PFAS, Microplastics and the New Wastewater Rules

A 2025 Playbook for Enzymatic Bioremediation

The investment case for practical, lower-carbon pollution control has rarely been stronger than it is in 2025. Across the UK and Europe, water operators, industrial dischargers and consumer-facing brands are living through a moment of simultaneous regulatory tightening, public scrutiny, and technology maturation. On the policy side, Europe’s revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive entered into force on 1 January 2025, crystallising expectations for the capture and treatment of micropollutants and introducing extended producer responsibility for sectors such as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. In the UK, powers for regulators have expanded, penalties are increasing, and board-level accountability has sharpened. At the same time, enzyme science has moved decisively beyond the lab curiosity stage: new immobilisation strategies, process control methods and enzyme cocktails are making biocatalysis a credible, scalable option for polishing effluents and reducing load on energy-intensive unit operations.

This article translates that fast-moving context into a practical playbook for utilities, manufacturers and estate operators who need tangible outcomes rather than hype. It explains where enzymatic systems fit within modern treatment trains, the contaminant classes they can address today, what is realistic for PFAS and microplastics, how to plan and run a pilot that generates bankable evidence, and how to articulate the business case in terms your finance team will accept. While the examples are written with the UK in mind, they are directly relevant to companies that sell into or operate in EU markets, where the 2025 wastewater rules and looming producer-funded micropollutant removal schemes are shaping decisions now.

Why this matters in 2025

Two forces define the landscape. First, policy: the European rules that started in January 2025 push collection and treatment performance, extend monitoring requirements and, crucially, introduce a framework for a “fourth stage” that targets micropollutants. Extended producer responsibility means the sectors associated with those micropollutants will pay a large share of new removal costs. Even if your plant is in England, policy divergence is not a safe harbour if you export products into the EU or operate facilities there. The reputational and investor implications of failing to meet the emerging European benchmark are already visible.

Second, enforcement and expectations: UK regulators have fresh tools. Board members who conceal illegal spills can face prison terms; executive bonuses can be withheld when environmental standards are missed; and enforcement packages and fines have grown materially. Water companies’ finances are also under intense scrutiny, which exerts pressure to find solutions that deliver measurable environmental performance without ballooning energy use and chemicals dosing. For estate owners, food and drink manufacturers, cosmetics lines, data centres and pharmaceutical plants, the message is similar: outcomes matter, and the market is signalling a preference for solutions that cut carbon and sludge as well as contaminants.

Enzymatic bioremediation is not a silver bullet. Ozone, activated carbon, membranes and advanced oxidation will remain essential tools. But enzymes have moved from promising to practical in specific niches: as a low-energy polishing step for phenolics and dye residues, as a pre-treatment that reduces fouling or chemical consumption downstream, as a side-stream treatment for polymer-rich flows, and as a targeted way to degrade certain pharmaceutical residues that resist conventional biological treatment. When designed and controlled well, these systems complement rather than compete with existing assets, extracting more performance from the plant you already own.

What enzymes can realistically do today

Modern enzymatic systems rely on well-understood classes of biocatalysts—oxidases such as laccases and peroxidases; hydrolases such as esterases, lipases and cutinases; and engineered variants of PET-active enzymes like PETase and MHETase. Their relevance to wastewater lies in three overlapping areas:

1. Pharmaceuticals and phenolic compounds.
   Laccases and peroxidases catalyse one-electron oxidation of a range of phenolic and aromatic compounds. In the literature, laccase-based systems have repeatedly shown removal potential for categories like analgesics, antibiotics, hormones and antiepileptics. Performance is enhanced by immobilisation on carriers (granules, beads, fibres) and, where appropriate, by mediators that shuttle electrons between the enzyme and otherwise recalcitrant substrates. In practice, this enables enzymatic “polishing” after secondary treatment to knock down residual loads that contribute disproportionately to toxicity and regulatory non-compliance. The key design task is to match enzyme formulation and support to the site’s actual contaminant basket and to manage redox conditions, pH and temperature within the enzyme’s stability window.
2. Dyes and colour bodies.
   Textile and food-grade dyes are a perennial challenge because colour is detectable at vanishingly low concentrations and can elude conventional biological treatment. Laccases, in particular, attack chromophoric structures, breaking down conjugated systems that give dyes their colour. Immobilised laccase beds have been demonstrated across multiple dye classes, including reactive and azo dyes. Enzymatic decolourisation is not always complete mineralisation; but when paired with biological steps and filtration, it can deliver substantial aesthetic and toxicity improvements with minimal energy input.
3. Plastics and microplastics.
   Enzyme engineering has advanced rapidly for polyesters, especially PET. Process innovations reported this year point to meaningful reductions in energy use and operating costs for enzymatic PET depolymerisation versus earlier approaches. While full depolymerisation is not the goal within municipal treatment works, these insights translate to side-stream handling of microplastic-rich flows and polymer-dominated industrial effluents. Cutinases and PETases can reduce particle size, alter surface chemistry and generate intermediates that are more amenable to downstream capture or biodegradation. Importantly, enzymes can do this at modest temperatures, cutting the risk of generating problematic by-products.

