Scientists Detect PFAS in Bottled and Tap Water Around the World

In a new study, scientists detected the presence of 10 target per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including compounds such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), in samples of tap water from the UK and China as well as in bottled waters from 15 countries.

The study, published in the journal ACS ES&T Water, set out to determine potential exposure to some of the most common PFAS from water of various sources around the world. 

The study authors used 112 bottled water samples in both plastic and glass bottles, with water sourced from 15 countries as well as 41 samples of tap water in homes of Birmingham, Worcester, Coventry and Derby, UK and 14 water samples from homes in Shenzhen, China.

The team of researchers behind the study found PFOS and PFOA were most common in bottled water, showing up in more than 99% of the bottled water samples. Other PFAS were detected in 67% to 93% of the bottled waters.

According to the study, the PFAS present in natural mineral water were around 0.82 nanograms/liter compared to the approximate 0.47 nanograms/liter detected in purified bottled water. However, the researchers didn’t find any notable differences in the PFAS detected in glass versus plastic bottles or still bottled water versus sparkling. 

“Our findings also suggest that the potential health risks of PFAS in drinking water may be influenced by lifestyle and economic conditions, highlighting the need for future research to further explore these factors from a socio-economic perspective,” Yi Zheng, co-author of the study and a professor at the Southern University of Science and Technology, said in a statement.

As for tap water, the scientists found higher PFAS concentrations in samples from China (around 9.2 nanograms/liter) than the samples from the UK (around 2.7 nanograms/liter).

The authors did note that while they detected PFAS in the various bottled and tap water samples, the amounts generally did not exceed the limits set by various regulatory agencies. Still, the team noted that the high rates of detection did raise concerns about PFAS monitoring.

“While current PFAS levels in most water samples are not a major health concern, ongoing monitoring and regulation are crucial to protect public health,” said Stuart Harrad, co-author of the study and a professor at the University of Birmingham. “We provide valuable data on the presence of PFAS in drinking water alongside practical solutions to mitigate consumer exposure via drinking water. This is a significant step towards ensuring safer drinking water for communities worldwide.”

The researchers also tested ways of filtering some of these PFAS and found simple methods that consumers could take from home until regulatory agencies can enhance PFAS monitoring for water. 

Boiling water offered a removal rate of around 55% for all 10 PFAS, but it was particularly effective for compounds such as MeFOSA and EtFOSA. Filtering with activated carbon filters, such as with a filtered water pitcher, was especially effective at removing PFAS across the board, ranging from around a removal rate of 81% to 96%, depending on the type of PFAS. Filtering with activated carbon then boiling the water presented water removal rates of around 81% to 99.6%.

“Our findings highlight the widespread presence of PFAS in drinking water and the effectiveness of simple treatment methods to reduce their levels,” Harrad said. “Either using a simple water filtration jug or boiling the water removes a substantial proportion of these substances.”