PFAS Contaminated Soil Patents: Who Leads, Where the Gaps Are 2026
- A small, concentrated field. All 12 records in scope resolve to just four ranked assignees, with the leader holding 6 — the whole ranking, not a top-50 cut.
- Filing peaked in 2022 at 6 records and has not sustained that pace since, though the most recent year is always undercounted given typical publication lag.
- Soil reclamation and waste-disposal classes dominate, while ceramics-based sorbent formulations (C04B) sit in 75.0% of the 12 records — a heavier overlap than the field's public profile suggests.
What this patent set covers
PFAS contaminated soil treatment sits at the intersection of soil reclamation, solid waste disposal and separation science. The records in scope combine claims on sorbent amendment, carbon dosage, thermal destruction and leachate control — the practical toolkit for pulling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances out of soil or locking them in place before disposal. Several filings also touch precursor transformation, the chemistry by which less-studied PFAS precursors convert into the regulated end compounds during treatment.
The dataset is small and young: 12 published records across an 11-year window, concentrated in a handful of filing years. That makes this a field still being staked out rather than one with settled claim boundaries — useful context for reading the composition and assignee data that follow.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Trend and technology composition
The two views below cover the same 12 records from different angles: filings by year, and how those filings distribute across IPC subclasses.
A short, uneven filing history
Filings sat at zero in 2017, rose unevenly, and peaked at 6 records in 2022 — half the entire dataset in a single year. The count falls off toward 2026, but that decline should be read alongside the roughly 18-month lag between filing and publication rather than as a genuine drop in activity.
Where the claims sit
Every one of the 12 records carries a B09C soil-reclamation classification, and 83.3% also sit in B09B solid waste disposal — confirming this is fundamentally a disposal-adjacent field, not a standalone chemistry play. C04B (ceramics, cement and refractories) appears in 75.0% of records, reflecting how often sorbent or immobilization approaches lean on cement- or ash-based materials. Separation processes (B01D) and water treatment (C02F) each cover half the set, while incineration (F23G) and chemical detox (A62D) each sit at 41.7% — evidence that thermal destruction is a real but minority route compared with immobilization and separation.
Shares are the percentage of the 12 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on PFAS Contaminated Soil Treatment with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about pfas contaminated soil treatment and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaThe most-cited record, and what it locks down
Use of fly ash and air pollution control residues (APCRs) for the treatment of PFAS in contaminated soil
Fly ash or Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) is mixed with PFAS-contaminated soil to immobilize the PFAS in place. Testing shows reduced PFAS concentration in leachate from the treated mixture compared with untreated soil, while the APCR itself is also stabilized. The resulting mixture can then be deposited in a landfill.Filed by RAGN-SELLS TREATMENT AND DETOX AB, published as EP3756776A1.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | WO2023073123A1 | Removal of PFAS from contaminated soil | 10 |
| 2 | US20250281954A1 | Closed-loop treatment of contaminated soil | 3 |
| 3 | EP3756776A1 | Use of fly ash and air pollution control residues (APCRS) for the treatment of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl subs… | 1 |
Citation counts reward earlier filings within a searched corpus; treat them as a signal of influence on later filers, not a ranking of current commercial value.
Publication numbers are shown where the record carries one (3 of 3 rows); 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 →Reading the numbers
Three figures matter more than the raw record count: how concentrated the ranking is, where the peak filing year sits, and how thermal routes compare with immobilization inside the same dataset.
A four-company field
The entire assignee ranking returned by the dataset is four companies, and together they account for all 12 records in scope. This is not a top-50 or top-100 cut — it is the complete ranking, which means the field has no long tail of unranked filers waiting outside the data.
One year carries half the dataset
2022 alone accounts for half of all 12 records in scope. Filing before and after that year is thinner, and growth cannot be reliably computed because fewer than four complete years remain once publication lag is factored in.