What about PFAS? Here, realism matters. There is genuine progress in understanding microbial and enzymatic defluorination pathways and in documenting partial transformation under specific conditions. There is also a strong countervailing argument from thermodynamics and experimental reproducibility that warns against over-claiming. The fair summary is this: a deployable, broadly applicable enzymatic solution for PFAS in mixed wastewaters is not yet ready. However, enzyme-assisted strategies can still play a role today by reducing co-contaminants that interfere with PFAS treatment trains, improving the economics of downstream adsorption or destruction, and addressing PFAS precursors in certain industrial settings. A sensible 2025 stance is to treat PFAS biocatalysis as an area for targeted pilots and site-specific research alongside immediate measures—source control, precursor substitution, capture and destruction—to manage regulatory risk.

Where enzymatic stages fit in a modern plant

Enzymatic systems are most effective when placed where they see the contaminants they are built for, under conditions they can tolerate, and where their action reduces cost or complexity for the next unit operation. In practice, four placements dominate:

• Tertiary and quaternary polishing.
  After secondary biological treatment, residual micropollutants can be targeted with an immobilised enzyme bed or contactor. Think of this as a low-energy, low-chemical “pre-polish” that reduces the burden on ozone, activated carbon or membranes. Because enzymes are selective in their mechanism rather than exclusive in their substrate list, a well-chosen formulation can address a basket of pharmaceuticals and phenolics at once. The goal is not necessarily full removal of any single compound but a meaningful reduction in overall toxicity and compliance risk.
• Industrial pre-treatment.
  Many sites discharge into municipal networks under trade effluent consents. Breweries, beverage plants, cosmetics and personal care facilities, and pharmaceutical plants all generate side-streams where enzyme targets are enriched. Treating those streams before they blend into the main flow leads to smaller, cheaper enzyme contactors and better control. Hydrolases, oxidases or engineered cutinases can be dosed or immobilised in compact skids that fit within an existing plant room footprint.
• Sludge and liquor side-streams.
  Enzymes can be deployed to modify polymeric and phenolic constituents in sludge liquor streams, improving dewatering performance or reducing odour and toxicity. By tackling these constituents upstream, plants can achieve operational wins that are hard to achieve by mechanical means alone.
• Decentralised hotspots.
  Hospitals, research labs, textile units on shared estates, and certain industrial parks are examples where a small number of assets generate a large share of the micropollutant load. Mobile, containerised enzyme systems are a cost-effective way to reduce impact at the source, easing the burden on the central works.

Designing an enzyme system that works outside the lab

A robust design has three pillars: formulation, immobilisation and control.

