STATION F is the largest startup campus in the world, founded by Xavier Niel and based in Paris. It supports over 1,000 startups each year and has already seen many successes, including Hugging Face, Yuka, and Neoplants.
Our project was selected for Round 1 of the Fighter Program, a month-long acceleration program designed for early-stage entrepreneurs with unconventional journeys.
Quick Overview — Entrepreneurship Criteria
Click to expand each criterion.
Criteria 1 & 2 Market need & MVP validation
Our team identified a pressing, unmet customer need through direct engagement with water industry stakeholders, particularly Veolia, the world's largest water treatment provider.
We discovered that TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) contamination affects 94% of European tap water, yet no industrial-scale degradation solution exists. Through stakeholder interviews documented in our Market Traction section, we validated that water operators urgently require cost-effective PFAS remediation technologies to meet the EU's strict 0.1 µg/L limit enforced from 2026 onwards. We developed two MVP prototypes (cf Prototypes section). Both solutions were validated through proof-of-concept experiments described in our Product Development section, demonstrating technical feasibility with TRL 2-3 achievements and clear pathways toward pilot-scale validation
Criterion 3 Product development & risk management
We presented a product development roadmap spanning from laboratory proof-of-concept (2025-2026) through pilot-scale validation (2027) to market deployment (2028+), with specific milestones, funding requirements, and resource allocations detailed in our Roadmap & TRL section. Our phased approach includes enzyme production via bacterial bioreactors, immobilization on solid supports, and integration into plug-and-play membrane bioreactor units designed for post-reverse osmosis deployment.
We conducted extensive risk assessment through our SWOT analysis, identifying technical risks (enzyme stability, immobilization efficiency), regulatory challenges (approval timelines), and market adoption barriers (utility conservatism). Our mitigation strategies include enzyme variant redundancy, early regulatory engagement, strategic partnerships with CDMOs for manufacturing scale-up, and a make-versus-buy analysis demonstrating cost-effective outsourcing models.
The Financial Analysis section provides detailed techno-economic modeling with optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic scenarios, showing treatment costs of €0.022-0.130 per m³ and demonstrating economic viability with positive NPV (€602,052) and IRR (28.45%) projections.
Criterion 4 Team & stakeholders
Our interdisciplinary team comprises 16 students from ENS Lyon, INSA Lyon, and University Lyon 1, bringing expertise across bioinformatics (3 students), biotechnology and biochemistry (6 students), and business/entrepreneurship (3 students with specialized training). We clearly delineated roles with Paloma Bert as CEO handling business strategy and finance, and Jean Schmitt as CTO coordinating scientific development. We secured critical stakeholders including Veolia for pilot validation and market access, CARSO Laboratories for analytical support, and the French Office of Biodiversity for regulatory guidance, bioprocess engineering support from potential incubators like Genopole (accepted for April 2026 incubation), and business mentorship through Station F's Fighter Program. We've filled expertise gaps through strategic partnerships. Partner testimonials validate our team's credibility in addressing stakeholder needs.
Criterion 5 Impact & risk analysis
We conducted thorough impact assessment across environmental, social, and economic dimensions, documented in our Values and Sustainable Development sections. Positive impacts include preventing an estimated €52-84 billion annually in health costs across Europe, while our detection kit democratizes water quality monitoring for communities currently lacking access to expensive laboratory analysis. We aligned our solution with 11 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) and the EU's Zero Pollution Action Plan 2050. Regarding risks, we identified and mitigated concerns about enzyme and GMO release through sealed systems, analyzed byproduct safety (fluoride ions remain within WHO safe limits), and developed tiered pricing models inspired by Enercoop to ensure equitable access across wealthy and resource-limited municipalities.
The cost of inaction: €100 BILLIONS PER YEAR
This is the total cost of PFAS cleanup in Europe, per year, estimated by the french newspaper LeMonde.
Governments cannot carry that burden alone. New regulations are shifting responsibility to industries under the polluter-pays principle. As a result, industries urgently need cost effective, scalable cleanup solutions — exactly what we are developing.
1. Project Overview
FluoroBreaker: The First Biotech Solutions to the PFAS Crisis
Forever Chemicals, or PFAS, are man-made chemicals, made up of carbon and fluorine, nearly impossible to breakdown . First produced in the 1940s for their incredible properties, they are now everywhere, from nonstick pans (tefal) to waterproof cloths and firefighting foams. As a result, PFAS accumulate in water and in our body. Long term exposure to PFAS have been associated with cancer, hormonal disruptions, immunodeficiency… Currently, there are no efficient, low energy and scalable ways of degrading PFAS… that’s when we come in. With tightening regulations, thousands of water treatment plants are seeking viable PFAS remediation technologies – and FluoroBreaker is engineered to answer that call: we aim at developing the first enzyme system capable of degrading short-chain PFAS and the first user-friendly PFAS detection kit.
Enzymes are chemically active proteins, that can cleave one or two carbon-fluorine bonds that make up forever chemicals. But add a third and they stop working. Our goal is to take these natural enzymes and engineer them using bioinformatics to make them more efficient against PFAS. We’re targeting the TriFluoroacetic Acid (TFA), a small PFAS with only three C-F bonds, that is used in pesticides and escapes standard treatments. We produce our enzymes using bacteria grown in a bioreactor—a large tank that provides optimal conditions for growth. Once produced, the enzymes are extracted, purified, and immobilized on a solid support. This makes them stable, reusable, and ready for real-world deployment.
