“MOFs are metal ions that are linked together with organic ligands creating a stable framework like the ones you find in bridges or the Eiffel tower,” says Karl Börjesson, professor at Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, who works with related materials known as covalent organic frameworks (COFs), which share structural similarities with MOFs.
He continues: “The porosity of these structures is key, as they provide a substantial surface area for binding other compounds “Gases, like CO2, can be captured in the porous structure, and MOFs can be constructed in many different ways, only the imagination sets the boundaries”.
As MOFs can be engineered in this manner, they show promise in several applications, including the remediation of PFAS.
PFAS contamination and remediation challenges
PFAS contamination has received significant media attention with stories from Kallinge, Tullinge and Uppsala, where firefighting foam has been identified as the source of contamination.
“PFAS in groundwater systems can originate from several sources, such as industrial activities, firefighting foam use, and waste handling. The most common pathways include aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), which are used in firefighting training and emergency response. These sites often display the highest localized PFAS contamination,” says Philipp Wanner, associate professor at the Department of Earth Sciences and a member of FRAM.
Allocating a specific source of PFAS in groundwater can be difficult due to a high number of possible sources, like industrial manufacturing, landfills and wastewater treatment plants.
Facilities that produce fluoropolymers or surface treatment chemicals may release PFAS via wastewater or air emissions that later deposit onto soil, which can end up in groundwater systems.
PFAS is also part of several consumer products like textiles, food packaging and cosmetics, which also contribute to leachate and sludge that can infiltrate groundwater.
The challenge of removing PFAS
While the REACH legislation aims to phase out PFAS compounds, PFAS contamination remains in exposed areas and effective remediation is still a challenge.
“Yes, PFAS can be extracted from groundwater, but remediation is difficult due to the compound’s chemical stability. The current technologies used is activated carbon, ion-exchange resins and reverse osmosis, which can remove PFAS to varying degrees,” explains Philipp.
He continues:
“Short-chain PFAS, however, are especially mobile and harder to capture due to their higher solubility and lower affinity for many of the adsorbents”.
Other methods for remediation include emerging adsorbents, like MOFs, and these materials show promise even for the shorter chained PFAS compounds. While remediation methods exist and continue to develop, responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water differs depending on how water supplies are managed.
Private wells and drinking water safety
Most people have municipal water supply, which is managed by local government authorities. However, some households rely on private wells, where the groundwater source is managed by the owner.
This issue is becoming increasingly urgent, as new PFAS threshold values will be introduced on 1 January 2026. The stricter limits mean that previously acceptable PFAS levels may now be exceeded, raising questions about responsibility for testing and remediation.
“Private wells often fall outside the direct responsibility of the municipality to test, monitor and manage the quality of the drinking water,” says Martin Mickelsson, postdoc at the Department of Earth Sciences and FRAMs newest member.
This mean that the private well owners need to ensure the safety of their drinking water themselves, often with limited institutional support for quality testing, and address potential contamination and health risks.
“The primary concern from well owners are the potential health risks associated with long-term PFAS exposure. As this is linked to negative health effects like cancer and infertility, and due to its persistence in the environment, as well as the human body, PFAS creates a significant health anxiety”.
Since there is limited municipal monitoring of the private wells, and there are high costs associated with conducting comprehensive tests, well owners are concerned they may unknowingly be drinking contaminated water.
Technology alone is not enough
MOFs are a promising technological innovation for PFAS remediation, but significant challenges remain.
“PFAS show adverse health effects already in the ng/L concentration range, so very low concentrations need to be achieved after extraction. And the extracted PFAS waste must be safely contained or destroyed”, says Philipp Wanner.
“While MOFs provide a valuable avenue forward, their use should link to institutional support, regulation and governance efforts where municipalities engage with and build trust among private well owners. Without integrating technological and social innovations, MOFs may be difficult to scale and remain inaccessible for those in the population most vulnerable to the health risks of PFAS contamination”, says Martin Mickelsson.
Beyond the technical challenges, broader societal and governance aspects also need to be considered. PFAS extraction is possible, but to make it efficient, scalable and sustainable is still a major challenge. While MOFs are promising, it may be some time before they are widely accessible. Addressing PFAS remediation therefore requires not only technological development but also governance and health equity to ensure safe drinking water for all.
Find out more about this years Nobelprize in chemistry
Read more about PFAS
Novel method for PFAS source identification in drinking water
PFAS risk governance in public-private relationships