PFAS testing: the complete guide.

PFAS contamination testing measures per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances in soil, water, sediment and biota at parts-per-trillion (nanogram-per-litre) concentrations, then compares the results against the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) and NHMRC guideline values. Because PFAS are mobile, persistent and bioaccumulative “forever chemicals”, even tiny concentrations matter.

The scale is national. The Australian Department of Defence has spent more than A$1.3 billion investigating and managing PFAS contamination across 28 Defence bases, and in May 2026 the Commonwealth filed its largest-ever damages claim, seeking more than A$2 billion from 3M over firefighting-foam contamination (Department of Defence, 2026). This guide explains where PFAS comes from, when and how it is tested, the thresholds that apply, and what assessment looks like in practice.

What is PFAS and why is it so hard to manage?

PFAS are a family of synthetic chemicals built around the carbon-fluorine bond, one of the strongest in organic chemistry. The OECD has identified more than 4,700 individual PFAS on the global market (OECD, 2018). That stability makes them water- and grease-resistant, and almost impossible to break down naturally. Hence the nickname: forever chemicals.

In the environment, PFAS are highly mobile in groundwater, resist conventional remediation, and bioaccumulate in plants, animals and people. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies PFOA as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (IARC, 2023). A plume can migrate kilometres from its source and persist for decades. Testing therefore has to detect trace concentrations reliably, across every relevant pathway.

Where does PFAS contamination come from?

One product dominates the source list: aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), the firefighting foam historically used at airports, refineries, fuel depots and Defence bases for flammable-liquid fires and training. Repeated use at fixed training grounds concentrated PFAS in soil and groundwater. Prohibitions on PFOS-, PFOA- and PFHxS-containing foams began phasing in nationally from July 2025 under the IChEMS framework, but decades of legacy use remain in the ground. Other common sources include landfills and leachate, wastewater treatment discharge and biosolids, metal plating, textile and paper manufacturing, and some agricultural inputs. On any given site, identifying the source through a conceptual site model is the critical first step.

This is why the defence sector carries the heaviest PFAS legacy in Australia: AFFF was used for decades at fire-training areas on bases nationwide. PFAS is also increasingly relevant to the mining and resources sector, where foams, landfills and water management can introduce it to operations.

When is PFAS testing required?

More often than most site owners expect. PFAS testing is triggered by site history rather than visible contamination, and since the NEMP 3.1 and NHMRC updates it has become a standard scope item wherever a credible source exists. Common triggers include:

• Property transactions and refinancing. Environmental due diligence on industrial, airport-adjacent or Defence-adjacent land now routinely includes PFAS screening.
• Development and planning approvals where site history includes fire training, fuel storage or landfilling.
• Off-site soil disposal. Waste classification commonly requires PFAS analysis before soil leaves site: receiving facilities set their own acceptance limits, and a project that skips the analysis can find its clean-fill destination turning loads away at the gate.
• Dewatering and discharge approvals. Extracted groundwater must meet criteria before release.
• Off-site migration risk from a neighbouring airport, fire station, landfill or base.

If any of these apply, PFAS should be scoped into the sampling plan from the start. Adding it later usually means remobilising to site and re-testing.

How is PFAS contamination tested?

PFAS testing relies on liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) performed by NATA-accredited laboratories, because the guideline values are so low that only highly sensitive instrumentation can quantify them. Samples of soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, leachate and sometimes biota are collected under strict protocols. Field teams must avoid PFAS-containing materials that can cross-contaminate samples and produce false positives, and field blanks are run as standard QA to prove results reflect the site rather than the sampling process.

Laboratories report the PFAS analytes specified in the NEMP, with commercial suites typically covering 28 or more compounds and particular focus on PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA. Where precursor compounds are a concern, a Total Oxidisable Precursor (TOP) assay estimates the additional PFAS load that could form as precursors transform over time. Results are reported in nanograms per litre (ng/L) for water and milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for soil, and detection limits often need to reach single-digit ng/L to be fit for purpose.

What does PFAS testing cost and how long does it take?

PFAS testing is priced per sample, so cost scales with the sampling design rather than the size of the site. Four things drive the budget: how many samples and matrices are involved (soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment), the analyte suite requested (a standard NEMP suite versus an extended list or TOP assay), the detection limits required, and the QA samples a defensible program carries, such as field blanks and duplicates. Groundwater programs cost more than one-off soil sampling because wells may need installing and then monitoring across repeat events.