And here is the strategic feat: reverse osmosis (RO) is one of the few techs that effectively remove PFAS from water, but it doesn’t degrade them. It just concentrates them into a toxic waste. That’s where we come in. We place our enzymatic bioreactor after RO, right where PFAS are the most concentrated. Instead of just moving pollution around, we break it down.
- Technological advantage: complete dehalogenation, no toxic byproducts,
- Economic advantage: enzymes work at low-energetic cost
- Market advantage: complements existing technologies like RO and activated carbon (GAC) targeting the critical TFA niche,
- Sustainability: low energy consumption, no combustion or toxic sludge transport,
- Scalability: easy integration post-RO, targeting concentrates that capture >90% of PFAS,
- Regulatory pressure: Governments worldwide are tightening regulations — from the US EPA’s near-zero limits to Europe’s largest-ever chemical ban proposal.
Current status:
- → Degradation: TRL 2 – candidate enzymes identified; over 300,000 mutants generated; 20 selected for lab testing; experimental validation ongoing.
- → Detection: TRL 3 – proof of concept achieved; bacteria emit a PFAS-dependent quantifiable signal (fluorescence).
- → Industrial collaboration: Veolia, world leader in water treatment.
- → Roadmap: final lab validation 2025–2026 → industrial pilot end of 2026 → first integrations in 2027-2028.
1.2 Pitch deck:
2. Problem & Need
Key Metrics:
- Widespread pollution: 94% of European taps contain TFA (PAN Europe, 2023)
- Aquatic contamination: Aquatic contamination: 60% of European rivers and up to 100% of coastal waters exceed safe levels for PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, EEA). Despite being banned in the EU since 2008, this long-chain forever chemical persists in the environment, with contamination detected even in remote Arctic regions (EWG).
- Environmental disaster: detected in over 600 wildlife species globally (EWG)
- No industrial TFA degradation process exists (Chemistry Europe, 2023)
- Health risks: Long-term exposure to PFAS linked to kidney cancer, immunosuppression, hormonal disruptions … (National Academies Press; ATSDR).
- Current solutions limited: activated carbon (ineffective for TFA), RO (concentrates >90% PFAS in brine), SCWO (too costly ≈ €8/m³)
- Regulatory standards: Europe's Drinking Water Directive is driving massive infrastructure changes—over 4,000 plants must add PFAS degradation capabilities to meet the strict 0.1 µg/L limit enforced from 2026 onwards (EU DWD, 2024).
PFAS contamination is a widespread health and environmental crisis. An estimated 12.5 million Europeans are currently exposed to drinking water with PFAS levels above upcoming regulatory thresholds (Euronews). Among PFAS compounds, TFA (trifluoroacetic acid) poses a unique challenge: it is exceptionally persistent and conventional water treatment technologies fail to remove it effectively. Yet, under the new EU Drinking Water Directive, TFA concentrations will count toward the strict 0.1 µg/L total PFAS limit, creating a major compliance challenge for water utilities.
Moreover, TFA has been detected in 94% of tested European tap water samples (Moscado et al, 2025). Communities across Europe have even faced temporary bans on tap water due to PFAS contamination incidents (e.g., Saint-Louis, France) as authorities scramble for solutions. This constitutes a validated need: water operators and regulators urgently require a way to destroy PFAS (rather than simply capture or dilute it) to protect public health and meet regulations.
Current “solutions” are insufficient. Conventional treatments like granular activated carbon (GAC) or reverse osmosis (RO) can capture some PFAS but do not destroy them – PFAS end up concentrated in spent filters or RO brine, which must then be incinerated or landfilled (merely shifting the pollution). High-end technologies like supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) can destroy PFAS but cost €8 per m³—roughly 20–40 times higher than conventional water treatment (€0.20–0.40/m³). For a typical city of 200,000 people, this translates to over €100 million in additional annual treatment costs, making it economically unviable.
No scalable, low-cost and low-energy degradation method for PFAS exists in today’s water treatment market. This challenge affects everyone. Our consultations with industry experts revealed a critical gap impacting the full spectrum of stakeholders:
- → Water utilities operating under tight budgets
- → Industrial treatment facilities facing new regulations
- → Everyone else: you, me, our families, and communities —everyone who turns on a tap expecting clean, safe water
PFAS contamination is not a distant problem; it's in our drinking water, our rivers, and our bodies.
3. Solution & Innovation
a) Introduction to Enzyme Engineering
Greentechs inspired by natural mechanisms are still underrated but hold great potential. Rather than trying to
reinvent
everything from scratch, we studied how nature has already solved many of the complex challenges we face.
In the field of wastewater treatment, one of the most promising approaches rooted in nature is enzyme engineering.
Enzymes - chemically active proteins - from living organisms can be re-designed using synthetic biology tools.
Synthetic biology is like coding, but instead of programming computers, we program living cells. Scientists rewrite the DNA of bacteria to give them new abilities (such as degrading persistent pollutants).
With the rise of AI-assisted protein design, we can nowaccelerate enzyme optimization, drastically reducing experimental costs and time.
b) Our Solutions
FluorClear is building the 1st biotech solution to the PFAS crisis.
-
→ We use AI to engineer an enzyme capable of breaking down small PFAS like TFA. (core)
TFA Enzymatic Degradation Principle -
→ Creating a bacteria that produces a measurable light signal in the presence of PFAS, providing a user-friendly detection tool for PFAS monitoring in water. (complementary)
Bacterial PFAS Reporter Principle
c) Unique Value Proposition
On the innovation side, we have:
(1) Engineered Enzyme
✅Core IP: Engineered enzyme sequences, immobilization protocols, plug-and-play bioreactor design and process optimization parameters (trade secrets).
