Australia changed its health-based guidance for several PFAS chemicals in drinking water in June 2025. The update lowered the guideline value for PFOS, gave PFHxS its own value, added PFBS and revised the value for PFOA. It did not mean that every detection of PFAS suddenly made Australian tap water unsafe.
The practical question is whether a particular chemical is present above the relevant health-based guideline value, how reliable the testing is, and what the water supplier or health authority recommends next.
Australia’s current PFAS drinking-water guideline values
The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines set the following health-based values:
| PFAS | Guideline value | Equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| PFOS | 8 ng/L | 0.008 µg/L |
| PFOA | 200 ng/L | 0.2 µg/L |
| PFHxS | 30 ng/L | 0.03 µg/L |
| PFBS | 1000 ng/L | 1 µg/L |
NHMRC says it could not derive a health-based guideline value for GenX chemicals at the time of the review. The 2025 update was based on a review undertaken from 2023 to 2025.
What is PFAS?
PFAS is a large family of manufactured fluorinated chemicals. They have been used because they resist heat, grease, stains and water. That same chemical stability means some PFAS persist for a long time in the environment.
PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFBS are individual members of that much larger family. They do not behave identically, which is one reason Australia does not use one single drinking-water number for “PFAS”.
What does a guideline value actually mean?
A health-based guideline is not a line between “completely harmless” and “poisonous”. It is a concentration developed for managing long-term exposure in drinking water, using toxicological evidence, assumptions about consumption and safety factors.
If a result is above a guideline value, the appropriate response is to investigate the source, confirm the result and reduce exposure as advised by the relevant authority. A one-off result below the value also does not prove that every possible PFAS has been tested.
That is why comparing a laboratory number with a social-media claim or with a limit from another country can be misleading. Different jurisdictions may use different toxicology reviews, endpoints, assumptions and regulatory frameworks.
Should Australians be worried about ordinary tap water?
For most households connected to a regulated town-water supply, the first source of information should be the water supplier and the relevant state or territory health authority. Public systems manage water against the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and state requirements.
Do not assume that bottled water is automatically a safer answer. “Bottled”, “purified” and “distilled” describe different things, as our guide to bottled versus distilled water explains.
PFAS concerns are more likely to need specific investigation where there is a known local contamination source, contaminated groundwater, a private bore or advice from an environmental or health agency.
When does household testing make sense?
Testing is most useful when it answers a real question. Examples include a private groundwater supply near a known PFAS investigation area, an official advisory, or confirmation that a treatment system is working.
PFAS testing requires specialised laboratory methods. A general home water-quality strip cannot tell you whether PFOS is present at 8 nanograms per litre. If testing is warranted, use an appropriately accredited laboratory and follow sampling instructions carefully.
For other hazards, the treatment should also match the problem. Our guide to purifying water at home and outdoors explains why boiling, disinfection and filtration solve different problems.
Can you remove PFAS at home?
Some activated-carbon and reverse-osmosis systems can reduce particular PFAS, but the words “carbon filter” or “reverse osmosis” alone are not enough evidence. Look for a current third-party contaminant-reduction claim for the complete product and follow its cartridge or membrane replacement schedule.
Our companion guide, Does Reverse Osmosis Remove PFAS?, explains how to read certification claims and why a certified component is not the same as a certified complete system.
For the broader limits of RO, see what reverse osmosis removes.
Do not boil PFAS-contaminated water to remove PFAS
Boiling is useful for many microbiological hazards, but it is not a PFAS-removal method. Water evaporates during boiling while persistent dissolved contaminants may remain. If an authority issues PFAS-specific advice, follow that advice rather than improvising a treatment.
A practical checklist
- Check whether your water comes from a regulated town supply, rainwater system, bore or another source.
- Look for current information from your water supplier and state or territory health authority.
- If PFAS testing is justified, use a laboratory method designed for PFAS.
- Compare each result with the Australian guideline value for that specific chemical.
- If treatment is recommended, choose equipment with a relevant, independently verified reduction claim.
- Maintain the system exactly as specified; an overdue filter is not a permanent treatment solution.
- Retest when authorities or the treatment plan recommend it.
The bottom line
Australia’s updated PFAS guidance gives water suppliers, regulators and households more specific numbers to work with. It does not justify panic about every tap, and it does not make a generic water filter a PFAS solution.
Start with the source of your water and credible local testing. If treatment is needed, match the treatment to the contaminant and verify the claim rather than relying on “pure”, “premium” or “advanced filtration” marketing.
