Transitioning Away from PFAS in Medical Device Coatings

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” have been used in medical device coatings for many years. These chemicals are known for being durable and resistant to things like bodily fluids. They also help reduce friction in certain applications, making medical devices work more effectively. However, regulations around PFAS have become stricter and concerns about their impact on the environment are growing. In turn, medical device manufacturers are facing critical questions, such as “how can we keep our devices performing at a high level without using PFAS-based coatings?

In this article we explore the transition away from PFAS (forever chemicals) in medical coatings. We will explore why this transition is taking place, the challenges it is creating, and alternative coating technologies that can used to replace PFAS. You will surely want to read to the end if you are a medical device engineer. 

Why PFAS Are Causing Concern

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” are known to stay in the environment and in our bodies for a very long time. These substances may cause health problems like reproductive issues and hormone disruptions.^1,2

Some of the common concerns around PFAS are detailed below: 

1. Persistence of PFAS in the Environment:
   • PFAS can persist in the environment for decades. They can accumulate in groundwater and surface waters, and enter the food chain.^3,4
2. PFAS in Drinking Water:
   • They are frequently detected in drinking water supplies, especially near military bases and industrial sites.^5,6
   • Widespread contamination in U.S. drinking water has raised major public health concerns. Many water treatment facilities lack effective technology to remove PFAS.^5-7
3. Health Risks Associated with PFAS:
   • Research on the subject indicates that high PFAS concentrations are said to be linked to conditions such as:
     • Immune dysfunction, thyroid disorders, reproductive and developmental problems, and various cancers.^8-10
     • PFAS compounds, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), have been linked to immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and reproductive harm.¹¹

Why PFAS Have Been Used in Medical Devices

PFAS are used in medical device coatings because of their useful properties. One important feature is their carbon-fluorine (C-F) bond, which is very strong. This strength helps PFAS coatings have high durability and resist tough conditions. 

Here are some key characteristics of PFAS coatings:

• Hydrophobic and Oleophobic: They repel both water and oils.
• Chemically Inert: They do not react with bodily fluids or medications.
• Low-Friction: They help lower friction, which helps reduce tissue damage during insertion or removal.

These properties are crucial for medical devices like catheters, guidewires, stents, and implants. Materials such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a type of PFAS, have been effectively used in surgeries, diagnostics, and long-term implants for many years. 

However, due to the growing awareness of the negative effects linked to long-chain PFAS, there is an active discussion among leading businesses and regulators to look for safer alternatives.

The Challenges of Finding PFAS Alternatives

One major challenge in moving away from PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is their current use in many products, especially in medical coatings. PFAS are valued for their special chemical properties that make surfaces water, grease, and stain-resistant. This is particularly important for medical devices that need to meet strict hygiene standards.^12,13 

As long-chain PFAS, like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), are phased out, many companies are turning to short-chain PFAS as alternatives. While these short-chain versions are seen as better options, we still don’t fully understand their safety and environmental effects. This highlights the urgent need for more research and careful regulations.¹⁴  

Despite progress in biomedical technology, it’s important to recognize that replacing PFAS in medical coatings comes with economic challenges. Using alternatives might be expensive and could affect how well these coatings work in important situations. This of course, leads to concerns about safety and effectiveness. The difficulty of finding suitable alternatives requires teamwork from different fields to create solutions that are functional, safe, and affordable. These different players include chemistry, regulatory science, and market research.

Core Challenges of Moving to Non-PFAS Coatings

The challenges of shifting away from PFAS coatings in medical devices include scientific and engineering challenges, such as:

1. Friction Reduction
   Medical procedures, especially minimally invasive surgeries, need tools that can be inserted into the body and move smoothly through delicate tissues. When replacing PFAS, it’s important to create coatings that work just as well in terms of lubrication.
2. Adhesion to Medical Device Substrates
   Medical devices are made from many different materials, including metals, plastics, ceramics, and composites. PFAS coatings are designed to adhere well to these surfaces. In turn, alternative coating technologies will also need to effectively adhere to a wide number of substrates. This is a big challenge for developers. 
3. Sterilization Compatibility
   Before medical devices can be used, they must be sterilized using heat, radiation, or chemicals. Any alternative medical device coating must also be able to withstand these processes without breaking down or releasing harmful chemicals.
4. Durability Over Time
   Medical coatings must have high durability and work effectively throughout the entire life of a medical device. This includes the ability to withstand long storage times, exposure to harsh fluids, and mechanical forces.
5. Cost and Development Time
   Creating, testing, and approving new coatings requires resources, notably money and time. Manufacturers need to find a balance between the need to replace PFAS quickly and the importance of keeping costs down and avoiding delays in production. Working with a coatings supplier to help develop PFAS is a strategy that can be used to reduce the burden and share the cost. 

Regulatory Drivers Accelerating the Transition Away from PFAS

The rules about PFAS are changing. There are efforts to group these chemicals together under new safety regulations. For example, California’s Safer Consumer Products Program has worked to deal with the problems caused by PFAS use and pollution in products. 

