COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability Towards a Toxic-Free Environment
Date: 2020-10-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU strategy, chemical pollution, chemical product, chemicals legislation, environmental protection, organic chemical, product safety, public health, toxic substance

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 14.10.2020  SWD(2020) 249 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)     Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability    Towards a Toxic-Free Environment {COM(2020) 667 final} - {SWD(2020) 225 final} - {SWD(2020) 247 final} - {SWD(2020) 248 final} - {SWD(2020) 250 final} - {SWD(2020) 251 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 

1.  What are PFAS: properties, uses, concerns and sources of emissions 

Poly-  and  perfluoroalkyl  substances  (PFAS)  are  a  group  of  widely  used  man-made  organic 
chemical substances.   

They contain alkyl groups1 on which all or many of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced 
with  fluorine2.  Well  known  PFAS  contain  fully  fluorinated  carbon  chains3  of  various  chain 
lengths  attached  to  a  functional  group,  like  carboxylic  or  sulfonic  acids.  Such  groups  are 
called  perfluorinated  acids  and  include  PFOA4  and  PFOS5.  Shorter  chain  PFAS  have  been 
developed  more  recently  to  substitute  the  longer  chain  ones.  In  this  context,  an  important 
distinction is the one between “long chain” and “short chain” PFAS6.  

The PFAS group includes also polymers: e.g. fluoropolymers7, perfluoropolyethers8 and side-
chain fluorinated polymers9.  

The OECD has published a clear explanation of the different groups of PFAS10. Examples of 
typical PFAS structures are shown in Figure 1.  

1 An alkyl is a functional group that contains only carbon and hydrogen atoms. 
2 In Buck et al. (2011) the definition of per- and polyfuoroalkyl substances (PFAS) was “the highly fluorinated aliphatic 
substances that contain 1 or more C atoms on which all the H substituents have been replaced by F atoms, in such a manner 
that they contain the perfluoroalkyl moiety CnF2n+1–” (where n is equal to or greater than 1, i.e. the structure must contain at 
least one CF3– group). In 2018, OECD Global PFC Group defined PFAS as chemicals with at least one perfluorocarbon 
moiety (–CnF2n–). 
3 In a fully fluorinated carbon chain, all hydrogen atoms have been replaced by fluorine. 
4 PFOA is the abbreviation for Perfluorooctanoic acid 
5 PFOS is the abbreviation for Perfluoroctane sulfonic acid 
6 “Long-chain PFAS” include perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCA) with 7 or more perfluorinated carbons, perfluoroalkane 
sulfonic acids (PFSA) with 6 or more perfluorinated carbons, and their precursors. This distinction applies only to PFCAs, 
PFSAs and their precursors. 
7 Fluoropolymers have a carbon-only backbone with fluorine atoms directly attached to it. 
8 Perfluoropolyethers have a carbon and oxygen backbone with fluorine atoms directly attached to the carbon atoms. 
9 Side-chain fluorinated polymers have a non-fluorinated backbone with fluorinated side chains. 
10 https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-chemicals/aboutpfass/Figure1-classification-of-per-and-
polyfluoroalkyl-substances%20-PFASs.pdf  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  1:  Examples  of  PFAS  chemistries.  From  Kwiatkowski  et  al.  (2020),  Environ.  Sci. 
Technol. Lett. 2020, 7, 8, 532-543 

Functional groups in PFAS substances can be variable11, and this variability explains both the 
large number of PFAS and their different applications. A 2015 study reported that more than 
3,000 PFAS were on the global market for commercial use12. In 2018, the OECD found over 
4,700 different CAS numbers for PFAS13. The number of PFAS commercially produced and 
used  could  be  even  higher,  as  in  some  cases  their  identities  are  considered  confidential 
business information and impurities and by-products are not declared. 

The carbon-fluorine bond is extremely strong and stable14. When the non-polar fluorocarbon 
chain is linked to a polar structure, the PFAS become surfactants. These characteristics give 
PFAS  very  useful  properties,  such  as  oil  and  water  repellence,  high  chemical,  physical  and 
temperature resistance and ability to act as surfactants. Because of such properties and of the 
structural variability due to the functional groups, PFAS have been used in a wide variety of 
products and industrial applications. Their uses include polymerisation aids in fluoropolymers 
production,  surfactants  in  fire-fighting  foams,  anti-mist  agents  in  chromium  plating,  water- 

11 Examples of functional groups include alcohols (-OH), amines (-NH2), halogens (-F, -Cl, -Br, -I), esters (-CO2R), ethers (-
O-), thiols (-SH), carboxylic acids (-CO2H), sulfonic acids (-SO3H), sulfinic acids (-SO2H), sulfones (-SO2R), phosphate 
acids (-PO(OH)2), phosphinic acids (-PO(OH)), as well as their derivatives, including salt forms and polymers (OECD 2018, 
Glüge et al. 2020). 
12 Swedish Chemicals Agency (2015), Occurrence and use of highly fluorinated substances and alternatives: Report from a 
government assignment.  
13 For a list of 4,730 PFAS-related CAS numbers compiled from publicly accessible sources of information, see OECD 
(2018), Toward a new comprehensive global database of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs): summary report on 
updating the OECD 2007 list of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).  
14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon%E2%80%93fluorine_bond  

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
and oil repellence in textiles, leather, food contact materials and cosmetics. They are also used 
in the production of components of semiconductors and medical devices, as co-formulant in 
plant protection products, biocides, feed additives, pharmaceuticals and paints. A recent study 
identified  more  than  200  use  categories  and  subcategories  for  more  than  1400  individual 
PFAS15. 

The very strong bond between carbon and fluorine, that gives PFAS their properties, is also 
responsible  for  their  main  concern:  they  are  persistent.  While  some  of  the  more  complex 
molecules  can  partially  degrade,  they  will  ultimately  form  a  PFAS  that  is  persistent  in  the 
environment (such as PFOA or PFOS and smaller perfluorinated substances). Substances with 
a  non-fluorinated  (hydrocarbon)  part  in  addition  to  their  PFAS-elements  often  degrade  until 
they reach persistent PFAS degradation products16. 

Another  characteristic  shared  by  some  of  the  short-chain  and  generally  small  PFAS  is  their 
mobility  in  the  environment17.  This  property,  combined  with  persistency,  causes  PFAS 
accumulation  in  water  bodies,  drinking  water,  plants  and  air.  A  large  number  of  PFAS 
contamination cases of water (including drinking water18) and soil have been detected in the 
EU and globally19.  Some PFAS can be highly mobile in air, leading to their accumulation and 
transport over long distances20. 

Several  PFAS  can  also  bioaccumulate21  in  humans,  animals  and  plants  and,  among  the  few 
that are well studied, most are considered to be toxic. Some PFAS are classified as Persistent, 
Bioaccumulative  and  Toxic  (PBT)  and  very  Persistent  and  very  Bioaccumulative  (vPvB) 
under  REACH22.  The  European  Environment  Agency23  lists  the  main  effects  of  PFAS  on 
human  health,  which  include  thyroid  disease,  increased  cholesterol  levels,  effects  on 
reproduction  and  fertility,  immunotoxicity,  liver  damage,  kidney  and  testicular  cancer. 
Immunotoxicity and endocrine effects have been reported for some PFAS. A recent opinion 
from  the  European  Food  Safety  Agency  (EFSA)  concluded  that  both  PFOS  and  PFOA  are 
associated  with  reduced  antibody  response  to  vaccination.  PFOS  also  causes  a  reduced 
resistance  to  infection.  EFSA  concluded  that  parts  of  the  European  population  exceeds  the 
tolerable weekly intake from food of four PFAS24. Reported effects of PFAS on aquatic and 
terrestrial animals include survival, growth, development and reproduction25.  

