The PFAway technology

PFAway directly addresses the key barriers in PFAS remediation. At the core of our approach are engineered beads, integrating activated carbon with encapsulated bacteria, which work within bioreactors to efficiently degrade PFAS in contaminated water.

1. Collaborative development

These beads were co-developed with YpHen (see their website), a French company specializing in mycoremediation and bioremediation, which develops bio-based, environmentally friendly industrial solutions to restore soil quality and support the ecological transition.

Within this collaboration, PFAway is responsible for developing and optimizing the bacterial strains, while YpHen leads the production process, the bead formulation and process optimization. This partnership allows us to combine cutting-edge synthetic biology with YpHen’s expertise in bio-based encapsulation technologies, ensuring that the solution is both efficient and scalable.

2. Environmental responsibility

The beads are specifically designed to safely encapsulate the bacteria, preventing any release into the environment while allowing easy recovery after use. This controlled design guarantees a safe and responsible application, aligning with our commitment to minimize ecological risks.

3. Two strains degradation strategy

Our solution maximizes PFAS degradation by combining two complementary bacterial strains. Labrys portucalensis initiates the breakdown of long-chain PFAS, while a genetically optimized Pseudomonas putida, equipped with an enhanced dehalogenase, efficiently defluorinates short-chain PFAS. To achieve this, we apply cutting-edge ORep technology, for enzyme optimization, detailed in our Design page. The optimized enzyme is then integrated into Pseudomonas putida alongside a fluorine transporter (FluC), enhancing both defluorination efficiency and fluoride tolerance.

A key breakthrough lies in our encapsulation beads, which make it possible to use both strains together in a single bioreactor. Normally, co-cultures fail because faster-growing bacteria outcompete the others. Our bead system solves this problem by providing a controlled microenvironment for each strain, enabling a stable and cooperative degradation and thus, unlocking a scalable solution to PFAS pollution.

4. Activated carbon and bioreactor integration

Finally, the beads are co-formulated with activated carbon, well known for its PFAS adsorption capacity. This creates a synergistic effect between adsorption and biodegradation, significantly boosting overall PFAS removal efficiency and offering a robust solution for contaminated water treatment. The beads are designed to be integrated into a bioreactor, where they will enable continuous water treatment in a controlled environment.

5. Managing fluoride release

During PFAS degradation, dehalogenation releases residual fluoride ions. These fluorides are toxic to humans and must be removed from water to prevent any health risks. Feedback from our Human Practices survey confirmed that the potential release of fluoride into treated water was one of the main concerns expressed by stakeholders, highlighting the importance of addressing this issue directly. Building on these insights, we integrated an additional treatment step into our process to ensure fluoride removal, thereby reinforcing both the safety and the social acceptability of our solution.

To do so, the remaining fluoride in the water can be removed by adding calcium salts such as calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)₂ (Figure 3). Calcium reacts with fluoride to form calcium fluoride (CaF₂), an insoluble solid that can be separated from water (Sinharoy, Lee & Chung, 2024).

The process involves adjusting the pH to around 6, adding the calcium source in a slightly higher amount than the stoichiometric ratio (Ca/F ≈ 0.6), mixing quickly to distribute the reagents, then gently stirring so that the CaF₂ particles grow and settle (Sinharoy, Lee & Chung, 2024).

The water is then clarified, filtered, and neutralized if necessary, making it safe for reuse. The resulting sludge mainly contains CaF₂, which can be recovered and reused as a raw material in the fluorochemical or metallurgical industry, avoiding toxic by-products and reducing waste (Cao et al., 2024).

6. Bead recovery, disinfection and end-of-life management

Concerning the end of the beads’ life cycle, once their activity declines, they can be recovered, and the adsorbed PFAS can be desorbed using a NaCl wash. The Uni-Padua-IT iGEM 2024 team tested this desorption approach on GAC filters using a NaCl wash and obtained promising results. The resulting solution is then processed in a separate treatment cycle.

The beads are then disinfected by dehydration, a low-energy process that eliminates bacteria without producing chemical waste. Finally, the biodegradable beads can be safely composted, ensuring that no microorganisms are released.

Unique value proposition

By ensuring both ecological safety and high PFAS removal efficiency, these beads exemplify PFAway’s commitment to a sustainable and responsible solution, leading directly into our unique value proposition.

Our project combines:

These key characteristics strengthen and showcase the unique value propositions outlined above:

In addition to the factors mentioned earlier, it is important to emphasize that the beads are designed to be eco-friendly. Their production currently requires 1.85 kWh/kg of energy, generates 3.21 kg CO₂e/kg, and costs 10€/kg when purchased from YpHen. The target selling price is planned at approximately 40€/kg, with a reuse cycle designed to enable treatment costs of around 1€ per cubic meter of contaminated water.

As described in first proof of concept, after optimization, we aim to treat 1 m³ of water using 4 kg of Labrys-beads and 4 kg of Pseudomonas-beads for PFAS concentrations (in our case PFOS) ranging from 0 to 2 µg/L (0 to 1.104×10⁻³ mM). For comparison, PFAS concentrations in natural groundwater are typically around 1×10⁻³ µg/L (≈1.104×10⁻⁶ mM).

The table below summarizes reported or estimated CO₂ emissions, energy consumption, and costs per cubic meter of water treated for different PFAS treatment technologies. When available, values are taken from peer-reviewed literature (LCA, experimental studies, reviews) or technical reports.

For technologies where no published data exist, CO₂ emissions and costs were estimated from reported energy requirements using the following assumptions:

• Electricity price: 0.15€/kWh

• Electricity emission factor: 0.40 kg CO₂-eq/kWh (average European grid mix)

The reliability of the data varies per technology: figures for adsorption processes (GAC, IX) and membranes (RO, UF, NF) are supported by multiple peer-reviewed sources, whereas data for emerging destruction technologies (EO, NTP, SCWO, HALT) are highly variable and context-dependent and should therefore be considered indicative only.

