GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
May 6, 2025 | Blogs, Environmental / Industrial | 0 comments
Read time: 10 minutes
A few years ago, I was plotting along in my analytical job and keeping up-to-date with residue regulations took a considerable amount of time, but it was always manageable. Nowadays, we have PFAS.
Not a week goes by without seeing webinars popping up, regulation changes being announced in newsletters, and news outlets reporting about it. PFAS is debated in political conversations, and it has become much harder to keep track of it all. Looking at PFAS regulations happens to be a major part of my role right now and I am sharing what the world is up to regarding all things PFAS as of today in May 2025.
This blog is regionally split, so feel free to jump to the part of the world where you are located or follow me along on our journey. We are traveling from East to West. First stop:
Asia-Pacific
Most countries in Asia-Pacific like China, Korea and Japan align regulations on the Stockholm Convention which included PFOS at the beginning and had two more PFAS (PFOA, PFHxS) added in recent years. Although that is good effort, the group of chemicals that count as PFAS encompasses thousands of substances, so we are merely scratching the surface when aligning to the Stockholm convention only.
Russia
Russia’s approach to PFAS regulation is widely described as evolving. While the country has not yet implemented comprehensive national standards specifically targeting PFAS in drinking water or soil, several measures are in place to manage these chemicals via industry regulation and environmental monitoring of water bodies and soil.
Russia is a party to the Stockholm Convention, which aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs). PFOS, a type of PFAS, is listed under this convention, and Russia has committed to reducing its use.
However, unlike some other countries, Russia does not yet have specific maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water. This makes it difficult to enforce strict controls and ensure public safety.
China
China has not seen many updates on PFAS regulations in recent years but is making a considerable effort to monitor contamination in environmental matrices.
Further advancing its regulatory framework of List of Priority Control Chemicals (2020) and the New Pollutant Management Action Plan (2021) the General Office of the State Council announced an Action Plan on Controlling New Pollutants in May 2024. By 2025, the plan aims to screen high-concern chemicals produced or used in large quantities for environmental risks.1 It also intends to implement new pollutant control in areas like the Yangtze River basin for industries such as petrochemical and paint and coatings. So, industry settled in China will need to prepare to answer some serious questions in the future.
PFAS are not routinely monitored in drinking water in China. With China being a main manufacturer of PFAS on the global playing field it comes as no surprise that these very stable compounds made it into the environment.
A study showed that ‘The PFAS concentrations reported in more than 20% of the studied cities, likely affecting 98.5 million people, were above the maximum contaminant level issued by Vermont in 2019.’ Further stating that ‘East China and the Southwest regions posed a relatively higher risk to the Chinese population […] and a considerable share of other cities have exceeded the health-based guidelines issued by EU and US agencies.’
Seeing studies like this, make it seem like a mammoth-task trying to ensure public health with these contaminants. China is balancing industrial needs with environmental protection and public health remains a critical challenge, but it is probably fair to say that the steps taken so far indicate a growing commitment to addressing the risks posed by PFAS.1
India
Currently, India does not have specific regulations for PFAS in drinking water.
Despite growing concerns about PFAS contamination, these substances remain unregulated in the country.
India is a party to the Stockholm Convention, which added PFOS to its global restriction list in 2009, but India has not accepted the amendment listing this substance.
Studies have found significant levels of PFAS in various water sources, including rivers and groundwater, which are used for drinking water. Especially in low-income neighbourhoods, the population who often depends on water from the river are hit harder by high PFAS levels, especially when living close to factory outlets. 2
Given the lack of specific regulations, there is a growing need for India to establish guidelines to address PFAS contamination and protect public health.
Europe
Europe is gearing up to tackle PFAS contamination with updates, as new EU-wide limits are planned to roll out in 2026. The revamped Drinking Water Directive (DWD) is tightening the screws on PFAS levels. It will cap the concentration of 20 individual PFAS at a mere 0.1 µg/L (about 100 parts per trillion) and the total PFAS concentration at 0.5 µg/L (roughly 500 parts per trillion). Come 2026, drinking water pollution will be meticulously tracked, and swift action will be taken to banish PFAS in cases of noncompliance.3
Not to be outdone, several European countries are setting the bar even higher with stricter measures for the sum of PFAS-4 (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS), closely mirroring U.S. standards.
