India’s drinking-water infrastructure lacks PFAS-specific limits, standardised monitoring and commercially available treatment systems capable of reliably removing the chemicals, according to an Indiatimes report published on 21 October 2026. Studies across India are detecting PFAS in groundwater, sewage and treated water, with one Chennai plant reporting higher PFAS concentrations after treatment than in its raw water.
Key takeaways
- India lacks PFAS-specific drinking-water limits, a national monitoring framework and treatment systems widely available at commercial scale, according to the Indiatimes report.
- A 2024 study of 14 water samples collected from 2022 to 2023 found all eight target PFAS at concentrations 5 per cent to 103 per cent higher in treated water than in raw water at a Chennai treatment plant, according to the Indiatimes.
- Research around Visakhapatnam tested 77 PFAS compounds in seawater and sewage, detecting 38, with modelling attributing about 41 per cent of median coastal PFAS concentrations to sewage, according to the Indiatimes.
- The report says India now has enough evidence to move toward precautionary limits, broader testing and stronger source tracing, according to the Indiatimes.
Evidence points to gaps in monitoring and treatment
Studies from multiple Indian states have reported PFAS in groundwater, surface water, sewage and treated water, but inconsistent testing methods have left the national extent poorly mapped, according to the Indiatimes. A 2025 review covering Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal found that research groups were using different testing and analytical approaches, making national comparisons difficult, the report said.
“The available evidence shows PFAS contamination is not hypothetical in India, but the national extent is still poorly mapped because research groups use different testing and analytical approaches,” said Rajneesh Kumar Gautam of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and the review’s first author, according to the Indiatimes.
The Chennai study analysed 14 samples collected between 2022 and 2023 from groundwater, surface water and four stages of a water treatment plant. The highest concentrations occurred in groundwater from residential wells near garbage dumps, and the plant did not consistently reduce the PFAS load, according to the Indiatimes.
All eight target PFAS were 5 per cent to 103 per cent higher in treated water than in raw water. Indumathi M. Nambi, a professor of environmental engineering and study coauthor, said this “could indicate that unidentified precursor chemicals were being transformed into more stable PFAS during treatment,” although the study did not directly measure those precursors, according to the Indiatimes.
Coastal sources complicate source tracing
Research by GITAM (Deemed to be) University with collaborators from Canada and the United States tested 77 PFAS compounds in seawater and sewage around Visakhapatnam. The study detected 38 compounds and estimated through modelling that sewage accounted for about 41 per cent of median PFAS concentrations along the coast, according to the Indiatimes.
Manoj Rayaroth, an assistant professor at GITAM and a study coauthor, said separating municipal sewage from industrial inputs requires systematic sampling near mixing points rather than broad coastal snapshots. Nejumal Kannankeril Khalid of the University of Montreal said source discrimination could improve by combining targeted and non-target screening, chemical fingerprints and machine-learning tools, according to the Indiatimes.
Specification read
The reported project scale was not expressed as plant capacity in MLD, cubic metres per day or population equivalent, so no capacity conversion can be made for a procurement comparison. The study instead examined a Chennai treatment plant through four treatment stages using 14 samples, while the Visakhapatnam research sampled seawater and sewage around the coast, according to the Indiatimes. Neither study reported treatment cost, delivery time, chemical consumption, recovered water volume or a performance guarantee for a PFAS-removal package.
For conventional industrial and municipal flows, the relevant treatment train generally comprises screening, primary clarification, biological treatment such as A2O, MBR, MBBR, SBR or UASB, followed by tertiary treatment and disinfection; DAF or ZLD may be relevant where the required contaminant removal or reuse objective demands it. This report bears directly on tertiary and advanced treatment, because conventional plant performance did not consistently reduce PFAS in the Chennai case. Operators selecting chemical-handling or integrated wastewater equipment can review the Chemical and Municipal sectors, while municipal-source projects may also require an Integrated Sewage Treatment approach.
If your enquiry describes an industrial or municipal plant in India with PFAS findings, effluent needing tertiary or advanced treatment, or regulatory pressure for broader contaminant monitoring, this report means conventional capacity alone does not establish PFAS performance: procurement should define the PFAS compounds, analytical methods, raw-water variability, removal target and acceptance testing before selecting a supplier. Relevant DAF versus clarifier selection for semiconductor wastewater can help frame physical-chemical treatment decisions, but the Indiatimes report does not provide enough PFAS-specific performance or cost data to compare technologies commercially.
FAQ
What treatment capacity is needed for the Chennai PFAS issue?
No plant capacity in MLD, cubic metres per day or population equivalent was reported. The available information is limited to 14 samples collected from 2022 to 2023 across groundwater, surface water and four stages of a treatment plant, so a buyer would need verified flow data, PFAS concentrations and removal targets before sizing equipment, according to the Indiatimes.
How should a supplier demonstrate PFAS removal performance?
The Chennai study found all eight target PFAS were 5 per cent to 103 per cent higher in treated water than in raw water, and the study did not directly measure the possible precursor chemicals, according to the Indiatimes. A procurement specification should therefore identify target compounds, analytical methods, representative influent conditions and acceptance criteria rather than rely on a general removal guarantee.
What affects the cost and delivery time of a PFAS treatment package?
The supplied report gives no treatment cost, procurement lead time, chemical-consumption estimate or commercial-scale PFAS removal-system specification. Those inputs would need to be established through site testing and technology-specific supplier offers; quoting a generic cost or schedule would not be supportable from the reported evidence, according to the Indiatimes.
How should a buyer select between monitoring and treatment suppliers?
The report says Indian laboratories use differing methods and that fixed target lists can miss fluorinated chemicals outside the selected panel. A buyer should first define the monitoring objective and compound coverage, then require treatment suppliers to demonstrate performance against the same compounds and methods, according to the Indiatimes.