🤝 Subcontractors: (CDMOs): Enzyme fermentation, bioreactor construction for pilot-scale testing/validation.
🏭 Industrial partners: Scale manufacturing and deploy solutions in water treatment plants.
(2) PFAS Detection Kit (Supplementary Products)
✅ Core IP : Biosensor technology (genetically modified strains + reagents), proprietary luciferometer hardware, and digital platform (software/mobile app for result tracking, contamination mapping, and real-time alerts).
🤝 Customers: Generate value by deploying kits in the field and contributing data to our contamination monitoring database.
Enzymatic Degradation System - Value Proposition
- Technological Advantage: Complete dehalogenation of TFA into CO₂ and fluorine ions (both harmful to health)
- Economic Advantage: Enzymes are low-energy and reusable thanks to the plug-and-play MBR system. Running costs could be reduced by ~80–90% compared with high-energy methods like SCWO applied to the same concentrate.
- Market Advantage: Complements existing systems. Targets the critical TFA niche that GAC/RO cannot solve, enabling compliance without facility overhauls
- Environmental Sustainability: Low-energy operation. No incineration (CO₂ emissions) or toxic sludge. (EU Zero Pollution Action Plan aligned)
- Scalability: Modular numbering-up from small industrial sites to large municipal plants.
🔬 PFAS Detection Kit - Value Proposition
- Speed: results within hours vs. weeks-long lab analysis
- Cost: €50-100/test vs. €200-500 for laboratory analysis
- Accessibility: Field-deployable, no specialized training or expertise required
- Data Intelligence: Contamination mapping, trend analysis, and automated alerts via digital platform
- Treatment Validation: Monitor before/after enzymatic treatment to verify efficacy and compliance
4. Product Development
Engineered enzyme for TFA degradation in water wastes
- 1 Production Phase: The engineered enzymes (mutant dehalogenases) are biosynthesized by Escherichia coli bacteria in industrial bioreactors—large fermentation tanks that maintain optimal temperature, pH, and nutrient conditions for maximum enzyme yield (see Figure 1).
-
2
Preparation Phase: Following production, enzymes undergo two critical steps:
- Purification: Separation from bacterial cells and culture media
- Immobilization: Attachment to solid supports (membranes, beads, or porous matrices) to enhance stability, reusability, and handling
- 3 Deployment Phase: The immobilized enzymes are installed in plug-and-play membrane bioreactor units. This system is directly integrable into existing water treatment infrastructure at industrial sites.
- 4 Operations
- Enzyme stability: Must retain activity under chemical conditions, flow rates, and temperatures typical of RO concentrate
- Immobilization method: Must attach enzymes without altering activity
- Flow optimization: Water must flow through the cartridge without channeling
- Durability: Cartridge engineered to last long enough to be cost-effective
- 1 Production Phase: Engineered E. coli biosensors expressing PFAS-responsive fluorescent reporters are produced in controlled bioreactors under optimal growth conditions.
-
2
Preparation Phase:
- Stabilization: Bacteria are lyophilized or preserved in stabilization buffers for long-term storage
- Kit packaging: Single-use cartridges containing stabilized biosensors, reagents, and calibration standards
- 3 Deployment Phase: Detection kits are deployed as ready-to-use, single-use units at water treatment facilities, industrial sites, or environmental monitoring locations.
- 4 Operations
- 1 Core biotechnology (enzyme degradation) – addresses the critical TFA treatment gap with a scalable, cost-effective solution.
- 2 Detection tools – enable user-friendly monitoring, creating a complete PFAS management ecosystem.
Figure 1: PFAS Degradation Operational Process (click on the image to see it bigger)
The enzymes remain safely contained within the sealed bioreactor unit throughout operation, enabling continuous treatment without enzyme loss or environmental release.
Where? The idea came from discussion with Veolia, the world leader in water treatment. They emphasized that PFAS accumulate in RO waste, where they are highly concentrated but rarely treated. By using our enzymes post-RO, we treat the portion of the water stream that contains the overwhelming majority of PFAS, making treatment more efficient, cost-effective, and technically feasible.
Technical considerations:
This plug-and-play design allows easy integration into existing water treatment plants, reducing installation costs and simplifying maintenance. The concept of column reactors with pre-packed cartridges is already proven in industrial biocatalysis, making our approach innovative and technically feasible. With our solution, we’re transforming wastewater treatment from a physico-chemical field into an era where biotechnological solutions can deliver real degradation.
Engineered bacteria for PFAS detection in water samples
Figure 2: PFAS Detection Operational Process (click on the image to see it bigger)
The single-use format ensures biosafety, prevents cross-contamination, and enables rapid on-site PFAS quantification without laboratory infrastructure.
Strategic Approach: Dual MVP Model
This dual approach strengthens our competitive position while creating multiple revenue streams and fostering strategic partnerships across the water treatment value chain.
Moving forward, this business plan will concentrate on our core value proposition: the engineered enzyme platform for TFA degradation (for the sake of conciseness).
5. Go-to-Market Strategy
1. Pilot Phase
Conduct pilots with CDMOs and industrial partners to validate enzyme performance and modular bioreactor functionality in real-world water treatment conditions.
