Expert Perspective: How PFAS Regulations Are Reshaping Water Testing Laboratories
PFAS regulations are tightening globally, placing increasing pressure on environmental and water laboratories to deliver faster, more sensitive, and more frequent analysis.
In Europe, the Drinking Water Directive introduces stricter PFAS monitoring obligations, while North America has moved toward ultra-trace drinking water limits at ppt level. At the same time, monitoring requirements are expanding beyond drinking water into environmental water, wastewater, and sludge.
To understand what this means in practice, we spoke with Roel Kwanten, water quality specialist at Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch authority responsible for major waterways and water infrastructure.
PFAS monitoring is no longer optional
For Rijkswaterstaat, PFAS monitoring has become an essential part of water quality control.
According to Roel, systematic PFAS monitoring accelerated after contamination incidents revealed elevated PFAS concentrations linked to industrial activity. Since then, surveillance of discharges and environmental water quality has expanded significantly.
Today, Rijkswaterstaat routinely monitors a broad PFAS panel in surface water, including compounds such as:
Depending on the monitoring objective, analytical scope may expand further.
This reflects a broader challenge for laboratories: monitoring expectations are increasing, not only in frequency, but also in the number of compounds that may require analysis.
As Roel notes, in an ideal world laboratories would screen for far more PFAS species, but cost, time, and operational realities require prioritization.
Stable contamination does not mean reduced concern
One surprising observation from Rijkswaterstaat monitoring is that PFAS concentrations in the river Meuse have remained relatively stable over recent years.
That does not mean the issue is resolved. PFAS are persistent, mobile, and difficult to remove once they enter the environment.
Diffuse contamination from multiple sources means that even stable concentration profiles represent an ongoing long-term challenge.
As Roel explains, contamination sources include:
- industrial discharge
- wastewater treatment plants
- recycling paper mills
- Waste management companies
- historical firefighting foam use
- diffuse contamination from PFAS-containing products
This widespread distribution makes complete elimination unrealistic in the short term.
For laboratories, this means sustained monitoring demand.
Stable contamination does not mean reduced concern
One surprising observation from Rijkswaterstaat monitoring is that PFAS concentrations in the river Meuse have remained relatively stable over recent years. That does not mean the issue is resolved. PFAS are persistent, mobile, and difficult to remove once they enter the environment. Diffuse contamination from multiple sources means that even stable concentration profiles represent an ongoing long-term challenge.
As Roel explains, contamination sources include:
- industrial discharge
- wastewater treatment plants
- recycling paper mills
- Waste management companies
- historical firefighting foam use
- diffuse contamination from PFAS-containing products
This widespread distribution makes complete elimination unrealistic in the short term. For laboratories, this means sustained monitoring demand.
Which regulations are driving laboratory demand?
Regulatory complexity is increasing rapidly. For drinking water, European laboratories are preparing for the implementation of the EU Drinking Water Directive:
EU Drinking Water Directive
From 2026:
- 0.1 µg/L for the sum of 20 PFAS
- 0.5 µg/L for total PFAS
But additional national frameworks may create even greater pressure. In the Netherlands, RIVM has proposed an indicative drinking water guidance value of:
Dutch indicative recommendation
4.4 ng/L as PFOA equivalent (PEQ)
Although not currently a binding legal limit, this recommendation reflects how quickly expectations may tighten.
For environmental monitoring, substance-specific thresholds add another layer of complexity. Examples discussed include:
Surface water examples
- PFOS: 0.65 ng/L
- PFOA: 48 ng/L
And internationally, the pressure continues to rise.
US EPA Drinking Water Standards
- PFOA: 4 ppt (or 4 ng/L)
- PFOS: 4 ppt (or 4 ng/L)
For laboratories, the implication is clear: Different matrices, regions, and regulations require different analytical strategies.
The regulatory direction: broader PFAS restriction
Current regulations focus on selected PFAS compounds and threshold values. But the broader regulatory trend goes further. According to Roel, the most effective way to reduce PFAS contamination is preventing unnecessary use at the source. Across Europe, regulatory discussions are increasingly focused on restricting non-essential PFAS applications, with the goal of phasing out uses where alternatives are available. This has major implications for laboratories. Today’s targeted compliance requirements may evolve toward broader contamination control and expanded monitoring expectations. That makes flexible analytical workflows increasingly important. Future readiness may require laboratories to move beyond monitoring only selected compounds and adopt complementary screening approaches.
Analytical demands are increasing
For laboratories, the operational impact is significant. Compared with five to ten years ago:
- more sampling points are monitored
- testing frequency has increased
- detection limits are much lower
- more compounds are being considered
- turnaround expectations remain high
Analytical sensitivity has changed dramatically. A decade ago, microgram-per-litre detection was common. Today, laboratories are expected to deliver nanogram-per-litre performance, and in some cases even lower. This increases pressure on:
- throughput
- staffing
- budgets
- workflow consistency
- contamination control
Why automation matters
PFAS analysis remains resource intensive. Current workflows typically involve:
- sample collection
- transport to specialized laboratories
- sample preparation
- extraction
- concentration
- advanced instrumental analysis
Turnaround times may take days or weeks. Testing costs remain high. Roel expects this to change. Automation, he believes, will play a major role in making PFAS analysis faster, more scalable, and more accessible. For laboratories facing growing monitoring obligations, this becomes critical.
Meeting evolving analytical demands
As PFAS monitoring expands, laboratories must balance sensitivity, throughput, reproducibility, and compliance across different matrices and regulatory frameworks. Different monitoring objectives may require complementary analytical workflows, from total fluorine screening to targeted PFAS quantification and high-throughput automation. The key challenge is no longer simply measuring PFAS. It is doing so efficiently, reliably, and at scale.
Looking beyond PFAS
PFAS is not the only contaminant category increasing in importance. Roel highlights additional emerging priorities:
- microplastics
- pharmaceuticals
- pesticides
This suggests a broader evolution in environmental monitoring. Laboratories investing in flexible workflows today may be better prepared not only for PFAS, but for the next generation of contaminant testing.
Preparing for what comes next
PFAS monitoring is moving in one direction:
more compounds, lower limits, higher volumes, broader regulation.
Laboratories that rely solely on manual workflows or single analytical methods may struggle to keep pace. Future-ready laboratories will need scalable analytical strategies that can adapt as regulatory requirements evolve.