Sewage Sustainability: Policies to Balance Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substance (PFAS) Mitigation and Nutrient Recycling

Introduction

Fertilizer nutrients, including phosphorus and nitrogen, are vital for sustaining crop growth. These nutrients are so valuable that prior to modern mining, the U.S. passed laws to protect guano deposits (bird droppings), considering them vital national resources (Kolbert 2023). Today, these nutrients are becoming increasingly strained by growing demand, depletion of easily mineable reserves, and supply chain disruptions (Vos et al. 2025). As such, recovery from wastewater has become an attractive alternative with the potential to offset up to 13% of demand (Śniatała et al. 2024).

Most nutrients entering wastewater treatment plants end up in the biosolids—solid waste separated from water following treatment of the organic content. Biosolids applied to land for fertilization has long been considered an environmental win-win, as valuable nutrients from sewage get reused for plant growth, soil quality is improved, and waste is not incinerated or landfilled (Ippolito and Barbarick 2022). However, emergent research and several high-profile incidents have raised concerns about the safety of crops, livestock, and humans exposed to biosolids due to contamination with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), prompting re-evaluation of policies for biosolids land application.

PFAS, so-called “forever chemicals” due to their extreme persistence, are a class of about 15,000 synthetic chemicals widely used for their water- and heat-resistant properties in products including firefighting foams, nonstick cookware, and textiles (Tshangana et al. 2025). PFAS are highly persistent and enter sewage water via industrial discharges and consumer products. At sewage treatment plants, PFAS transfers into biosolids. These biosolids (also called sewage sludge) are often applied to agricultural lands for fertilization (Figure 1). However, recent incidents have highlighted the potential dangers of this practice.

In Michigan, beef cattle were found to contain PFAS levels that would have made consumption of the meat dangerous to human health (Ellison 2022). The source of the contamination was traced back to biosolids fertilizer, and the farm was forced to halt beef production operations. Another high-profile incident occurred at a Texas ranch, where owners blamed high PFAS levels from biosolids application for deaths of fish, horses, and cattle (Formont 2025). The resulting public image fallout and pending lawsuits have resulted in the biosolids company, Synagro, withdrawing entirely from Texas. In addition, new legislation has been proposed to entirely ban biosolids from land application in the state (Formont 2025).

In this digest, we examine how some states have decided to legislate biosolids land application in light of these emerging environmental challenges, and highlight potential alternatives to biosolids land application for nutrient reuse from wastewater. We also make recommendations for state-level legislation that balances protecting public health from PFAS while also promoting circular nutrient reuse from wastewater.

Federal Approach

Despite the growing challenges of PFAS pollution, federal regulation of PFAS in biosolids remains absent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not set enforceable limits for PFAS in sludge under the Clean Water Act’s biosolids rules, focusing instead on voluntary guidance. The EPA argued in a 2023 court filing that it has “no obligation to regulate PFAS in biosolids” until it completes further risk assessment (Carey 2023; Wallace 2024).

As of early 2025, the EPA has only proposed a risk assessment for two important legacy PFAS chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in sludge, and issued guidance on PFAS disposal and destruction. However, the EPA has not added any PFAS to its regulated pollutants list for biosolids​. Federal proposals aimed to address PFAS contamination in biosolids have been suspended by the current administration, and it is unlikely that updated federal environmental regulations will be forthcoming in the near term (Tekogul et al. 2025).¹

State Approach

In the absence of federal standards, states have taken divergent approaches to regulate PFAS in wastewater biosolids. Some states have imposed strict bans on land application of biosolids to eliminate PFAS pathways to the environment. Others require testing and limits for certain PFAS, allowing conditional use of biosolids for nutrient recycling if contamination falls below threshold values.

Lawsuits are also shaping the policy landscape. Farmers and environmental groups in Maine, Texas, and other states have sued the EPA for failing to regulate PFAS in sludge, seeking to force action​. Separately, wastewater utilities and states are suing PFAS manufacturers to recover costs of PFAS cleanup and treatment. For example, the Portland Water District in Maine has joined litigation against chemical companies​ who produce PFAS (Portland Water District 2024). These legal challenges demonstrate that PFAS in biosolids is now recognized as a costly liability for both farmers and utilities. New solutions for sludge management must be identified unless PFAS levels in sewage can be reduced.

