- →PFAS are "forever chemicals" — they persist indefinitely in the environment and accumulate in the body. Linked to thyroid, immune, and cancer risk in studies.
- →60+ Australian Defence Force sites confirmed contaminated from firefighting foam. Risk is highest for bore water users near those sites.
- ✗Sediment, UV, KDF and TAC have zero effect on PFAS. Only reverse osmosis (NSF 58 certified for PFAS) reliably removes them.
- ✓Most city homeowners on mains water: low risk. Independent NATA lab testing costs $150–$400 if you want certainty.
- ✓Look for NSF 58 certification with PFAS/PFOA/PFOS specifically listed as a tested contaminant — not just "NSF 58" on its own.
What are PFAS chemicals?
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — a group of more than 4,000 man-made chemicals that have been manufactured and used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s. They're found in non-stick cookware coatings, food packaging, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foams, and dozens of other applications.
The reason they're concerning is right there in the name. The carbon-fluorine bond in PFAS is one of the strongest in organic chemistry. These chemicals don't break down in the environment, don't break down in the human body, and accumulate over time. They've been found in soil, groundwater, surface water, wildlife, and human blood on every continent including Antarctica.
The two most studied compounds — PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) — have been linked in epidemiological studies to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, kidney and testicular cancers, immune system effects, and developmental issues in children. Most industrialised countries have phased out PFOA and PFOS, but thousands of replacement PFAS compounds remain in use with far less research behind them.
The "forever chemicals" problem: PFAS are nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they persist indefinitely in the environment and accumulate in the body with each exposure. There is no natural breakdown pathway — the only way to reduce body burden is to eliminate ongoing exposure.
The situation in Australia
Australia has significant PFAS contamination in specific locations, primarily linked to the historical use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) — a firefighting foam used extensively at defence bases, civilian airports, and some industrial sites. This foam contained very high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA.
The Department of Defence has identified contamination at more than 60 Australian Defence Force bases and training areas. Affected sites include RAAF Base Williamtown in NSW, RAAF Base Pearce in WA, RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria, multiple sites around Darwin, and training grounds across Queensland. Civilian airports including Adelaide, Launceston, and Canberra have also been identified as contamination sources.
Where contamination has leached into groundwater, it has affected surrounding residential areas. Thousands of households in communities around affected bases have been supplied with alternative drinking water or advised not to use bore water.
Australian drinking water guidelines
The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines set health-based guidance values for PFAS in drinking water. As of 2024, the guideline values are 0.07 micrograms per litre (μg/L) for PFOS and 0.56 μg/L for PFOA. These are guideline values, not legally enforceable standards — individual states and territories set their own drinking water regulations.
It's important to note that these guideline values relate to drinking water sourced from contaminated areas — typically bore water near affected sites. Reticulated town water from reservoirs and treatment plants is tested regularly and in most parts of Australia is well below any guideline values for PFAS.
Am I at risk? If you're on reticulated town water (the standard mains water supply) in a major Australian city, your risk from PFAS in drinking water is low. The primary risk is for households using bore water in areas near affected defence or industrial sites, or those on private water supplies in contaminated catchments. If you're unsure, contact your local water authority or state environmental agency.
Which water filters actually remove PFAS?
This is where it gets important — not all water filters remove PFAS, and some widely-sold filter types have essentially no effect. The key is understanding the mechanism by which different filter types work.
The most effective option. RO membranes physically reject PFAS molecules. NSF/ANSI 58 certification specifically covers PFAS reduction. A well-maintained RO system removes over 90% of most PFAS compounds. Whole-home RO is expensive — most households install point-of-use RO under the kitchen sink.
High-quality activated carbon can adsorb some PFAS compounds, but performance varies significantly by carbon type, contact time, and the specific PFAS present. Granular activated carbon (GAC) is less effective than carbon block. Look for NSF/ANSI 53 certification for PFAS claims specifically.
Sediment filters remove particles by physical size exclusion. PFAS are dissolved chemicals — not particles — so sediment filtration has no measurable effect on PFAS concentrations. Sediment filters are an important pre-filter for other systems but cannot be relied on for PFAS removal alone.
UV treatment inactivates biological contaminants — bacteria, viruses, and cysts. It has no effect on dissolved chemicals including PFAS. UV is valuable for biological safety but should not be selected for chemical contamination concerns.