Early collaboration ensures rapid iteration, risk reduction, and credibility with target customers.
2. Licensing & Partnerships
License enzyme IP and modular bioreactor design to water technology companies and integrators.
Subcontract manufacturing and regulatory compliance to accelerate deployment.
Licensing Upsides for Partners:
- Recurring revenues via subscription for enzyme refills and monitoring dashboards (alerts for enzyme efficiency).
- Optional premium support: on-site training or consulting for large-scale deployments.
By highlighting strong revenue potential for partners, adoption is incentivized and scale can be accelerated.
3. Market Entry Focus
Target customers: municipal water operators, industrial users of PFAS, and PFAS-producing industries.
Initial deployment post-reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate, in industrial water treatment sites.
Modular, plug-and-play design ensures seamless integration into existing infrastructure, lowering adoption barriers.
Detection kit can be commercialized in parallel to provide complementary monitoring services to the same customer base.
5. Long-Term Scale
Expand adoption globally through licensing, academic partnerships and educational workshorps (cf Channel and Custumer Relationship sections of BMC)
6.1. Market Analysis
Key Metrics:
- PFAS treatment market projected at $1.2–2.99B by 2030 (CAGR 7%) ((Markets and Markets, 2023)
- In Europe, the Drinking Water Directive mandates over 4,000 plants to add a degradation step (EU DWD, 2024)
- Initial target clients: municipalities and water operators (Veolia, Suez…)
- Business model: recurring sales of immobilized enzymes (consumables) with monitoring and replacement services; long-term: “depollution-as-a-service” combining enzymes supply + performance monitoring
a) Market
PFAS DEGRADATION MARKET
| TAM: | $8.2–10.5B (CAGR ~15–18%) – Global PFAS treatment market (all technologies: filtration, incineration, bioremediation) |
| SAM: | $1.8–2.3B – Global segment for PFAS degradation/destruction, focusing on RO concentrate treatment |
| SOM: | €90–180M – Realistic market share of 5–10% of European clients using RO (launch phase), based on early adoption and pilot partnerships |
Table 1: PFAS Degradation Market Metrics (2025)
PFAS DETECTION MARKET
| TAM: | $2.8–3.5B (CAGR ~14–15%) – Global PFAS testing market (lab-based + field testing) |
| SAM: | $580–780M – Global segment of rapid water testing for PFAS, driven by regulatory requirements |
| SOM: | €30–75M – Realistic market share of 5–12% of European municipalities and industrial clients (launch phase) |
Table 2: PFAS Detection Market Metrics (2025)
The market growth is fueled by :
- Regulation pressure: As noted, regulatory requirements in the EU (and similarly in the US EPA’s upcoming rules) are forcing action on PFAS. Non-compliance is not an option for water providers, effectively creating a compliance-driven market
- Public demand for clean water
- Lack of Alternatives: Competing technologies are few and often come with downsides
b) Target Customers
Initial target customers:
- Municipal water utilities
- Large water service companies
In particular, we are working closely with Veolia, the world’s largest water services provider (and one of our project sponsors), to tailor our solution to real operational needs. These customers have the urgent problem (TFA in drinking water sources), the technical capacity to pilot new treatment technologies, and the motivation to invest due to regulatory mandates and corporate sustainability goals. We have also identified other early adopters in our region, who manage water treatment for cities and could integrate our enzyme reactors at their facilities
Secondary customers:
- Industries using PFAS in their processes (e.g semiconductor manufacturing, chemicals).
- PFAS producers (e.g Arkema, Daiki...)
They both generate PFAS-contaminated wastewater and are facing tightening discharge limits.
Indirect customers:
- High-purity industries (batteries, pharma) requiring ultrapure water for critical processes.
- National and local government bodies monitoring water quality, in need of need reliable, rapid detection tools and remediation solutions.
Our market research and stakeholder conversations confirm a strong market pull for FluoroBreaker. By focusing initially on high-need customers (municipal water and large industrial) in jurisdictions with strict PFAS rules (EU, parts of the US), we maximize our chances of early adoption. The size of the opportunity (multi-billion euro potential) and the positive feedback from prospective users give us confidence in the commercial viability of our project.
c) Competitors
Summary Comparison
| Competitor | Our Solution | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Dupont / Chemours | PFAS Bioremediation Tool | Enzymatic degradation vs. chemical/filtration; lower cost; decentralized; true PFAS destruction |
| CellX Biosolutions | PFAS Bioremediation Tool | Broader application focus vs. our PFAS specialization; we offer targeted enzymatic degradation with faster treatment times; more cost-effective for PFAS-specific remediation |
| AECOM / US Water Services | PFAS Detection Kit | On-site rapid detection vs. lab-based; 5–10x cheaper; almost-immediate results |
Table 3: PFAS Remediation Competitors
DUPONT / CHEMOURS: PFAS Filtration & Destruction Solutions
- What they do: Large-scale chemical and filtration technologies for PFAS removal (GAC, ion exchange, incineration).
- Strengths: Established client base, proven large-scale solutions, strong regulatory credibility.
- Weaknesses / Limitations:
- High operational costs ($500–3,000/ton disposal).
- Do not degrade PFAS, only transfer or destroy through incineration.
- Slow adoption for decentralized or smaller-scale treatment.
CELLX BIOSOLUTIONS: Bioremediation & Environmental Biotechnology
- What they do: Swiss-based startup developing bacterial solutions for environmental remediation of chemical pollutants, with PFAS degradation as a longer-term product line.
