Participating in the PFAS Conversation

By Nancy Getz, Global Product Line Director, Technology and Innovation, Trelleborg Sealing Solutions.

As a Global Product Line Director, it’s common knowledge to me that polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material has been widely used in sealing products for fluid power applications because of its excellent resistance to high temperatures, diverse chemical compatibility, and low friction. Fluoropolymers including PTFE are a class of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) per the definition that all substances containing a fully-fluorinated carbon atom in their structure are considered PFAS. Regulatory and government agencies in both Europe and America are proposing restrictions on the entire group of PFAS chemicals due to serious concerns regarding the toxicity and adverse effects of some PFAS on humans and the environment. Recently, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has published an update considering fluoropolymers and sealing applications essential use cases and opened the process for a scientific and socioeconomic analysis that may lead to exemptions from the proposed PFAS restrictions. This is a topic that is of the utmost importance to me, so I’ve detailed some crucial information regarding the overarching PFAS conversation below.

These regulations are still in flux but are spurring innovation in sealing solutions for fluid power applications. There are many alternative options to consider when it comes to sealing geometries and materials that can achieve suitable performance. The best solutions are realized when fluid power original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) collaborate and proactively seek guidance from their sealing partners. Performance simulations, such as finite element analysis (FEA) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) can be done on the front end of development alongside laboratory testing to narrow down solutions for the entire sealing system. Comprehensive product testing and material recommendations should be a core competency of a reliable sealing system partner. Every step of the way, it’s vital to remember that we are all on this PFAS journey together, so we need to leverage each other’s strengths and collaborate wherever possible.

There are performance advantages that customers might sacrifice with alternatives, including PTFE’s low-friction properties. A different material may cause a product to wear faster, reduce its operating temperature range, or have less material compatibility than its fluoropolymer counterpart. We’ve seen some customers make changes independently without fully considering how they will affect the performance of their product; this yields underwhelming outcomes. They assume that a different material can be used with existing part geometry. However, testing shows that gaining optimal performance can require changing the component design along with the material. That’s why OEMs need to engage with their suppliers before making decisions about alternative materials for their application. It’s equally important for the after-sales market to use the right solutions.

OEMs should inquire about how they can work together with suppliers to reduce waste when it comes to PTFE materials. PTFE in a landfill stays there forever. I’ve heard from OEMs that they are interested in reducing waste, but it takes mutual commitment. Trelleborg wants to work with customers to this end and tell them, “We know you have requirements to reduce waste and increase circularity. How can we partner to achieve those objectives?”. In the future, we want to give production residues and end-of-life materials new value during recycling processes.

It’s important to consider that new regulations relating to PFAS in fluoropolymers have not been finalized. While the industry as a whole should take steps to proactively identify alternative solutions, PFAS surfactant-free PTFE may continue to be a viable solution in the foreseeable future. Following a public consultation of the ECHA that is responsible for EU REACH restrictions, scientific evidence presented confirms that fluoropolymers are safe and do not result in releases of critical PFAS within their lifecycle. Additionally, simplistic “one size fits all” regulations are problematic in that fluoropolymers’ unique attributes mean that they will not be replaced by a single “magic bullet” material. Alternatives will develop as premier, application-specific solutions. New PFAS regulations need to be differentiated by applications; for some materials in demanding environments, more time will be needed to develop effective new solutions.

A sealing partner focused on sustainability and compliance needs to be committed to finding alternative solutions that continue to meet OEM’s challenging application requirements. For example, Trelleborg continues to evaluate its product and material portfolio to see what performance criteria can be achieved with alternative materials, including the incorporation of recycled content. In addition, our Zurcon® polyurethane (PU) product portfolio is industry-leading in its performance and can cover a broad range of applications. Other Zurcon® non-fluorinated compounds are available for specialty applications in thermoplastic elastomers and high-performance plastics.

Regulatory change is being led in Europe, but the conversation is increasing here in the Americas and APAC. If a company is US-based but shipping to Europe, this affects them as well. Industry-leading seal suppliers like Trelleborg have been acting in this space for quite some time. However, we can’t provide a solution if the need is not voiced by customers. High-performing alternatives are out there if OEMs are willing to proactively seek innovative solutions. It’s our goal for OEMs to engage in this, to make the PFAS journey a collaborative experience we can all share in.