February 2, 2026
Krysalis: what changes when PFAS in soil can actually be destroyed
PFAS are often framed as a water problem. In reality, they are primarily a soil problem and have been so for decades.
Most of the PFAS mass present in the environment is stored in soils at source zones: industrial facilities, firefighting training areas, military sites, and legacy contaminated land. For a long time, this reality remained underexposed in public debate, even though it largely determines both the scale of contamination and the long-term cost of remediation.
A major reason is the historical use of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). For decades, AFFF was used extensively during training and emergency response, in many cases without restriction or recovery. Unlike many other PFAS applications, AFFF was a consumable by design, repeatedly released and deliberately spread. Its destination was not a product or a closed system. It was the soil.
As a result, more than any other historical PFAS application in terms of mass, AFFF contamination accumulated directly in soil—often at very high concentrations and over long periods of time. Firefighting training sites, military bases, airports, and industrial facilities became long-term PFAS reservoirs.
This part of the PFAS problem remained largely unresolved, not because it was ignored, but because convincing, scalable destruction technologies for contaminated soil simply did not exist.
This article is about what has now been demonstrated in the field, and why it fundamentally changes how PFAS in soil can be addressed.
Why PFAS-contaminated soil remained an unsolved challenge
Historically, PFAS soil remediation has relied on approaches that manage contamination rather than eliminate it: excavation and disposal, soil washing with off-site treatment, stabilization, or partial thermal processes that transfer PFAS into another phase. These approaches reduced immediate exposure, but they did not resolve the underlying problem. In most cases, PFAS were displaced, concentrated, or transformed—rarely destroyed.
In many instances, long-chain PFAS were broken down into short-chain PFAS, such as TFA or CF₄. These compounds are more mobile, more persistent, and harder to capture. What appeared as progress in the short term often created new, longer-term liabilities.
From both a chemical and regulatory perspective, this is not a neutral outcome.
The result was a structural impasse:
- soil remediation remained expensive,
- liabilities were displaced rather than resolved,
- and future generations inherited a problem that had merely changed form.
What we set out to prove — and why skepticism was justified
From the outset, the ambition behind Krysalis was deliberately demanding. Not incremental improvement, but a clear technical threshold that had to be crossed:
- total mineralization of PFAS, including short chains,
- no formation of secondary PFAS such as TFA or CF₄,
- treatment applied directly to soil, on site,
- validation at field scale, under real operating conditions,
- and a cost and energy profile compatible with industrial remediation.
Skepticism was legitimate. PFAS chemistry is exceptionally stable, and partial destruction can easily create compounds that are even harder to manage. Claims of “destruction” without full mineralization deserve scrutiny. Only independent, field-scale evidence could credibly address this.
What Krysalis actually does — and why that matters chemically
Krysalis is a field-deployable thermal reburn system specifically designed to address PFAS-contaminated soils at source.
In simplified terms:
- PFAS are first desorbed from the soil matrix (between 350°C and 400°C).
- The resulting vapours are then exposed to very high temperatures (around 1400 °C) with sufficient residence time.
- Under these conditions, carbon–fluorine bonds are fully broken, including those leading to short-chain PFAS.
- Fluorine is mineralized into stable inorganic end-products (e.g. HF, subsequently neutralised where required), rather than recombined into new PFAS molecules.
This point is essential: Krysalis does not merely shorten PFAS chains. It eliminates them. No TFA. No CF₄. No hidden persistence transferred to another compartment of the environment. And it does this without the need for the soil to reach those very high temperatures, thereby allowing for reasonable energy consumption and not destroying the soil itself.
From a chemical and regulatory perspective, this distinction is fundamental. It is not incineration, but physical separation combined with full mineralization.
What was demonstrated in the field
The decisive proof came from full-scale deployment in Denmark. With the support of Arkil and the Danske Regioner - Danish Regions, and under the supervision of public authorities, Krysalis was operated on real PFAS-contaminated soils. This was not a laboratory exercise, but a continuous, industrially relevant field application.
The demonstrations showed that:
- PFAS were fully mineralized, including short chains,
- no secondary PFAS were generated,
- energy consumption remained within the range of conventional thermal remediation (around 300 kWh per tonne in a full-scale setting),
- treatment costs were predictable and compatible with real remediation projects,
- and, critically, soil properties were preserved.
The treated soil retained its physical structure and functionality and could be reused as soil. There was no vitrification, no loss of soil function, and no creation of hazardous residues requiring further management.
Why this is a game-changer
The difference is not incremental; it is structural. Until now, PFAS soil remediation largely meant choosing between displacement, dilution, or partial transformation. Each option reduced short-term exposure, but extended long-term liability.
Krysalis changes that equation by making full elimination of PFAS in soil technically and economically achievable, without creating new persistent by-products. Treating the mass in the soil—where most PFAS actually resides—fundamentally alters both cost trajectories and long-term environmental responsibility.
Equally important, eliminating PFAS rather than transforming them avoids transferring environmental and health burdens to future generations. This mirrors lessons learned decades ago with dioxins and chlorinated waste, where partial treatment was eventually recognized as unacceptable.
Krysalis is now commercially available, which matters. Innovation that cannot be deployed at scale remains theoretical; innovation that can be deployed reshapes practice.
What Krysalis does not aim to solve
Krysalis is not a universal PFAS solution. It is not designed for:
- ultra-dilute PFAS concentrations in very large water volumes,
- end-of-pipe polishing applications,
- or replacing all other remediation technologies.
It is a source-zone soil solution, intended to eliminate PFAS mass where intervention has the greatest long-term impact. No single technology solves everything. But some finally close a chapter that has remained open for too long.
Why peer recognition mattered
Recognition matters when it comes from those who understand execution.
The NICOLE Innovation Award—the only international award of its kind in contaminated land management at European level, granted every two years—was particularly meaningful because it reflects recognition from problem owners, service providers, and academics working together in the field.
The 2026 Environmental Business Journal (EBJ) Technology Award reinforces this recognition from a US industry perspective, within a community focused on deployable, economically viable environmental solutions.
Together, they signal that Krysalis is not just innovative, but operationally relevant and a game-changer.
Looking ahead
PFAS will remain a complex environmental challenge. But complexity should not justify postponing elimination where it is technically and economically possible.
Krysalis exists because teams were allowed to try, fail, learn, and try again—until the chemistry, the engineering, and the economics aligned. It is not about perfection; it is about responsibility.
In the next article, I will step back from technology and look at PFAS costs, why treating symptoms is becoming unsustainable, and what history can teach us about repeating—or avoiding—past mistakes. For now, this is simply the outcome of persistence, field work, and a refusal to accept that soil should remain the unsolved part of the PFAS problem.