Because state-level regulations on PFAS in biosolids vary widely, creating different constraints and opportunities for wastewater plants, we reviewed four states with distinct policy approaches to this problem: Maine, Michigan, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

Maine: PFAS Crisis & Biosolids Use Ban

Maine has taken one of the nation’s most aggressive stances on PFAS, and in 2022, became the first state to prohibit the spreading of biosolids on farm fields regardless of PFAS concentration​ (Maine Legislature 2022; North East Biosolids and Residuals Association (NEBRA) 2022). Maine’s action came after years of sludge recycling had contaminated crops, water, and livestock on over fifty farms statewide with PFAS, devastating family businesses (Moyer 2021). For example, in 2016, PFAS levels in milk on the Arundel dairy farm were discovered to be up to 1,420 parts per trillion, far exceeding safety thresholds (thirty times the reporting limit) and ranking among the highest levels ever recorded in food products (Moyer 2021).

Since the ban took effect, Maine has focused on mitigation and monitoring. The state launched a sweeping effort to test soils, groundwater, and farm produce in areas where biosolids were previously applied (Miller 2025). However, this protective approach comes with trade-offs. Without land application, wastewater treatment facilities require alternative disposal methods for biosolids.

Currently, Maine has no in-state sludge incinerators, and all wastewater solids generated in the state are designated for landfill disposal, with some being transported out of state due to limited in-state capacity (Wallace 2024). To address the backlog, Maine is investing in landfill expansions and exploring building a sludge processing facility. However, these solutions are expensive and time-consuming. Maine’s zero-tolerance policy prioritizes public health and eliminates further PFAS buildup in soils, but also limits nutrient recovery and has created a need for new sludge and biosolids disposal methods.

Michigan: PFAS Source Control and Conditional Land Application

Michigan has pursued a more measured strategy that allows biosolid recycling under strict conditions. Rather than banning land application of biosolids outright, Michigan requires comprehensive PFAS testing and risk-based limits to ensure that only relatively “clean” biosolids can be applied to land.

Since 2021, all sewage sludge for land application in Michigan must be tested for PFAS (Hughes 2023). The state uses a tiered system: if combined PFOS and PFOA levels exceed 100 microgram per kilogram (µg/kg) in sludge, it is considered “industrially impacted” and cannot be land applied. Biosolids with more moderate PFAS contamination (e.g., between 20 µg/kg and 100 µg/kg) may be land applied at reduced rates, while those below 20 µg/kg face no additional restrictions​​ (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 2024).

Michigan pairs these limits with an aggressive source-tracking and reduction program. The state became aware of its PFAS problem in 2017 due to extremely high PFOS pollution from a chrome plating factory. In response, Michigan launched an Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) initiative to reduce PFAS at the source​, which focused on industries known to be major PFAS sources (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy 2020).

The IPP PFAS Initiative required all municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with required IPPs (amounting to 95 statewide) to find out if they were passing PFOS and/or PFOA to surface waters or groundwater and, if they were, to reduce and eliminate the sources. Non-compliance from industry can result in permit violations, operational restrictions, or permit revocation and operational shutdowns. Thus, companies are held accountable for the costs of treating their own waste before sending it downstream to treatment plants.

By investing in pretreatment and monitoring, many utilities have kept their biosolids under the PFOS limit, with 90% of biosolids in Michigan now falling below the mitigation threshold and 91% of IPP WWTPs in compliance with standards as of 2024 (Argiroff 2024). Therefore, land application of biosolids in Michigan, after an initial drop in 2018 following legislation, has rebounded. Although the approach in Michigan demands extensive testing and technical support for wastewater plants, it has allowed Michigan to continue the beneficial use of biosolids on farms for resource recovery from wastewater.

Connecticut: Incineration Dependence and a New PFAS Biosolids Ban

Connecticut has historically managed the vast majority of its wastewater solids via incineration, with only a few plants producing biosolid products for agriculture. In 2023, however, Connecticut enacted a total ban on the use or sale of any PFAS-containing biosolids or sludge as a soil amendment, effective October 2024​ (NEBRA 2024). The law’s language is broad: “No person shall use, sell or offer for sale in this state as a soil amendment any biosolids or wastewater sludge that contain PFAS.”​ State regulators interpret the law as a de facto ban on all land application of biosolids, as no threshold is specified, and any detectable PFAS would result in a violation. Connecticut’s law provides no explicit waivers or exemptions.

