All posts

PFAS drinking water limits around the world: EU 100, Germany 20, Sweden 4, Denmark 2, US 4 ng/L

Published 13 September 2026 · pfasnearme

The same molecules, the same science, and limits ranging from 2 to 100 ng/L depending on the border. It is not that toxicologists disagree. It is that every country answers three questions differently, which substances to add up, how much of the health budget to give to water, and whom to picture when writing the rule. Here is every limit in one table, with its status as of 13 September 2026, then the why.

The table

Everything starts from the same number

In September 2020, EFSA set the tolerable weekly intake for the sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS at 4.4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight, based on a reduced vaccine response in exposed children [15]. Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and we all start from that number. The gaps in the table do not come from toxicology. They come from the three choices that follow.

First choice, which substances to add up

The European Union wrote its directive in 2019 and 2020, before EFSA's final opinion. It picked 20 PFAS, acids of 4 to 13 carbons, and a limit of 100 ng/L for their sum [1]. Many of those 20 are short chains that barely accumulate in the body. Adding PFBA and PFOS into one sum is weighing very different things on the same scale.

The countries that redid the calculation after EFSA almost all isolated the four substances it had assessed. Denmark 2 ng/L, Sweden 4, Germany 20 in 2028, HCSP 20 in France [3][4][5][6]. The United States took yet another route, a limit per substance, 4 ng/L for PFOA and the same for PFOS, with a health goal of zero because IARC classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans in 2023 [9][16].

That is why a commune can be compliant at 100 ng/L on the 20 and far above 4 ng/L on the four. We explain how to read the two sums in the guide reading a PFAS result.

Second choice, how much of the budget to give to water

EFSA's intake covers everything you swallow, fish, eggs, vegetables, dust, water. You have to decide what fraction water alone is allowed. The WHO tradition is 20%. Sweden and the Netherlands took 20% [5][7]. Denmark took 10%, because dietary data show food already uses most of the budget [6]. That is the first factor of two between countries.

Third choice, whom you picture

A 70 kg adult drinking two litres a day tolerates a far higher concentration than a 5 kg infant drinking 0.75 litres of formula. Per kilo, the infant drinks five times more. Countries that calculated for the adult land around 4 ng/L. Those that calculated for the infant, or added a margin for it, land at 2 ng/L or below. We calculated for the infant, and we explain every step in why we compare with 0.5 ng/L.

What is moving in 2026

Three things. In Europe, 12 January 2026 made the 100 ng/L mandatory everywhere, and France made testing for the 20 PFAS systematic in the sanitary control [1][2]. Germany has already written its move to 20 ng/L for the four into law for January 2028, which will make it the first large European economy with a binding PFAS-4 standard [4].

In the United States, the EPA published two proposals on 18 May 2026. The first keeps the 4 ng/L for PFOA and PFOS but lets systems request up to two more years, to 2031. The second withdraws the limits on PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and the mixture index, on the grounds that the 2024 procedure did not follow the Safe Drinking Water Act [10][11]. Until these texts are finalised, the 2024 rule applies. But the direction is clear. The two most studied molecules keep their strict limit, the others retreat.

The WHO still has no value. Its 2022 draft proposed 100 ng/L each for PFOA and PFOS, stating that this was a provisional value based on treatment feasibility, not on health. Faced with criticism, it widened its review to other PFAS and other exposure routes, with no announced date [14].

How to read your commune against this table

Take the sum of 4 PFAS from your page. Below 0.5 ng/L you pass everywhere, Denmark included. Between 0.5 and 2 you pass Danish law narrowly and ours not. Between 2 and 4 you would be non-compliant in Denmark, compliant in Sweden and the US. Between 4 and 20 you would be non-compliant in Sweden and the US, and under ARS vigilance in France. Above 20 you are above what the HCSP recommends and what Germany will impose in 2028. In that last case, read what to do.

This table will say something else in two years. Limits have only gone down for fifteen years, and none has gone back up. That is the one trend on this page we are sure of.