- Strengths: Strong academic foundation (ETH Zurich spin-off); innovative microfluidics-based bacterial capture technology; recent pre-seed funding (CHF 1.7M); focus on sustainable biological solutions.
- Weaknesses / Limitations:
- Very early stage (pre-seed funding, preparing pilot projects)
- PFAS solution still in development phase; not yet commercially available
- Limited operational track record
- No established customer base or proven field applications
- Primarily focused on industrial chemical waste first, PFAS as secondary product line
AECOM / US WATER SERVICES: PFAS Detection & Monitoring
- What they do: Lab-based PFAS detection and monitoring with centralized labs.
- Strengths: Accurate, reliable measurements; strong consulting expertise.
- Weaknesses / Limitations:
- Expensive per sample.
- Results not immediate; not suitable for on-site rapid monitoring.
b) Competitive Strategy
- Cost Advantage: Cheaper than incineration or lab-based testing, lower operational costs.
- Regulatory Alignment: Target regions and clients under strict PFAS regulations.
- First-Mover Advantage: Focus on RO concentrate treatment, an underserved niche.
- Ease of Use / Accessibility: Easy deployment and maintenance at small/medium scale.
- Strategic Partnerships: Collaborate with water utilities and regulatory bodies to validate and adopt solutions early.
Our strategy is to partner rather than compete head-on with big water treatment firms. By showing value (destroying TFA) that complements their offerings, we can encourage them to incorporate FluoroBreaker modules in their solutions. This could be via white-labeling or licensing deals. We will protect our IP (see below) to maintain an advantageous negotiating position. In parallel, we keep an eye on emerging competitors – but given the size of the problem, we believe multiple solutions will find demand.
6.2 Market Traction
During IGEM 2025 journey, we leveraged strong stakeholders' engagement.
- Veolia (industry partner): Industry leader in water management, providing guidance on scaling to municipal systems. Veolia has also expressed interest in hosting a pilot if our lab results are promising – a huge validation for our commercialization path. This relationship boosts our credibility immensely, as we can say a world-leading water company is exploring our solution.
- CARSO Laboratories (Analytical Partner): Carso, a specialized environmental analysis lab (and team sponsor), advised us on detection and measurement of PFAS. They offered access to advanced analytical equipment for measuring PFAS concentrations in water. This partnership ensures we have the means to rigorously validate our results and provides third-party confirmation of performance.
- Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB, sponsor): Taught us about public initiatives and potential grants for water innovation. They also provided perspective on the environmental impact aspect, ensuring we consider biodiversity and ecosystem safety in our solution’s deployment.
As we transition from a student competition to a startup, we are implementing a deliberate strategy to convert these early sponsors into long-term strategic partners.
- Pollutec 2025: We participated in Pollutec 2025, Europe's leading environmental solutions trade show,
to present our startup project and validate our market positioning. This attendance allowed us to engage directly with key operators in the water treatment.
Industry professionals confirmed the urgent need for rapid, on-site PFAS detection tools that could inform treatment decisions.
Water treatment operators expressed strong interest in enzymatic degradation as a complementary technology to existing filtration methods, particularly for treating reverse osmosis concentrates.
Pollutec also enabled us to benchmark our technology against competing solutions, identify potential early adopters, and refine our go-to-market strategy based on direct conversations with end-users.
- Human Practices & Community: On a local level, we held events about PFAS pollution. From an entrepreneurship view, these events yielded anecdotal evidence of public willingness to support PFAS cleanup efforts (e.g., citizens expressing that they would pressure local officials to invest in solutions). While not traditional “customers,” this community angle is part of stakeholder validation, showing that if we bring a solution to market, there is public demand and acceptance for it.
“The WFD (Water Framework Directive) and the UWWTD2 (revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive) now require the monitoring of emerging substances, including PFAS — a major first step. It is in this context that we believe your detection concept could be particularly relevant.”
— Veolia Water Technology, Partner Feedback (Water Treament Operator)
“We face the PFAS crisis at bioMérieux. Finding innovative degradation solutions is one of our HSE priority.”
— bioMérieux, Partner Feedback (PFAS user)
“We believe in the team's ability to conduct this project to the end. We need novative approaches like this to tackle the PFAS crisis."
— French Office of Biodiversity, Partner Feedback (Public Entity)
7. Business Model & Strategy
a) Business Model Canva
Figure 3: Business Model Canva
b) Business Model
Our technology development progresses through three key stages: first, a Proof of Concept (PoC) at lab scale to validate PFAS degradation efficiency; second, a pilot-scale phase in collaboration with CDMOs and validation within an operational water treatment facility ; and finally, at TRL 7, we focus on licensing for industrialization. Partners can license enzyme sequences and immobilization protocols, plug-and-play bioreactor designs and process optimization parameters. Meanwhile, our biosensor technology is retained for in-house deployment and direct sales.
From PFAS detection kit:
- Recurring revenues from single-use kit sales.
- Proprietary luciferometer (hardware).
- Subscription for software/apps to track results and contamination levels over time.
From TFA degradation system:
- Licensing of enzymes → royalties per volume sold (recurring).
- Licensing of bioreactor design → fees per unit installed by partners (scalable).
- Grants & Partnerships: early revenue supplemented by environmental grants & industry sponsors.