A  main  source  of  PFAS  to  humans  and  the  environment  is  their  production  and  use  in 
industrial  and  professional  installations,  e.g.  as  production  of  fluoropolymers,  use  of  fire-

15 Gluge et al (2020), An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Accepted for publication. 
16  Liu  et  al.  (2014),  Microbial  degradation  of  polyfluoroalkyl  chemicals  in  the  environment:  a  review.  Butt  et  al.  (2013), 
Biotransformation pathwayss of fluorotelomer-based polyfluoroalkyl substances: a review. 
17 Kwiatkowski et al. (2020), Scientific basis to manage PFAS as a chemical class 
18 WHO (2017), Keeping our water clean: the case of water contamination in the Veneto Region, Italy. 
19 Nordic Council of Ministers (2019), The cost of inaction, chapter 4 « The case studies » 
20 Young et al (2010), Atmospheric perﬂuorinated acid precursors: chemistry, occurrence, and impacts 
21 Ian T. Cousins (2017), Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in materials, humans and the environment. 
22 Perfluorohexane sulphonic acid (PFHxS) and its salts, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)  
and its salts, nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) and its salts (https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table)  
23 https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/human/chemicals/emerging-chemical-risks-in-europe  
24 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pfas-food-efsa-assesses-risks-and-sets-tolerable-intake. EFSA assessed the combined 
exposure from four PFAS: PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS and PFOS.  
25 https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Land/final-impact-of-pfas-on-ecosystems_0.pdf 

3 

 
 
                                                           
fighting  foams,  use  in  the  production  of  textiles,  paints  and  printing  inks  and  food  contact 
materials.  Another  source  is  the  release  from  consumer  products,  such  as  textiles,  polishing 
and cleaning products, cosmetics and food contact materials, during their use and at the end of 
their life. PFAS can be released to the environment from industrial and municipal waste-water 
treatment plants, landfills, recycling and incineration plants and from re-use of contaminated 
sewage  sludge.  The  number  of  sites  potentially  emitting  PFAS  has  been  estimated  to  be 
approximately 100 000 in Europe26. 

Figure 2: emission of and exposure to PFAS during their lifecycle (source: EEA-ETC report, 
Systemic view on fluorinated polymers, forthcoming 2020). 

2.  Existing regulations on PFAS, in the EU and globally 

Some  PFAS  have  been  regulated  in  Europe  and  internationally.  This  is  the  case  for  PFOA, 
PFOS  and  chemicals  that  can  degrade  to  them  (part  of  the  group  of  “long  chain  PFAS”), 
which were widely used in the past mostly as polymerisation aids, in fire-fighting foams, in 

26  The  Nordic  Council  of  Ministers  (2019),  The  Costs  of  Inaction. A  socioeconomic  analysis  of  environmental  and  health 
impacts linked to exposure to PFAS 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
textile treatment, in medical devices and semiconductors. They are PBTs or vPvBs and they 
are found in the environment, in humans and in animals, sometimes far from contamination 
sources.  For  these  reasons,  PFOA  and  PFOS  have  been  listed  under  the  Stockholm 
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and as a consequence, are now restricted 
under the EU POPs Regulation27. 

Another long-chain PFAS (PFHxS)28, less widely used than PFOA and PFOS but often found 
in the environment and in human biomonitoring, is currently being assessed for a restriction 
under REACH29 and is also considered for listing under the Stockholm Convention30. 

Some longer chain PFAS (C9-C14 PFCAs) are not known to be intentionally used in the EU, 
but  they  can  be  present  as  impurities  during  the  manufacture  of  other  PFAS.  A  restriction 
process under REACH is ongoing for those substances31. 

When  the  regulatory  processes  on  long-chain  PFAS  started,  industry  developed  other 
fluorinated substances (the so called “short chain PFAS”) as alternatives.  

Although  some  of  the  short-chain  PFAS  alternatives  are  less  bioaccumulative,  they  are 
equally persistent  in  the  environment  as the substances they  replace32. This  means that they 
could still lead to adverse effects, if people are continuously exposed, and to accumulation in 
the  environment.  Moreover,  there  is  evidence  of  higher  uptake  in  vegetables  than  the  long-
chain PFAS33, which indicates a potential to contaminate food sources. 

Because of these concerns, some of the short-chain PFAS are starting to be regulated under 
the EU chemicals legislation (REACH34). 

HFPO-DA  (better  known  as  Gen-X)  has  replaced  PFOA  as  processing  aid  for  producing 
fluoropolymers. In 2019, it was identified as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC)35 on 
the basis of its high potential to cause effects in wildlife and in humans due to its very high 
persistence, mobility in water, potential for long-range transport, accumulation in plants and 
observed  effects  on  human  health  and  the  environment.  At  the  time  of  identification,  the 
responsible body (the Member State Committee of the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA) 
also indicated as a concern the potential exposure through the food chain and drinking water, 
as  well  as  difficulties  to  remediate  polluted  media  and  remove  HFPO-DA  from  drinking 
water. 

27 Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants. PFOA has been listed in Annex I of the POPs Regulation with Regulation (EU) 2020/784. 
28 https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.259.368  
29 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1827f87da  
30 http://chm.pops.int/Convention/POPsReviewCommittee/Chemicals/tabid/243/Default.aspx  
31 https://echa.europa.eu/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.256.331  
32 Scheringer M et al. (2014), Helsingør Statement on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) 
33 Krippner et al. (2014), Effects of chain length and pH on the uptake and distribution of perfluoroalkyl substances in maize 
(Zea mays). Blaine et al. (2014), Perfluoroalkyl acid uptake in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) 
irrigated with reclaimed water. 
34 https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas  
35 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-svhc-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e1832708a2  

5 

 
 
                                                           
Perfluorobutane  sulfonic  acid  (PFBS)  is  also  used  in  the  production  of  fluoropolymers.  In 
2020, it was identified as a SVHC36 on the basis of its very high persistence, high mobility in 
water and soil, high potential for long-range transport, and difficulty of remediation and water 
purification  as  well  as  moderate  bioaccumulation  in  humans.  Other  concerns  included 
probable serious effects for human health and the environment. 

Germany has proposed PFHxA and its precursors for a restriction under REACH37. These are 
also  short-chain  PFAS  developed  as  alternatives  to  the  restricted  long-chain  ones  for  use  in 
fire-fighting  foams,  in  the  production  of  fluoropolymers  and  in  treatment  of  textiles.  The 
ECHA Scientific Committees are currently assessing the restriction dossier. 

A group of Member States and Norway have recently announced the intention to work on a 
restriction under REACH covering all uses of the whole group of PFAS38. 

Apart  from  the  chemicals  legislation,  some  PFAS  are  regulated,  or  in  the  process  of  being 
regulated, under the water and food legislations. The details are presented in chapters 6 and 8 
respectively. 