A challenge to Connecticut’s approach is the state’s limited biosolids incineration capacity (Wallace 2025). According to a 2023 West Haven biosolids study, sludge disposal costs at West Haven Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) rose by 60% between 2019 and 2022, with the increase largely attributed to shrinking in-state incineration capacity (City of West Haven 2023). With the new PFAS-based restrictions effectively eliminating biosolids land application, Connecticut’s reliance on incineration and out-of-state disposal is likely to intensify, even as the state faces growing pressure to identify long-term solutions for sludge management. Under these circumstances, discussions around nutrient recovery or beneficial reuse have been largely sidelined by the state’s overriding priority of eliminating PFAS pathways to the environment.

Massachusetts: Regulated Requirements and Quarterly Monitoring of PFAS

Although the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) does not impose a PFAS limit for biosolids, it has adopted a proactive monitoring framework to address PFAS in wastewater sludges and requires all sludge and residuals approved for land application to be tested quarterly for PFAS (Hughes 2023; Wood et al. 2024). Massachusetts also regularly updates its regulations to comply with best available scientific detection methods.

Effective April 2025, all wastewater treatment permit holders will be required to transition to EPA Method 1633 for PFAS testing. This method measures forty PFAS analytes and provides greater accuracy and consistency than previous methods (e.g., EPA 533 or 537.1), while also being applicable to non-water matrices such as biosolids, sludge and soil (MassDEP Residuals Program 2026; EPA 2024).

In short, Massachusetts’ current PFAS-in-biosolids policy centers on rigorous monitoring: requiring regular PFAS testing, upgrading lab methods for accuracy, and continuing to evaluate results. This approach allows the state to keep biosolids reuse options open (e.g., controlled land application or composting) while monitoring PFAS levels. The state is currently gathering information for potential future regulations for PFAS in sewage residuals, but has not set any standards thus far (MassDEP Residuals Program 2026).

Comparing State Approaches

Based on the regulatory structures currently in place, our four case studies illustrate some of the more stringent standards. As demonstrated in Figure 2, most states do not have any regulations on PFAS levels for biosolids land application (AquaLaw 2025). Maine and Connecticut represent the precautionary extreme with either complete (Maine) or effective bans (Connecticut) on biosolids land application to eliminate PFAS risk. Such bans remove the contamination pathway but come with trade-offs: biosolids must be disposed, and agricultural nutrients are not recycled. By contrast, states like Michigan that require PFAS levels in biosolids to be below certain levels for land application protects agricultural health while enabling continued nutrient recycling. Massachusetts and a growing number of other states also continue land application while monitoring for PFAS and may implement thresholds in the future. The landscape of PFAS regulations for biosolids is rapidly shifting, with active legislation in many states including Pennsylvania and Arizona currently pending.  

State	Land Application Policy	Sampling Requirements	Primary Disposal Outcome
Maine	Completely banned since 2022	Prior to 2022 ban, required sampling before land application	Landfilling mainly, some incineration
Connecticut	Bans biosolids containing PFAS (effectively all)	Not mandated	Incineration (95%)
Michigan	Conditional land application	Mandatory before land application	Mix of landfill and incineration
Massachusetts	Conditional land applications	Quarterly sampling required since 2020; EPA Method 1633 required by April 2025	Land application, palletization out-of-state incineration, landfilling

Alternative Resource Recovery Technologies.

PFAS within wastewater is essentially guaranteed to result in high concentrations within biosolids produced by the plant, as biosolids capture a large fraction of the organic compounds entering the plant. However, municipalities can still prioritize recovery of essential nutrients from their wastewater treatment plants by either following Maine’s mitigation approach to prevent PFAS in wastewater or by implementing alternatives to direct land application of biosolids.