Two possibilities: produce the degrading enzyme ourselves or outsource the production.
| Criteria | Make (In-house Production) | Buy (Outsourced) |
|---|---|---|
| Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) | Very high: requires bioreactors, purification lines, QA/QC labs | Very low: no need for production facilities, pay per batch |
| Operational Expertise | Need to build bioprocess team (fermentation, purification, QA) | Access existing expertise from specialized partners |
| Scalability | Limited: scaling requires new capacity and investment | High: can scale production up or down with demand |
| Speed to Market | Slower: must build infrastructure before scale-up | Faster: immediate access to pilot-scale production |
| Cost per Unit (Long Term) | Potentially lower at very large volumes, but high fixed costs | Competitive pricing thanks to economies of scale at supplier side |
| Focus on Core Business | Diverts focus from enzyme engineering & integration into cartridges | Allows focus on IP (enzymes + immobilization) and client solutions |
| Risk | High: operational failures, regulatory hurdles (esp. for drinking water) | Shared with supplier; contractual guarantees for quality & delivery |
Supplementary costs: include bacterial production, enzyme/reagent processing, packaging, optional hardware, and R&D. AJOUTER COUTS DETECTION
As our technology reaches TRL 7, we will focus on building customer relationships primarily through strategic partnerships and licensing agreements with industrial companies capable of producing and commercializing the enzyme and biosensor at scale. For these industrial partners, we will provide initial technical support, detailed documentation, and training on the use and integration of our technology into their processes. For environmental agencies, research laboratories, and NGOs, we will maintain indirect engagement through pilot programs, scientific publications, and academic collaborations, while collecting feedback to further refine the technology. This approach allows us to establish trust and credibility while leaving industrialization and large-scale distribution to licensed partners.
Our enzyme and biosensor will reach end-users primarily through industrial partners who license the technology and handle large-scale production, commercialization, and distribution. For research institutions, environmental agencies, and NGOs, access will be facilitated through pilot programs, collaborative projects, and distribution of research-grade kits. Workshops will serve as additional channels to raise awareness and demonstrate the technology’s capabilities. Digital resources, such as manuals, protocols, and online training modules, will support partners and end-users, ensuring effective deployment while the licensees manage commercial distribution.
For Problem, Solution, Customers & Value Proposition sections: see the corresponding parts of this business plan.
c) SWOT Analysis
Figure 4: SWOT Analysis
- AI-driven enzyme engineering: Over 300,000 mutants screened using computational methods, with 20 high-potential candidates selected for experimental validation
- Dual technology approach: Complementary degradation (enzyme system) and detection (biosensor) solutions addressing the complete PFAS management cycle
- Validated proof-of-concept: TRL 2-3 with functional bacterial biosensor demonstrating PFAS-dependent fluorescent signal; engineered enzymes successfully purified and tested for preliminary activity
- Strategic validation: Partnership with Veolia (world leader); acceptance into Station F, FEE & AgroParisTech incubators; analytical support from CARSO Labs
- Competitive edge: Only enzymatic solution for TFA; €0.02-0.13/m³ vs €8/m³ for SCWO (60-400x cost reduction); plug-and-play post-RO integration
- Strong IP position: FTO analysis clear; no blocking patents on enzymatic TFA degradation or biosensor technology
- Multidisciplinary team: 16 students from ENS/INSA/Lyon 1 covering bioinformatics, biotech, and business; CEO with Station F experience
- Early stage (TRL 2-3): Unproven at scale; significant validation needed before pilot deployment
- Resource constraints: Limited funding (<€200k); small part-time team; no in-house production capacity
- Market position: Zero brand recognition; dependent on Veolia or Municipality for pilot access; long regulatory approval timelines
- CDMO dependency: Outsourced enzyme production creates supply chain vulnerability and margin pressure
- Regulatory tsunami: EU DWD mandating 0.1 µg/L PFAS limits forcing 4,000+ plants to upgrade by 2026; US EPA following suit
- Market expansion: Industrial wastewater (semiconductors, textiles), military sites, landfill leachate, rural/decentralized systems
- Technology platform: Extensible to other short-chain PFAS and persistent pollutants; DaaS model potential with recurring revenues
- Funding landscape: EU EIC Pathfinder, BPIFrance Deep Tech, impact investors prioritizing water/climate solutions
- Partnership potential: Strategic acquisition/licensing by water treatment giants (Veolia, Suez, Xylem) seeking PFAS innovation
- Incumbent competition: Large chemical companies (DuPont, 3M) could develop competing solutions or acquire technology to shelve it
- Regulatory delays: Multi-year approval processes exhausting runway; GMO restrictions complicating biosensor deployment in EU
- Market adoption barriers: Conservative water utilities with 5-10 year sales cycles; budget constraints; preference for "proven" technologies
- Technical risks: Real-world enzyme performance variability; biofouling; scaling challenges from lab to pilot
- Funding uncertainty: Inability to raise €0.5-2M seed round halting development; pilot failure destroying credibility
8. Financial Analysis
a) Introduction
Key Elements to Estimate:
- Enzyme production cost – using E. coli in bioreactors.
- Enzyme immobilization cost – materials and amortization.
- Potential selling price to water treatment plants.
- Impact on water price – how much it would increase.
Optional revenue models to explore:
- Tiered pricing (similar to Enercoop).