3.  Why the existing regulatory actions are not sufficient to address PFAS concerns 

The ban of widely used long-chain PFAS has led to their substitution with a large number of 
shorter  chain  PFAS.  Several  of  these  alternatives  are  now  under  regulatory  scrutiny  in  the 
REACH  Regulation  because  of  the  concern  they  pose  for  the  environment  and  for  human 
health.  There  is  little  information  on  production  volumes,  uses,  properties,  toxicological 
profiles  and  biological  effects  of  many  of  these  substances.  Because  of  the  high  number  of 
different  PFAS  that  can  be  produced  for  the  same  uses,  each  PFAS  can  be  individually 
produced at a rather low tonnage.  Moreover, many PFAS are polymers, currently not subject 
to  registration  under  REACH.  The  low  production  volumes  and  polymer  status  limit  the 
information available on many PFAS. 

In  some  cases,  the  short-chain  PFAS  have  a  lower  performance  than  the  long-chain  PFAS, 
requiring  larger  quantities  for  a  specific  use,  leading  to  higher  emissions39.  This  is  for 
example the case of uses in the treatment of textiles. Thus, it is likely that the widespread and 
increasing  use  of  short-chain  PFAS  will  lead  to  environmental  and  human  exposure,  to  an 
increasing environmental concentration and possibly to adverse effects, repeating the problem 
caused by the long-chain PFAS. 

The  concerns  are  not  limited  to  short-chain  PFAS.  While  most  of  the  commercial  uses  of 
long-chain PFAS are restricted or in the process of being restricted in the EU, they continue to 
be produced as by-products during the manufacturing process of the short-chain alternatives 

36 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-svhc-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e182bbccf8  
37 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-restriction-intentions/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18323a25d  
38 https://www.rivm.nl/qas-pfas-restriction-proposal, https://www.reach-clp-biozid-
helpdesk.de/SharedDocs/Meldungen/DE/REACH/2020-05-08-RMOA-PFAS.html  
39  Scheringer M et al. (2014), Helsingør Statement on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
and,  as  a  consequence,  they  can  be  emitted.  They  are  also  present  as  impurities  in  the 
alternatives.  Because  some  of  them  can  be  transported  over  long  distances,  emissions  from 
production and use outside the EU will lead to exposure in the EU. Their presence in articles 
produced before the entry into application of the restrictions is going to represent a continuous 
source of emissions to the environment also in the future.  

A fundamental problem of the approach followed until now for PFAS is that it is limited to 
individual substances or groups of closely related substances. The high number of substances 
and the lack of information on each specific substance makes it impossible to assess all PFAS 
substance-by-substance. 

The long-term  socioeconomic costs of the PFAS  emitted to  the environment  are difficult  to 
assess. Because of their high persistence, PFAS released over the whole lifecycle of a product 
will  remain  in  the  environment  for  an  indefinite  time.  One  of  the  main  concerns  is  that  the 
contamination in some cases may be irreversible, making fundamental natural resources such 
as soil and water no longer usable.  

The Nordic Council40 has looked at how the production and use of PFAS, including end-of-
life disposal, have resulted in widespread environmental contamination and human exposure. 
It has presented several  case studies of contamination in Europe, from PFAS manufacturing 
facilities,  manufacture  of  PFAS-containing  products,  use  of  fire-fighting  foams  and  of 
consumer  products  e.g.,  cosmetics,  textiles  and  food  contact  materials.  This  study  has 
estimated  the  costs  for  society  related  to  PFAS,  including  health  related  costs  and  costs  for 
remediation  of  contaminated  water  and  soil.  Findings  indicate  that  the  costs  are  substantial, 
with  annual  health-related  costs  estimated  to  52  –  84  billion  EUR  for  all  EEA  countries. 
While, on the one hand, uncertainties in the analysis need to be acknowledged, on the other 
hand, the findings could  be considered conservative and may increase over time in  case the 
production volume of PFAS keeps increasing. 

A  group  of  leading  scientists  studying  PFAS  has  published  statements,  i.e.,  the  Helsingør 
Statement41, the Madrid  Statement42, and the Zurich Statement43 highlighting the health and 
environmental  risks  posed  by  PFAS  and  the  need  to  regulate  them  as  a  group,  as  well  as 
asking  for  their  production  and  use  to  be  limited.  The  proposal  to  group  all  PFAS  for 
regulatory  action  is  based  on  concerns  related  to  the  high  persistence  of  PFAS,  the  lack  of 
knowledge on chemical structures, properties, uses, and toxicological profiles of most PFAS 
currently in use. 

40 The Nordic Council of Ministers (2019), The Costs of Inaction. A socioeconomic analysis of environmental and health 
impacts linked to exposure to PFAS 
41 Scheringer M et al. (2014),  Helsingør Statement on poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs)  
42 Blum A et al. (2015), The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)   
43 Ritscher A et al. (2018), Zürich Statement on Future Actions on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)   

7 

 
 
                                                           
Industries  producing  PFAS  have  replied  to  the  Madrid  statement,  underlining  the  different 
environmental  and  human  health  impacts  due  to  the  structural  variability  of  PFAS  and  the 
societal benefits of their use44. 

In  June  2019,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  noted  “the  growing  evidence  for  adverse 
effects  caused  by  exposure  to  highly  fluorinated  compounds  (PFAS),  the  evidence  for 
widespread occurrence of PFAS in water, soil, articles and waste and the threat this may cause 
to  our  drinking  water  supplies”  and  asked  the  Commission  to  “develop  an  action  plan  to 
eliminate all non-essential uses of PFAS”45. 

In December 2019, some Member States and Norway sent a letter to the Commission to ask 
for an EU action plan to address the concern posed by PFAS and provided some suggestions 
on its possible content46.  

In  July  2020,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  the  Chemicals  Strategy  for 
Sustainability47 asking the Commission to “ensure the speedy phasing out of all non-essential 
uses of PFAS, and to accelerate the development of safe and non-persistent alternatives to all 
uses of PFAS”.  

4.  A possible way forward to address PFAS concern 

The regrettable substitution seen in the case of long-chain PFAS and the very high number of 
PFAS on the market show that the approach taken until now of regulating them individually 
(or in small groups of closely related substances) is not efficient and does not fully address the 
concerns  they  pose.  This  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  beneficial  if,  as  far  as 
possible, future regulatory initiative concerning PFAS address them as a group.  

Recent  publications  have  investigated  various  approaches  that  could  be  taken  to  regulate 
PFAS  as  a  chemical  class48  or  as  sub-groups,  based  on  their  intrinsic  properties  (e.g. 
persistence,  bioaccumulation  potential,  toxicity,  mobility,  molecular  size)49.  The  authors 
conclude  that  an  approach  to  grouping  based  on  persistence  alone  could  be  justified 
considering that the continuous release of persistent chemicals will lead to widespread, long-
lasting, irreversible and increasing contamination. It will also result in increasing probabilities 
of  adverse  effects  on  human  health  and  the  environment,  especially  for  substances  that,  as 
PFAS, can contaminate soil, water and the food chain.  