As different government organizations create stricter rules, businesses must rethink their use of PFAS and look for safer alternatives. In addition, the focus is not just on banning PFAS but also on making sure that any new substitutes are not just as harmful.^15,16 

Below are some regulatory initiatives that have been taken by the US and European Union: 

United States¹⁷

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently set national drinking water standards limiting PFAS contamination.
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating PFAS use in medical devices, with stricter guidelines expected in coming years.

European Union¹⁸

• Under the REACH framework, many PFAS compounds are being phased out. A proposal introduced in 2023 aims to restrict or ban most uses of PFAS in the EU by the end of the decade.
• The European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) is already pushing for safer, more sustainable material use.

Industry Response to Changing PFAS Regulations

As a result of the regulatory and health concerns, the medical device industry has found itself in a tricky situation. For instance, organizations like the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) caution that sudden bans on products could make it harder for people to access life-saving technologies.¹⁹ 

However, regulators are gradually introducing restrictions. This means that manufacturers may need to be prepared for future requirements.

To combat the concern around PFAS and the need for alternatives there has been research into PFAS free alternatives. Below, we look into some of the new and breakthrough technologies that may be a solution. 

Breakthroughs in PFAS-Free Medical Coatings

While replacing PFAS in medical device coatings is difficult, it is possible. Recent advances in alternative materials are helping to reduce our dependence on PFAS. There are a number of alternatives that are being developed. 

For instance, new biopolymer coatings, like starch and zein, are being created to replace PFAS-based systems. These are useful in areas that need similar resistance without the environmental and health risks.²⁰ 

Innovations in materials science have also led to the development of coatings made from graphene and other advanced materials. These materials provide similar performance without the harmful effects of PFAS.²¹ 

Hydrophilic coatings for medical devices are another alternative that already offer many of the properties of PFAS based ones. Companies like Hydromer®, Inc., a leading manufacturer of hydrophilic medical coatings, are actively working with partners to develop PFAS-free medical device coatings.

Hydromer’s PFAS-Free Hydrophilic Coatings

Hydromer’s hydrophilic medical device coatings work by creating a water-attracting (hydrophilic) layer on the surface of medical devices. When exposed to moisture, these high wettability, lubricious coatings become slippery-when-wet. This helps to reduce the device’s coefficient of friction. 

The coatings also have several other helpful benefits. Importantly, hydrophilic medical device coatings:

• Provide excellent lubricity—often outperforming PFAS-based coatings. Learn more about lubricious coatings.
• Are biocompatible, meeting ISO 10993 and other safety standards.
• Provide thromboresistance – which helps to reduce the formation of blood clots/thrombosis. Learn more about the benefits of thromboresistant coatings.
• Adhere to a wide range of substrates – from polymers to metals
• Are customizable and highly adaptable – they work with different device materials and manufacturing processes.
• Survive standard sterilization techniques used by hospitals worldwide.
• Are durable against bodily fluids and mechanical force.

Hydromer has decades of research collaboration with medical device manufacturers. As a result we can help manufacturers develop and test that these coatings work in specific device applications.

How Medical Device Manufacturers Can Prepare for the Transition Away From PFAS

The timing and totality of the transition away from PFAS medical coatings is unknown. However, the need to prepare for it is a reality.

If you are a medical device manufacturer, here are some high-level tips to help. 

• Evaluate Your Supply Chain
  • Understand which devices currently rely on PFAS-based coatings and assess the regulatory risks.
• Engage with Alternative Coating Developers
  • Partner early with companies like Hydromer to co-design alternative coating solutions tailored to your devices. Prioritize companies with experienced, contract R&D services that can formulate and test new coatings.
• Design for the Future
  • Start device development projects early using PFAS-free coatings so that new products won’t face delays from emerging regulations.
• Collaborate with Regulators
  • Open communication with the FDA or EU authorities during new device development ensures smoother approvals.

Conclusion: Innovation Overcomes Challenge

The shift away from PFAS in medical device coatings represents a complex challenge. It is being shaped by health and environmental concerns, advancements in alternative materials, and changing regulatory frameworks. Finding PFAS alternatives requires a unified effort among different parties to innovate. At the same time, the safety and effectiveness of the medical devices used today must be ensured. 

The need to transition away from PFAS in medical device coatings is real, but it is also feasible. Regulatory pressures are increasing, environmental concerns are becoming more pronounced, and safer materials are being demanded by some. Proactive manufacturers are collaborating with industry, innovation leaders such as Hydromer to navigate these challenges effectively.

By implementing proven PFAS-free hydrophilic coatings, the medical device industry can safeguard both patient health and the future of our planet. At the same time, working with solution providers can help minify the impact of these regulatory changes. 

Learn more about Hydromer’s PFAS-free medical coating solutions at Hydromer.

References:

Click to see the references for this article.