- Inter-municipality solidarity (cost-sharing between communes).
b) Techno-Economic Analysis
Assumptions:
- Plant size: 10,000 m³/day → 365,000 m³/year
- Dose: 0.1 g enzyme/m³ → 36.5 kg/year
- CDMO full service costs (fermentation + purification) costs assumed:
- Optimistic: 100 €/kg (high-yield, simple DSP)
- Realistic: 300 €/kg (mid-range CDMO for specialty enzyme)
- Pessimistic: 1,000 €/kg (complex DSP, small batch, chromatography-heavy)
- Immobilization: 100 mg/g support; support = 50 €/kg; amortized over 5 years → ≈ 3,650 €/year
- Logistics/QC overhead: 20% of enzyme cost
Note : * CDMO = Contract Development & Manufacturing Organizations
Cost Scenarios:
Enzyme cost = unit price × 36.5 kg × 1.2 (QC/logistics)
| Scenario | CDMO Price (€/kg) | Enzyme (€/year) | Immobilization | Total Cost (€/year) | €/m³ Treated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimistic | 100 | 4,380 | 3,650 | 8,030 | 0.022 (2.2 cents) |
| Realistic | 300 | 13,140 | 3,650 | 16,790 | 0.046 (4.6 cents) |
| Pessimistic | 1,000 | 43,800 | 3,650 | 47,450 | 0.130 (13 cents) |
Table 4: Enzyme production Costs under different economic scenarios
Note on enzyme cost:
- Unit price = cost we pay the CDMO / supplier for one kilogram of enzyme (depends on scenario)
- QC = Quality Control: Costs for testing each batch to ensure activity, purity, and stability
- Logistics: Transport, cold chain if needed, insurance…
Impact on Water Bill (Baseline = 4€/m³ in France):
- Optimistic: 0.55% increase for operators
- Realistic: 1.15% increase
- Pessimistic: 3.25% increase
Pricing and Business Model Sensitivity
The licensing fee we charge water treatment operators directly influences the final cost of water for citizens. Here's how different pricing scenarios would affect the average water bill:
- 10,000 €/year → 0.027 €/m³ → +0.68% increase on citizen water bill
- 20,000 €/year → 0.055 €/m³ → +1.37% increase
- 50,000 €/year → 0.137 €/m³ → +3.42% increase
Conclusion: Even at "realistic" outsourcing costs, 20k €/year pricing keeps us above break-even and still socially acceptable (<2%). But if DSP costs balloon (pessimistic), we’ll need higher pricing or subsidies.
Enzyme production (outsourced):
- Optimistic: Bulk enzymes (e.g., cellulases, amylases) produced in tonnes by Trichoderma / Aspergillus → <5 €/kg (BRENDA, Novozymes reports).
- Realistic: Specialty enzymes expressed in E. coli or yeast for food/pharma → 10–50 €/kg (BCC Research, Industrial Enzymes Market, 2022).
- Pessimistic: Unstable or complex enzymes (e.g., cytochrome P450 or engineered dehalogenases) requiring chromatography or small-batch DSP → 100–1,000 €/kg (Bornscheuer & Huisman, Nature, 2019).
Immobilization supports:
- Low-cost: Porous silica, epoxy polymers → 50–500 €/kg (Hanefeld et al., Chem. Soc. Rev., 2009).
- Premium: Activated Sepharose or agarose resins → up to 1,000 €/kg (GE Healthcare catalogue).
RO concentrate volumes:
Recovery of typical RO units: 70–90% water → 10–30% concentrate to treat (EPA Membrane Treatment Report, 2020).
Water price baseline:
Average in France ≈ 4 €/m³ (Observatoire national des services d’eau et d’assainissement, 2023).
Additional considerations for outsourced production:
- Add 20–30% overhead for logistics, QC, and CDMO margin.
- Small-batch production or low-yield enzymes may increase €/kg beyond published values.
- Immobilization & cartridge assembly remain in-house to protect IP and control performance.
Commercial Strategy
- Pilot phase (TRL 3–4): outsource fermentation and purification → speed, de-risking, focus on proof of concept.
- Scale-up (TRL 5–6): bring at least formulation & immobilization in-house (stronger IP). Negotiate CDMO cost-downs for enzyme bulk.
- Industrial deployment (TRL 7+): licensing or patent sell (cf. exit strategy).
c) Pricing Strategy
At the heart of our project lies a strong commitment to environmental justice: ensuring that access to clean and safe water does not depend on the financial capacity of a community. This principle guided our reflection on how our technology could be priced and deployed fairly, without excluding small municipalities or disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations. We explored two possible models:
Tiered Pricing (inspired by Enercoop)
Principle: Larger municipalities pay more, smaller ones pay less.
Feasibility:
- Existing example: Enercoop, a cooperative energy supplier in France, applies tiered tariffs depending on consumption (Enercoop Tariffs, 2024).
- In the water sector, some French municipalities already apply progressive water tariffs (e.g., Montpellier, Grenoble – National Observatory of Water Services, 2023).
- Advantage: Fair for small communities, prevents exclusion.
- Challenge: Requires clear tariff policies and strong coordination between municipalities.
Conclusion: Feasible and already applied in energy and water sectors. Could be implemented as a subscription model for our product.
2. Inter-communal Solidarity (Mutualization)
Principle: Municipalities within a syndicate or region pool their resources; costs are shared proportionally to the volume of water produced.
Feasibility:
- Existing example: Syndicats intercommunaux in France (e.g., SEDIF – Syndicat des Eaux d’Île-de-France).
- These entities already operate on cost mutualization: each municipality contributes according to population or water usage.
- Advantage: Simple, fair, and almost invisible in terms of extra costs for end-users.
- Challenge: Depends on existing inter-municipal governance, but in practice, 80% of water services in France are already organized this way (FP2E, 2022).