44 Bowman (2015), Fluorotechnology is critical to modern life: the FluoroCouncil counterpoint to the Madrid Statement. 
Social benefits of PFAS include producing durable and lightweight tubing in aircrafts, trucks, and buses, enabling high-speed 
data transfer for wireless communications, or providing protective surface finishes for textiles such as surgical gowns that 
shield against pathogens. 
45 http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10713-2019-INIT/en/pdf  
46 https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/1439a5cc9e82467385ea9f090f3c7bd7/fluor---eu-strategy-for-pfass---december-
19.pdf  
47 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0201_EN.html  
48 Kwiatkowski et al. (2020), Scientific basis to manage PFAS as a chemical class 
49 Cousins et al, (2020) “Strategies for grouping per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to protect human and 
environmental health” 

8 

 
 
 
                                                           
If  more  and  more  legislations  start  to  address  PFAS  as  a  group,  there  will  be  a  need  for 
analytical methods to measure all PFAS. There are methods available to measure individual 
PFASs  (mostly  those  already  regulated)  with  a  sufficient  specificity  and  sensitivity.  Some 
methods  have  been  developed  to  measure  organic  fluorine  content  as  surrogate  for  PFAS50, 
but  they  may  include  also  fluorine  from  other  sources.    Another  method  measures  the 
presence  of  PFAS  precursors51,  but  it  does  now  detect  all  PFAS.  Both  methods  are  semi-
quantitative. Such non–specific methods could be useful screening tools to detect and quantify 
the presence of more PFAS in different matrices. While methods with adequate performances 
exist for e.g. water, sludge and biota, their applicability and sensitivity will need to be adapted 
to the specific legal purposes. 

The  very  large  number  of  uses  of  PFAS,  including  some  critical  for  society  (for  example, 
medical devices), show that some of their uses can bring high socio-economic benefits. Such 
benefits  should  be  compared  with  the  socio-economic  costs  of  the  environmental 
contamination and of the adverse effects on human health. A concept that could be useful in 
this assessment, with the purpose of reducing emissions, is that of “essential uses”. 

It  was  first  applied  in  the  Montreal  Protocol52,  which  defines  a  use  as  essential  if  it  is 
“necessary  for  health,  safety  or  is  critical  for  functioning  of  society”  and  “there  are  no 
available  technically  and  economically  feasible  alternatives”.  A  recent  paper53  has  tried  to 
apply this approach to PFAS, attributing some of their uses to different essential categories. 
The authors argue that many uses of PFAS can be phased-out because they are not necessary 
for the betterment of society or because there are non-fluorinated alternatives available. Only 
the uses of PFAS that are critical for society and which currently do not have alternatives that 
provide the same level of performance should be allowed. For such uses, society could accept 
the related costs, until suitable alternatives are available.  

An example could be the use of PFAS to provide water and oil repellence to textiles. While 
alternatives  that  provide  water  repellence  are  available,  they  do  not  yet  have  the  same 
performance  as  PFAS  for  oil  repellence.  For  certain  consumer  uses,  oil  repellence  could  be 
considered  convenient  but  not  essential,  and  alternatives  could  therefore  replace  PFAS.  On 
the other hand, for some workers protection clothes oil repellence could be essential to ensure 
a high level of protection, then PFAS should be allowed to be used until suitable alternatives 
are available. 

Because  of  the  many  sources  of  PFAS  in  the  environment  and  considering  their  high 
persistence, in addition to limiting the emissions at the source, there is a need to identify and 
reduce existing pollution in the different environmental compartments. Restricting PFAS uses 
under the chemical and products specific legislations could therefore be complemented with 
actions under other legislative frameworks (water, food, industrial emissions, waste) and non-
legislative initiatives (soil). 

50 An overview of these methods was recently published by Koch et al. (2020), “Towards a comprehensive analytical 
workflow for the chemical characterisation of organofluorine in consumer products and environmental samples”. 
51 The TOP assay (TOPA) is a method to reveal the presence of any PFCA and PFSA precursors by oxidative conversion 
52 United Nations, Montreal Protocol, on substances that deplete the ozone layer, 1987, Decision IV/25 
53 Cousins et al. (2019), The concept of essential use to determine when uses of PFAS can be phased out 

9 

 
 
                                                           
The  next  chapters  will  look  at  the  regulatory  and  non-regulatory  approaches  that  could  be 
used  to  address  PFAS  concerns  in  the  EU  and  globally,  by  presenting  the  contribution  that 
each  initiative  could  provide,  in  addition  to  the  actions  already  taken  or  that  are  on-going. 
Most of the regulatory initiatives presented include public consultations, which would allow 
stakeholders to be informed and provide input on the planned regulatory actions.  

The regulatory and non-regulatory actions identified need to be supported with research and 
innovation  activities,  to  identify  alternative  substances  and  technologies  and  to  address 
existing contamination cases. This is discussed in detail in chapter 13. 

5.  Chemicals legislation  

5.1 A REACH restriction on all PFAS 

The  chemicals  legislation  (REACH)  has  a  very  effective  tool  to  manage  the  risk  from 
substances,  such  as  PFAS,  that  are  used  in  industrial  processes  but  also  in  products:  the 
restriction. A restriction can ban the manufacture, placing on the market or use of a chemical 
substance,  or  a  group  of  substances.  It  applies  also  to  imported  products  and  it  is  flexible, 
because it can include derogations, unlimited in time or time limited. A REACH restriction is 
an appropriate EU instrument to address PFAS concerns at the source.  

The European Commission has initiated two studies regarding a possible REACH restriction 
covering all uses of PFAS in fire-fighting foams and textiles (including upholstery, apparels, 
carpets and leather). These are among the uses with the largest emissions to the environment. 
The study on fire-fighting foams has recently been published54. 

In  parallel,  as  presented  in  chapter  2,  a  group  of  Member  States  and  Norway  have  initiated 
preliminary  work  on  a  REACH  restriction  covering  all  uses  of  all  PFAS.  The  restriction 
dossier  could  be  ready  in  2022,  for  a  discussion  in  Scientific  Committees  of  the  European 
Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in 2022-2023 and a potential entry into force in 2025. 

The use in fire-fighting foams is responsible for a large number of cases of contamination55. 
Users such as in airports and industrial sites are currently in the process of replacing the fire-
fighting foams containing long-chain PFAS because of the entry into application of the PFOA 
restriction  in  the  POPs  Regulation56.  As  the  Commission  study  shows,  fluorine-free  fire-
fighting  foams  are  available  for  most  of  the  uses.  There  is  an  advantage  to  proceed  with  a 
restriction on all PFAS in fire-fighting foams before the restriction covering all the other uses 
as users would know that further regulation is coming for PFAS-based fire-fighting foams and 
would  avoid  the  costs  of  a  second  regrettable  substitution.  Moreover,  the  substitution  to 

54  https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/28801697/pfas_flourine-free_alternatives_fire_fighting_en.pdf/d5b24e2a-d027-
0168-cdd8-f723c675fa98  
55 Nordic Council of Ministers (2019), The cost of inaction, Case study 4.3: Contamination from use of aqueous film-forming 
foams 
56 Regulation (EU) 2020/784 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
fluorine-free  alternatives  would  happen  earlier, 
contaminations. 

reducing 

the 

risks  of  additional 

For  these  reasons,  the  European  Commission  has  asked  ECHA  to  develop  an  Annex  XV 
restriction dossier for the use of PFAS in fire-fighting foams57. This dossier could serve as 
a case-study for the broad restriction on PFAS, supporting the Member States’ and Norway’s 
work.  For  example,  the  discussions  in  ECHA’s  Risk  Assessment  Committee  on  the 
approaches  to  the  hazard  assessment  of  PFAS  in  the  case  of  the  fire-fighting  foams  will 
inform the dossiers submitters of the broad restriction for their own assessment. 