Turnaround follows the laboratory queue. Standard reporting typically lands within one to two weeks of sample receipt, and most NATA labs offer faster turnaround at a premium. The bigger schedule risk is discovering PFAS late: re-mobilising to site and re-testing after a surprise detection costs far more than scoping PFAS into the first sampling event.

What are the Australian PFAS guideline values?

Assessment in Australia is governed primarily by the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP), developed by the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand (HEPA). The Commonwealth released NEMP 3.0 on 4 March 2025, adding updated guideline values and a stronger remediation hierarchy that prioritises treatment over disposal. NEMP 3.1 followed in May 2026: a targeted update incorporating the NHMRC's revised drinking-water values and the ANZG's March 2026 update to PFOS values for fresh and marine waters (DCCEEW, 2026).

Drinking water is where the change bites hardest. In June 2025 the NHMRC finalised much stricter health-based guideline values: PFOS at 8 ng/L (down from 70 ng/L), PFOA at 200 ng/L, PFHxS at 30 ng/L and PFBS at 1,000 ng/L (NHMRC, 2025). These lower thresholds ripple through site assessment, because what counts as “clean” has effectively tightened.

What counts as “clean” has effectively tightened. PFOS in drinking water: from 70 down to 8 nanograms per litre. — NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, June 2025

• PFOS — 8 ng/L drinking water (was 70 ng/L combined PFOS+PFHxS)
• PFOA — 200 ng/L drinking water (was 560 ng/L)
• PFHxS — 30 ng/L drinking water (was 70 ng/L combined)
• PFBS — 1,000 ng/L drinking water (not previously specified)

Source: NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 2025. Current as at July 2026 — verify against the latest published guidance.

What does a PFAS site assessment involve?

A PFAS assessment follows the staged contaminated-land approach, scaled for PFAS mobility:

1. Desktop review and site history to identify potential AFFF use and other credible sources, building the conceptual site model.
2. Sampling and analysis across soil and, critically, groundwater, because PFAS plumes travel.
3. Comparison against criteria: the NEMP and NHMRC values relevant to the land use and its receptors, such as drinking-water bores, waterways, produce and stock.
4. Risk assessment where values are exceeded, evaluating human-health and ecological risk to determine whether management or remediation is required.
5. Management or remediation, documented so the outcome is defensible for regulators, financiers and future owners.

In Queensland, this assessment sits within the contaminated land framework of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Known or suspected contamination is recorded on the EMR and CLR registers administered by the state's environment department (DETSI), and assessment reports are prepared by a Suitably Qualified Person (SQP).

New South Wales runs the equivalent process under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, with significantly contaminated sites regulated by the NSW EPA and reports for planning purposes reviewed under the accredited site auditor scheme. Other states and territories apply the same NEMP values through their own frameworks, so the technical approach travels even though the regulatory wrapper changes.

Remediation options remain limited and costly: soil washing, stabilisation, thermal treatment, granular activated carbon and ion exchange for water, and containment. Because PFAS cannot simply be destroyed cheaply at scale, management and containment are often the pragmatic outcome. The Defence program shows the cost profile: more than 200,000 tonnes of contaminated soil treated or removed and over 13 billion litres of water treated, within a total spend exceeding A$1.3 billion (Department of Defence, 2026).

Working through a PFAS issue? BBN Consulting's environmental scientists design defensible, NEMP-aligned PFAS investigation and management programs — from source identification to risk assessment and remediation advice. Talk to our contaminated land team about your site.

What do tighter PFAS limits mean for your site?

PFAS contamination testing now sits at the sharp end of Australian contaminated-land practice because the chemistry forces assessment down to parts-per-trillion concentrations. The numbers tell the story: more than A$1.3 billion spent by Defence, a claim exceeding A$2 billion against 3M, and drinking-water values cut to single-digit nanograms per litre. What counts as clean has tightened. Every program is now judged against that standard.

For site owners, developers and government, the practical implication is simple: find PFAS early, and manage it inside a clear risk framework with sampling that stands up against the current NEMP 3.1 and NHMRC values. Remediation is limited and costly, so the conceptual site model and sampling design carry the program. If your site has any history of AFFF use, landfill or industrial activity, early expert assessment is the most cost-effective decision you can make. BBN Consulting designs and delivers PFAS assessment programs that combine NATA-accredited laboratory analysis, drone and 3D-LiDAR site capture, and data-first reporting — defensible answers in days, not weeks.