Expanding PFAS capability for biosolids reuse and risk assessment

Biosolids management and beneficial reuse across Australia and New Zealand / Aotearoa continue to evolve, impacting organisations across water distribution, utilities and resource recovery as regulatory compliance and risk assessment for PFAS contamination within the region’s waste infrastructure remains a key concern.¹

Growing project complexity and variances in state-based environmental guidelines are driving demand for lower limits of reporting (LORs), more robust margins of safety (MOS) and broader compound coverage under accredited analytical methods.

Biosolid management and PFAS

Biosolids refer to nutrient-rich organic material for the use of soil amendments or conditioning. Deriving from waste streams through processes of wastewater treatments, their contaminant profile typically reflects inputs received by the sewerage or waste network across domestic, municipal, council, commercial and industrial properties. As per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) migrate through the environment, they ultimately accumulate within wastewater and solid waste infrastructure, entering sewage treatment plants (STPs) and impacting residual products such as biosolids.

Within these facilities, collected waste undergoes various treatment and stabilisation processes, from anaerobic and aerobic digestion, drying treatments through thermal or solar, extended aeration, composting to lime stabilisation.² Post-treatment, these processes create end use products for beneficial reuse within the circular waste economy and resource recovery industries. Treatment processes and facility dynamics may influence PFAS concentrations and distribution in end use scenarios, underlining the persistence of PFAS in biosolids.³

PFAS analysis in biosolids presents significant analytical challenges due to the complex, high organic-matter matrix and elevated moisture content of biosolids samples. These matrix interferences can significantly impact extraction efficiency and instrument performance, calling for more stringent processes on quantification and technical accuracy compared to simpler matrices such as water and soil.⁴

Regional regulatory context for biosolids

The Australian and New Zealand / Aotearoan regulatory environment for biosolids management continue to foreground PFAS and other emerging contaminants, with advances in technical solutions helping to support adaptive environmental and ecological decision-making.

Within the region, wastewater-derived materials, landfill leachates, compst and agriculture reuse streams grow increasingly in focus. The Australian biosolid industry produces 378,000 tonnes of dry solids per year, with agriculture, land rehabilitation, stockpiling and forestry being key end use settings.⁵ Historically, some Australian jurisdictions have included PFAS analysis of biosolids in reuse requirements – such as end-of-waste codes and resource recovery orders.⁶ Comparatively, New Zealand approaches biosolid management centrally through the 2003 Biosolids Guidelines, as well as its 2025 and 2017 revisions.⁷

Understanding PFAS sources in biosolids and end use risks

As a significant proportion of biosolids destined for agricultural reuse are processed into compost or stabilised products, analysis of biosolid feedstocks prior to treatment takes on greater priority. The Heads of EPA Australia and New Zealand’s (HEPA) 2025 update to the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP 3.1) introduced suggested concentration limits for PFAS in biosolids intended for application to broadacre agriculture and land use. Section 15.4.3 outlines risk-based criteria for ‘restricted use’ and ‘unrestricted use’ scenarios, based on the most sensitive exposure pathways.⁸ Figure 1 presents the proposed biosolids criteria from NEMP 3.1.

Figure 1. Proposed biosolids criteria from NEMP 3.1.⁹

PICTURE HEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Identifying and eliminating PFAS sources that may contribute to re-entry into the food chain, and the broader environment grows increasingly critical to protect ecological receptors and human health.

Alongside supporting PFAS assessments across treatment processes, emissions or end use products, reliable characterisation of PFAS content in biosolids may also assist with monitoring and detecting potential changes in product quality. These changes include unauthorised trade waste discharges to sewerage and wastewater, and their adverse impact on land application and other reuse scenarios. The criteria outlined in Figure 1 only covers PFOS + PFHxS and PFOA. The NEMP 3.1 also identifies additional considerations for selection of the most suitable MOS:¹⁰

• Biosolids may also contain considerable amounts of precursor chemicals of other PFAS compounds, such as di-substituted phosphate esters (diPAPs).
• Risk assessment approaches to choose the preferred MOS may be informed by the total PFAS concentrations present.
• The presence of additional individual PFAS or PFAS classes in biosolids may also need to be managed to mitigate risks to the environment and/or human health and may warrant a larger MOS in some jurisdictions.