The  Commission’s  study  on  PFAS  in  textiles,  upholstery,  apparels,  carpets  and  leather  is 
intended to further support the work of the Member States and Norway. 

As described in chapter 4, one way to address the concern of PFAS under the chemicals and 
products legislations could be to ensure that the use of PFAS is allowed only when essential 
for society. The authorities working on the broad restriction dossier intend to restrict all uses 
of PFAS except those that are essential58. However, at present there is no agreed definition of 
what  is  an  essential  use  or  what  criteria  could  be  used  to  define  those  uses.  The  European 
Commission could contribute to the debate by developing a policy document on the concept 
of essential uses, to be discussed with the Competent Authorities for REACH, using PFAS as 
a case study. 

As discussed in chapter 1, several PFAS are polymers, and as such, under REACH Art. 3(5),  
are  currently  not  subject  to  REACH  registration.  A  study  on  the  development  of  criteria  to 
identify  and  group  polymers  for  registration  under  REACH  was  recently  published59.  The 
study is intended to provide a basis for discussions between stakeholders, Member States and 
the  European  Commission  on  which  polymers  could  be  subject  to  the  REACH  registration 
requirement. The outcome of those discussions will feed into an impact assessment with the 
objective to develop a proposal for REACH registration of polymers of concern. 

It is well known that PFAS polymers are persistent and can contain non-polymeric PFAS used 
in  the  production  process  (for  example,  as  polymerisation  aids)  as  impurities60.  While 
polymers  can  be  covered  by  the  PFAS  restrictions,  some  essential  uses  for  which  there  are 
currently no alternatives might be derogated. The REACH registration would allow access to 
information such as production volumes, presence of residual oligomers and monomers, other 
impurities and degradation products for polymers and uses derogated from the restriction.  

As  also  mentioned  in  chapter  4,  to  ensure  a  proper  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the 
restrictions, there will be a need for validated analytical tests to measure PFAS as a chemical 
class  in  different  matrices,  at  sufficiently  high  sensitivity.  Analytical  tests  are  further 
discussed in chapter 6 on water legislations. 

57 https://echa.europa.eu/current-activities-on-restrictions  
58 https://www.rivm.nl/qas-pfas-restriction-proposal 
59 https://op.europa.eu/s/ohY1  
60 Lohman et al., (2020), “Are fluoropolymers really of low concern for human and environmental health and separate from 
other PFAS?” Environmental Science and Technology, Accepted for publication Oct 1, 2020 

11 

 
 
                                                           
As  explained  in  chapter  1,  PFAS  are  used  in  applications  that  are  covered  by  specific 
legislations, such as cosmetics, food contact materials, plant protection products and biocides. 
Such uses could all be covered by the restriction to achieve a high level of protection. Some 
sector-specific  legislations  are  described  below,  outlining  how  they  could  complement  the 
REACH restriction. 

5.2 PFAS in sector-specific legislations 

Food contact materials 

PFAS  are widely used in food contact  materials for their oil and water repelling  properties. 
Regulation  (EC)  1935/2004  covers  materials  that  come  into  contact  with  food.  This 
Regulation sets out general rules and provides the basis for specific EU measures that cover 
certain materials, including plastic (Regulation (EU) 10/2011). The Regulation contains a list 
of  substances  permitted  for  use  in  plastic  food  contact  materials,  which  includes  several 
PFAS. While those PFAS have been authorised for use in plastics because their use in contact 
with food does not cause health concerns, the production of those food contact materials and 
their eventual disposal is subject to the same general environmental concerns that the use of 
PFAS raises. Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 however does not allow for sufficient flexibility to 
anticipate concerns other than the health risks related to the use in contact with food. 

The  Commission  is  presently  reviewing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1935/2004  and  it  will  be 
subject  to  an  impact  assessment.  The  interface  with  other  legislation,  and  with  REACH  in 
particular, will be considered during that assessment to increase coherence and synergy. 

Plant protection products 

Annex  III  of  Regulation  (EC)  1107/2009  lists  co-formulants  not  accepted  for  use  in  plant 
protection  products.  The  REACH  restriction  in  preparation  aims  to  cover  this  use  of  PFAS 
and could be followed by the listing of PFAS in Annex III to Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. 

6.  Water legislations  

Drinking water directive 

Directive  98/83/EC  was  recently  reviewed  and,  as  a  result,  standards  for  PFAS  in  drinking 
water  were  introduced.  The  new  Directive  (to  be  adopted  by  the  end  of  2020)  includes  in 
Annex I a limit value of 0.1 µg/L for a sum of 20 individual PFAS listed in Annex III61, as 
well as a limit value of 0.5 µg/L for total PFAS concentration. The limit value of 0.5 μg/L will 
only  apply  once  a  method  for  measuring  “PFAS  total”  is  available.    The  Commission 

61 PFBA, PFPA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTrDA, PFBS, PFPS, PFHxS, PFHpS, 
PFOS, PFNS, PFDS, perfluoroundecane sulfonic acid, perfluorododecane sulfonic acid, perfluorotridecane sulfonic acid. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
organised  a  workshop  in  January  2020  to  discuss  possible  analytical  methods  for  the 
measurement of “PFAS total”62.  

The new Directive requires the Commission, supported by ECHA, to establish within 4 years 
after entry into force of the Directive, an EU positive list of substances to be used in materials 
in contact with drinking water. This shall be based on positive lists available in the Member 
States.  

To  ensure  that  the  materials  coming  in  contact  with  drinking  water  are  safe  against 
possible  PFAS  contamination,  the  EU  positive  list  could  consider  the  REACH  restrictions, 
the  maximum  levels  for  the  assessed  PFAS  substances  in  food  and  other  available  risk 
assessment information.  

Groundwater Directive 

The 2014 review of the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EEC) annexes led to an initiative, 
started  in  2015,  to  obtain  information  on  substances  posing  a  potential  risk  (emerging 
pollutants) in groundwater to include them in a voluntary Ground Water Watch List (GWWL) 
and possibly in the annexes of the Directive. PFAS was one of the first groups assessed63, for 
which 11 Member States provided monitoring data.  

Where sufficient monitoring data is available from a relevant number of sites at EU level, the 
amendment  of  Annex  I  and/or  II  of  the  Groundwater  Directive  could  be  considered  to 
include at least the 10 PFAS64 already identified in the watch list process as posing a risk  

Depending on availability of data and suitable analytical methods, additional PFAS could be 
included  in  the  watch  list,  with  the  aim  of  eventually  covering  all  known  PFAS  in  the 
Annexes. 

Water Framework Directive 

The Water Framework Directive (WFD, Directive 2000/60/EC) Annex X lists chemicals that 
are of concern in surface waters. The Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (EQS)65 
sets the quality standards to be achieved for each substance in surface water bodies.  

There  are  two  classes  of  chemicals:  priority  substances  (for  which  emissions  need  to  be 
reduced progressively) and the subset of priority hazardous substances (for which emissions 
should also cease). PFOS (and its derivatives) is the only PFAS currently listed as a priority 
hazardous substance. The EQS is set on biota based on risk to human health from consuming 
fishery products. 