Table 1: Comparison of PFAS treatment technologies

Technology	CO₂ emissions (kgCO₂-eq / m³)	Energy (kWh / m³)	Price (€ / m³)	Mechanism	Notes
PFAway	Actual: 12.8 Target: ≤1	Actual: 7.4 Target: ≤1.6	Actual: 80 Target: ≤1	Biodegradation	Estimated values.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)	0.44 – 28.3	~0.1	0.04 – 0.20	Adsorption (concentration on media)	Large variability depending on PFAS levels and spent carbon fate.
Ion Exchange Resins (IX / AIX)	0.32 – 0.5	< 0.1	< 1	Adsorption / Concentration (ion-exchange onto resin)	Reported for ~90% PFOS/PFOA removal in leachate case.
Reverse Osmosis (RO)	≈ 3.4 (site dependent)	0.5 – 2.5 (brackish/fresh)	0.3 – 1.5 (fresh water plants)	Concentration (membrane separation)	Costs exclude concentrate handling.
Ultrafiltration (UF)	no data (UF is not a PFAS barrier)	0.05 – 0.5	0.05 – 0.3	Concentration	Not effective for PFAS removal.
Nanofiltration (NF)	no data	~0.4	0.05 – 0.10 (energy only)	Concentration (membrane separation)	Energy from PFAS technical report.
Foam Fractionation	no data (generally low)	~0.1	< 1 for 90% PFOS/PFOA, ≈0.025 waste management	Concentration (air stripping & foam capture)	Economical for long-chain PFAS.
Electrochemical Oxidation (EO)	64 – 164 (160–410 kWh × 0.40)	160 – 410	24 – 61.5 (energy only)	Destruction (oxidative mineralization)	Variable depending on electrode and matrix (pilot studies).
Non-Thermal Plasma (NTP)	8.0 – 14.4 (20–36 kWh × 0.40)	20 – 36	3.0 – 5.4 (energy only)	Destruction (radical-driven)	Experimental pilot data.
Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)	No data (system dependent)	No data (energy intensive but variable)	≈150 €/tonne of concentrate destroyed (industrial example)	Destruction (complete oxidation)	Effective destructive technology but no universal €/m³ published.
Alkaline Hydrothermal Treatment (HALT)	no data	no data	no data	Destruction (thermal + alkaline breakdown)	Emerging method. No consolidated values.

Compared with established PFAS treatment technologies, PFAway is still at a prototype stage and currently far less competitive in terms of cost, energy, and CO₂ emissions, but its development targets ≤1 kgCO₂e/m³, ≤1 €/m³ and ≤1.6 kWh/m³, which would bring it in line with or even ahead of the most efficient existing methods.

Possible improvements of the product

Despite its current limitations, PFAway shows promising potential. To bridge the gap with established technologies and move towards large-scale applicability, targeted improvements are required. The following steps outline a development pathway, organized along a timeline, to anticipate and plan the necessary actions.

Biological improvements (strains & enzymes) → 1–3 years

Objective: enhance PFAS bioremediation efficiency by improving bacterial strains for increased fluoride resistance, metabolic activity, and genetic stability, while optimizing the process to maintain consistent degradation performance under varying conditions. These improvements will allow for a reduction in the number of bacteria required per bead without compromising the degradation time.

• Engineer Labrys portucalensis → test and assess the strain’s potential for engineering to improve fluoride resistance, characterize its PFAS degradation mechanisms, and implement targeted enhancements.
• Improve Pseudomonas putida → integrate PFAS degradation mechanisms in Pseudomonas putida to only have one strain.
• Optimize bacteria/PFAS ratio → determine the optimal quantity to maximize degradation and reduce costs.
• Develop enzyme secretion → develop enzyme secretion in Pseudomonas putida to improve PFAS defluorination.
• Create auxotrophies → ensure strain stability without plasmids, preventing the loss of key functions.
• Explore and improve enzyme variants and alternative strains → conduct parallel small-scale screenings to identify more efficient or robust biocatalysts.

Bead development (materials & lifecycle) → 1-3 years

Objective: develop and optimize degrading beads that maximize efficiency, durability and cost-effectiveness, minimize environmental impact, and ensure sustainable, market-ready performance.

• Current bead optimization (with YpHen) → test different formulations to ensure safe bacterial immobilization, maintain high cell viability, and minimize release for effective PFAS degradation.
• Reduce carbon footprint of bead production → target ≤1 kg CO₂eq per kg treated to make the process environmentally sustainable.
• Energy efficiency → target ≤1.6 kWh/m³ to minimize operational costs.
• Increase treated water per kg of beads → improve efficiency to reduce material use and costs.
• Beads reuse / improve lifetime → aim for ≥40 reuse cycles to reach ≤1 €/m³ treated, crucial for economic feasibility.

Full process development (integration & scale-Up) → 2–5 years

Objective: integrate and scale up the PFAS treatment process (Figure 4) using bead-based bioreactors, ensuring effectiveness, safety and regulatory compliance.

• PFAS monitoring (step 2 and 4): develop a titration system to measure baseline contamination and treatment efficiency.
• Foam fractionation (step 3): concentrate polluted water, reduce treatment volume and increase PFAS concentration for more efficient downstream processing.
• Bioreactor treatment (step 5): degrade PFAS at pilot to semi-industrial scale using bead-based bioreactors to scale up the biological process.
• UV disinfection (step 7): ensure microbiological safety without chemical additives.
• Water reuse / discharge: validate regulatory compliance for drinking/industrial water reuse or safe river discharge.
• Scale-up considerations: plan fermentation and bead production at larger scales, integrating monitoring, concentration, bioreactor treatment, and safety/discharge steps sequentially.