Conclusion: Highly feasible. This is the standard model for most French and European water utilities.
Our strategy is to go for inter-communal solidarity as a primary approach, since it aligns with existing governance and is immediately implementable and potentially evolve toward tiered pricing to ensure that the smallest communities are not left behind.
d) Funding
Our goal is to take the PFAS-degrading enzyme from the lab proof-of-concept to pilot-scale validation. After pilot validation, we plan to license or sell the patent to industrial partners.
| Phase | Objective | Funding Source | Typical Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| iGEM → Lab Proof-of-Concept | Validate enzyme activity, immobilization, small prototype reactor | iGEM grant, sponsor (Veolia), regional innovation grants | €50–200k |
| Seed / Incubation (AgroParisTech incubator/ Agoranov…) | Scale enzyme to 10–100L, optimize immobilization, test on RO concentrate | Public: Bpifrance Deep Tech, EU Pathfinder; Private: seed VC (SOSV IndieBio, Blue Horizon) |
€0.5–2M |
| Pilot-Scale Validation (1–10 m³/h) | Demonstrate real-world performance at a utility site | Strategic partner: Veolia / Suez; blended public/private | €1–5M |
| Exit / Licensing | License IP or patent to industrial developer | Licensing revenue / strategic partnership | N/A |
Table 5. Funding roadmap from lab proof-of-concept to exit/licensing.
e) Financial projections
From Lab Proof-of-Concept to Pre-Exit (2025-2030)
Key Assumptions:
- Year 0: Founder + 1 intern (€65k total costs)
- Year 1-2: Lab validation + Seed funding (€0.5M-€1.5M from grants & VC)
- Year 2-3: Pilot-scale validation with Veolia partnership
- Year 3+: Pre-licensing phase with first revenues
- Corporate tax rate: 19% (France)
- Depreciation: 7-year straight line on capital assets
- MARR (Minimum Acceptable Rate of Return): 10%
Key Metrics:
| Projected Cash Flow | Year 0 (2025-26) |
Year 1 (2026) |
Year 2 (2027) |
Year 3 (2028) |
Year 4 (2029) |
Year 5 (2030) |
TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (+) Gross Income | €150,000 | €500,000 | €650,000 | €900,000 | €1,400,000 | €2,000,000 | €5,600,000 |
| (-) Variable Costs | €40,000 | €120,000 | €250,000 | €220,000 | €280,000 | €340,000 | €1,250,000 |
| = Gross Profit | €110,000 | €380,000 | €400,000 | €680,000 | €1,120,000 | €1,660,000 | €4,350,000 |
| (-) Fixed Costs | €65,000 | €280,000 | €450,000 | €550,000 | €600,000 | €680,000 | €2,625,000 |
| = EBITDA | €45,000 | €100,000 | -€50,000 | €130,000 | €520,000 | €980,000 | N/A |
| (-) Depreciation/Amortization | €3,571 | €13,571 | €30,714 | €37,857 | €43,571 | €47,857 | N/A |
| = Taxable Profit | €41,429 | €86,429 | -€80,714 | €92,143 | €476,429 | €932,143 | N/A |
| (-) Taxes (19%) | €7,871 | €16,421 | €0 | €17,507 | €90,522 | €177,107 | €309,428 |
| = Net Operating Profit | €33,558 | €70,008 | -€80,714 | €74,636 | €385,907 | €755,036 | N/A |
| (+) Depreciation/Amortization | €3,571 | €13,571 | €30,714 | €37,857 | €43,571 | €47,857 | N/A |
| = OCF (Operating Cash Flow) | €37,129 | €83,579 | -€50,000 | €112,493 | €429,478 | €802,893 | N/A |
| (+/-) Investment in Assets | -€25,000 | -€70,000 | -€120,000 | -€50,000 | -€40,000 | -€30,000 | -€335,000 |
| (+/-) Investment in Working Capital | -€35,000 | -€90,000 | -€110,000 | -€70,000 | -€60,000 | €365,000 | €0 |
| = FCF (Free Cash Flow) | -€22,871 | -€76,421 | -€280,000 | -€7,507 | €329,478 | €1,137,893 | N/A |
| = DCF to MARR (10%) | -€22,871 | -€69,473 | -€231,405 | -€5,631 | €224,983 | €706,449 | €602,052 |
| Cumulative DCF (Recovery) | -€22,871 | -€92,344 | -€323,749 | -€329,380 | -€104,397 | €602,052 | N/A |
Table 6: Cash Flow Analysis
Year 0 (2025-26): €150k
- iGEM grants & sponsors: €50k
- Regional innovation grants: €100k
Year 1 (2026): €500k
- Bpifrance Deep Tech: €200k
- EU Pathfinder grant: €100k
- Seed VC: €200k
Year 2 (2027): €650k
- Veolia pilot contract: €400k
- Continued R&D grants: €200k
- Detection kit sales: €50k
Year 3 (2028): €900k
- Early licensing: €600k
- Detection kit sales: €200k
- Services: €100k
- Year 0: Founder + 1 intern (€65k total)
- Year 1: 4-5 people (€280k total)
- Year 2: 6-7 people (€450k total)
- Year 3+: 8-10 people (€550-680k total)
Recommendation: ACCEPT PROJECT ✓
The project shows positive NPV (€602,052) and IRR (28.45%) exceeds MARR (10%). The pilot phase is financially viable with expected breakeven in Year 4.