62 The final report of the workshop is publicly available: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/65764c73-4a57-45dc-8199-
473014cf65bf/library/34012063-b0e8-4630-b221-19ddc6e81d28/details 
63 The final report is publicly available: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/9ab5926d-bed4-4322-9aa7-
9964bbe8312d/library/a547839e-c8ef-4a0d-b4f5-0cb877cdd17e/details  
64 PFBS, PFHxS, PFOS, PFBA, PFPA, PFHxA, PFHpA, PFOA, PFNA, PFDA. 
65 Directive 2008/105/EC amended by 2013/39/EC. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
When an analytical method is available, “PFAS total” could be listed in the WFD and EQS 
set. Specific PFAS  identified as SVHCs (e.g, PBT, vPvB, substances of  equivalent  level  of 
concern) and key PFAS often found in the environment could consequently be identified as 
priority hazardous substances. 

Analytical methods for water 

In  addition  to  the  specific  water  legislations,  the  work  on  analytical  methods  would  also 
benefit initiatives under the chemicals legislation. As explained in chapter 4, work is needed 
for the development of analytical guidelines for measuring “PFAS total” and groups of PFAS, 
including  detection  limits  and  parametric  values.  This  work  could  cover  methods  that  are 
already  available,  such  as  total  organic  fluorine.  Updated  guidelines  could  cover  not  only 
water, but also other environmental matrices, use in products to be regulated in the REACH 
restriction  and  in  food,  in  order  to  allow  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  other 
actions on PFAS. Funding for such work could be provided via the EU budget  for Research 
and Innovation (see chapter 10).  

7.  Horizontal products legislation  

PFAS  are  used  and/or  present  in  many  products,  including  for  consumer  use.  The  planned 
REACH  restriction  intends  to  cover  all  uses;  however,  it  will  take  some  time  before  it  is 
implemented. Meanwhile, better traceability of the presence of PFAS in products could be an 
advantage,  considering  that  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan 
(CEAP)66  is  to  address  the  presence  of  hazardous  chemicals  in  products.  PFAS  are  used  in 
many  of  the  priority  categories  for  action  of  the  CEAP  (textiles,  construction  products, 
electronics,  packaging  and  plastic).  Traceability,  trusted  and  verifiable  information  on  the 
presence of PFAS in products would help  consumers in their choices and could be used for 
Green Public Procurement as well as waste management and recycling.  

One possible solution could be to extend the EU Ecolabel requirements to exclude the use 
of  all  PFAS  in  the  various  products  categories  for  which  EU  Ecolabel  criteria  exist,  where 
PFAS could be used and/or present, whenever possible and feasible. 

The  sustainable  products  initiative  is  another  framework  that  could  be  used  for  including 
minimum  information  requirements  on  PFAS  content  for  consumers/supply  chain/public 
authorities. The presence of PFAS in products could be addressed through generic principles 
(i.e. for categories of products or all products) or product specific requirements. 

8.  Food legislation  

Food can become contaminated with PFAS mainly through contaminated soil and water used 
to grow the food, through the concentration of these substances in animals via feed and water 

66 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
and  also  through  PFAS-containing  food  contact  materials,  such  as  food  packaging  or  food 
processing equipment. 

Maximum levels for contaminants in food are set under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 on the 
basis of the ALARA principle (as low as reasonably achievable). In 2008, the European Food 
Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  carried  out  a  risk  assessment  by  deriving  Tolerable  Daily  Intake 
values (TDI) for PFOS, PFOA and their salts67. In 2018, EFSA proposed to lower the TDI for 
PFOS  and  PFOA68.  In  2020,  EFSA  updated  its  risk  assessment  for  PFOS  and  PFOA  and 
carried  out  a  risk  assessment  for  the  sum  of  PFOS,  PFOA,  PFNA  and  PFHxS.  The  EFSA 
opinion69 could serve as a basis to set maximum levels for the assessed PFAS substances in 
food. 

9.  The Industrial Emissions directive and European Pollutant Release and Transfer 

Register (E-PRTR)  

Industrial Emissions Directive 

Directive  2010/75/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  industrial  emissions 
(the  Industrial  Emissions  Directive  or  IED)  is  the  main  EU  instrument  regulating  pollutant 
emissions  from  large  industrial  installations,  including  emissions  of  PFAS  from  sites  where 
they  are  produced  or  used.  Industrial  activities  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  IED  are  required  to 
operate  in  accordance  with  a  permit  (granted  by  the  competent  authorities  in  the  Member 
States), if they exceed stated production thresholds.  Some of these activities produce or use 
PFAS.  Sector  4  of  Annex  I  covers  the  chemical  industry70,  including  the  facilities  that  are 
currently producing PFAS. 

However,  releases  of  PFAS  into  the  environment  can  also  occur  during  the  manufacture  of 
products where PFAS are used. Some of these activities are also listed in the IED’s Annex I: 
e.g.  surface  treatment  of  metals,  production  of  plant  protection  products,  biocide  and 
pharmaceuticals, production of textiles, leather tanning, production of pulp, paper, cardboard 
and wooden panels.  

IED permits are based on the Best Available Techniques (BAT) described in BAT Reference 
Documents  (BREFs).  The  Commission  adopts  the  BAT  conclusions  (as  Implementing 
Decisions)  and  Member  States  use  them  as  a  reference  to  define  the  permit  conditions.  In 
particular, the BAT associated emission levels (BAT-AELs) stated in BAT conclusions must 
not be exceeded when competent authorities set Emission Limits Values (ELVs) in permits. 

67 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.653  
68 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5194#  
69  https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pfas-food-efsa-assesses-risks-and-sets-tolerable-intake  
70 The parts of Annex I sector  4 that are relevant for PFAS are: 

4.1 Production of organic chemicals such as… 
(f) halogenic hydrocarbons,… 
(h) plastic materials (polymers, synthetic fibres and cellulose-based fibres), … 
(k) surface-active agents and surfactants. 
4.4 Production of plant protection products or of biocides 
4.5. Production of pharmaceutical products including intermediates 

15 

 
 
 
                                                           
Considering the persistence and mobility of PFAS in the environment, the objective should be 
to prevent or minimise emissions.   

Annex II of the IED lists the polluting substances for which Emission Limit Values (ELVs) 
must be set in the permits and it indirectly covers some PFAS71. In addition, Article 14(1)a of 
the  IED  requires  emission  limit  values  to  be  set  in  permits  “for  other  polluting  substances, 
which are likely to be emitted from the installation concerned in significant quantities, having 
regard to their nature and their potential to transfer pollution from one medium to another”.  

Waste  treatment  facilities  are  covered  by  the  IED  and  these  can  emit  PFAS.  The  BAT 
conclusions  for  waste  treatment72  address  PFOA  and  PFOS,  but  not  other  PFAS.  Permits 
given to waste treatment plants have to implement the obligations within four years of BAT 
conclusion publication. Authorities can consider emissions limits for all other PFAS as well 
as for PFOS and PFOA.  

Based  on  this,  there  is  scope  to  better  address  PFAS  as  a  chemical  class  under  the  IED. 
There are various ways to achieve this objective. 