Struvite crystallization is one technology that can recover nutrients from wastewater without the risk of PFAS contamination. Struvite is a nutrient-rich mineral containing both nitrogen and phosphorous that can be used as a slow-release, eco-friendly fertilizer. Because it is a purified crystal, PFAS and other wastewater contaminants will not be transferred to land during fertilization. In plants employing struvite crystallization as a resource recovery technique, PFAS will remain concentrated in the biosolids, which will still require safe handling and disposal. Therefore, any policy approach to promote struvite recovery should be coupled with a broader PFAS management strategy through source control, treatment, or disposal.

Incineration of biosolids is another alternative nutrient recovery method. In response to its biosolids ban in Maine, the Portland Water District is developing a thermal treatment facility to destroy PFAS in sludge and produce PFAS-free biochar that may be usable as fertilizer. This approach is used in Germany to balance resource recovery and PFAS removal. In Germany, the Sewage Sludge Ordinance mandates phosphorus recovery from sludge at all wastewater treatment plants serving more than 50,000 people by 2029 (NEBRA 2018). To meet this requirement, affected WWTPs must either extract phosphorus directly or incinerate the sludge for phosphorus recovery from ash. A downside to this approach is that PFAS is exceptionally difficult to destroy, requiring high temperatures and significant energy input. Estimates suggest roughly 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂) are released per ton of PFAS destroyed (Kovacs et al. 2025), presenting a significant environmental trade-off for destruction.

While new PFAS destruction technologies are an active area of investigation, many of these (i.e., electrochemical and advanced oxidation methods) are only applicable to water treatment rather than to biosolids. Thus, circular nutrient recovery from wastewater without PFAS contamination risks requires one of three approaches:

1. Upstream PFAS mitigation to allow continued biosolids application;
2. Alternative purification techniques, such as struvite crystallization; or
3. Biosolids incineration.

Recommendations

In light of federal inaction, states should consider proactive strategies to protect farmlands from PFAS contamination. In particular, we suggest an integrated strategy including regulatory guardrails, infrastructure support, and innovation to simultaneously protect public health and enable sustainable waste management. Our key recommendations for states include:

1. Set Protective Standards for PFAS in Biosolids. Establish limits on PFAS concentrations in biosolids destined for land application such that highly contaminated sludge is never applied to farmland. For agricultural states, we recommend adopting a threshold PFAS concentration of 20 mg/kg beyond which land application of biosolids is forbidden, the same standard Michigan uses for unrestricted land application that has been found to minimize soil accumulation and safety hazards. States with minimal land application may choose an outright ban and to focus instead on safe disposal of contaminated biosolids.
2. Strengthen Monitoring and Source Control to Prevent PFAS Pollution at the Source. States could adapt polluter-pay monitoring considering Michigan’s success with this approach. For example, states may mandate that industries with significant PFAS use test and pre-treat their wastewater to remove PFAS before discharging to municipal sewage. States can use pretreatment authority under the Clean Water Act or state law to set PFAS effluent limits for industrial dischargers. They can also ban certain PFAS-containing products (such as firefighting foams, food packaging, or carpet treatments) to reduce PFAS levels from consumer discharge. Many states, including California, have implemented such bans for individual products, which have the added benefit of protecting consumer health.
3. Invest in Safe Disposal and Treatment Capacity for Contaminated Biosolids. Managing PFAS in biosolids will require infrastructure investments in addition to policy adaptation. Restrictions on land application must also incorporate alternative routes for sludge disposal. Therefore, regulation should come with funding and support mechanisms for safe disposal. Funding could include grants or low-interest loans to upgrade sewage sludge incinerators to achieve the high temperatures needed to destroy PFAS. Landfill capacity is another concern. PFAS-laden biosolids can be sent to lined landfills, but PFAS will concentrate in the leachate (Interstate Technology Regulatory Council 2022). States might therefore direct funds to improve landfill leachate treatment to prevent downstream water pollution.
4. Expand Funding and Incentives for Nutrient Recovery: Due to rising fertilizer costs and depletion of easily minable reserves (Approaching Peak Phosphorus 2022; Dawson and Hilton 2011; Walsh, Schenk, and Schmidt 2023), states should consider incentivizing nutrient recovery technologies such as struvite recovery to support agriculture in the future. As of 2025, few states have directly subsidized nutrient recovery installations, but there are promising examples. Minnesota provided a $6.6 million grant to St. Cloud for a nutrient recovery project along with support from the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (Olson 2018). States can make nutrient recovery projects explicitly eligible for subsidized loans or principal forgiveness under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund’s Green Project Reserve. Additional support mechanisms such as tax credits, direct grants, or capital cost-sharing programs for utilities can further reduce upfront costs and accelerate deployment.