1. Formulation.
   The enzyme suite should be matched to the site’s contaminant profile, not a generic list. That means analysing recent effluent data for target categories, identifying interfering species (for example, high concentrations of surfactants that could denature proteins), and selecting enzymes whose pH–temperature operating windows overlap. Where mediator molecules are useful, the formulation should balance reactivity gains against cost and downstream handling considerations. Blended formulations—the equivalent of a “cocktail”—are often more resilient to day-to-day fluctuations in load.
2. Immobilisation.
   Free enzymes are easy to dose but difficult to recover. Immobilisation on carriers (porous ceramics, polymer beads, fibrous mats) allows the enzyme to be held in a reactor, improving stability and enabling multiple cycles. Choice of support is not cosmetic: it dictates pressure drop, mass transfer, fouling susceptibility and ease of cleaning. For polishing steps, packed beds with low headloss and moderate contact times are common; for slurry-like streams, fluidised beds or moving carriers may be preferable. Immobilisation can extend enzyme half-life by an order of magnitude, but only when matched to the chemistry of the support and the hydrodynamics of the reactor.
3. Control.
   Enzymes are living chemistry and respond to environment. A simple control regime—maintaining temperature within a 10–15 °C band, holding pH steady, ensuring sufficient dissolved oxygen or redox potential, avoiding spikes of known inhibitors—can double or triple effective life. Online sensors for pH, temperature and surrogate markers, combined with periodic off-line assays for target compounds, are sufficient for most pilots. In full-scale systems, integrating the enzyme bed with the plant SCADA ensures alarms and maintenance fit existing routines.

A final practical note: plan for cleaning and replacement. Even with careful selection, carriers will slowly foul and enzyme activity will decline. Designing in back-flush capability, gentle chemical cleaning protocols that do not harm the enzyme or support, and a straightforward cartridge swap process turns maintenance from a chemistry problem into a routine operational task.

From bench to plant: how to run a pilot that convinces the sceptics

A good pilot answers a commercial question, not just a technical one: can we achieve a specific compliance outcome or operating cost reduction at acceptable risk? The path is straightforward:

• Desktop assessment (two weeks).
  Review permits, recent lab data and site schematics. Identify realistic target compounds, load profiles and candidate installation points. Pin down success criteria: for example, a 40 per cent reduction in a defined micropollutant basket; a 30 per cent reduction in downstream GAC change-outs; or a measurable reduction in toxicity assays.
• Bench screening (two to three weeks).
  Using actual site effluent, test a shortlist of formulations and supports under controlled pH and temperature. Track removal across the contaminant basket, not only headline compounds. Create simple activity-decay curves to estimate replacement intervals.
• Mobile skid trial (six to eight weeks).
  Deploy a containerised or skid-mounted immobilised enzyme reactor at the identified point in the plant. Integrate lightweight control and monitoring. Sample influent and effluent weekly for the target basket and run periodic acute toxicity tests. Capture energy use and any changes in downstream chemical dosing or filter performance.
• Scale plan and economics.
  Using real pilot data, model full-scale sizing, anticipated enzyme replacement frequency, energy footprint and maintenance routines. Compare total cost of ownership against alternatives such as larger ozone trains or increased GAC dosing. Document co-benefits (reduced sludge, lower chemical deliveries, better operator safety).

This approach yields evidence that speaks to regulators, operations teams and finance alike. It also de-risks full-scale adoption because the pilot is run on the real wastewater, under the real plant’s constraints.

The business case in four levers

1. Compliance and risk.
   The regulatory direction of travel is clear: tighter outcomes for micropollutants in the EU, and tougher enforcement in the UK. Enzymatic polishing improves the probability of compliance by tackling the residual loads that cause permit failures and toxicity flags. For multinational brands, alignment with EU expectations reduces reputational risk and protects market access.
2. Operating expenditure.
   Enzyme systems consume little energy compared to ozone or advanced oxidation, operate at modest temperatures, and can reduce dosage of coagulants and other chemicals downstream. Insights from the enzymatic plastics world this year—where process tweaks cut annual running costs by large margins and shrank energy demand—illustrate what can be achieved when you optimise a biocatalytic process end-to-end. While the wastewater context is different, the principle holds: stable operating conditions, smart pH management and carrier selection pay for themselves.
3. Capital efficiency.
   Many sites face the uncomfortable choice between investing in new high-energy units and risking non-compliance. A compact enzyme bed that extends the effectiveness of existing filters or reduces ozone demand can defer large capital projects, or allow them to be scaled smaller. Because enzyme reactors are modular, capacity can be added incrementally as loads grow or standards tighten.
4. ESG and extended producer responsibility.
   Producer-funded micropollutant removal in EU markets will sharpen scrutiny of life-cycle metrics. Enzymatic steps are inherently low-carbon and avoid the transport and disposal burdens associated with frequent carbon change-outs. Documenting energy saved, chemicals avoided and sludge reduced provides credible numbers for sustainability reports and, where relevant, EPR cost allocation discussions.

