The Forever Chemicals in Our Drinking Water
PFAS contamination in drinking water poses serious health risks. Discover how detection and regulation efforts are evolving worldwide.
Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.
Since their introduction in the 1940s, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been widely used in various industrial practices and consumer products, acting as surfactants, additives, cosmetics, lubricants and pesticides.1
PFAS are highly valued for their "non-stick" properties and their ability to reduce surface tension. This makes them effective in repelling water and oil, preventing stains and modifying surface chemistry.2 However, the very properties that make PFAS so versatile also make them extremely environmentally persistent. Their chemical stability resists natural degradation, allowing them to bioaccumulate in organisms and thereby pose significant risks to both public health and local ecosystems.
As the scale of PFAS production and use has expanded, so have their unintended environmental consequences. One of the most pressing issues is the contamination of drinking water, a direct result of decades of unregulated discharge of PFAS into the environment.3 These chemicals enter water systems through industrial effluents, landfill leachates and firefighting foam applications. Once released, they leach into groundwater, persist in aquifers and infiltrate surface water supplies, often remaining undetected for years.
This article explores the current understanding of PFAS exposure through drinking water, the methods used to monitor these "forever chemicals” and the strategies being implemented to mitigate their impact on health and the environment.
What are PFAS and why should we be concerned?
PFAS are a class of fluorinated compounds characterized by containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom. As a class, PFAS encompasses over 14,000 chemicals, including fluoropolymers such as Teflon, fluorinated pesticides and some pharmaceuticals.4 The unique chemical structure of PFAS, dominated by multiple carbon—fluorine (C—F) bonds, gives them exceptional chemical and thermal stability, making them resistant to degradation in the environment.5
“The biggest problem with PFAS is their sheer ubiquity. That’s why I call them ‘everywhere chemicals’, instead of ‘forever chemicals’. They’re in the air, the water, the soil — pretty much everywhere,” Dr. Jens Blotevogel told Technology Networks.
Dr. Blotevogel is a principal research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and an expert in groundwater and soil remediation. His research focuses on the fate of environmental organic contaminants, conducting laboratory- and field-scale investigations of how these contaminants degrade.
Optimize PFAS Testing With Automation
Explore how automated LC-MS workflows enhance efficiency and precision in PFAS analysis.View Webinar
“When we talk about PFAS, we’re not just talking about one group of chemicals; we’re talking about thousands of individual compounds. And that number keeps growing,” Dr. Blotevogel said. “Their chemical diversity is massive — some PFAS can only travel short distances, others can undergo long-range transport through the atmosphere, water or ocean currents. So, what gets released in one part of the world can eventually contaminate surface waters on the other side of the planet. The reality is, there are very few places left on Earth that are completely untouched by PFAS contamination.”6
Over the last decade, PFAS have been detected in surface waters and groundwater worldwide.7 Both are important sources for drinking water production and as a result, public concern has arisen over human exposure risks to PFAS.
PFAS are associated with a broad spectrum of toxic effects even at low levels, including altered immune function, liver and kidney disease, lipid and insulin dysregulation, reproductive and developmental disorders and cancer.8 These adverse effects stem from their ability to bind to proteins and disrupt the endocrine system through interactions with nuclear receptors.9
PFAS exhibit remarkable bioaccumulation in the human body, and have been detected in various human tissues, blood and breast milk.10 Accumulation and health effects vary depending on the type of PFAS, tissue specificity, life stages and gender differences.11 Despite this, only a fraction of PFAS molecules are currently monitored and regulated in drinking water, leaving many unquantified and their impacts not fully understood.
How are PFAS detected in drinking water?
In response to growing concerns about the environmental and health risks associated with PFAS contamination in water, regulatory bodies worldwide have begun to implement stringent maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for specific PFAS of concern.
Enhancing Robustness in PFAS Food Analysis
Discover strategies to maximize efficiency in high-throughput food testingView Application Note
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recently established a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which enforces MCLs for six PFAS in drinking water, ranging from 4 ng/L to 10 ng/L. 12 The Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) has established a much lower limit of 0.23 ng/L for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in fresh and marine waters.13 This increased regulation has resulted in a growing demand for advanced technologies that can detect these contaminants at trace levels.
“Currently, liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the most widely used method for PFAS analysis,” Prof. Lutz Ahrens, a professor of environmental organic chemistry at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, told Technology Networks. LC-MS/MS is specifically recommended by the US EPA for its high sensitivity and accuracy, making it ideal for compliance with low regulatory limits.14
Prof. Ahrens’ research is focused on the development of new mass spectrometry-based analytical methods for studying emerging organic pollutants in the environment.
As things stand, detecting PFAS presents several challenges. “PFAS concentrations in drinking water are typically very low, so preconcentration using solid-phase extraction (SPE) is essential for sample preparation and clean-up. Additionally, PFAS are pervasive in laboratory environments, including equipment, indoor air and dust. Maintaining a clean environment and using quality control samples is critical,” Prof. Ahrens added. “As surfactants, PFAS can adhere to surfaces and may be lost during preparation, necessitating the use of isotope-labeled reference standards to correct for matrix effects and ensure accuracy.”
