Can we have drinking water without PFAS?

PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a large group of chemicals with properties ranging from heat resistance, non-stick and waterproofing, making them widely used in our society. Some of them are harmful to the environment and human health, and all of them are difficult to degrade, and they are often referred to as “forever-chemicals”.
At the seminar, the speakers explored PFAS from different perspectives. The following sections summarise the key messages from each presentation.
 

PFAS contaminants in groundwater as a matter of health equity
Martin Mickelsson, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Gothenburg

PFAS are quite prevalent in Europe, with large hotspots surrounding industries like 3M in Antwerp. But as it spreads through air, water and soil it becomes a widespread problem.

Belgium- Antwerp and 3M
One of Europe’s largest PFAS contaminations occurred near Antwerp.
In 2021, long-term PFAS contamination were found to have spread through groundwater, soil and food systems from the 3M facility in Zwijndrecht. The inhabitants in the area were tested and PFOS was the predominant compound found in the blood serum. All tested participants were found to have some PFAS compounds in their blood. 

In Denmark, in Korsør, PFOS and PFHxS from firefighting foams had leached into the soil and grass that was grazed by organic beef cattle.
Members of the cattle grazing organization consumed meat for several years, where the cattle had grazed the contaminated land. In 2021, when the members were tested, they had high levels (500 ng/ml) of these compounds in their blood serum.
In Sweden there have also been PFAS exposures, where the source has also been from firefighting foam.

In Sweden, municipalities are tasked with providing clean drinking water, but there are also around 800.000 private wells, supplying 1.2 million people year around. Add to that those who utilize private wells during their holidays, and you end up with another 1.2 million people, meaning that roughly 20 % of the population rely on this as a water source.

The Swedish food agency categorize drinking water as our most important foodstuff, but monitoring and treatment responsibilities are shifted to individual households when it comes to private wells. This challenges the assumption that countries like Sweden provide equal protection from environmental hazards like PFAS.
Private well owners are often individually responsible for;
- interpreting drinking water and health guidance, exemplified in the 4ng/L PFAS4 threshold value introduced in 2026
- testing water quality
- understanding contamination risks
- financing treatment technologies
This is carried out by experts at the treatment plants, making it very unequal in terms of knowledge and funding.

The responsibility for environmental health hazards gets blurred as water governance relies on private wells and questions arise on how this responsibility should be shared between government authorities and private well owners. How can private well-owners be responsible for managing a persistent contaminant they have neither created nor have the capacity or resources to assess and address?

Q&A
- Is there any interest in taking more responsibility for PFAS testing of private wells by society?
My sense is that there is an interest in taking more responsibility. I think many societal actors would agree it is desirable. The challenge is who should take this increased responsibility. As it stands, responsibility for the groundwater drawn on by private wells falls within the purview of a number of local, regional and national actors. I would argue that there needs to be coordination between these actors to achieve an increased responsibility of PFAS testing on private wells to materialize consistently through relevant parts of Sweden.

- Do well owners know that the responsibility for this kind of testing and remediation lies on them?
As I am at the initial stage of the research project I cannot with certainty say so. This is one of the focuses of the project. However, well owners have for a long time been responsible for particularly the microbial quality of their well water so in that sense such responsibility for testing is not new. These microbial tests are generally widely available and not expensive. Meanwhile, in the case of PFAS originating from government or private business actions, as in the case of firefighting foam in Sweden and the 3M factory in Belgium, tests are not nearly as available and much more expensive. This could reasonably mean that private well owners may expect to share responsibility in the case of PFAS.

Uppsala’s experience – a strategy for PFAS reduction to meet new regulation
Philip McCleaf, Uppsala Vatten och Avlopp

The ground water surrounding Uppsala has been severely polluted by PFAS, the most apparent source being fire fighting foam from a nearby airfield. 
PFAS compounds are very mobile in the environment and therefore easily move from the polluted areas into the aquifers used to supply drinking water and as the compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative and potentially toxic it is important to try to remove them.
The guideline values for accepted PFAS concentrations have changes over the years, limits have been reduced and more compounds are tested for, and a grouping known as PFAS 4 (PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFNA)* are considered most harmful. From January 2026 the sum of these compounds in our drinking water should not exceed 4 ng/L.

Uppsala Vatten uses strategic infiltration to decrease PFAS in the water going into the plant.
To achieve this they have managed aquifers, ponds or infiltration basins, that are filled with river or lake water with known low PFAS content which are then allowed to percolate into the ground water. Downstream, this water (together with natural ground water) is retrieved and treated at the drinking water plant.
The infiltration is used for both increasing groundwater volumes and as treatment for organic matter and turbidity.

