Minnesota PFAS

November 2, 2026 | Written by GreenSoft Technology, Inc.

Analysis of Minnesota PRISM PFAS Submissions: What the First 2026 Reporting Cycle Reveals About PFAS Use Across Industries

Minnesota's 2026 PFAS Reporting Cycle Provides First Look at Product-Level PFAS Data

The Minnesota PFAS Product Reporting Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM) program has completed its initial PFAS reporting cycle following the September 15, 2026 reporting deadline, providing one of the first large-scale public datasets showing how manufacturers are identifying, collecting, and reporting intentionally added PFAS information across their product portfolios.

This initial dataset represents PFAS submissions made following Minnesota's September 15, 2026 reporting deadline and provides an early benchmark for understanding how industry is responding to one of the most comprehensive PFAS disclosure requirements in the United States.

An analysis of Minnesota PRISM submissions reveals 63,549 PFAS disclosure records submitted by 189 unique companies, covering thousands of products, components, and reported PFAS substances.

While each submission reflects a manufacturer's interpretation of Minnesota reporting requirements, the aggregated data offers valuable insight into where PFAS are commonly found, which fluorinated materials are reported most frequently, and where significant information gaps still exist.

More importantly, this first reporting cycle offers an early indication of the challenges manufacturers face when attempting to obtain accurate PFAS information from complex global supply chains.

Key Findings at a Glance

• 189 unique companies reported PFAS information through Minnesota PRISM.
• The dataset contains 63,549 individual PFAS disclosure records.
• Based on the publicly available PRISM records reviewed for this analysis, PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) appears to be the most frequently identified PFAS-related substance.
• Components containing reported PFAS span mechanical, electrical, sealing, coating, lubrication, and insulation applications.
• Many submissions disclose only generic "fluoropolymers" rather than specific substances.
• Numerous records identify PFAS presence but do not specify concentration ranges or exact chemistry.

The observations in this article are based on a review of publicly available Minnesota PRISM submission data available after the September 15, 2026 reporting deadline. GreenSoft analyzed approximately 63,549 PFAS disclosure records representing 189 reporting organizations. The analysis focused on reported PFAS substances, product descriptions, component descriptions, concentration ranges, and disclosure completeness. Findings should be viewed as observations from the publicly available dataset and not as a comprehensive assessment of all PFAS-containing products sold in Minnesota.

Finding #1: PTFE Dominates Reported PFAS Usage

The clearest trend in the PRISM data is the overwhelming presence of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).

PTFE appears repeatedly across a wide variety of product categories and component types, including:

• Coatings
• Seals
• O-rings
• Wire insulation
• Electrical components
• Cables
• Pumps
• Valves
• Lubricants
• Thread-sealing materials

PTFE's widespread use is not surprising. Manufacturers frequently rely on fluoropolymers because of their combination of:

• Chemical resistance
• Temperature stability
• Low friction characteristics
• Electrical insulation properties
• Durability in demanding environments

The Minnesota data demonstrates that PFAS reporting is not limited to a few specialized applications. Instead, fluoropolymers appear throughout many manufactured products and supply chains.

Finding #2: PFAS Reporting Extends Far Beyond Electronics

Although much attention has focused on electronics manufacturers, the PRISM disclosures show PFAS appearing across diverse industries.

These observations are based on publicly available reporting records and may reflect reporting approaches that are permissible under Minnesota's reporting framework. Examples in the submissions include:

• Industrial compressors
• Pumps
• Filtration systems
• HVAC equipment
• Consumer appliances
• Electrical infrastructure
• Machinery
• Transportation-related components
• Metal products
• Marine equipment

The breadth of industries represented suggests that organizations often discover PFAS in unexpected locations during supplier outreach and materials investigations.

Finding #3: Seals, Gaskets, O-Rings, and Insulating Components Are Recurring PFAS Hotspots

A review of reported components reveals recurring patterns.

Many disclosures involve components designed for:

Chemical Resistance

Examples include:

• O-rings
• X-rings
• Sealing rings
• U-cup seals
• Gaskets

Electrical Performance

Examples include:

• Wire insulation
• Connectors
• Switches
• Terminals
• Capacitors

Lubrication and Friction Reduction

Examples include:

• Anti-friction greases
• Lubricants
• Sliding surfaces

These findings reflect the historical use of fluorinated materials to deliver performance characteristics that can be difficult to achieve using non-fluorinated alternatives.

Finding #4: Significant Data Gaps Remain

One of the most important observations from the PRISM database is not what manufacturers know, but what they do not know.