Frequently asked questions

What is the PFAS limit in drinking water in France?

100 ng/L for the sum of 20 PFAS, mandatory since 1 January 2026, and 2,000 ng/L in raw water before treatment. There is no legal limit for the four most toxic PFAS, but the HCSP recommends a provisional 20 ng/L and the ARS use it.

Which country has the strictest PFAS limit?

Denmark, at 2 ng/L for the sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS, in force since 2021. Sweden follows at 4 ng/L since 2026, the US at 4 ng/L each for PFOA and PFOS, and Germany will apply 20 ng/L in 2028.

Why does Europe have 100 ng/L if EFSA says 4.4 ng per kilo per week?

Because the 2020 directive was negotiated before EFSA's opinion of September 2020, and because 100 ng/L covers 20 substances, many of them not very toxic. The countries that redid the calculation from EFSA, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, all landed between 2 and 20 ng/L for the four.

Is the US going to drop its PFAS limits?

Not for PFOA and PFOS. In May 2026 the EPA proposed keeping the 4 ng/L but letting systems request two more years, to 2031. In parallel it proposed withdrawing the limits on PFHxS, PFNA, GenX and the mixture index. These are proposals, and the 2024 rule stays in force until they are finalised.

Does the WHO have a PFAS limit?

No. Its 2022 draft proposed 100 ng/L each for PFOA and PFOS, a provisional value based on what treatment can achieve rather than on health, as the WHO itself states. After criticism it widened its review and has not published a final value.

Sources

1. Directive (EU) 2020/2184 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Annex I Part B: Sum of PFAS 0.10 µg/L, PFAS Total 0.50 µg/L; Article 25: 12 January 2026)
2. ARS Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes: PFAS, surveillance dans l'eau de consommation (French transposition, 100 ng/L, 2 µg/L raw water, HCSP 20 ng/L)
3. HCSP (9 July 2024): avis PFAS dans les EDCH (provisional 20 ng/L for the sum of four PFAS)
4. Trinkwasserverordnung 2023, Anlage 2: Summe PFAS-20 100 ng/L from 12 January 2026, Summe PFAS-4 20 ng/L from 12 January 2028
5. Livsmedelsverket (2021): Vetenskapligt underlag för PFAS i dricksvatten (the report behind Sweden's 4 ng/L for PFAS-4 and 100 ng/L for PFAS-21)
6. DTU Fødevareinstituttet (2021): note behind Denmark's 2 ng/L drinking-water criterion for the sum of four PFAS
7. RIVM (2021): Advies drinkwaterrichtwaarde EFSA-4 PFAS (4.4 ng/L PFOA equivalents)
8. Drinking Water Inspectorate (England and Wales): PFAS and forever chemicals (tiered guidance, 100 ng/L for the sum of 48 PFAS, March 2025)
9. US EPA: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, national primary drinking water regulation (4.0 ppt PFOA and PFOS, MCLG zero, 10 ppt PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, hazard index)
10. US EPA (18 May 2026): Proposed PFOA and PFOS compliance extension rule (option to extend compliance to 2031)
11. US EPA (18 May 2026): Proposed PFAS rescission rule (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and hazard index)
12. Health Canada (2024): Objective for Canadian drinking water quality, PFAS (30 ng/L for the sum of 25 PFAS)
13. NHMRC (25 June 2025): Updated Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (PFOS 8, PFOA 200, PFHxS 30, PFBS 1000 ng/L)
14. WHO: PFOS and PFOA in drinking-water, background document status (2022 draft, 100 ng/L provisional value not health-based, review superseded and expanded)
15. EFSA (2020): tolerable weekly intake of 4.4 ng/kg bw for the sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS
16. IARC (2023): PFOA Group 1, PFOS Group 2B

All sources retrieved September 2026. The full method is on the methodology page. The synthesis was prepared with the help of an AI and then checked against the primary sources.