Immobilization outweighs incineration
Ceramics and cement-based material claims (C04B) appear in three-quarters of the 12 records, well ahead of incineration-based thermal destruction (F23G) at 41.7%. That split suggests immobilization and sorbent-based approaches currently occupy more claim space than high-temperature destruction methods.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to pfas contaminated soil treatment, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who holds the claim space
Four assignees make up the entire ranked field, with filing activity flat or falling in the most recent year across all of them.
The largest single holder
One assignee holds 6 of the 12 records in scope — half the entire dataset — making it the reference point for freedom-to-operate checks in this space. Recent-year momentum for this assignee, like the others, shows 0 filings in the latest year.
No long tail outside the ranking
The dataset's assignee ranking returns exactly four companies, and they cover all 12 records between them. There is no unranked long tail here — anyone filing in this space today is either one of these four or entering fresh territory.
Activity has cooled across the board
Every ranked assignee shows 0 filings in the latest year, and the smallest ranked filer registers a -100% year-on-year change. Given the roughly 18-month publication lag, this likely understates true recent activity rather than confirming a genuine stop.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| HARBOUR STONE BV | 0 | — |
| Ragn-Sells | 0 | — |
| RAGN SELLS TREATMENT & DETOX AB | 0 | — |
| REMEDY SCIENTIFIC INC | 0 | -100% |
Where to take this analysis
The dataset points to a small, concentrated field with specific gaps rather than a mature one. These are the practical next steps for a team acting on it.
Check freedom-to-operate against the leader
With one assignee holding half of all 12 records, any new filing on sorbent amendment or leachate control should be checked against that portfolio first.
Run a freedom-to-operate search in EurekaWatch the immobilization-versus-destruction split
C04B ceramics-based claims outnumber F23G incineration claims nearly two to one; a thermal-destruction filing may face less crowded prior art than a sorbent one.
Compare technology branches in EurekaRevisit the trend once 2024–2025 fully publish
The apparent drop-off toward 2026 is partly a publication-lag artefact; re-run the trend view once those years settle.
Track filing trends in EurekaCommon questions on PFAS soil treatment patents
This dataset identifies 12 published records in scope, spanning filings from 2015 through the 2026 data cut-off. That is a small, tightly bounded field rather than a sprawling one. Because publication typically lags filing by around 18 months, the most recent one to two years are likely undercounted and the true recent total is probably higher than currently shown.
The ranked field in this dataset contains four companies, and together they account for all 12 records in scope — there is no unranked long tail beyond them. The leading assignee alone holds 6 of the 12 records, half the entire dataset. That level of concentration means a small number of portfolios cover most of the disclosed technical routes.
Soil and contaminated land reclamation (B09C) appears in all 12 records, and solid waste disposal (B09B) in 83.3% of them, confirming that most filings pair a treatment step with a disposal pathway rather than treating soil in isolation. Ceramics and cement-based sorbent material claims (C04B) appear in 75.0% of records, ahead of incineration-based thermal destruction (F23G) at 41.7%, suggesting immobilization currently has more claim coverage than high-temperature destruction.
On this dataset, sorbent- and cement-based immobilization (C04B, 75.0% of the 12 records) has denser coverage than incineration-based thermal destruction (F23G, 41.7%). That does not mean thermal destruction is technically inferior — it means fewer claims currently occupy that space, which can make it a more open area to file into. A team choosing between routes should weigh this claim density against regulatory and engineering constraints separately.
EP3756776A1, filed by RAGN-SELLS TREATMENT AND DETOX AB, covers mixing fly ash or Air Pollution Control Residue (APCR) with PFAS-contaminated soil to immobilize the PFAS and reduce leachate concentrations, with the treated mixture then suitable for landfill deposit. It is the most-cited record in this dataset, cited 10 times, making it a reference point that later filers in the immobilization space are likely to have designed around. Anyone filing a fly-ash or APCR-based soil treatment claim should review it closely for overlap.
Research PFAS Contaminated Soil Treatment in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole pfas contaminated soil treatment 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.