Many submissions include entries such as:

• "Fluoropolymers"
• "PFAS Present but unknown at this time"
• Unknown concentrations
• Unknown functional uses

These disclosures highlight a persistent challenge facing compliance teams: obtaining reliable substance-level information from complex supply chains.

As PFAS regulations continue to expand, manufacturers will likely face increasing pressure to move beyond category-level reporting and obtain more complete material transparency from suppliers.

Perhaps the most important lesson from the first Minnesota reporting cycle is that obtaining supplier PFAS information remains a greater challenge than completing the submission itself. For many companies, the first Minnesota reporting cycle revealed that collecting data is often more difficult than submitting it.

Finding #5: Concentration Reporting Varies Substantially

Reported PFAS concentrations range from trace levels below 100 ppm to materials composed almost entirely of fluorinated substances.

The analyzed records include examples of:

• Practical detection limit to <100 ppm
• 100 ppm to <1,000 ppm (0.1%)
• 1,000 ppm to <10,000 ppm (1%)
• 15%
• 30%
• 60%
• 90 to 100%

This wide range shows that PFAS can serve either as a minor additive or as a primary material constituent depending on the application.  

Lessons Learned from the First Minnesota PRISM Reporting Cycle

This first reporting cycle demonstrates that PFAS compliance is increasingly becoming a data-management challenge as much as a regulatory challenge.

Three themes emerged consistently across the submissions:

Supplier Data Collection Remains Difficult

Many companies continue to struggle with obtaining detailed PFAS information from suppliers, particularly when information must be collected across multiple tiers of the supply chain.

Data Quality Directly Impacts Reporting Quality

The prevalence of generic PFAS descriptions, unknown concentrations, and incomplete component information highlights the importance of validating supplier responses before submission.

Component-Level Visibility Is Essential

Many reported PFAS uses exist at the component level rather than the finished-product level, making detailed product compliance programs increasingly important for future reporting requirements.

How GreenSoft Helps Manufacturers Prepare PRISM Submissions

The challenges visible in the first Minnesota PRISM reporting cycle are the same challenges GreenSoft Technology, Inc. helps manufacturers address every day.

PFAS Data Collection Services

GreenSoft's Data Services team helps manufacturers collect PFAS information from global suppliers through structured supplier engagement campaigns. This helps organizations gather product, component, and material information required for regulatory reporting programs.

PFAS Data Validation

Collecting supplier data is only the first step. GreenSoft helps identify incomplete responses, missing information, inconsistencies, and data-quality issues before reporting deadlines arise.

GreenData Manager (GDM) Software

GreenData Manager (GDM) software provides a centralized platform for managing environmental compliance information, supplier declarations, material disclosures, and regulatory reporting data.

By maintaining validated supplier information in a centralized system, manufacturers can reduce the effort required to respond to evolving PFAS regulations and future reporting obligations.

PRISM Reporting Support

For organizations preparing future Minnesota submissions, GreenSoft can assist with:

• Supplier outreach and data collection
• Data review and validation
• PFAS substance management
• Compliance data consolidation
• Minnesota PRISM reporting preparation

The first year of PRISM reporting made one thing clear: PFAS compliance depends on data quality. If your organization is struggling with supplier outreach, PFAS data collection, or reporting readiness, GreenSoft can help build a more scalable and sustainable compliance process.

Contact GreenSoft to learn how our Data Services and GreenData Manager (GDM) software can help you collect, validate, and manage PFAS compliance data for future Minnesota PRISM reporting cycles.

What This Means for Manufacturers

The Minnesota PRISM database reinforces several important lessons for environmental compliance teams.

The first year of reporting demonstrates that many manufacturers are still building the processes and supplier relationships necessary to obtain complete PFAS data.

At the same time, the volume of submissions shows that PFAS reporting is rapidly becoming a routine compliance activity that requires scalable systems, repeatable workflows, and high-quality supplier data.

Companies that invest now in supplier engagement, data governance, and compliance data management will be better positioned as additional PFAS reporting requirements emerge across the United States and globally.

Conclusion: The Future of PFAS Reporting Starts with Better Data

The first Minnesota PRISM reporting cycle provides one of the most detailed public snapshots available of how manufacturers are identifying and reporting PFAS in products.

Across 63,549 disclosure records from 189 reporting companies, the data reveals widespread reliance on fluoropolymers, particularly PTFE, across numerous industries and component types. It also highlights continuing challenges with incomplete material information, unknown concentrations, and generic PFAS classifications.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that successful PFAS reporting depends on more than regulatory knowledge. It requires accurate supplier information, robust validation processes, and effective compliance data management.

As future reporting cycles approach and PFAS regulations continue to expand, manufacturers that establish stronger product compliance data foundations today will be significantly better prepared for tomorrow's reporting obligations.