In the continuity of PFAway, within a ten-year horizon, our future project aims to develop an integrated and scalable solution for the remediation of PFAS-contaminated water, combining biological, material, and process innovations. Thanks to these improvements, we will be able to propose a depollution process that fully integrates all of these steps:

These combined improvements will allow us to maximize PFAS removal while achieving our sustainability objectives: reducing carbon footprint, minimizing energy consumption, enabling safe and circular water treatment and promoting environmentally responsible industrial practices. The sustainability goals associated with our project have been defined through our Human Practices page.

Beachhead market and targeted clients

Initially, we will focus on integrators as key clients, providing beads that complement and improve their current treatment systems. Integrators refer to companies that design, implement, and manage complete water treatment solutions by combining different technologies and services to meet client needs. We aim to showcase the product’s impact through collaborations with leading French B2B integrators such as Veolia, Suez and Saur (Figure 5).

We have chosen to concentrate on integrators like Veolia because they are global leaders in wastewater treatment , with extensive customer networks and the capacity to rapidly test, validate, and deploy innovations at scale. In this context, PFAway beads have multiple applications, including wastewater treatment and pretreatment of drinking water or landfill leachate treatment.

Other wastewater treatment plants not affiliated with these integrators are not shown in this graph but they remain potential clients.

Total wastewater treatment plants Total drinking water production plants Total people served worldwide

Additionally, pilot tests can be conducted at volunteer local wastewater treatment plants to collect feedback, adapt the technology to real-world conditions, and strengthen relationships with end users.

This combined approach, using integrators for scale-up and pilots for optimization, maximizes the potential for efficient and large-scale deployment.

After several years of R&D and the full development of the integrated system outlined in our improvement roadmap, we will be ready to serve end clients directly, including wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities, and potable water or landfill leachate treatment plants. This gradual strategy allows us to evolve from prototype to a fully operational solution.

Benchmarking and positioning analysis

PFAway in the french PFAS remediation market

As a French company, we benchmarked PFAway against existing players in the national market to understand its position relative to local PFAS treatment solutions. Benchmarking systematically compares a company’s solution to others to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities.

In the context of PFAS remediation, competitors are companies offering technologies to remove or mitigate PFAS contamination. Our study revealed that PFAway can occupy a unique position: in some cases complementing existing solutions, in others reinforcing current methods, or offering a more sustainable alternative. A comparative table of key actors and their relation to PFAway is provided below.

Table 2: Comparison of PFAS remediation approaches and synergies with PFAway.

Actor	Remediation Method	Evaluation	Relation to PFAway
SUEZ France	Carbazur® (GAC): Capture by adsorption on granular carbon and destruction by incineration	+ Mature, reliable - Only capture / high CO₂ emissions	Complementary capture → PFAway destruction
SAUR France	CarboPlus®: Capture by adsorption on fluidized carbon and concentration by ion exchange membranes	+ Mature, reliable - Only capture / high CO₂ emissions	Complementary capture → PFAway destruction
Veolia France	Beyond PFAS + Drop®: Capture by concentration and thermal destruction (Drop®)	+ Integrated capture + destruction - Energy-intensive incineration / high CO₂ emissions	PFAway → low-carbon alternative
DESOTEC France	Mobile GAC filters: Capture by adsorption and destruction off-site by regeneration or incineration	+ Mature, reliable - Only capture / high CO₂ emissions	Complementary capture → PFAway destruction
Regenesis France	PlumeStop®: Capture in situ by colloidal carbon injection and immobilization	+ In situ immobilization - No destruction	PFAway → reinforcement (adds real destruction)
EcoGreenEnergy France	AOP (UV, ozone, plasma): PFAS degradation via radicals or plasma	+ Innovative destruction - R&D, high energy, by-products	PFAway → sustainable, bio-based alternative
Coldep	Foam fractionation: PFAS concentration in foam at water surface	+ Innovative foam fractionation - Concentrates PFAS but does not destroy it	PFAway → complementary (destruction after concentration)
BRGM (public French research)	CONCERTO: Innovative R&D. Capture + destruction foam, AOP, electrochemistry	+ Innovative destruction - R&D, high energy, by-products	PFAway → complementary (destruction after concentration)

Global market : TAM – SAM – SOM analysis

Following the benchmarking and positioning analysis of PFAway in the French PFAS remediation market, we broaden our scope to a global perspective through a TAM–SAM–SOM analysis (Figure 6). The global PFAS remediation market is undergoing strong growth, driven by rising regulatory pressures and the urgent demand for effective treatment solutions. Assessing its size, scope, and dynamics is crucial to identify opportunities for PFAway and to guide strategic planning for its worldwide deployment.

• The Total Addressable Market (TAM) represents the full global opportunity for PFAS remediation solutions.

• The Serviceable Available Market (SAM) is the portion of the market that PFAway can realistically target once the product and process are validated.

• The Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) corresponds to the initial stage, where the focus is on validating the product in real-world conditions, specifically the beads.

SWOT and CAME analysis

Following the TAM–SAM–SOM analysis of market size and potential, it is important to evaluate PFAway’s internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats, and to define strategic actions for success. The SWOT analysis identifies these key factors, while the CAME analysis translates them into actionable strategies guiding decisions to reinforce PFAway’s market position (Figure 7).

Gantt: Development plan over 5-year period

The Gantt chart then outlines the timeline, key milestones and tasks required to execute these initiatives effectively, ensuring structured progress toward PFAway’s market growth and operational goals.

Business model canvas

With a clear timeline and key milestones established in the Gantt chart, we can now focus on defining PFAway’s value proposition and operational strategy. The Business Model Canvas provides us a structured framework to map out customers, revenue streams, resources, and partnerships, ensuring that our execution plan aligns with our sustainable and scalable business model.

