NHMRC opens PFAS talks
Print
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has released draft guidelines for the presence of PFAS in drinking water.
These guidelines - now open for public consultation - are part of a broader update to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG), which shape state and territory efforts to ensure water safety.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) - often called ‘forever chemicals’ - are synthetic compounds that have been widely used in firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, water-repellent clothing, and more.
They are highly resistant to degradation, both in the environment and in the human body.
PFAS exposure is associated with potential health risks such as liver damage, immune system effects, and developmental problems, prompting calls for stricter regulation.
The new draft guidelines suggest lowering allowable concentrations for several key PFAS chemicals, reflecting emerging evidence about their health impacts:
-
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA): The current allowable concentration of 560 nanograms per litre (ng/L) is proposed to decrease to 200 ng/L.
-
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS): The combined limit for PFOS and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), currently set at 70 ng/L, would be adjusted to a more stringent 4 ng/L specifically for PFOS.
-
PFHxS: A separate limit of 30 ng/L is proposed.
-
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS): For the first time, a limit of 1,000 ng/L is being recommended.
-
GenX chemicals: Despite being reviewed, they are not assigned a specific limit in the draft guidelines.
Dr Ian Musgrave, a pharmacology expert at the University of Adelaide, explains that PFAS compounds are highly fat-soluble, meaning they accumulate in body tissues and can persist for years.
“It can take five years for half of an ingested dose of PFAS to be removed,” he said.
However, he added that most drinking water supplies in Australia already show PFAS levels well below the proposed limits, especially after the phase-out of industrial PFAS use in the early 2000s.
The NHMRC’s draft updates are supported by the latest research, which has been incorporated into a PFAS Fact Sheet (PDF), part of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
The revised recommendations were informed by a range of studies, including human epidemiological research, animal toxicity tests, and risk assessments of critical health endpoints such as liver function, immune response, and developmental impacts.
Professor Stuart Khan, a civil engineering expert from the University of Sydney, has acknowledged that the guidelines reflect “the latest and most robust science” on PFAS risks. He points out, however, that the real challenge will be implementing these limits, particularly in smaller regional communities.
“Australians will need to consider how to afford necessary water treatment upgrades,” Khan said, highlighting the potential for increased water bills.
He added that this shift in cost burden contradicts the ‘polluter pays’ principle, saying; “It is an example of privatising profits and socialising the costs”.
Globally, PFAS regulation varies significantly.
For instance, Canada caps the total sum of PFAS in drinking water at 30 ng/L, while the European Union’s limit is 500 ng/L for all PFAS combined or 100 ng/L for a select group of 20 PFAS chemicals.
The United States has recently set stricter limits for some PFAS, including a 4 ng/L threshold for PFOA and PFOS.
The NHMRC’s proposed guidelines are less stringent but still mark a significant step forward in managing PFAS risks in Australia.
Despite PFAS’s reputation as persistent contaminants, Australian water supplies generally meet high safety standards, according to Dr Daniel Deere, a water and health consultant.
He says public concerns about PFAS in drinking water should be limited to identified hotspots, such as areas near firefighting training grounds or airports where firefighting foam was extensively used.
“You have nothing to be concerned about with PFAS in your public drinking supply unless you are specifically advised otherwise,” Deere said, adding that all public water supplies in Australia are managed by professionals working under stringent regulations.
Professor Denis O'Carroll from UNSW Sydney supports the NHMRC’s efforts but believes there is room for improvement.
He notes that while the guidelines cover four key PFAS, other countries include a broader range of PFAS compounds in their standards.
“Our study found that many international drinking water sources exceed these proposed Australian guidelines,” O’Carroll said.
He urged further mapping of PFAS contamination in Australian source waters and called for more research into cost-effective treatment technologies.
The inclusion of a new limit for PFBS and the significant reduction in allowable PFOS levels are among the most notable changes in the draft guidelines.
However, Dr Oliver Jones, a chemistry professor at RMIT University, warned that the proposed PFOS limit of 4 ng/L might be “overcautious”, given that it is primarily based on a single study.
He also cautioned against overly dramatic interpretations of PFAS risks, reminding the public that “the dose makes the poison” and that these proposed limits are in the nanogram per litre range - equivalent to one part per trillion.
The NHMRC is seeking feedback on the draft guidelines from water suppliers, policymakers, health professionals, and the broader public.