KDF (Kinetic Degradation Fluxion) media works through redox reactions and is effective for heavy metals and chlorine. It does not have a meaningful mechanism for removing PFAS molecules and should not be relied upon for PFAS reduction.
TAC treats water hardness by altering the physical form of calcium and magnesium. It is a scale-prevention technology with no mechanism for chemical contaminant removal. TAC is not a filtration technology in the conventional sense.
What to look for: NSF/ANSI 58 certification
If PFAS removal is your primary concern, NSF/ANSI 58 is the certification standard you need. This standard covers reverse osmosis drinking water treatment systems and includes optional testing for reduction of specific contaminants including PFAS compounds (PFOA and PFOS).
Not all RO systems carry NSF 58 PFAS certification — many are certified for other contaminants but haven't been specifically tested for PFAS reduction. When evaluating an RO system for PFAS removal, confirm that the product data sheet specifically lists PFAS or PFOA/PFOS reduction under NSF 58.
NSF 53 can also cover PFAS for activated carbon systems, but only where the manufacturer has specifically sought and obtained testing for PFAS reduction. A generic NSF 53 certification does not guarantee PFAS removal — you need to look at the specific contaminants listed in the certification.
Watch for vague claims: Some filter suppliers claim to "reduce contaminants" or "improve water quality" without specifying which contaminants or providing certification evidence. For PFAS specifically, ask for the NSF certification document and confirm PFAS compounds are listed. A supplier who can't provide this documentation should be treated with scepticism.
Whole-home vs point-of-use for PFAS
One practical question is whether to install a whole-home filtration system or a point-of-use system (typically under the kitchen sink) for PFAS concerns.
The answer depends on your specific situation. Ingestion — drinking and cooking — is the primary exposure pathway for PFAS in drinking water. A high-quality point-of-use RO system on your kitchen tap addresses this effectively and at much lower cost than a whole-home system. Showering and bathing in water with PFAS is considered a lower risk than ingestion, though research on dermal absorption is ongoing.
If you're on bore water with confirmed PFAS contamination, a whole-home system may be warranted, particularly if you have concerns about children's bath water or are using garden water for vegetables. In that scenario, a whole-home carbon block system as a pre-filter followed by an under-sink RO for drinking water is a common approach.
| Approach | PFAS removal | Approximate cost | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under-sink RO (drinking/cooking only) | High (>90%) | $400–$1,200 installed | Town water users with low-level concern |
| Whole-home carbon block | Moderate (variable) | $1,500–$3,500 installed | Pre-filtration, taste/odour improvement |
| Whole-home RO | High (>90%) | $5,000–$12,000+ installed | Bore water users with confirmed contamination |
| Whole-home carbon + under-sink RO | High (>90% at tap) | $2,500–$5,000 installed | Most households with PFAS concern |
Should you test your water for PFAS?
If you're on mains water in a major Australian city and not near a known contamination site, routine PFAS testing is unlikely to show concerning levels and is probably unnecessary.
Testing is worth considering if you are on bore water or a private water supply, live within 5–10km of a current or former defence base or industrial site with known AFFF use, or have received advice from a state environmental agency about PFAS in your area.
PFAS testing of drinking water is available through NATA-accredited laboratories in all states. A comprehensive PFAS panel test typically costs $150–$400 depending on the number of compounds tested. Your local water authority or state environment department may offer free or subsidised testing if you're in a known affected area — contact them first before paying for private testing.
For the majority of Australians on town water, PFAS in drinking water is a low priority concern — your water authority monitors for it and public supply levels are generally well within guidelines. The risk is concentrated around specific contamination sites.
If you're on bore water, near a defence base, or want peace of mind regardless: an NSF 58-certified reverse osmosis system under the kitchen sink is the most effective and cost-efficient solution. Expect to pay $400–$1,200 installed for a quality unit. Do not rely on sediment filters, UV, KDF or TAC for PFAS removal — they don't work for this purpose.
When comparing suppliers, ask specifically whether any RO systems they supply carry NSF 58 certification with PFAS reduction listed. Our certifications guide explains how to verify these claims independently.
This article draws on guidelines and contamination data published by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC), the Department of Defence PFAS Investigation Program, and the NSW Environment Protection Authority. NSF certification information sourced from NSF International. FilterOut does not provide medical or legal advice — consult your state environmental agency or a qualified health professional if you have specific concerns about your water supply.