Table 3: PFAway's business model canvas

Problem	Solution	Unique value proposition	Distinct/unfair advantages	Customer segments
• PFAS persists in water and resists natural degradation. • Current removal methods only capture PFAS without destroying them. • PFAS destruction technologies are costly, energy-intensive, and generate secondary pollution (e.g., CO₂ from incineration). Existing Alternatives : • Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) • Electrochemical Oxidation (EO) • Non-thermal Plasma Treatment • Alkaline Hydrothermal Treatment (HALT) • Thermal Incineration • Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) adsorption • Ion Exchange Resins (IX) • Reverse Osmosis (RO) • Nanofiltration (NF) • Foam Fractionation	• Engineered beads: activated carbon + encapsulated bacteria. • Synergy adsorption + biodegradation via activated carbon. • Efficient PFAS degradation in bioreactors. • Two-strain system: Labrys portucalensis (degrade long-chain) + engineered Pseudomonas putida (defluorinate short-chain). • Stable co-culture enabled by beads. • Fluoride management: Ca(OH)₂ → CaF₂, water clarified and safe. • Recovery & reuse: PFAS desorption via NaCl wash. • Disinfection & end-of-life: dehydration, biodegradable & compostable beads. • Co-developed with YpHen: scalable & environmentally responsible solution. • Full process development: post-validation, the beads will become part of a complete treatment workflow, covering concentration, detection, fluorine removal, and disinfection. • Green alternative: provides a sustainable alternative to current methods.	• Active degradation:: breaks PFAS into harmless compounds, outperforming conventional methods. • Activated carbon adsorption: concentrates PFAS around beads for enhanced efficiency. • Easy integration:complements existing water treatment systems. • Encapsulation: ensures safety, regulatory compliance, and social acceptance. • Biodegradable: beads fully degrade, leaving no waste. • Easy bacterial removal: beads are easily recovered for straightforward handling.	• Unique combination of adsorption and biodegradation in a single product • Use of specialized, genetically enhanced bacteria for full PFAS breakdown. • Co-culture stabilization via beads: allows two strains to work together, avoiding competitive overgrowth. • Bio-based, low-energy process with reduced CO₂ emissions. • Proprietary microbial strains • Regulatory and social acceptability built-in:encapsulation, safety, and compostable end-of-life. • Proprietary encapsulation technology co-developed with YpHen → knowledge and IP barrier.	Short term (R&D phase): • Water treatment system integrators using beads combine with their own solutions. Long term (post-process validation): • Wastewater treatment plants • Potable water treatment plants • Industrial facilities with PFAS-contaminated effluents • Landfill leachate treatment operators Early adopters • Major French B2B water treatment integrators (Veolia, Suez, Saur) avec large operational networks. • Already use advanced treatment systems, enabling easy integration. • Parallel pilot projects in small local wastewater treatment plants for rapid feedback. • Combined approach ensures both fast scale-up and adaptability.
	Key metrics		Channels
	• PFAS removal efficiency (%) in lab, pilot, and field tests. • Bacterial viability & activity in beads over time. • Adsorption capacity and regeneration of activated carbon beads. • Process scalability: treatment volume per day. • Cost per m³ treated vs. current methods. • Time for operational validation after integration in client systems. • Client adoption rate: integrators and end-users. • Pilot-to-commercial conversion rate.		• Direct partnerships with major water treatment integrators. • Pilot projects with small and medium wastewater treatment plants for local validation and early adoption. • Industry events & trade fairs to showcase innovation. • Scientific publications & conferences to build credibility in bioremediation. • B2B marketing via targeted outreach, networking, and environmental industry media. • Online presence: (website, LinkedIn, industry platforms). • Public engagement & citizen science: educational content (videos, infographics, blogs) and events (e.g., La Grande Syncr’Eau) to raise awareness about PFAS and responsible biotechnology. • Medium/long-term strategy: expand partnerships, publish accessible science results, and deploy PFAway on pilot sites to demonstrate tangible environmental impact.

Cost structure

Revenue Streams

• R&D and pilot testing: development of bacteria, encapsulation processes, and PFAS degradation validation. • Outsourced fermentation & bead production: during early launch years. • Investment in in-house production: internalization of fermentation and bead manufacturing processes. • Bead production: raw materials (activated carbon, polymers), manufacturing, and quality control. • Specialized equipment: bioreactors, PFAS concentration/detection systems, fluorine removal units. • Personnel: scientists, engineers, regulatory experts, and business development staff. • Regulatory compliance: safety assessments, environmental studies, and certifications. • Partnership & licensing costs: collaborations with YpHen and other technology partners. • Deployment & logistics: transport of beads, installation, and maintenance services. • Marketing & outreach: trade fairs, promotional materials, and customer acquisition campaigns

• Direct sales of PFAS-degrading beads: PFAS-degrading microbeads sold to integrators during early commercialization. • Licensing of technology: usage rights for large water treatment companies and industrial partners. • Integrated treatment systems: sales of full PFAS-removal units (concentration, detection, fluorine removal, disinfection) after validation. • Maintenance & consumables: recurring revenue from bead replacement, reagents, and system upkeep. • Pilot & feasibility studies: paid services to assess PFAS contamination and demonstrate solution effectiveness. • Consulting & custom integration: adapting technology to specific industrial or municipal treatment needs.

PESTEL : macro-environment analysis

After defining PFAway’s business model and value proposition through the business model canvas, it is important to consider the broader external environment. The PESTEL analysis examines political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors and helps to identify opportunities and risks that could impact our strategy. By examining these factors, we can ensure that PFAway’s business model is robust, adaptable, and aligned with external conditions, guiding strategic decisions and prioritizing areas for development or mitigation.