Additionally, new EU-wide limits for PFAS in drinking water will come into effect from 2026. These updated limits are part of the EU’s ongoing efforts to strengthen regulations and reduce PFAS contamination in both the environment and the food chain.
Africa
In Africa, PFAS regulations in drinking water are still developing, and strict regulations are not yet widespread. However, some countries are beginning to address PFAS contamination.
South Africa has recorded some of the highest levels of PFAS contamination in drinking water. Efforts are underway to monitor and manage these pollutants. Kenya is also facing PFAS contamination issues, particularly in major water bodies like Lake Victoria. While strict regulations are not yet in place, there is growing awareness and action towards addressing PFAS pollution. Nigeria has detected PFAS in various water sources, and there is increasing attention on the need for regulatory measures.4
Other countries such as Uganda, Ghana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Mali, and Tunisia have also reported PFAS contamination. These nations are in the early stages of developing strategies to manage and regulate PFAS in drinking water. 4
One unique consideration for Africa is that due to vast areas affected by drought and low rainfalls, rivers are vital sources of freshwater, making surface water contamination a significant environmental concern. Contaminants in these water bodies can have far-reaching impacts on ecosystems and communities that rely on these rivers for drinking water, agriculture, and daily activities.
While strict PFAS regulations are not yet common in Africa, there is a growing recognition of the need, which is a very positive development.
USA
The USA is characterized by broad regulations, from those for consumed water and goods to industrial regulations on PFAS affecting the industry.
The biggest splashes were seen in April 2024 when the EPA established the first national, legally enforceable drinking water standards for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and mixtures of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and PFBS. The maximum contaminant levels (MCL) are set at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA. The maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG), which are non-enforceable health standards, are 0 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA. Public water systems must comply with these new PFAS MCL by April 2029. Public water systems must monitor for these PFAS and complete initial monitoring for the new MCLs by 2027.5,6
These new regulations mark a significant step forward in the fight against PFAS contamination. They aim to protect public health and the environment from these persistent and potentially harmful chemicals.
In September 2024, the EPA released final water quality concentrations for 10 PFAS. These guidelines aim to assist states in safeguarding fish and other aquatic life. These levels are advisory and not mandatory, known as water quality criteria and benchmarks.
The United States is governed centrally, but when it comes to environmental regulations, things get spicier. On the state level, legislation can differ between California and New York. From drinking water standards to consumer products, firefighting foams, food packaging, wastewater, and biosolids, the landscape in the US is evolving fast, and keeping up to date can easily turn into a part-time job.
Canada and South America
Canada
In Canada, the objective of PFAS in drinking water is set by Health Canada, which oversees aspects of public health, including food safety, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and environmental health. The latest version of the objective from 2024 is limiting the sum of 25 specific PFAS to a maximum of 30 nanograms per liter (ng/L) in drinking water. Converted to ppt that are 30 parts per trillion (ppt), higher compared to the United States at first glance.
But it needs to be noted that the group approach in Canada cannot be compared to the US EPA approach, which addresses 6 individual PFAS. The Canadian limit is based on what can be detected effectively, focusing on the practical implementation. The U.S. limits are set to address specific health risks associated with individual PFAS compounds. 8,9
South America
South America is gradually recognizing the need to regulate PFAS due to their persistent nature and potential health risks. While comprehensive regulations are still developing, several countries are taking steps to address PFAS contamination:
Brazil has introduced the National PFAS Control Policy Bill No. 2726/2023, which aims to regulate the use, production, and disposal of PFAS.
Argentina is also beginning to address PFAS contamination, focusing on monitoring and assessing PFAS levels in water sources.
Chile has conducted studies on PFAS contamination in water bodies and is working towards establishing guidelines for safe levels of PFAS in drinking water. Proposals to modify the Reglamento Sanitario de los Alimentos (RSA) to address the migration of materials in contact with food are underway, but concrete regulations are still pending.10
Chile is also investigating marine plastic litter for PFAS contamination and has found long-chain PFAS prevalent in plastic particles. For a country with an impressive 6,435 kilometres coastline, the elimination of solid waste along the coast has been called out to be a much-needed focus point for future marine management strategies.10
More to come from Chile.
