Insights

Small membrane plants, remote sites and the PFAS question

Relotility™

20 October 2026

Illustration of a white shipping container with open doors showing membrane filtration modules, on red earth with spinifex and site buildings in the distance.

Mining camps, island communities and temporary works often rely on small, packaged membrane plants for drinking water or wastewater treatment. PVDF, a fluoropolymer, is a common material for the hollow fibres in these plants. New research suggests that is worth a closer look, especially where membranes are cleaned often.

What did the research find?

A study published in June in Environmental Science & Technology Letters (Jiang et al., 2026) found PFAS in new commercial PVDF ultrafiltration membranes, mostly PFOA. Cleaning with caustic and chlorine aged the membranes and kept releasing PFAS, up to 104 ng/L in the lab and up to 371 ng/L in cleaning wastewater at a full-scale drinking water plant.

Those figures are for cleaning wastewater, not treated water. As at October 2026, we are not aware of any Australian restriction on PVDF membranes, or any requirement to test them for PFAS release. But on a remote site, cleaning wastewater may have to be managed on the lease, in a pond, an evaporation area or an irrigation field. Disposing of PFAS-containing wastewater on site may be covered by state EPA licence conditions and the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan, so check your site's approvals. That makes it a site question, not just a utility question.

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.

In October Veolia also announced it would make a non-PVDF membrane alongside its existing PVDF range, which membrane consultant Graeme Pearce reads as a hedge against the proposed European PFAS restriction.

The full picture is set out in PVDF membranes and PFAS: make your next membrane change a deliberate choice, published by Micro Utilities.

Why do relocatable sites have an advantage?

A packaged plant is easier to change than a large civil works plant. The membranes are replaced on a cycle anyway, often every five to 10 years, and a containerised unit can be swapped or added without major site works. Containerised ceramic ultrafiltration systems are now on the market, and other polymers such as PES are also options.

Ceramics are not a sure thing. In Western Australia, a ceramic membrane at the Dardanup abattoir removed about 90% of phosphorus but clogged repeatedly and could not run reliably on that wastewater. The report put this down to how it was set up and operated. SA Water's 2025 ceramic pilot at Mount Pleasant performed well, but relied on getting the coagulant dose right. The lesson is to match the unit to the water, the site and the people running it.

What is a sensible next step?

If your site runs a membrane plant, start by finding out what it is made of, how often it is cleaned and where the cleaning wastewater goes. When the membranes are next due, compare like-for-like PVDF with non-PVDF and ceramic options before you reorder.

Relotility™ helps design and deliver water and waste systems for remote and relocatable sites. If you would like to talk through your site, visit relotility.com.

Relotility™