This story has been updated with additional information.
By Will Atwater
In North Carolina, debates over how to regulate emerging water contaminants are moving from the lab to the policy arena — and this week, those debates could translate into binding policy. The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, which sets statewide water quality standards, is scheduled to meet Jan. 7-8 and is expected to finalize rules that limit the discharge of PFAS and other pollutants into state waterways.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances make up a class of 15,000 synthetic compounds often called “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment and resistance to breaking down. Used for decades in products like nonstick cookware, food packaging and stain-resistant fabrics, PFAS have been linked to immune suppression, developmental harm and certain cancers.
An emerging contaminant, microplastics, plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters — about the size of a pencil eraser — and even smaller nanoplastics are now considered ubiquitous in the environment. In the past few years, scientists have increasingly been able to detect these particles in water, food and human tissue, including organs such as the liver, kidneys and brain, raising new questions about how plastics move through the body.
Previously, PFAS and microplastics were studied as separate contaminants. But newer research suggests that real-world exposure rarely occurs that way. Studies increasingly show the two pollutants co-exist in water, food and the environment, where microplastics may carry or interact with other chemicals, and both can persist in living tissue. This realization has prompted calls for a more integrated approach to assessing environmental and human health risks.
As North Carolina and the nation brace for an active year of policy debates and new research on PFAS and microplastics, Frank Leibfarth, a UNC Chapel Hill chemistry professor and the university’s first recipient of the Blavatnik National Award for Young Scientists, is working at the intersection of both challenges. Leibfarth’s research focuses on designing advanced polymer materials and chemical processes to capture and destroy PFAS in drinking water, while also developing safer, more sustainable plastics aimed at reducing long-term environmental contamination.
In 2022, Leibfarth and Orlando Coronell, a UNC Chapel Hill environmental sciences and engineering professor, launched the NC Pure pilot Project to pilot test new materials designed to remove PFAS from public drinking water and wastewater systems as part of the North Carolina PFAS University Research Alliance. The work was funded by the North Carolina Collaboratory, a General Assembly initiative that coordinates research across the UNC System to support state and local government decision-making.
In late 2025, NC Health News spoke with Leibfarth about what the latest science reveals about PFAS and microplastics — and what questions researchers are still trying to answer.
North Carolina Health News: Can you share an update on the PFAS pilot testing?
Frank Leibfarth: We completed three pilot tests. One involved surface water from the Cape Fear River, which we conducted at [Cape Fear Public Utility Authority] Sweeney Water Treatment Plant. Another focused on groundwater drawn from the Pee Dee Aquifer and was carried out at [CFPUA’s] Richardson Drinking Water Treatment Plant in Wilmington. The third took place at a wastewater facility in the Piedmont Triad. We also conducted pilot testing with Orange Water and Sewer Authority in Chapel Hill.
Leibfarth told NCHN that in addition to field pilots, his team is working with several utilities on bench-scale tests to evaluate how the materials perform under different treatment conditions.
NCHN: Beyond studying the liquids produced by landfills (called leachate), what other goals do you have for 2026?
Leibfarth: With the information that we’ve learned from the pilots and the feedback we’ve gotten from the utilities, we want to start at least two more pilots in order to solve specific problems that they’ve asked us to solve. Those are things like increasing the capacity of our resins for long chain PFAS, and implementing an on-site regeneration procedure that could be used by utilities and reduce overall costs.
NCHN: Many water utilities already rely on granular activated carbon systems to remove PFAS. What are the challenges in adding new treatment technologies without rebuilding entire systems?
Leibfarth: In 2026, we want to pilot ion exchange resins that are denser and could be used in combination with carbon. Most surface water plants, like Sweeney, will likely use carbon because it makes practical and economic sense. For utilities to adopt another technology, it has to fit into that existing infrastructure. No municipal treatment plant wants to tell customers they need a whole new building to make the technology work.
NCHN: One challenge utilities face is what happens to PFAS after filters are cleaned. How does that process work for granular activated carbon?
Leibfarth: For granular activated carbon filters, they send them to what are called reactivate facilities. That’s a thermal treatment process that reactivates a granular activated carbon so it can be used again.The information for how effectively [the process] destroys PFAS is still not known because the data isn’t released. That reactivation isn’t 100 percent, so, typically, new granular activated carbon has to supplement the reactivated material in order to bring the performance up to what it was.
NCHN: Let’s shift to plastic waste. In a recent Duke University study put a price tag on the societal costs of plastic pollution as much as $1 trillion yearly. What do you think about single-use plastics in that context?
Leibfarth: Plastics do have a huge societal cost, but plastics are often replacing something that would be used in their place. The real question is one of tradeoffs. There’s a well-known study comparing coffee cups that illustrates this tension. Over its lifetime, a porcelain mug can generate more greenhouse gas emissions than hundreds of disposable polystyrene cups, largely because porcelain is energy-intensive to manufacture and wash.
We need to reduce the amount of plastics that we make and use. There’s clearly huge opportunities to recycle plastics better and reuse them more. But the flip side of the coin is that plastics often save a tremendous amount of energy compared to alternatives.
NCHN: But much of that polystyrene still ends up discarded in the environment. How do you reconcile that?
Leibfarth: A flaw in the coffee cup example is that it doesn’t take into account the consequences of disposal, whereas the Duke study does. One challenge is that society currently materials for the most extreme use case. Think about a food truck — packaging is designed for someone who might drive 30 miles and want the food still hot. But most people walk up and eat right there. Do we really need all that excess material, or could we create incentives to use only the amount each use case requires? A lot of this comes down to how we think about using things, not just the material itself.
Large, complex problems like plastic pollution and climate change can be difficult for people to grasp at an individual level, Leibfarth noted. Studies that quantify environmental impacts, he said, help show how everyday choices — multiplied across millions of people — can add up to significant harm, even as he cautioned against simplistic narratives that frame all plastics as inherently bad.
KEEP UP WITH THE LATEST
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