When treating the water, the method depends on what you want to treat. If you are only interested in PFAS removal, absorbents are used. The most commonly used today is GAC (granular active carbon), which has a high removal efficiency, especially for longer PFAS chains (> 7 carbon atoms). Another method used is AIX (anion exchange), which have a greater capacity than GAC, but at a 10 times higher price.

To be suitable as drinking water, PFAS is not the only thing that need to be removed. Incoming water also contains metal ions, dissolved organic carbon and microorganisms like bacteria, among other things. At Uppsala Vatten they utilize membrane filtration to help with this, so there are many steps involved in creating clean drinking water.

Q&A
- Has PFAS input into the contaminated plume been stopped or contained?
No, the input to the plume continues from the contaminated soil at the site due to precipitation (rain/snow) percolating through the vadose zone at the site.

- What are the cost comparisons of nanofiltration vs resin used?
Cost must be compared on the same basis, i.e. cost per contaminant removed which is difficult since membrane technique removed multiple contaminants and AIX a single contaminant.

- What is the technical readiness of membrane distillation?
At the present time not mature for use with public drinking water.

- What do you think about a small municipality’s possibility to use the nanomembrane filtration? In terms of cost and attitude from the politics.
A very good alternative since the installation is more compact as compared to a traditional technique like coagulation and filtration.

- How are the filters handled ?
Incineration at high temp if containing PFAS.

- What are the possibilities of using methods in combinations rather than a standalone technique (e.g. nanofiltration)?
Good possibilities for combining as will be the case since a pretreatment stage is often required as well as a treatment process to handle waste stream created, i.e. concentrate water

 

Status on the proposed universal PFAS restriction under the REACH regulation 
Jenny Ivarsson, The Swedish Chemicals Agency

The universal PFAS restriction proposal under the REACH legislation aims to ban the manufacture, import and use of over 10 000 PFAS compounds. It is driven by five European authorities in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark.
Several sectors, from medical devices, mining, transport, textiles, food packaging and cosmetics where evaluated in the original proposal, and after public consultation more sectors were added including broad industrial use, military application, printing applications and other medical applications.

Three restriction options were proposed;
R01 Full ban of all uses, which would give 96 % emission reduction (over a period of 30 years, 2025-2055)
R02 Ban with use-specific derogations, with an 83 % emission reduction (over a period of 30 years, 2025-2055)
R03 Continued use of PFAS with strict emission limits or additional emission controls to increase effectiveness of R02.
R02 was preferred as it also considers negative socio-economic impacts as it is not reasonable to substitute all PFAS use in the suggested timeframe of 18 months.

If restriction is implemented, emissions from the sector using fluorinated gases (heating, ventilation, propellants etc.) has the potential to be reduced by 1,5 million tonnes over a period of 30 years.**
Without a restriction the estimated total emission of PFAS-compounds is 4.7 million tonnes over the same period.
Sectors such as food contact material and cosmetics have a smaller overall contribution, but still account for around 58 000 and 1100 tonnes, respectively.

ECHA have evaluated the proposal and the committees for risk assessment (RAC) and socio-economic analysis (SEAC) have written their final and draft opinions, respectively.
Both committees agree that a broad union wide restriction is the most appropriate regulatory measure and support proposed limit values.
RAC considered a full ban to be an effective measure, and estimated that the derogations would result in an uncontrolled risk, whereas SEAC considers a ban with use-specific derogations to be more appropriate to ensure the proportionality of the proposed restriction.
Both committees would like to see additional risk management measures for exempted uses, with management plans with monitoring, labeling and instructions for safe use and effective communication throughout the supply chain.

Regarding the new additions that were added after public consultation, SEAC is unable to determine if the proposed exemptions are justified since these have not been evaluated by the committees. They recommend that an evaluation of all uses within the specific sectors are carried out as soon as possible, and a time-limited exemption for all uses until the evaluation is completed and an appropriate and proportional decision can be made.

The process forward
- End of 2026, final opinions from the committees and the updated proposal will be submitted to the European Commission.
- The commission prepares a draft amendment to the list of restrictions (Annex XVII)
- Vote in the REACH Committee
- Entry into force, Effect of the restriction


*PFOS, Perflouorooctanesulfonic acid
PFOA, Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFHxS, Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid
PFNA, Perfluorononanionic acid
**Fluorinated gases are also used in other sectors like transport and medical applications. Those emissions and reductions are calculated within their respective sectors.