunity.
Legislation And Regulatory Timeline: Why 2026 Is A Pivotal Year
Legislation is the primary catalyst for innovation in PFAS replacement and for companies looking to phase these “forever chemicals” out of their products. Regulatory demands are designed specifically to force the transition to less harmful alternatives and provide the certainty for investment in research and development.
The EU approach combines targeted bans alongside longer-term goals for more wide-ranging restrictions. For example, from April 2026, a toy safety ban comes into effect — initially those designed for children aged three and under — as does the prohibition of PFAS in food packaging. And, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating a proposal that could lead to the ban or restriction of between 7,000 and 10,000 PFAS compounds. ECHA has a stated aim of completing this evaluation by the end of the year.
Within the European Union, the restriction of PFHxA and related substances under Regulation (EU) 2024/2462 means that, from October 10, 2026, products placed on the market must not exceed:
- 25 parts per billion (ppb) for the sum of PFHxA and its salts; or
- 1,000 ppb for the sum of PFHxA-related substances.
This impacts a wide-ranging industrial base, including textiles, apparel, paper, cosmetics, packaging and supply chains involving recycled materials.
In the United Kingdom, while progress may be less proactive than across the European Union, the recently launched PFAS Plan indicates a decisive but proportionate approach. Emma Hardy MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, highlighted the vision: “to reduce and minimise the harmful effects of PFAS while transitioning to safer alternative substances.”1
This comes from the Minister for Water and Flooding, and points to a useful separation between those initiatives that are driven by specific water-related health and environmental concerns, and those focused on the issues with PFAS use in products and across the wide-ranging sectors already noted — differentiating between impact across the supply chain, from product production, through processing, environmental leakage and pointing to the need for a circular economy approach.
Much of the new UK plan is focused on international collaboration, following EU guidelines and legislation alongside continued commitment to existing protocols such as the United Nations’ COP climate change conferences and the UN Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). For example, the intention to “align UK REACH with closest trading partners, especially the EU, by December 2028,”2 and the implementation of UK obligations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs, including “restriction of LC-PFCAs to be implemented by end of 2026.”3
And, continuing support for PFAS is to be addressed as an Issue of Concern under the Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC), with the first conference of the GFC anticipated to make a decision on PFAS as an Issue of Concern this November.4 While regulation is the primary driver, it is increasingly reinforced by public expectations.
Public Opinion And Awareness Driving The Agenda
Although the UK PFAS Plan might be seen as lacking clarity for manufacturers, it does pinpoint the degree to which the PFAS agenda is increasingly determined by public opinion, citing the recent survey from the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) into public attitudes.5 Headline response data from this survey indicates:
- Nine out of 10 people surveyed want PFAS controlled in food, drinking water and the environment;
- Responsibility for reducing PFAS levels should lie predominantly with chemicals and product manufacturers — 74 percent and 73 percent, respectively — with government responsibility at 58 percent;
- Participants were willing to make sacrifices where it means avoiding the use of PFAS, including lower product performance — 61 percent — increased cost — 60 percent — and reduced availability —70 percent; and
- Some 77 percent support additional government funding for research and innovation.
RSC’s policy advisor Stephanie Metzger observed that the research “demonstrates clearly that people care about PFAS … Citizens expect their government to use its existing powers and make new laws where necessary in order to effectively manage the manufacture, use and disposal of these chemicals.”6
Compliance With Legislation: Looking To Transition Timelines
Transitioning away from PFAS is complex, particularly in sectors such as medical and food applications where development cycles are long. However, the trajectory toward more stringent legislation and PFAS bans is clear. And, according to recent data, one in three of the largest global chemical manufacturers are already committed to phasing out PFAS, based on legislative, reputational and litigation imperatives.7
Participants in the RSC survey’s focus groups indicated frustration around the lack of investment on the part of manufacturers when looking to PFAS alternatives, but, as already noted, they overwhelmingly agreed that additional government funding should support the transition as indicated by 77 percent of the responses.
The Scale Of The Opportunity
One theme that runs throughout the UK PFAS Plan is the scale of the economic opportunity for companies taking a proactive approach, as opposed to a wait-and-see reactive response to PFAS legislation. The Plan references an EU-wide estimate that the PFAS-free market could reach $14.9 billion by 2040,8 while the SystemIQ report cited indicates that, “Existing policies and technologies could reduce combined harms by ~70%, delivering up to $1.9 trillion in annual global savings.”9
The sheer ubiquity of PFAS — and the size of the market — represents both a challenge and an opportunity. One overview has demonstrated that PFAS are present in more than 200 use categories and sub-categories, for more than 1,400 individual PFAS.10 Equally — and critically for those companies seeking to meet the challenges and invest in research and development to establish alternative technologies — legislation is increasingly being pushed to direct public funding towards supporting this development.