Conversely, results showing no or only minor presence of other PFAS may support an assessment that use of a more stringent margin of safety is unnecessary.

ALS works closely with industry bodies, utilities, consultants and regulators across Australia and New Zealand / Aotearoa to provide analytical solutions that support defensible environmental decision-making and emerging compliance requirements.

Sampling and analysis requirements

The standard high-density polyethylene (HDPE) specimen jar for soils is also applicable for sampling biosolids. Samples should be submitted to the laboratory chilled. It is important to clearly mark the samples as biosolids on the chain of custody form to ensure safe handling by the laboratory.

The high organic content of biosolids presents unique analytical challenges for PFAS beyond standard soil matrices. Extraction efficiency is typically poor for conventional solvent extraction techniques used for soils, resulting in low PFAS recoveries. In addition, co-extracted organics impart significant analytical interferences.

ALS has developed an in-house extraction procedure to maximise PFAS recovery from biosolids, including a comprehensive extract clean-up to remove interfering co-extracted organics. ;

Supporting PFAS capability for biosolids across the region

With greater scrutiny on PFAS in land application programs and waste-derived products, lower detection capabilities across the broad range of potential PFAS classes that may be present are becoming increasingly important for risk assessment and environmental management programs, supporting more confident biosolids management and beneficial reuse decisions.

ALS is NATA accredited for an extended range of PFAS compounds with lower limits of reporting (Appendix 1). Our capabilities include traditional regulated PFAS compounds, alongside a growing number of emerging PFAS analytes requested by regulators and project stakeholders. The range includes broad classes of compounds currently understood to be present in Australian biosolids described above, as well as recent replacement PFAS compounds that may emerge in the future.

ALS methodologies have been developed to achieve limits of reporting significantly below many current Australian regulatory thresholds for biosolids and environmental solids. These lower LORs provide improved confidence when assessing low-level PFAS presence and support future-proofing against tightening guideline values.

Get in touch with us

Contact your local ALS Project Manager today for more information about the new OTM-45 method. 

Melbourne
Sydney
Brisbane
Perth
New Zealand

Download as a PDF

References

¹ United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Other Test Method 45 (OTM-45) Measurement of Selected Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances from Stationary Sources, 14 January 2025, accessed 10 July 2026, www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/other-test-method-45-rev1-final-1-14-25.pdf.

² United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Other Test Method 50 (OTM-50) Sampling and Analysis of Volatile Fluorinated Compounds from Stationary Sources Using Passivated Stainless-Steel Canisters, 14 January 2025, accessed 10 July 2026, www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/otm-50-release-1-r1.pdf.

³ P Casal, Y Zhang, JW Martin, M Pizarro, B Jimenez & J Dachs, 'Role of snow deposition of perfluoroalkylated substances at coastal Livingston Island (Maritime Antarctica)', Environmental Science & Technology, volume 51(15), 2017, pp 8460–8470, doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02521.

⁴ AC Lemay & IC Bourg, 'Interactions between per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at the water-air interface', Environmental Science & Technology, volume 59(4), 2025, pp 2201–2210, doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c08285.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ European Union, Document 32010L0075: Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), 24 November 2010, viewed 10 July 2026, eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2010/75/oj/eng.

⁷ Heads of EPA Australia and New Zealand (HEPA), PFAS National Environmental Management Plan 3.1, 2 June 2026, accessed 10 July 2026, www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/publications/pfas-nemp-3.

⁸ United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Other Test Method 45 (OTM-45) Measurement of Selected Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances from Stationary Sources, 14 January 2025, accessed 10 July 2026, www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/other-test-method-45-rev1-final-1-14-25.pdf.

Appendix

Appendix 1. ALS PFAS compound coverage and limits of reporting for biosolids