PFAS, firefighting foams and a sensible near-term plan

PFAS remain the thorniest class of contaminants for any operator. The UK has moved to restrict legacy compounds in firefighting foams, with key deadlines reached this summer, and guidance continues to evolve around other PFAS uses. For sites with historical foam contamination or ongoing PFAS-adjacent activities, a layered strategy is essential:

• Source control and substitution.
  Where PFAS-containing products can be replaced, do so now. This is the single most effective way to cut future liabilities.
• Capture and concentrate.
  Use granular activated carbon, ion exchange or emerging adsorbents to remove PFAS from water streams. Design systems for media regeneration or safe destruction.
• Destroy or externalise.
  Thermal and electrochemical destruction technologies are maturing; contract options exist for many PFAS classes. The economics often improve when co-contaminants are reduced upstream—precisely where enzyme steps can help.
• Explore targeted biocatalysis where justified.
  For specific precursor-rich side-streams and process waters, there is a case for carefully controlled pilots that pair enzymes or engineered microbes with adsorption and destruction. The aim is not to claim universal PFAS bioremediation, but to find practical wins on defined streams.

Above all, be transparent with stakeholders about what is proven today and what remains research frontier. This protects credibility and ensures investments go to measures that deliver real risk reduction.

Avoiding common pitfalls

• Running on generic assumptions.
  Two plants with the same consent limits can have radically different contaminant baskets. A generic laccase sketched on a whiteboard is not a strategy. Start with data from your effluent, not a literature list.
• Ignoring inhibitors.
  Surfactants, heavy metals and extreme pH swings can suppress enzyme activity. If such spikes are part of your process, design buffering steps or place the enzyme reactor downstream of equalisation.
• Over-dosing mediators.
  Redox mediators can boost laccase reactivity, but they are not magic, and they carry cost and downstream considerations. Use them judiciously and measure the net effect on toxicity, not just surrogate markers.
• Under-specifying analytics.
  If your pilot only measures two headline compounds, you will struggle to convince a regulator or board. Build a sensible “basket” of representative micropollutants for your sector and include periodic toxicity assays. The additional analytical cost is modest compared to the value of the evidence.
• Treating enzymes as consumables rather than assets.
  An immobilised enzyme bed is a process unit. It deserves a maintenance plan, spares, a cleaning routine and integration into SCADA like any other asset. When you treat it that way, performance becomes predictable.

What a pilot looks like

A typical twelve-week BioGlobe pilot for enzymatic polishing is designed to be low-disruption, evidence-rich and easy to scale.

• Weeks 1–2: Assessment and design.
  We review your permits, last twelve months of lab data and any toxicity flags. Together we define success metrics: for example, achieving a specified reduction in a micropollutant basket aligned to your sector, or demonstrating a measurable reduction in downstream ozone dose.
• Weeks 3–4: Bench screening.
  Using your site’s wastewater, we test two to four enzyme formulations on candidate carriers. We identify any inhibitors and set control parameters for pH and temperature. We share early curves on activity decay and expected replacement intervals.
• Weeks 5–10: Mobile skid on site.
  An immobilised enzyme reactor—typically a 20-foot container or compact skid—goes in at the chosen point. We integrate simple sensors and hook into your SCADA for alarms. Weekly sampling covers the agreed basket and acute toxicity; we also log energy use and any changes you observe in GAC life, ozone dose or membrane fouling.
• Weeks 11–12: Scale plan and board pack.
  We turn the pilot into a full-scale design with CapEx/OpEx estimates, a maintenance and cleaning plan, and a comparison to alternatives. You receive a board-ready pack with graphics and plain-English conclusions that your finance and compliance teams can interrogate.

For industrial clients, we often run this as a pre-treatment at the plant boundary, sized for the actual high-load side-streams rather than the whole flow. For utilities, we bias towards tertiary or quaternary polishing and quantify the knock-on savings in downstream units.