In order to ensure that the IED covers the most polluting industrial activities, there may be a 
need  to  revise  the  IED’s  sectoral  scope.  The  review  of  the  IED  will  also  assess  whether 
further measures are required to address chemicals of concern such as PFAS and the need for 
BAT-AELs  and  /  or  specific  technical  requirements  (e.g.  closed  circuit  manufacturing  and 
PFAS substitution). 

When  relevant  BREFs  are  reviewed,  they  could  be  updated  to  address  PFAS  if  they  are 
identified  as  a  Key  Environmental  Issue  for  that  industrial  sector.  This  may  result  in 
identifying  their  use  as  non-BAT  and  setting  BAT-AELs  for  relevant  environmental 
compartments. As part of the rolling review programme of BREF,  the review of the textile 
industries BREF has already started73. 

European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register 

The  European  Pollutant  Release  and  Transfer  Register  (E-PRTR)74  makes  public  accessible 
emission  data  reported  by  Member  States  on  major  industrial  activities.  It  covers  emissions 
from the activities defined in Annex I of the E-PRTR Regulation75, which largely equates to 
Annex I of the IED. Some of these activities are sources of PFAS (chemical industry, surface 
treatment  of  metals,  waste  and  waste  water  management,  production  of  textile  and  leather). 
The  recently  completed  ‘Review  of  E-PRTR  implementation  and  related  guidance’76 
recommended  adding  to  the  E-PRTR  reporting  requirements  for  PFHxS,  PFOS  and  PFOA 
(including  their  salts  and  precursors).  Reporting  of  PFAS  emissions  would  increase  the 
knowledge on the release sources, enabling an identification of potential contaminated sites. 

71 Annex I includes PFOS, as it is listed as a priority hazardous substance in the WFD, and PFAS identified as CMRs and 
PBTs. 
72 Commission Implementing Decision 2018/1147 of 10 August 2018. 
73 https://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/textiles-industry  
74 https://prtr.ec.europa.eu/  https://prtr.eea.europa.eu/#/home  
75 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1583400375088&uri=CELEX:32006R0166 
76 Review of E-PRTR implementation and related guidance (in Tables 3.1 and 3.2). 

16 

 
 
                                                           
The upcoming Impact Assessment for the review of the E-PRTR Regulation could provide an 
opportunity  to  include  relevant  PFAS,  going  beyond  PFHxS,  PFOA  and  PFOS77.  It  could 
also consider the possibility of requiring the reporting of emissions of the whole family of 
PFAS78.  

10. Waste legislations  

PFAS are present as contaminants in waste from their production and use as well as in waste 
from  waste  management  activities.  They  can  be  present  in  sludge  from  the  treatment  of 
industrial  and  urban  wastewater,  in  landfill  leachate  and  in  emissions  from  incineration 
facilities. Waste treatment plants are covered by the IED presented in chapter 9.  

Sewage sludge can be an important source of emissions of PFAS to the environment, when it 
is applied on land for use in agriculture. The Sewage Sludge Directive79 regulates the use of 
sewage sludge in agriculture also by setting limits on the presence of heavy metals, but not of 
organic contaminants.  

The  Waste  Framework  Directive80  contains  specific  provisions  for  hazardous  waste.  The 
classification of a waste  as hazardous requires that  it exhibits one or more of the hazardous 
properties  listed  in  the  Directive.  In  practice,  this  is  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  hazard 
classification of the substances it contains and on their concentration in the waste. Only few 
PFAS,  e.g.  PFOA,  PFOS  and  some  other  long-chain  PFAS,  have  a  harmonised  hazard 
classification  under  the  Regulation  on  classification,  labelling  and  packaging  of  substances 
and  mixtures  (CLP)81.  However,  there  are  some  proposals  for  classification  of  additional 
PFAS  under CLP82  that could  in  the future lead to the classification as  hazardous of wastes 
containing them. 

PFOA  and  PFOS  are  identified  as  POPs  under  the  Stockholm  Convention.  In  the  EU,  the 
provisions  of  the  POPs  Regulation83  on  environmentally  sound  management  of  wastes 
containing  POPs  apply.  Moreover,  under  the  Basel  Convention,  the  Parties  have  developed 
technical guidelines on environmental sound management of POPs wastes. The guideline on 
wastes  consisting  of,  containing  or  contaminated  with  PFOS,  its  salts  and  perfluorooctane 
sulfonyl  fluoride  (PFSF),  is  currently  under  review  to  include  PFOA,  its  salts  and  PFOA 
related compounds. 

The results of the evaluation of the Sewage Sludge Directive, to be launched soon, and the 
results of subsequent  studies could  provide the opportunity to  introduce limits for organic 

77 The use of the list of 20 PFAS included in the Drinking Water Directive could be considered. 
78  Until  an  analytical  method  for  “total  PFAS”  is  available,  a  parameter  such  as  “Total  Organic  Fluorine”  could  be 
considered. 
79 Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when 
sewage sludge is used in agriculture.  
80 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste. 
81 Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures. 
82 https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-clh-intentions-until-outcome/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18333861c  
https://echa.europa.eu/registry-of-clh-intentions-until-outcome/-/dislist/details/0b0236e18333861c   
83 Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on persistent organic pollutants. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
contaminants  such  as  PFAS  in  the  event  of  the  review  of  the  Directive,  including  the 
possibility to have a limit for “total PFAS” and/or for a group of specific PFAS. 

The  EU  works  with  the  Member  States  and  all  Parties  to  the  Basel  Convention  in  the 
development and review of guidelines for sound management of POP waste. The European 
Commission will work in the adaptation of the relevant guidelines following any future listing 
of PFAS substances as POPs. 

As  indicated  in  the  new  CEAP,  the  Commission  will  amend  Annex  IV  of  the  POPs 
Regulation and is considering the introduction of a  limit value for PFOA and the possible 
review of the value for PFOS.  

The classification of PFAS substances under CLP has immediate effects on the classification 
of waste containing these substances. Developments under GHS and CLP relevant for PFAS 
could result in the need to further align the waste legislation with CLP.  

11. Land and soil  

There  are  many  examples  of  soils  contaminated  with  PFAS  in  the  EU84,  often  sites  where 
fluorinated fire-fighting foams have been used, for training or to extinguish a fire (e.g. local 
fire  stations,  training  centres,  civil  and  military  airports,  etc.).  Other  cases  of  contamination 
include industrial sites where PFAS were produced or used (e.g. industries producing metals, 
semi-conductors,  paper,  textile,  coatings,  hydraulic  fluids,  etc.),  landfills  (e.g.  containing 
carpets,  clothes,  furniture,  cooking  equipment,  etc.)  and  wastewater  treatment  plants. 
Additional sources of diffuse soil pollution can be deposition from the atmosphere of PFAS 
emitted  during  production,  waste  incineration,  use  in  plant  protection  products  or  biocides, 
and the application to soil of sewage or industrial sludge.  

Being mobile and  resistant  to  biodegradation, PFAS  can move from the soil to  contaminate 
groundwater and surface water and this has happened in many of the cases discovered in the 
EU. Soils contaminated with PFAS are usually excavated and disposed of in landfills. When 
the contamination has reached the groundwater, the remediation using filters is very long and 
costly85. The short chain PFAS, used to substitute the long chain ones after they started to be 
regulated,  are  more  difficult  to  remove  from  soil  and  water,  as  many  of  the  conventional 
treatments  are  not  effective86.  The  carbon-fluorine  bond  can  be  broken  only  by  thermal 
treatment of the soil at very high temperatures, at considerable costs.  

