PFAS Drinking Water Patents: Leaders, Trends & White Space 2026
Filing growth compares 2021 (10 records) with 2024 (14) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 116 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What the PFAS drinking-water patent record actually shows
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water sit at the intersection of separation engineering and destruction chemistry, and the patent record under C02F reflects that split. Filings cluster around adsorption and filtration media claims, with a smaller but persistent set of records claiming electrochemical or thermal destruction pathways. Most-cited records in this set are dominated by electrochemical oxidation methods for treating waste generated during sorbent and resin regeneration — a strong signal that regeneration-stage destruction is the technical bottleneck the field is racing to solve.
The 116 records in scope span filings from 2015 through the 2026 cut-off, with receiving-office activity concentrated in the United States, WIPO/PCT filings, and Europe. Publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so the most recent one to two years in any trend understate real activity; the last year that can be read as complete is 2024.
Filing trends and technology composition
The dataset covers 116 published records tagged to PFAS drinking-water treatment under IPC class C02F, filed between 2015 and the 2026 cut-off. The figures below use only the record counts and shares supplied with this dataset.
A steady climb, not a spike
Annual filings rose from 14 records in 2017 to a peak of 23 in 2020, then settled into a pattern that still grew 40% from 2021 (10 records) to 2024 (14 records). 2025 and 2026 figures are shown but should be read as incomplete, since publication trails filing by roughly a year and a half.
Separation dominates; destruction is a smaller, distinct cluster
Every record in scope carries C02F by definition. Beyond that, B01D (separation processes, including filtration) appears in 30.2% of records and B01J (catalysis and chemical/physical processing) in 17.2%, while destruction-adjacent classes such as A62D (6.9%) and B03C (6.0%) are claimed far less often — evidence that removal technology is more heavily claimed than destruction technology.
Shares are the percentage of the 116 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Drinking-Water Treatment: PFAS Drinking Water Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about drinking-water treatment: pfas drinking water patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited and most recent filings
Integration of water treatment and wet air regeneration methods for the destruction of PFAS
Water treatment methods and systems for the collection and destruction of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in water are provided. The systems and methods utilize a powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) step and a wet air regeneration (WAR) treatment step followed by an electro-oxidation treatment step. The disclosed methods and systems are capable of destroying PFAS present in water streams and/or adsorption media, including groundwater, drinking water, or industrial or municipal wastewater.Filed by Lummus Technology, published 2025-12-11 — a late entrant that chains three treatment stages rather than claiming any single mechanism alone.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20190185352A1 | Use of electrochemical oxidation for treatment of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in waste generate… | 23 |
| 2 | WO2018097875A1 | Use of electrochemical oxidation for treatment of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in waste generate… | 22 |
| 3 | US20220401777A1 | Nano-reactor system for decomposition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances | 16 |
| 4 | US11512012B2 | Use of electrochemical oxidation for treatment of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in waste generate… | 15 |
| 5 | US20240174541A1 | Process for treating a waste material contaminated with perfluoro-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) | 11 |
| 6 | WO2020180513A1 | System and method for removal of recalcitrant organic compounds from water | 11 |
| 7 | WO2020172132A1 | Electrode apparatus for creating a non-uniform electric field to remove polarized molecules in a fluid | 11 |
| 8 | US20200283309A1 | System and method for removal of recalcitrant organic compounds from water | 9 |
| 9 | US20220054983A1 | Fluid Purification Filters And The Method of Fluid Purification Using The Same | 8 |
| 10 | WO2022082041A1 | Improved flocculants | 7 |
Citation counts favour older records inside a searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence within this dataset, not as a measure of current commercial importance.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the concentration and citation patterns mean for a filing decision
These read-outs come directly from the ranking, trend and citation data in scope for this search.
A leader plus a long tail
One assignee holds 30 of the 116 records, and the top 5 combined reach 60.3% of the field. The tenth-ranked assignee holds just 3 records, which means the remaining 40 ranked entities are largely single- or low-digit filers competing around the edges of claims the leaders already occupy.
Sustained interest, not a spike
Filings grew from 10 records in 2021 to 14 in 2024, following an earlier peak of 23 records in 2020. That shape argues against a single event-driven surge and for continued, if uneven, R&D investment in this space through the last fully-published year.
Removal is claimed harder than destruction
B01D (separation processes) appears in 30.2% of the 116 records, while A62D (chemical protection and detox) sits at 6.9% and B03C (magnetic/electrostatic separation) at 6.0%. The most-cited records in the set, however, are destruction methods — suggesting destruction claims carry outsized influence despite being numerically scarcer.
Collaboration is rare and concentrated
Only three co-assignee pairings appear in the dataset, and the strongest links a university board with a research institute at 8 shared records. Most filers in this field prosecute independently rather than through joint filings.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to drinking-water treatment: pfas drinking water patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Where to take this analysis next
The figures above describe the field as filed. Turning that into a freedom-to-operate or whitespace decision means going claim by claim.
Map the destruction-stage claim boundaries
The most-cited records in this set cluster around electrochemical oxidation of PFAS-laden regeneration waste. Before designing a destruction step, check exactly what those claims cover and what falls outside them.
Explore destruction claims in EurekaCheck the low-density classes for open ground
A62D and B03C sit well below B01D and B01J in record share. That gap may reflect either technical difficulty or genuine white space — worth a closer claim-by-claim read before assuming either.
Run a whitespace search in EurekaTrack the long tail of single-filing entrants
Beyond the top 10 combined (78.4% of records), the remaining ranked assignees each hold only a handful of filings. Watching this tail can surface new entrants before they scale.
Monitor new filers in EurekaCommon questions about PFAS drinking-water patents
One assignee leads the ranked field with 30 of the 116 records in scope, and the top 5 assignees combined account for 60.3% of all records. Beyond the top 10, which together hold 78.4% of records, filing activity drops off quickly into a long tail of low-count entrants. This concentration means a freedom-to-operate check should start with the leading handful of assignees before widening the search.
Filings grew 40% from 2021 (10 records) to 2024 (14 records), which is the most recent year that can be treated as a complete publication year. The field peaked earlier, at 23 records in 2020, so growth has not been linear, but the 2021-2024 trend shows renewed rather than declining interest. Figures for 2025 and 2026 will continue to rise as publications catch up, since publication typically lags filing by about 18 months.
Separation processes under B01D appear in 30.2% of the 116 records, making removal-based methods the most heavily claimed technical route by volume. Destruction-oriented classes such as A62D (chemical protection and detox, 6.9%) and B03C (magnetic/electrostatic separation, 6.0%) are far less common numerically. Despite that, the most-cited individual records in this dataset are electrochemical destruction methods, suggesting destruction claims carry disproportionate influence relative to their filing volume.
The lower-density IPC classes in this dataset — A62D, B03C, and the smaller A23C/A61K/A61P clusters — carry far fewer records than B01D or B01J, which points to comparatively open claim space around destruction chemistry, magnetic or electrostatic separation, and cross-domain applications. That said, low filing counts can also reflect technical difficulty rather than pure opportunity, so any whitespace read needs a claim-level check before it is treated as confirmed open ground. Co-assignee activity is also rare in this field (only 3 pairs identified), suggesting collaborative filing itself may be underused.
Among receiving offices in this dataset, the United States leads with 26 filings, followed by WIPO/PCT filings at 24 and the European Patent Office at 18. Australia, Canada and China follow at lower counts. This spread indicates that applicants are pursuing broad international protection through PCT alongside direct US and European filings, rather than concentrating in a single jurisdiction.
Research Drinking-Water Treatment: PFAS Drinking Water Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole drinking-water treatment: pfas drinking water patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.