Risks analysis

After conducting the PESTEL and SWOT analyses, we identified several environmental risks, primarily reflected in the Threats and Weaknesses dimensions of the SWOT, in order to implement preventive measures and plan corrective actions according to the type of risk. To do this, each identified risk is assessed as follows:

• Severity (S): 1 = minor, 5 = critical

• Probability (P): 1 = rare, 5 = very frequent

• Detectability (D): 1 = easily detected, 5 = difficult to detect

The Risk Priority Index (RPI) is then calculated as RPI = S × P × D. The higher the RPI, the more critical the risk and the higher its priority for preventive or corrective measures.

Table 4: PFAway’s risk analysis.

Risk	Failure mode	Potential effect	Causes	S	P	D	RPI	Preventive or corrective measures
Insufficient bacterial efficiency and limited degradation spectrum	Degradation too slow, incomplete, or only partial PFAS degradation	Solution considered non-viable	Low gene expression Inefficient enzymes Bacteria/PFAS ratio inefficient PFAS chemical variability	5	4	4	80	Genetic design optimization Complementary enzyme selection Bacteria/PFAS ratio optimization Co-treatment with activated carbon
Escape of GMOs and encapsulation failure	Environmental release due to bead rupture / leakage	Ecological risk Regulatory blockage	Unstable material Accidental handling Bad recipe for formulation	5	3	4	60	Multi-barrier encapsulation Kill switch Containment Long-term bead testing
Toxicity of PFAS metabolites	More toxic degradation products	Increased environmental and health risks	Persistent intermediates	5	3	5	75	Identify intermediates Toxicological analysis Co-treatment
High cost	Non-competitive process	No industrial adoption	Expensive beads Scale-up	4	3	3	36	Process optimization Industrial partnerships
Regulatory blockage and unfavorable regulatory evolution	OGM / PFAS authorization denied or stricter laws	Project halted or banned	Strict legislation Political changes Public opinion Lobbying	5	4	5	100	Dialogue with authorities Phased strategy (lab → pilot) Regulatory monitoring
Scale-up difficulty	Failure in mass production	Increased costs, instability	Process engineering issues	4	3	4	48	Progressive scale-up tests Process expertise
PFAS handling accidents	Accidental contamination	Health impact on researchers	Lab practice errors	4	2	3	24	Safety training Internal audits Strict lab protocols
Public and societal trust / opposition / bad press	Fear of GMOs Refusal of pilot sites Media scandal	Social rejection Project delay or cancellation	Communication insufficiency Public/political concerns	5	4	4	80	Transparency Education NGO involvement Local engagement Crisis communication plan
Difficulty integrating into WWTPs	Incompatibility with existing processes	Rejection by operators	Technical differences with existing infrastructure	5	3	4	60	WWTP integration study Co-development with industry
Changes in funder priorities	Reallocation of subsidies (CO₂, other pollution)	Budget shortfall	Political instability	4	3	4	48	Diversify funding sources Anticipate calls
Secondary waste management	Used beads / dead bacteria	New pollution / unanticipated costs	Lack of adapted disposal channels	5	3	4	60	End-of-life study Recycling
Uncertain beads lifespan	Loss of efficiency during use	Frequent replacements Increased costs	Bead aging Bacterial viability loss	4	3	4	48	Long-term testing Stability evaluation Planned maintenance

The most critical risks include biological performance issues, which could make the solution non-viable. Besides, regulatory risks and societal mistrust of biotechnology could block pilots or industrial deployment. Encapsulation failure, high scale-up costs, and end-of-life management of the beads also represent major technical and economic challenges. To address these, it is essential to strengthen genetic design and enzyme optimization, secure encapsulation, maintain continuous dialogue with regulatory authorities, implement transparent public communication, and anticipate scale-up requirements alongside sustainable bead end-of-life strategies.

Skills gap analysis roadmap

Based on the identified risks and the measures to be implemented, we have mapped the skill gaps within our team and defined the partners to engage or actions to take in order to address them.

Phase 1

➤

Phase 2

➤

Phase 3

➤

Phase 4

➤

Phase 5

➤

Phase 6

Phase 1 – Development and initial validation (0-12 months)
Objective: scientifically and regulatory validated prototype.
Biology Assets: microbiology and R&D expertise, strong iGEM academic/industry network. Gaps: no in-house capacity for PFAS analysis and no accredited external validation process to certify biodegradation performance. Solutions: subcontract PFAS analysis to certified labs to ensure credibility; set up standardized degradation and toxicity assays to demonstrate safety.	Beads Assets: access to encapsulation and formulations from YpHen. Gaps: low encapsulation efficiency and limited bacterial viability in beads, excessive bacterial release into the medium and insufficient bacterial loading per bead. Solutions: improve encapsulation methods to increase bacterial loading per bead, enhance viability through optimized formulations, and implement design strategies that prevent bacterial leakage while maintaining regeneration potential.
Process Assets: early conceptual discussions and process flow design. Gaps: lack of PFAS monitoring workflows at lab scale. Solutions: establish lab-scale monitoring methods, design small-scale water treatment set-ups for initial validation.	Business Assets: subcontractor network, partner scouting capacity, IP awareness. Gaps: limited regulatory knowledge (potable water + GMO), weak in fundraising. Solutions: recruit or partner with regulatory consultants to anticipate requirements, contact incubators and business angels for early fundraising.