Unlike for other environmental compartments, there is no dedicated European legislation on 
soil  quality.  For  large  industrial  sites,  there  are  provisions  in  the  IED  that  relate  to  soil  / 

84 Nordic Council of Ministers (2019), The cost of inaction,  chapter 4 « The case studies » 
85 Data on the costs for the Veneto contamination case are available on The cost of inaction, chapter 4 « The case studies » 
86 Ross et al. (2018), A review of emerging technologies for remediation of PFASs 

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
groundwater  protection  and  remediation.  More  generally,  the  Environmental  Liability 
Directive87 establishes a framework for preventing and remedying environmental damage. 

Member  States  can  set  their  own  rules  and  standards,  but  only  very  few  have  defined  limit 
values  for  PFAS  in  soil.  The  Netherlands  recently  introduced  PFAS  limits  for  the  re-use  of 
excavated soil and sediment,  but  this has led to heavy debate because these new rules were 
considered  too  strict  and  were  slowing  down  construction  and  dredging  activities.  Several 
Member  States  such  as  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  Germany  have  started  measuring  the 
background  concentration  of  PFAS  in  soils,  identifying  the  main  sources  of  PFAS 
contamination and developing guidance and standards. The shared challenge to deal with the 
legacy  of  PFAS  and  other  chemicals  of  emerging  concern  was  also  the  reason  why  the 
Flemish authorities have recently set up an international network for emerging contaminants 
in soils (EmConSoil).  

The  EU  expert  group  on  soil  protection  could  consider  how  soil  contamination  from 
PFAS  can  be  addressed  at  EU  level  with  a  targeted  and  proportionate  risk-based  approach 
within a binding legal framework. They could also exchange knowledge and experiences on 
the safe, sustainable and circular re-use of excavated soil. This would allow to build further on 
the experience and knowledge of Member States in tackling PFAS in soils (e.g. ongoing work 
in  Germany,  Italy,  Netherlands  and  Belgium).  The  Zero  Pollution  Action  Plan  and  the 
revision  of  the  thematic  strategy  for  soil  protection  could  also  provide  a  framework  to 
address the concerns raised by PFAS contamination of soils. 

12. International dimension (OECD,  Stockholm and Rotterdam Convention, UN-

GHS)  

PFAS are discussed at international level because of their potential for long-range transport.  

The  OECD  has  been  working  for  some  years  to  exchange  information  on  PFAS,  with  the 
objective to support a global transition towards safer alternatives88. In this framework, a key 
activity has been the development of the database of PFAS89. Active EU involvement in this 
work helps to inform other OECD countries of its initiatives and approaches to address PFAS 
concerns.  

The UN Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) is 
the international system that aims at harmonising hazard classification of chemicals, labelling 
requirements and safety data sheets requirements. Similarly to ozone depleting substances, the 
concern  of  substances  that  can  contaminate  natural  resources  due  to  their  persistence  and 
mobility could be addressed with a new hazard class developed under the UN GHS system 
and/or the CLP Regulation.   

87 Directive 2004/34/EC  
88 https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/portal-perfluorinated-chemicals/  
89 http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV-JM-MONO(2018)7&doclanguage=en  

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
Some  PFAS  are  already  listed  in  the  annexes  of  the  Stockholm  Convention90  on  Persistent 
Organic  Pollutants  (POPs)  and  of  the  Rotterdam  Convention91  on  the  international  trade  of 
certain  hazardous  chemicals.  Continuously  proposing  and  supporting  the  listing  of 
relevant  PFAS  in  the  Stockholm  and  Rotterdam  Conventions  is  one  way  to  avoid 
emissions  from  PFAS  regulated  in  the  EU  but  not  yet  internationally  and  to  control  their 
trade, considering the outcome of the on-going and future EU restriction processes.  

13. Research and innovation  

To address the concerns of PFAS, targeted research and innovation activities could facilitate 
the implementation  of  regulatory  actions. These  activities relate to  analytical  methods (both 
screening methods for “total PFAS” and methods in various matrices for individual/groups of 
PFAS), alternative substances and technologies, remediation of contaminated soil and water, 
monitoring  of  emissions  and  fate  in  the  different  environmental  compartments  (including  at 
the waste stage), human health effects and biomonitoring. 

To this end, the Commission proposed a specific topic on persistent and mobile chemicals 
under  the  EU  Green  Deal  call  (WP2020  –  projects  to  be  selected  for  funding  in  2021)92, 
with the objective to focus on the following key aspects for PFAS:  

  Research and development of (bio)remediation technologies of contaminated soil and 
water  for  persistent  and  mobile  substances,  including  sources  of  drinking  water  for 
persistent and mobile chemicals;  

  Development  of new cost-effective high-resolution methods to  measure  and separate 

persistent and mobile chemicals in different media;  

  Environmental  and  human  (bio)monitoring  of  persistent  and  mobile  chemicals; 
gathering of toxicity and toxico-kinetic information in order to allow characterising all 
risks  to  human  health,  arising  from  the  exposure  to  the  entire  group  of  these 
substances, including effects on the immune system;  

  Development of best practices for the management of waste containing persistent and 

mobile substances; detection and identification of specific pollution problems. 

Supporting  the  search  for  alternatives  to  PFAS  could  also  be  done  through  the  next 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Innovation,  Horizon  Europe,  under  Cluster  3 
“Digital and Industry”.  

14. Conclusion 

90 http://www.pops.int/  
91 http://www.pic.int/  
92 Green Deal call “Innovative, systemic zero-pollution solutions to protect health, environment and natural resources from 
persistent and mobile chemicals” 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The chemical class of PFAS poses concerns for human health and the environment because of 
their persistence and potential mobility, bioaccumulation and toxicity. PFAS will be present 
in  the  environment  for  a  very  long  time,  even  if  releases  stopped  immediately.  Their 
emissions  are  also  causing  long-term  accumulation  in  the  environment  and  organisms,  with 
increasing  risks  of  harm.  There  are  many  examples  of  PFAS  contamination  of  resources 
fundamental for human life, such as water and soil, with very high costs for society.  

The regulation of individual or of groups of closely related PFAS has led to substitution with 
other  PFAS,  which  are  becoming  an  increasing  concern.  Their  very  high  number  makes  it 
impossible to do a substance-by-substance assessment. Therefore, PFAS should be regulated 
as a chemical class, and initiatives going in this direction have started under the chemicals and 
the  water  legislations.  PFAS  should  be  addressed  in  other  legislations  as  well,  ideally  in  a 
coordinated  approach,  combining  restrictions  on  production  and  use  with  control  and 
reduction of emissions in the cases where they still need to be produced and used. The Annex 
to the Communication on a Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability presents the key actions to 
be taken by the European Commission on PFAS. 

PFAS  are  widely  used  and  some  of  these  uses  bring  benefits  to  the  society.  Examples  are 
medical devices and personal protective equipment for workers. The concept of essential uses 
–  which  has  been  proposed  to  be  applied  to  PFAS  -  would  help  identify  uses  critical  for 
society  and  allow  them  only  if  suitable  alternatives  are  not  available.    Such  an  approach 
would  lead  to  the  development  of  alternatives  and  new  business  opportunities,  especially  if 
supported with Research and Development funding.  

21