1. Dassuncao C, Hu XC, Nielsen F, Weihe P, Grandjean P, Sunderland EM. Shifting Global Exposures to Poly- And Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) Evident in Longitudinal Birth Cohorts From a Seafood-Consuming Population. Environmental Science & Technology. 2018;52(6):3738-3747. doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b06044

2. Fan X, Tang S, Wang Y, et al. Global Exposure to Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Associated Burden of Low Birthweight. Environmental Science & Technology. 2022;56(7):4282-4294. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c08669

3. Beccacece L, Costa F, Pascali JP, Giorgi FM. Cross-Species Transcriptomics Analysis Highlights Conserved Molecular Responses to Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). 2023;doi:10.20944/preprints202306.0413.v3

4. Guo B, Saleem H, Brusseau ML. Predicting Interfacial Tension and Adsorption at Fluid–Fluid Interfaces for Mixtures of PFAS and/or Hydrocarbon Surfactants. Environmental Science & Technology. 2023;57(21):8044-8052. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c08601

5. Khanal NB, Elbakidze L. Peril in the Pipeline: Unraveling the Threads of PFAS Contamination in U.S. Drinking Water Systems. Plos One. 2024;19(4):e0299789. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299789

6. McMahon PB, Tokranov AK, Bexfield LM, et al. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Groundwater Used as a Source of Drinking Water in the Eastern United States. Environmental Science & Technology. 2022;56(4):2279-2288. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04795

7. Longendyke GK, Katel S, Wang Y. PFAS Fate and Destruction Mechanisms During Thermal Treatment: A Comprehensive Review. Environmental Science Processes & Impacts. 2022;24(2):196-208. doi:10.1039/d1em00465d

8. Cousins IT, Johansson JH, Salter M, Sha B, Scheringer M. Outside the Safe Operating Space of a New Planetary Boundary for Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Environmental Science & Technology. 2022;56(16):11172-11179. doi:10.1021/acs.est.2c02765

9. Chowdhury S. Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Are Emerging Contaminants:Review and Awareness. 2023;2(1):86-89. doi:10.55124/arjn.v2i1.235

10. Andrews DQ, Hayes JM, Stoiber T, Brewer B, Campbell C, Naidenko OV. Identification of Point Source Dischargers of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the United States. Awwa Water Science. 2021;3(5)doi:10.1002/aws2.1252

11. Peritore AF, Gugliandolo E, Cuzzocrea S, Crupi R, Britti D. Current Review of Increasing Animal Health Threat of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Harms, Limitations, and Alternatives to Manage Their Toxicity. International journal of molecular sciences. 2023;24(14):11707. doi:10.3390/ijms241411707

12. Figuière R, Miaz LT, Savvidou E, Cousins IT. An Overview of Potential Alternatives for the Multiple Uses of Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Environmental Science & Technology. 2025;59(4):2031-2042. doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c09088

13. Carnero AR, Lestido‐Cardama A, Loureiro PV, Barbosa‐Pereira L, Quirós ARBd, Sendón R. Presence of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Food Contact Materials (FCM) and Its Migration to Food. Foods. 2021;10(7):1443. doi:10.3390/foods10071443

14. Pattarawat P, Zhan T, Fan Y, et al. Ovarian Disrupting Effects and Mechanisms of Long- And Short-Chain Per- And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Mice. 2024;doi:10.1101/2024.02.20.581034

15. Okorie CJ, Ojeyemi T, Egbemhenghe A, et al. Modification of Activated Carbon for Enhanced Treatment of Per‐ and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: A Focused Review. Remediation Journal. 2024;34(2)doi:10.1002/rem.21777

16. Bălan S, Mathrani VC, Guo DF, Algazi AM. Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class Under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2021;129(2)doi:10.1289/ehp7431

17. Dean WS, Adejumo HA, Caiati A, et al. A Framework for Regulation of New and Existing PFAS by EPA. J Sci Policy Gov. 2020;16:1-14. 

18. REACH. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). European Medicine Agency. https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas

19. AdvaMED. PFAS in Medtech. https://www.advamed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/One-pager-final-PFAS-AdvaMed-2023.08.22.pdf

20. Adu O, Duza SS, Sharma VK, Ma X. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Types on the Uptake and Translocation of PFAS and Metabolomic Activities of Hydroponically Cultivated Lettuce (<i>Lactuca Sativa</I>). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2025;73(18):10907-10913. doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.5c02015

21. Kansal D, Hamdani SS, Ping R, Rabnawaz M. Starch and Zein Biopolymers as a Sustainable Replacement for PFAS, Silicone Oil, and Plastic-Coated Paper. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 2020;59(26):12075-12084. doi:10.1021/acs.iecr.0c01291

22. Kim KS, Kwak CH, Ha S, Ryu J-C, Lee YS. Effect of Oxyfluorination of PFA-Coated Metal Mesh With Superhydrophobic Properties on the Filtration Performance of SiO2 Microparticles. Molecules. 2023;28(7):3110. doi:10.3390/molecules28073110