Phase 2 – Market testing & structuring (6–18 months)
Objective: confirm market interest and secure funding for industrialization.
Biology Assets: Academic/industrial network for alternative strain and enzymes. Gaps: no optimization of PFAS/bacteria ratio, limited WT enzyme, secretion not yet developed. Solutions: optimize bacteria/PFAS ratios to improve degradation rate, explore enzyme secretion systems, start screening enzyme variants and alternative strains.	Beads Assets: first working encapsulation prototypes. Gaps: bead regeneration capacity has not yet been evaluated, production costs remain high, and sustainability performance has not been fully optimized. Solutions: perform regeneration/recycling cycles, reduce bead carbon footprint by selecting greener polymers and optimize the formulation, increase treated water per kg of beads.
Process Assets: basic lab workflow designs in place. Gaps: monitoring and treatment process not validated at lab scale. Solutions: develop standardized PFAS monitoring and treatment planning, prepare protocols for scaling up.	Business Assets: strong scientific communication (recognized in iGEM, publications). Gaps: No business-to-business (B2B) sales experience (limited experience selling directly to other companies), lack of marketing positioning, weak fundraising capacity. Solutions: recruit a business developer with water industry knowledge, work with incubators/accelerators to structure fundraising, benchmark French integrators (Veolia, Suez, Saur).

Phase 3 – Progressive industrialization (12–30 months)
Objective: ramp up internal production & advance integrated system.
Biology Assets: robust R&D base and strain libraries. Gaps: no stable plasmid-free strains, no final validated degradation strain. Solutions: engineer auxotrophies for genetic stability, validate final strains for robustness; expand pipeline to additional species/enzymes.	Beads Assets: validated bead prototypes from lab scale. Gaps: no long-term regeneration cycle validation. Solutions: finalize regeneration and recycling strategy, aim for ≥40 reuse cycles to ensure cost efficiency.
Process Assets: early design concepts for integration. Gaps: no semi-industrial bioreactor setup, no monitoring/concentration integrated. Solutions: develop semi-industrial bioreactors (100–1000 L scale) and integrate PFAS concentration and monitoring units into prototypes.	Business Assets: early industrial partnerships and collaborations. Gaps: no supply chain structure, no distribution partners, weak branding. Solutions: build supply chain with CDMOs (contract manufacturers), initiate partial in-house production (20–80%), develop branding & positioning strategy.

Phase 4 – Pilot integration and real-World testing (24–42 months)
Objective: validate full system on client sites.
Biology Assets: strong scientific analysis, validated lab strains. Gaps: no real-world deployment experience. Solutions: implement feedback loop from pilot sites, perform minor genetic/operational adjustments.	Beads Assets: validated encapsulation/regeneration strategies. Gaps: unknown performance in real environmental water conditions. Solutions: field durability and performance optimization; adjustments to bead materials if needed.
Process Assets: monitoring workflows ready for pilots. Gaps: no real pilot deployment experience. Solutions: run PFAS monitoring pilots, test foam fractionation for concentration, run bioreactor trials, and UV disinfection validation in real sites.	Business Assets: industrial and academic partners ready for pilots. Gaps: no certification track record, no crisis communication strategy. Solutions: collaborate with certification bodies, prepare crisis communication plans, manage pilot projects with clients.

Phase 5 – Industrial launch and expansion (42–54 months)
Objective: launch full system and expand markets.
Biology Assets: mastered degradation strains. Gaps: only incremental improvements required. Solutions: fine-tuning for robustness, extend strain diversity if needed.	Beads Assets: optimized regeneration and recyclability. Gaps: minor optimizations possible. Solutions: continuous performance monitoring and small material improvements.
Process Assets: integrated workflows validated in pilots. Gaps: no large-scale industrial validation. Solutions: scale up bioreactor and UV integration, validate full process at industrial scale.	Business Assets: growing partner network and first market traction. Gaps: no international expansion strategy and no licensing or joint venture (JV) agreements. Licensing refers to granting another company the right to use your technology or product in exchange for fees or royalties, while a joint venture is a partnership between two companies that share resources, risks, and profits to develop a new project or enter a market together. Solutions: hire international business developers, initiate licensing/JV negotiations, prepare large-scale pre-orders with integrators.

Phase 6 – Full industrial roll-out (48–60 months)
Objective: secure long-term market adoption.
Biology Assets: robust and validated strains. Gaps: none critical, only small incremental needs. Solutions: monitor and update strains if regulatory or technical improvements emerge.	Beads Assets: fully validated beads with regeneration cycle. Gaps: minimal, only incremental improvements possible. Solutions: small-scale optimizations to ensure continuous performance.
Process Assets: integrated industrial system ready. Gaps: final regulatory validation for global adoption missing. Solutions: engage with certification and global water authorities to validate discharges and reuse.	Business Assets: established product-market fit and trusted solution. Gaps: no global partnerships yet, no strong international communication strategy. Solutions: build strategic alliances with Veolia, Suez, and global players; expand internationally via licensing/JV; implement global crisis communication protocols.

Business exit strategy

Once the team’s skills and capabilities have been assessed through the skill gap analysis, we can plan for the long-term trajectory of our business. The business exit strategy outlines potential pathways for investors and founders, ensuring that PFAway’s growth and value creation are aligned with clear, and strategic exit options.

Considering the company’s technological maturity, market potential, and resource constraints, the most suitable exit strategies appear to be either an acquisition by a major industrial player or a licensing/joint venture model. An industrial acquisition would ensure rapid scale-up, global market access, and immediate liquidity for shareholders, while a licensing or JV approach would allow continued control over the technology and steady recurring revenues. In practice, pursuing a strategic partnership or licensing phase could enhance valuation and credibility ahead of a potential acquisition, combining both flexibility and long-term value creation.

Sales table

First, the sales table allows us to anticipate projected sales over the first eight years of development, based on the following assumptions:

Table 5: PFAway's predicted sales table.

