Experts welcome UK PFAS plan

Defra announce wide-ranging measures but questions remain over their effectiveness

THE UK government’s plan to tackle per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has been welcomed by environmental experts, although questions remain over the effectiveness of the proposed methods to monitor and reduce pollution.

The plan, published in early February by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), sets out the government’s ambitions to better understand sources of PFAS – defined as any chemical with a -CF3 or -CF2- group – and reduce public exposure, given their links to cancer and other health impacts.

Among the plan’s 49 actions are commitments to expand PFAS sampling, issue new guidance to industries on handling PFAS and reducing discharges, and introduce tests on food packaging such as microwave popcorn bags and pizza boxes.

Defra also plans to introduce new thresholds for PFAS in watercourses by the end of the year, alongside limits on discharges to air, land and water. Analysis by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) last year found that 37% of watercourse samples in England and Wales contained concentrations of the common PFOS chemical above the “low risk” threshold. Current legislation requires PFAS to be removed from drinking water if a single chemical exceeds 100 ng/L. The government has already announced plans to change this so that the total accumulation of all PFAS chemicals can be no greater than 100 ng/L, aligning with EU standards. The RSC has argued this should go further to mandate removal if single chemical concentrations exceed 10 ng/L.

Environment Agency research recently proposed much lower thresholds for four common types of PFAS in some water sources: 0.015 ng/L for PFOS, 0.4 ng/L for PFOA, 0.2 ng/L for PFHxS and 0.3 ng/L for PFNA.

Mohamed Abdallah, an associate professor at the University of Birmingham’s School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, described the government’s plan as “encouraging”. However, he said it will be “crucial” to take a “holistic approach for assessing UK population exposure to PFAS from different pathways, including the less studied routes of skin contact with PFAS-treated consumer products”.

The plan emphasises the need to maintain PFAS use in “critical functions” such as medical goods which “cannot currently be replaced”. Abdallah noted that “non-fluorinated alternatives have been identified” for many uses.

However, some notable omissions have sparked concern. Patrick Byrne, a hydrology and pollution researcher at Liverpool John Moores University, said a “major blind spot” was the focus on measuring PFAS concentrations rather than total PFAS load.

Byrne’s research in the River Mersey last year found that sites with the highest concentrations of PFAS did not always correspond to the largest overall PFAS loads. “Without this information, government and environmental regulators cannot prioritise action or reliably assess whether policies and interventions are actually working,” he said.

PFAS patrol