Many Australian water and wastewater membrane plants use hollow fibres made of PVDF (polyvinylidene fluoride), a tough plastic that copes well with chlorine.

PVDF is also a fluoropolymer. That puts it in the middle of the PFAS debate, and two pieces of news this year suggest the debate is starting to reach the membrane tank.

Do PVDF membranes release PFAS?

In June, a research team published a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters that looked at commercial PVDF ultrafiltration membranes used in drinking water treatment (Jiang et al., 28 Jun 2026). They found three things worth knowing:

  • New PVDF membranes contained PFAS, and most of it (82 to 97%) was PFOA.
  • Routine cleaning with caustic (sodium hydroxide) and chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) aged the membranes and kept releasing PFAS. Concentrations reached up to 104 ng/L in the lab, and up to 371 ng/L in cleaning wastewater at a full-scale drinking water plant.
  • Acid cleaning with hydrochloric acid did not increase the release.

The lesson: testing only new membranes is likely to understate release over a membrane's working life, and cleaning wastewater is where to look.

Then on 14 October, Veolia announced it would start making a non-PVDF membrane at its main factory in Hungary, alongside its existing PVDF range. It has not said which polymer. Membrane consultant Graeme Pearce reads the move as a hedge against the European Union's proposed PFAS restriction, which would cover fluoropolymers such as PVDF. Whether membranes, or uses such as membrane bioreactors, would get an exemption is still undecided.

This is a sensible hedge, not an alarm bell. But when major suppliers start offering alternatives, buyers should take note.

Does Australia restrict PVDF membranes?

To be clear: as at October 2026, I am not aware of any Australian restriction on PVDF membranes, or any rule requiring membranes to be tested for PFAS release.

That said, trade waste agreements and state EPA conditions may already limit PFAS in wastewater discharged to sewer, so plants should check their own conditions.

There are, however, rules that sit close by. Under the national Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS), PFOA has been on Schedule 7 since 1 July 2025, with exemptions, and IChEMS also sets requirements for disposing of waste that contains listed PFAS. The industrial chemicals regulator, AICIS, began an evaluation of 522 PFAS in October 2025 to decide which need further assessment. How any of this applies to replacement membranes, spent modules or cleaning wastewater has not been tested.

It is also worth keeping the numbers in proportion. The 371 ng/L figure was measured in cleaning wastewater, not in water going to customers. It is a question about residuals, trade waste and disposal, not a finding that drinking water from these plants breaches the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. As far as I can find, nobody has yet published PFAS results for the treated water from PVDF plants in Australia.

So for most plants this is not a compliance problem today. It is a risk to understand and manage.

Flow diagram of where PFAS can enter a membrane water treatment plant. Source water, where contaminated runoff and groundwater are the main known route, flows to a PVDF membrane plant, whose new membranes were found to contain PFAS, mostly PFOA. Treated water to customers is marked as an open question with no published Australian data. Caustic and chlorine cleaning produces cleaning wastewater with up to 104 ng/L PFAS in the lab and up to 371 ng/L at a full-scale plant, which goes to disposal, along with spent modules, where how the rules apply is untested.

When should a plant choose its next membrane?

Membranes are a consumable. Plants typically replace them every five to 10 years, and some much sooner. Coliban Water, for example, has said it replaces membranes "every five to 10 years, depending on their condition". On difficult River Murray water, SA Water's Mount Pleasant plant has replaced its polymeric membranes about every two years (AWA Water e-Journal, 2025).

That cycle matters. Membranes bought next year will probably still be in service in the mid-2030s, after the European rules and Australia's own reviews have played out. Reordering the same modules locks in that material for another cycle. Pausing to compare options lets a plant choose on purpose, with data, at a time when the work is happening anyway.

What are the choices at the next membrane change?

There is no single right answer, and I would be wary of anyone who says otherwise.

Stay with PVDF, with eyes open. For many plants this will remain the best choice. PVDF is proven and well supported. The prudent step is to measure what your cleaning wastewater actually contains, so decisions about cleaning chemistry and disposal rest on data rather than assumptions.

Switch to another polymer. Polyethersulfone (PES) is an established alternative, and may be the simplest swap where module formats match. The trade-offs are chlorine tolerance and membrane life. Pearce also cautions that any brand new polymer will need time to earn approvals and a track record.

Move to ceramic. Ceramic membranes contain no fluoropolymer and tolerate harsh cleaning. In 2025 SA Water piloted silicon carbide flat-sheet membranes at Mount Pleasant. They exceeded the 300 L/m²/h flux target, recovered fully after cleaning, and handled algae and powdered carbon. The pilot was aiming to lift the membrane stream from 1.25 to 4 ML/d without major civil works. But good results depended on getting the coagulant dose right.

Ceramics are not a sure thing either. At an abattoir in Dardanup, Western Australia, a ceramic membrane removed about 90% of phosphorus but clogged repeatedly and could not be run reliably on that wastewater. The report puts this down to how the system was set up and operated, not the material. The site went with a settling tank instead. Fit to the water, the tank and the operators matters as much as the membrane.

What should a plant do before that change?

At Micro Utilities we are offering a PFAS release sampling and options study for plants approaching a membrane change. We sample cleaning wastewater, and treated water where useful, before and after your routine caustic and chlorine cleans. Samples are analysed by a NATA-accredited laboratory for the PFAS methods used. We then compare the whole-life cost and risk of like-for-like PVDF, PES and ceramic for your site.

Micro Utilities receives no payments or commissions from membrane suppliers.

You get data for your own plant, and a clear basis for the next purchase, whichever way it goes.

If your membranes are due in the next few years, I would be glad to talk it through. Start a conversation with us.