Sector snapshots

• Breweries and beverage plants.
  Phenolics and flavour compounds persist through conventional treatment and can trigger toxicity flags. A small immobilised oxidase bed on the trade effluent line can cut that risk and reduce the dose required in downstream polishing steps, with minimal operator overhead.
• Textiles and dye-intensive manufacturing.
  Enzymatic decolourisation addresses the aesthetics that drive complaints and enforcement while also reducing toxicity. Because colour is visible at extremely low concentrations, the perceived impact with even moderate removal is high.
• Pharmaceutical and personal care.
  A blend of oxidases and hydrolases can target a range of residues that are otherwise recalcitrant. When positioned as a pre-polish before carbon or membranes, enzymes reduce media consumption and fouling, improving total cost of ownership.
• Municipal utilities.
  At the works, an enzyme bed can function as a variable-load buffer that reduces reliance on high-energy units for day-to-day compliance, reserving those units for spikes or seasonal loads. Side-stream enzyme treatment can also improve sludge handling and odour control.

Measuring what matters

The strongest projects share a common trait: they measure beyond concentration reductions.

• Micropollutant baskets, not just single compounds.
  Regulators and EPR schemes are focused on baskets. Design analytics accordingly so improvements translate to compliance.
• Toxicity reduction.
  Acute toxicity assays and, where appropriate, sub-lethal tests tell a richer story than concentration curves alone. Enzymatic oxidation often reduces toxicity disproportionally to concentration because it disrupts the most harmful functional groups first.
• Downstream impacts.
  Track changes in ozone dose, GAC life, membrane transmembrane pressure, sludge volume and odour complaints. These are the line items that end up in budgets and board packs.
• Energy and chemical use.
  Enzyme systems run at modest temperatures and pressures. Logging actual kWh and kilogrammes of chemicals avoided provides credible ESG numbers and helps with EPR documentation in EU-facing operations.

A realistic look ahead

The science will keep moving. PET-active enzymes are likely to become more robust and tolerant to mixed matrices. Laccases and peroxidases will benefit from improved mediators, smarter immobilisation chemistries and carriers that resist fouling. For PFAS, the near-term wins will come from better integration—using enzymes to simplify the matrix before capture and destruction—while research continues on targeted biocatalysis for specific precursor chemistries.

On the policy side, EU member states will transpose the 2025 wastewater directive over the next two years, and producer-funded micropollutant removal will start to bite before the decade’s end. In the UK, heightened enforcement powers and public attention are unlikely to soften. For asset owners and operators, the path is therefore not to search for a single miracle technology, but to compose a treatment train that meets outcomes at the lowest combined cost and carbon. Enzymes, deployed with care, have earned a place in that train.

How BioGlobe can help

BioGlobe designs and delivers organic, enzyme-based bioremediation that integrates with the assets you already have. Our formulations span oxidases and hydrolases tailored to your sector’s contaminant profile; our immobilisation strategies prioritise stability, low headloss and easy maintenance; and our pilots are built to answer commercial questions with hard data. Crucially, we are frank about PFAS: we will not over-promise. Where enzymes add value today—reducing co-contaminants, improving downstream economics, tackling dye and phenolic loads, and polishing pharmaceutical residues—we can demonstrate it on your effluent with your constraints. Where the science is nascent, we will say so and structure a sensible, low-risk programme of trials or refer you to capture-and-destroy partners.

If you run a municipal works struggling with micropollutant spikes, manage a brewery or beverage site with trade effluent challenges, operate a cosmetics or pharmaceutical facility concerned about EU-market expectations, or steward a mixed-use estate where a handful of hotspots drive most of your risk, an enzyme-augmented polishing step may be the fastest way to reduce compliance risk, cut energy and chemical use, and build resilience into your system. It is not the only answer—but in 2025, it is often the most pragmatic first move.

In summary: regulations are tightening, enforcement is intensifying, and the public is watching. Enzymatic bioremediation is no longer just an academic talking point; it is a practical tool for reducing micropollutants, protecting reputations and budgets, and preparing for the policy horizon. Start with your data. Run a focused pilot. Measure what matters. Then scale what works. That is the BioGlobe way—and it is how utilities and industrial operators will meet the moment without locking themselves into high-carbon, high-chemical futures.

Bioglobe offer Enzyme pollution remediation for major oil-spills, oceans and coastal waters, marinas and inland water, sewage and nitrate remediation and also agriculture and brown-field sites, globally.

For further information:
BioGlobe LTD (UK),
Phone: +44(0) 116 4736303| Email: info@bioglobe.co.uk