SCHEER Rejects Proposed PFAS Total Standards in Water Directive Over Scientific Limitations

Why PFAS Total Standards Were Scrutinised

SCHEER’s evaluation focused on six options proposed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) to address thousands of PFAS substances in groundwater and surface waters. Option 5, a tiered strategy leveraging a 0.5 µg F/L parametric value from the Drinking Water Directive, was preferred by the JRC but ultimately dismissed by SCHEER due to a lack of toxicological justification.

SCHEER stated: “Using total organic fluorine as a means for setting an EQS for ‘PFAS total’ is incompatible with the legal definition of an EQS value.” The committee also criticised existing analytical methods as insufficiently sensitive and potentially misleading—either overestimating or underestimating true PFAS concentrations depending on sample conditions.

PFAS Uses and Industry Risk

PFAS substances are widely used in industrial coatings, electronics, textiles, and firefighting foams. However, their persistence and links to environmental and health risks—including toxicity, bioaccumulation, and potential endocrine disruption—have put them in the crosshairs of EU chemical policy reforms. Without a harmonised “PFAS total” EQS, manufacturers must continue monitoring substance-specific thresholds, currently limited to 24 PFAS compounds.

SCHEER Recommends Expanding the PFAS24 Approach

Rather than adopting a broad-brush approach, SCHEER endorsed Option 6—‘No agreement on EQS derivation’—and advocated for the expansion of the PFAS24 list to include up to 100 reliably measurable PFAS using Relative Potency Factor (RPF) methods. Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a short-chain PFAS, was specifically recommended for inclusion.

The committee highlighted the urgent need for new toxicity data, and proposed leveraging REACH and other regulatory databases to accelerate risk profiling. “It is not possible to set a reasonably reliable water quality standard for PFAS total… molecules of interest must be identified and their toxicity known,” SCHEER concluded.

Industry Implications and Next Steps

This decision signals that for now, businesses must manage compliance using individual PFAS thresholds and invest in advanced analytical methods. Water treatment providers, manufacturing plants, and downstream users should stay updated on evolving RPF methodologies and prepare for eventual inclusion of more PFAS under EQS regulation.