Years	Main clients	Products Sold	Average price per site (€)	Revenue (K€)
1	None (R&D)	-	-	0
2	Diagnostic clients (laboratories, small WWTPs)	Diagnostic and feasibility services	5 000 – 10 000 €	20
3	Integrators and Small local WWTPs (2-3 pilot sites)	Beads only	~100 000 €	250
4	Integrators & Small WWTPs (5–10 sites)	Beads only	~100 000 €	700
5	Integrators (10–20 sites)	Beads + 2–3 semi-integrated prototypes	100 000 – 250 000 €	2 000
6	Integrators + first direct clients (20–30 sites)	Beads + 5–10 semi-integrated prototypes	150 000 – 300 000 €	6 000
7	Integrators + end clients (50–70 sites)	Complete process (beads + integration)	~300 000 €	15 000
8	France/Europe + International expansion (150–200 sites)	Complete process (beads + full integration)	~300 000 €	40 000

This projection shows a steady progression from the R&D phase to full commercial deployment and international expansion, with strong revenue growth driven by a broader client base and the gradual integration of the complete solution.

Balance sheet

The balance sheet allows us to track revenue in relation to our expenses and evaluate the overall profitability of PFAway.

Table 6: PFAway's predicted balance sheet.

Items	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8
REVENUES (without tax)
Diagnostic & service fees	10	25	30	40	50	60	80	100
Beads sales	0	0	250	700	2 000	6 000	15 000	40 000
Stored production	0	5	10	15	25	50	80	100
Operating subsidies	50	50	40	30	20	10	0	0
Other products (by-products, pilots)	0	5	10	20	30	50	80	100
Financial income	0	0	1	3	5	10	30	40
Exceptional products (licensing/IP)	0	0	0	10	10	20	20	20
TOTAL REVENUES (A)	60	85	341	818	2 140	6 200	15 290	40 360
EXPENSES (without tax)
Purchases (variable costs)	30	60	150	400	1 000	2 500	5 000	13 000
Other external costs (rent, insurance, marketing, logistics)	20	30	50	100	200	300	500	800
Personnel costs	35	90	150	250	400	700	1 200	1 800
Depreciation (DAP)	5	10	15	20	30	40	50	60
TOTAL EXPENSES (B)	90	190	365	770	1 630	3 540	6 750	15 660
RESULTS
RESULT BEFORE TAX (A – B)	–30	–105	–24	48	510	2 660	8 540	24 700
Corporate tax	0	0	0	7	85	887	2 847	8 233
NET RESULT	–30	–105	–24	41	425	1 773	5 693	16 467

This projected balance sheet shows a clear evolution from initial R&D investment to sustained profitability, with revenues taking off from Year 3 thanks to bead sales and service expansion. As operations scale and production becomes more efficient, the company achieves strong and stable growth, reaching significant profitability by Year 8.

Investments plan

With a clear view of PFAway’s financial trajectory, the next section focuses on how these results will be reinvested to fuel growth, through R&D, industrialization, and market deployment.

PFAway's predicted investments plan.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

This financing plan outlines a balanced and forward-looking approach, with sufficient resources allocated each year to cover planned expenses and anticipated growth. A slight surplus is intentionally maintained to provide flexibility and ensure financial stability in case actual needs are underestimated or new opportunities arise.

Stakeholders

This section outlines the stakeholders associated with PFAway, including current participants and those anticipated to be involved in the future.

First partners network

After identifying key stakeholders, the next step is to establish strategic partnerships. The first partners network outlines the initial collaborators and allies who will help PFAway implement its strategy and achieve its objectives.

As mentioned earlier, YpHen is PFAway’s primary partner, contributing its expertise in bio-inspired encapsulation technologies (more details are available on their website). Initially, our objective was to design a full bioreactor process using free bacteria. However, this approach quickly proved too ambitious within our timeframe.

At this point, Carmen Mirabelli from YpHen advised us to focus instead on encapsulated bacteria. This strategic shift not only offered a more realistic path forward but also accelerated our progress, allowing us to secure tangible results within the project. It also reinforced the complementarity of our collaboration: while our team concentrated on strain development and optimization, YpHen supported us with bead formulation, production, and process design.

To protect both parties, we signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) covering the intellectual property and public communication. A Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) was also signed to regulate the exchange of biological materials, ensuring they are used only within the project and remain the provider’s property.

Other collaboration documents have been discussed:

• Consortium agreement: will define co-development rules (ownership of results, patents, publications, partner withdrawal).

• Exploitation agreement: to be discussed with INSA’s Technology Transfer Office (TTO) to secure licensing, revenue sharing, and exploitation rights.

• Industrial plan: two phases are foreseen. First, YpHen supplies beads exclusively. Later, PFAway could produce them under license.

• Letters of Intent (LOIs): non-binding letters from partners and companies to show market demand and strengthen credibility for investors and funding agencies.

To make this collaboration tangible, a member of our team spent three days at YpHen’s facilities to discuss the project in detail and to produce the beads firsthand.

Finally, YpHen not only expressed their interest in continuing the collaboration beyond iGEM, but also formalized this commitment through a professional agreement, which includes integrating Florian Jabally, a PFAway member, to further develop the beads and explore a dedicated PFAS depollution project.

Another key partner is SAPOVAL, a French engineering company specialized in innovative water cycle management, particularly in wastewater treatment and the recovery of by-products(more details are available on their website). Through the support of Erwan Trotoux, who has an in-depth knowledge of the water treatment sector, SAPOVAL provides valuable guidance that helps us align our project with real-world industrial and environmental needs.

Building on this support, Erwan helped us clearly define our business focus making our development plan more realistic given our timeline. He also provided the tools to build our business model, refine our market positioning, and benchmark PFAway against other PFAS depollution solutions.

Additionally, leveraging his experience, Erwan guided the design of our financial strategy and connected us with Coldep, a French company using foam fractionation to remove and concentrate PFAS from water.