Additionally, the extreme diversity of PFAS means no single analytical method can detect them all. “Even if we just focus on water, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach. Different types of PFAS require different detection techniques,” Dr. Blotevogel noted. As a result, comprehensive PFAS analysis requires multiple complementary approaches:
- Targeted Analysis – Typically performed using LC-MS/MS or triple quadrupole mass spectrometry, this targeted analysis provides exceptional sensitivity, detecting known PFAS at concentrations as low as parts per trillion or even parts per quadrillion. However, this approach is constrained to a predefined set of PFAS, typically ranging from 30 to 60 known compounds, depending on the availability of analytical reference standards.
- Non-Targeted Analysis – High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) techniques, such as quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF), Orbitrap, and Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance (FT-ICR) mass spectrometry, enable the characterization of complex PFAS mixtures and the identification of previously unknown PFAS. These approaches have enabled the identification of novel PFAS molecules across more than 20 established classes.15 However, while highly effective for qualitative assessments, HRMS techniques are less suited for precise quantification.
- Total Fluorine Methods – Techniques such as the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay or combustion ion chromatography (CIC) provide insights into the total fluorine content of a sample. While this approach quantifies fluorine bound in PFAS form, it does not identify specific PFAS compounds, which is critical for understanding toxicity and behavior.
“Combining targeted and non-targeted approaches provides a fuller picture of PFAS composition in the environment,” Prof. Ahrens said.
What is being done to address PFAS contamination?
Growing awareness of the risks posed by PFAS has spurred significant regulatory, scientific and technological efforts to address these persistent chemicals. The EU’s recast Drinking Water Directive represents a landmark regulation, setting stringent limits for PFAS in drinking water. Under the directive, the combined concentration of all PFAS must not exceed 0.5 µg/l, while levels for 20 specifically targeted PFAS are capped at 0.1 µg/l.
“The new EU drinking water regulation is a positive step, as it addresses both 20 selected target PFAS and total PFAS,” Prof. Ahrens explained. “This approach is vital because over 10,000 PFAS may be present in the environment, and our understanding of their cumulative impacts on environmental and human health remains limited. However, stricter regulations are needed to limit PFAS release from sources such as fire training facilities, industries, wastewater and landfills to better protect drinking water sources.”
“Most importantly, we must urgently phase out all PFAS, restricting their application to cases where they are absolutely essential and proven irreplaceable. Only by addressing their source can we effectively safeguard environmental and public health,” Prof. Ahrens added.
While regulatory efforts are setting important limits, advancements in PFAS detection are also crucial for enforcement and remediation. “Our current sample preparation and instrumental analysis methods are high-quality, standardized and validated for use by regulators and researchers. However, improvements in software for non-target screening are necessary, as data processing remains highly time-consuming,” Prof. Ahrens said.
Dr. Blotevogel believes that the development of advanced real-time sensors will also be key to improving PFAS analysis and management: “Currently, only a limited number of labs can analyze PFAS because the process is highly complex. Environmental consultants must collect multiple samples — soil at different depths, groundwater and surface water — each requiring specialized containers and expensive shipping to analytical labs. The testing process, including quality control, can take two months or longer. By the time results are available, critical questions remain: Did we sample far enough? Or did we oversample and waste resources?”
Similarly, in PFAS remediation and wastewater management, the lack of real-time sensors delays treatment optimization.
“Without real-time sensors, we don’t know how effective the treatment is for weeks or months,” Dr. Blotevogel explained. “Additionally, PFAS don’t flow into wastewater treatment plants at a constant rate — there are peak times when high concentrations come through. If real-time sensors were integrated into sewer networks, they could detect these influxes, allowing operators to divert high-PFAS streams into separate treatment pools while leaving the rest of the water untouched. This targeted approach would significantly improve efficiency and reduce costs.”
Ensuring safe drinking water for all
PFAS contamination in drinking water is a global issue, posing significant risks to public health and ecosystems due to their persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to serious health impacts, including immune dysfunction, liver and kidney disease, reproductive disorders and various cancers. Despite these dangers, only a small fraction of PFAS compounds are regularly monitored and regulated, leaving the majority unquantified and poorly understood.
“Understanding which PFAS are present in drinking water and their toxicity is vital,” Prof. Ahrens said. “Regular monitoring is needed, and if guideline values are exceeded, treatment techniques must be implemented to ensure safe drinking water.”
Collaboration between scientists, policymakers and affected communities is essential to combatting PFAS contamination and securing safe drinking water for all. Implementing robust monitoring systems can provide real-time data on contamination levels, informing timely responses and strengthening regulations. By working together to implement enforceable policies, encourage innovative solutions and enhance water treatment and monitoring, we can protect public health and ecosystems, ensuring access to clean, safe water for current and future generations.