Conclusions

PFAS poses a public health risk, but strict bans on wastewater-derived nutrients risk undermining resource recovery efforts. Instead of treating PFAS control and nutrient recycling as opposing goals, states can pursue an integrated approach by:

• Strengthening industrial standards for PFAS wastewater disposal to reduce PFAS at the source;
• Incentivizing nutrient recovery technologies; and
• Improving biosolids disposal practices for contaminated materials.

States can follow the example of Germany, which pairs biosolids restrictions with phosphorus recovery mandates, or of Michigan, which curbs PFAS while safely reusing biosolids. With balanced standards and monitoring, PFAS mitigation and nutrient recovery can be effectively integrated to strengthen a resilient and circular wastewater management system.

References

“Approaching Peak Phosphorus.” 2022. Nature Plants. 8, 979. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01247-2

AquaLaw. 2025. “Biosolids PFAS Legislative Guide.” https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/conferences-events/2025-conferences-events/2025-law-seminar/25law-biosolids-pfas-legislative-guide.pdf.

Argiroff, P. 2024. “Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Water Resource Division UPDATE.” https://emawma.org/Fall2024_Presentations/Phil%20Argiroff%20State%20Bar%20AWEC%202024.pdf.

Carey, M. 2023. “Fatal Fertilizer: PFAS Contamination of Farmland from Biosolids and Potential Federal Solutions.” Pace Environmental Law Review. 40(2), 282-314. https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1870.

City of West Haven. 2023. “West Haven Biosolids Study.” https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/opm/marb/city-of-west-haven/2023-meetings/september-19-2023/2-west-haven-biosolids-study_draft-to-client.pdf.

Ellison, G. 2022. “Advisory Warns of PFAS in Beef from Michigan Cattle Farm.” MLive, https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/01/advisory-warns-of-pfas-in-beef-from-michigan-cattle-farm.html.

Formont, A. 2025. “Preserving Texas Agriculture: Biosolids and the Growing Concern of ‘Forever Chemicals.’” Texas Public Policy Foundation. https://www.texaspolicy.com/preserving-texas-agriculture-biosolids-and-the-growing-concern-of-forever-chemicals/

Hall, H., D. Moodie, and C. Vero. 2021. “PFAS in Biosolids: A Review of International Regulations.” Water E-Journal. 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.21139/wej.2020.026.

Hughes, S.G. 2023. “PFAS in Biosolids: A Review of State Efforts & Opportunities for Action.” ECOS. https://www.ecos.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PFAS-in-Biosolids-A-Review-of-State-Efforts-and-Opportunities-for-Action.pdf.

Ippolito, J.A. and K.A. Barbarick. 2022. “The Clean Water Act and Biosolids: A 45-Year Chronological Review of Biosolids Land Application Research in Colorado.” Journal of Environmental Quality. 51(5), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20376.

Interstate Technology Regulatory Council. 2022. “Biosolids and Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC). https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biosolids_PFAS_Fact_Sheet_102022_508.pdf.

Kolbert, E. 2023. “Phosphorus Saved Our Way of Life—and Now Threatens to End It.” The New Yorker, February 27, 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/06/phosphorus-saved-our-way-of-life-and-now-threatens-to-end-it.

Kovacs, J., R. Higgans, N. Ionesco, and Y. Cho. “Environmental Impact of PFAS Incineration.” Waste Management Bulletin. 3(3), 100202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2025.100202.

MassDEP Residuals Program. 2026. “MassDEP Residuals & Biosolids” https://www.mass.gov/info-details/residuals-biosolids

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. 2020. “Michigan Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP) PFAS Initiative.” Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Programs/WRD/IPP/pfas-ipp-intiative-identified-sources.pdf?

Miller, S. 2025. “Status of Maine’s PFAS Soil and Groundwater Investigation at Sludge and Septage Land Application Sites.” Maine Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.maine.gov/ifw/docs/PFAS%20Soil%20and%20Groundwater%20Investigation%20Report%202025%20FINAL.pdf.