This contact with Coldep marks the beginning of our discussions on developing the complete process at an early stage. Coldep specializes in water treatment and concentration technologies, offering innovative solutions to optimize resource use (more details are available on their website). During our exchanges, we explored the conditions under which PFAS concentration is possible, the potential limits of concentration, as well as the associated costs. While these discussions remain somewhat theoretical for now, they represent an important first step in shaping the development of the project.

Our approach is based on engaging with potential partners to explore how their expertise and solutions can be realistically integrated into our process. For fermentation, we plan to collaborate with CRITT Bio-Industries, a French technical center specialized in fermentation and bioprocess scale-up. In the early phases, we will rely on subcontractors such as Fermentalg, a French biotechnology company with expertise in microbial fermentation, to maintain flexibility before production is internalized.

For the fluoride removal stage, we will work with suppliers of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂) such as Brenntag France, which provides a wide range of industrial chemicals including high-purity Ca(OH)₂. Also for fluoride removal, we will collaborate with companies like Micr’eau, a French firm developing activated alumina and other filtration media for defluoridation, in order to benchmark and compare different methods that could complement our bead-based depollution system.

In terms of disinfection, BIO-UV Group, a French leader in UV treatment technologies, could provide solutions to ensure water quality compliance. Finally, we plan to engage with research teams specialized in PFAS titration methods, such as iGEM groups or academic laboratories in French universities working on water chemistry, to explore new approaches for accurate PFAS measurement, even if this field is still emerging.

By involving these partners from the outset, we can anticipate technical challenges, evaluate realistic conditions of implementation, and ensure that PFAway’s development is scalable and robust before moving to full-scale deployment. Our ultimate objective is to secure letters of intent (LOIs) from these companies and potential clients. These LOIs will validate their interest in our solution, strengthen the project’s credibility with investors and funding agencies, and serve as a critical first step toward demonstrating our product under real market conditions.

First proofs of concept

With the support of our strategic partners, we successfully conducted the first proof of concept to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the PFAway process. These initial experiments focused on the beads and evaluated bacterial viability, bacterial release, and PFAS adsorption (see Results page). The obtained results are encouraging:

• The bacteria remain viable inside the beads for at least 30 days.

• The activated carbon incorporated into the beads effectively adsorbed PFAS, achieving an adsorption efficiency of 96.9%.

• The optimal proportion of activated carbon is 10% within the beads.

The only issue observed was an unexpectedly high level of bacterial release into the water. This was not the intended outcome, and we will need to adjust the bead formulation to address this problem. Full details of the results can be found on our Results page.

According to Wijayahena et al. (2025), Labrys portucalensis effectively degrades PFOS. Since no clear experimental correlation between optical density (OD) and degradation time could be established by our manipulations, we used our predictive model (see our Model page) to estimate the optimal initial OD that minimizes degradation time. For PFOS concentrations ranging from 0 to 2.5 µg/L, the model predicts that approximately 2.34 × 10¹⁰ CFU/mL of Labrys portucalensis and 1.99 × 10¹⁰ CFU/mL of Pseudomonas putida are required, resulting in an optimal estimated degradation period of about 380 hours (≈16 days). This estimation aligns with the experimentally observed 30-day bacterial survival within the beads.

Our target is to reduce the bead requirement to only 8 kg per cubic meter (4 kg Labrys-beads and 4 kg Pseudomonas-moz-backface-visibility). Achieving this would require bead loadings of approximately 5.85×10¹² CFU/g for Labrys portucalensis and 4.97×10¹² CFU/g for Pseudomonas putida. In comparison, current bead loadings are two to three orders of magnitude smaller for both strains.

This issue was discussed with Carmen Mirabelli from YpHen, who confirmed thefeasibility to increase the bacterial load in 1 g of beads by inoculating the formulation with a more concentrated culture. However, techno-economic considerations will need to be addressed to optimize this approach. Additional improvements are planned, providing according to our improvement roadmap. Two main strategies are underway:

1. Strain optimization

This aimed at lowering the optimal OD required for effective PFAS degradation, which reduces the bacterial density needed per bead to achieve target degradation times.

2. Formulation and immobilization optimization

Designed to increase the number of viable CFU per gram of beads compared with current results, further reducing the quantity of beads required to treat 1 m³ of contaminated water.

This combined approach will gradually lower the required bead inventory and support the achievement of targeted operational performance at full scale.

GMO Regulations in Water Treatment

Following the successful demonstration of our initial proof of concept, it is crucial to ensure that PFAway’s approach complies not only with European regulatory standards but also with international frameworks, such as those in Canada (see below).

The GMO Regulation outlines the legal and safety requirements for using genetically modified organisms in water treatment applications.

In France and across the European Union, the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) is governed by Directive 2009/41/EC, which sets out rules for laboratories, pilot plants, and industrial fermenters

The regulatory framework also includes the deliberate release of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 on traceability and labelling these European laws are transposed into French national law through the Code de l’Environnement and the Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime.

Outside Europe, countries like Canada regulate living organisms (including genetically modified) under the Canadian Environmental Protection and the NSNR regulation, which require notification for new substances/organisms, risk assessment, and sometimes exemptions for lower risk contained use situations.

To guarantee full regulatory compliance and biosafety throughout development and deployment, PFAway commits to the following actions:

• Classify all engineered microbial strains under the correct risk group.

• Seek necessary declarations or authorisations from French/EU authorities before any environmental release or pilot tests outside containment.

• Maintain rigorous documentation of all genetic modifications, with full traceability and labelling in compliance with Regulation 1830/2003.

• Ensure usage only in certified contained facilities to guarantee biosafety.

• Provide regular biosafety training to all staff involved.

• Conduct environmental risk assessments prior to pilot-scale or field deployment.

• Continuously monitor legislative changes, particularly regarding new genomic techniques (NGTs), and adapt practices accordingly.