Again, the UK’s PFAS Plan points toward support as a means to drive innovation: “We already fund research into the development of PFAS alternatives. For example, for applications that support government capabilities, in 2025 the Ministry of Defence and Home Office jointly held an open competition to find alternatives to PFAS in protective materials.”11
The report contains several initial indicative actions, including:
“Action 2.16: Promote the innovation of safer PFAS alternatives in UK industry through collaborative events and forums, including through the government’s Chemicals Innovation Forum.
Action 2.17: Build a community of practice between industry and researchers, by adding PFAS as a focus area within existing innovation and alternatives platforms.”12
Here, echoing the RSC survey, public awareness and concern can help bolster governmental action and research and development investment to ramp up capability to meet the regulatory agenda.
Approaches To The PFAS Problem
Overspecification: NIRI has undertaken significant research into moving away from overspecification as one means to address the PFAS problem. For many products — including single-use food packaging which are significantly affected as of April — these may currently be overperforming and PFAS may be unnecessary. Equally, when looking to medical devices and drug delivery, interrogating real-world specifications can prove a positive alternative to a general reliance on PFAS, particularly if considered at the design stage.
At the redesign stage, this approach relies not on direct chemical substitution, but on a holistic review of product engineering — for example, where other parts of a fabric system can contribute to performance, rather than placing total reliance on a chemical coating or membrane. In the RSC survey, respondents went even further, acknowledging that — in a balance between performance and using PFAS-free alternatives — they would accept lower performance rather than accept the known health and environmental hazards associated with forever chemicals.
3D thinking: A shift from 2D to 3D thinking can help transform products currently utilizing PFAS. Here, the entire product system is considered, rather than focusing on the like-for-like approach. In one research experiment at NIRI, an iterative approach was used: introducing a PFAS alternative coating, while laminating a woven fabric to a nonwoven. While neither approach was suitable in isolation, the combination of the two — tailoring the PFAS alternative parameters and structural properties — enabled the creation of a PFAS-free composite with performance comparable to that of the original PFAS-coated fabric.
Alternative Materials: While there is still a distance to go in replacing PFAS for all applications — and this, undoubtedly, forms a major element of the EU’s rationale for taking an incremental approach to regulation rather than implementing the blanket ban that many in industry had previously feared — there are a range of alternative materials already in use and currently in development. These options include:
- biobased polymers, for example, genetically modified microorganisms that can produce biopolymers for use in plastic manufacturing and packaging, and which naturally biodegrade;
- fibers derived from agricultural waste offer a chemical-free alternative to synthetic textiles; and
- natural bast fibers including traditional fibers such as hemp, flax and jute, utilized for their inherent strength and durability.
What This Means For Industry
For manufacturers and material developers, several key implications are clear:
- PFAS transition is no longer optional — timelines are being defined by regulation;
- product redesign may be more effective than direct substitution;
- early investment reduces both regulatory and reputational risk; and
- collaboration across supply chains will be critical.
Above all, companies must shift from reactive compliance to proactive innovation.
How Regulatory Certainty Supports Innovation
With the proposed EU restriction on up to 10,000 PFAS seemingly on the near horizon and given the governmental impetus to invest in research and development looking at PFAS alternatives — largely motivated by regulatory drivers and growing public awareness and demand for action — innovation is, and will continue to be, crucial. And there are significant business opportunities for those companies embracing innovation. But innovation is dependent on legislative certainty, to justify investment in research and development. That said, the imperative is clear: 2026 is a pivotal year, and the impetus for innovation into PFAS-free alternative approaches and materials may be one of the most significant challenges — and opportunities — that will impact nonwovens and materials science for the foreseeable future. The companies that treat PFAS regulation as a design challenge, not a compliance burden, will define the next generation of high-performance materials.
Reference
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pfas-plan/pfas-plan-building-a-safer-future-together
2 Ibid. Action 2.2
3 Ibid. Action 2.4
4 Ibid. Action 2.8
5 https://www.rsc.org/news/2025/january/first-ever-survey-of-uk-public-attitudes-to-pfas-‘forever-chemicals’
6 Ibid.
7 https://www.edie.net/one-in-three-chemicals-giants-planning-pfas-phase-out/#:~:text=Key%20drivers%20of%20the%20trend%20include,contamination%2C%20per%20its%20own%20reporting.
8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pfas-plan/pfas-plan-building-a-safer-future-together
9 https://www.systemiq.earth/reports/invisible-ingredients/
10 https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/em/d0em00291g
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-innovation-in-dermal-protection-against-liquid-chemicals/competition-document-innovations-in-dermal-protection-against-liquid-chemicals
12 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pfas-plan/pfas-plan-building-a-safer-future-together#foreword