Moyer, M. 2021. “”Forever Chemicals”: PFAS Contamination and Public Health.” Penn State Law Review. 125(2), 6. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/pslr/vol125/iss2/6.

North East Biosolids and Residuals Association. 2018. “2018 German Regulations.” June 30, 2018. https://www.nebiosolids.org/2018-german-regulations.

North East Biosolids and Residuals Association. 2022. “Maine Bans Land Application and Distribution of Biosolids-Based Products.” April 29, 2022. https://www.nebiosolids.org/maine-bans-land-application.

North East Biosolids and Residuals Assocation. 2024. “Connecticut Joins Maine in Banning Biosolids-Based Products.” July 30, 2024. https://www.nebiosolids.org/ct-bans-biosolids-products.

Olson, C. 2018. “City of St. Cloud to Install Ostara’s Nutrient Recovery Technology as Key Part of the City’s Nutrient Recovery and Reuse Project.” Ostara. September 27, 2018. https://www.ostara.com/city-of-st-cloud-to-install-ostaras-nutrient-recovery-technology-as-key-part-of-the-citys-nutrient-recovery-and-reuse-project/.

Portland Water District. 2024. “Portland Water District Joins Wastewater Multidistrict Law Suit (MDL) Against PFAS Manufacturers.” Portland Water District. June 5, 2024. https://www.pwd.org/news/portland-water-district-joins-wastewater-multidistrict-law-suit-mdl-against-pfas-manufacturers/.

Śniatała, B., H.E. Al-Hazmi, D. Sobotka, J. Zhai, and J. Mąkinia. 2024. “Advancing Sustainable Wastewater Management: A Comprehensive Review of Nutrient Recovery Products and Their Applications.” Science of The Total Environment. 937(10), 173446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173446.

State of Maine Legislature. 2022. “An Act To Prevent the Further Contamination of the Soils and Waters of the State with So-Called Forever Chemicals.” https://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP1417&item=8&snum=130.

Tshangana, C.S., S.T. Nhlengethwa, S. Glass, S. Denison, A.T. Kuvarega, T.T.I. Nkambule, B.B. Mamba, P.J.J. Alvarez, and A.A. Muleja. 2025. “Technology Status to Treat PFAS-Contaminated Water and Limiting Factors for Their Effective Full-Scale Application.” npj Clean Water. 8(41), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-025-00457-3.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2024. “Method 1633A Analysis of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Aqueous, Solid, Biosolids, and Tissue Samples by LC-MS/MS.” https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-12/method-1633a-december-5-2024-508-compliant.pdf.

Vos, R., J. Glauber, C. Hebebrand, and B. Rice. 2025. “Global Shocks to Fertilizer Markets: Impacts on Prices, Demand and Farm Profitability.” Food Policy. 133, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102790.

Wallace, J. 2024. “Biosolids and PFAS Questions Are Rippling to Other States after Maine’s Land Application Ban.” Waste Dive. November 4, 2024. https://www.wastedive.com/news/biosolids-disposal-pfas-epa-maine-casella-michigan/718500/.

Wallace, J. 2025. “Reworld Looks to Grow Connecticut Operations amid Capacity Crunch.” Waste Dive. February 6, 2025. https://www.wastedive.com/news/reworld-connecticut-bristol-preston-expansion-biomedical-waste-noise/739409/.

Wood, J., C. Bone, and B. Brower. 2024. “PFAS and Residuals Technology and Management Study: Part 1 Overview & Part 2 Scope.” Presented at the Massachusetts Water Environment Association Board Meeting, December 2, 2024. https://mawea.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/MassDEP-PFAS-Residuals-Study-Part-1-overview-Part-2-scope.pdf.

1. Globally, Germany also regulates PFAS levels in fertilizers, which includes biosolids. Other countries, including Australia, Sweden, and Denmark, have set limits to PFAS levels in soils which effectively limits the use of contaminated biosolids for land application. Australia is expected to update their guidelines for biosolids use based on recent evidence of increasing PFAS loads in soil (Hall et al. 2021; Ibrahim et al. 2025). [↩]