Australia
Australia has established guidelines for PFAS in drinking water through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) set health-based guideline values for several PFAS compounds: PFOA 0.2 µg/L, PFOS 0.004 µg/L, PFHxS 0.03 µg/L, PFBS 1 µg/L. However, the guidelines are not mandatory, legally enforceable, and the implementation of the guidelines is at the discretion of each state and territory. 11
The PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) guides the management of PFAS in soil and provides a consistent framework for dealing with PFAS-contaminated materials and sites.
PFAS in the polar regions
As I am wrapping up our journey, I realized that I had left a large part of the world out of the summary—the frozen landscapes, so let’s have a quick look.
Studies have shown that concentrations of PFAS are increasing in Arctic animals such as polar bears and seals. PFAS can volatilize and travel through the atmosphere, eventually depositing in the Arctic through snowfall.
The Arctic Council, through its Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP) and Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), is monitoring PFAS levels in the Arctic environment and advocating for stricter regulations. Looking at Antarctica, with a lack of national or regional authorities, as of today there are no regulatory policies for the region regarding PFAS contamination.13
Greenland faces significant PFAS contamination, particularly in its indigenous communities. Studies have found alarmingly high levels of PFAS in the blood of residents, primarily due to their diet of polar bear and seal meat. While Greenland does not have specific PFAS regulations, there is a growing call for stricter measures to protect public health.14
Where will all the PFAS go?
It comes as no surprise that heavily persistent chemicals have reached all corners of the globe and are here to stay. If at all possible, it will be a challenge for generations of politicians to navigate contamination and facilitate clean-up.
The research landscape for PFAS phytoremediation is consistently churning out findings on which PFAS compounds are taken up at which pace and by which plant species. We read about the use of natural hyperaccumulators like sunflowers, potatoes, corn, and cucumbers, and even hemp to remediate PFAS-contaminated soil by absorbing these hazardous substances into their tissues. Various factors are influencing the efficacy of phytoremediation, including PFAS concentration, soil characteristics, and the specific plant species that need to be taken into consideration. We need comprehensive data to assess the efficiency of phytoremediation for PFAS-contaminated sites and the matrices have long expanded from water to soil to plants.
Removing PFAS from water is possible, but without going into too much detail, it will be expensive. Currently, three technologies are leading the way to removing the compounds from drinking water: granular Activated Carbon, Ion Exchange Resins, and High-Pressure Membranes. All of them leave PFAS in either the carbon, the resin, or as concentrated wastewater.
Analytical instruments can monitor the effectiveness of these technologies, and continuous checks are needed to ensure that the filter systems are removing what they are supposed to over time.
But the question that remains is ‘Where should all that contaminated plant, resin, or concentrated water waste go one day?’
SCIEX 7500+ system
The SCIEX 7500+ system offers unmatched detection limits for PFAS quantitation. It is designed to maintain exceptional sensitivity, even with the most complex and unrefined environmental samples.
Discover the technology >
SCIEX 5500+ system
The SCIEX 5500+ system is a crucial tool in many PFAS testing laboratories worldwide. Known for its high sensitivity and performance, it reliably quantifies PFAS compounds at trace levels.
SCIEX service
Keep your lab running smoothly SCIEX service plans to eliminate unscheduled downtime and boost productivity.
Find out more >
References
As analytical organizations grow, there is an even greater need to train scientists and operators more consistently to meet tight deadlines, handle increasing samples, and meet data quality expectations. A high rate of employee turnover also affects the productivity of labs worldwide. Consistent training helps today’s labs stay competitive, whether the goal is sample throughput, therapeutic development, or publication.
Produced by certain moulds, thriving in crops such as grain, nuts and coffee, mycotoxins have contaminated agriculture and food production industries for a long time. To intensify the challenge, mycotoxins are resilient, not easily broken down and ensuring the safety of food supply chains requires comprehensive solutions and we are here to share those solutions with you.
Electron-Activated Dissociation (EAD) is transforming the fields of metabolomics and lipidomics by providing enhanced fragmentation techniques that offer deeper insights into molecular structures. In September, Technology Networks hosted a webinar, “Enhancing Mass-Based Omics Analysis in Model Organisms,” featuring Dr. Valentina Calabrese from the Institute of Analytical Sciences at the University of Lyon. Valentina shared her insights on improving omics-based mass spectrometry analysis for toxicology studies using model organisms, particularly in metabolomics and lipidomics. This blog explores the additional functionalities EAD offers, its benefits in untargeted workflows, its incorporation into GNPS and molecular networking, and the future role it could play in these scientific domains.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network