England to Measure PFAS Levels in Population Survey, With First Results Expected in 2027

England is adding PFAS measurements to an existing population health survey, creating a reference point for exposure that researchers and communities currently lack. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) will test urine samples collected through the annual Health Survey for England. Lead and arsenic will also be screened, and the agency expects the first PFAS results in 2027.

That reference point could help distinguish typical exposure across the population from unusually high levels in particular groups. Researchers could then compare results over time and examine whether patterns differ among people with occupational exposure or those living near sites associated with PFAS. For now, there is no UK population baseline against which to make those comparisons.

What the survey can establish

Biomonitoring measures chemicals or their breakdown products in samples from people. Here, the planned measurements will come from urine collected for a survey that already runs annually. The announcement does not specify which PFAS compounds will be tested, how many participants will be included, or how results will be broken down by location or exposure history. Those details will shape how precisely the data can answer questions about particular communities.

A population survey can show how measured exposure is distributed among the people sampled. Repeating measurements can help identify changes across survey years. If the survey also identifies groups with higher readings, those findings could guide further research into possible exposure sources. The results, by themselves, will not identify the source of an individual’s exposure or establish what a particular measurement means for that person’s health.

That distinction matters because UKHSA has said it does not support routine individual blood testing for PFAS at present. Its stated reason is that there is not enough evidence to determine what action should follow from a specific result. Population monitoring and clinical testing answer different questions: one helps researchers describe exposure patterns across groups, while the other would need a clear basis for interpreting and acting on an individual measurement.

Why local measurements matter

PFAS are a broad group of chemicals, and exposure can occur through different routes. The source identifies products such as cookware and school uniforms as examples of items that may contain PFAS, as well as industrial sources such as sites associated with firefighting foam manufacture. A national survey can provide context for exposure across the wider population, but it may not capture every local pattern in enough detail to resolve community concerns.

Those concerns have focused in part on places near industrial PFAS sources. An independent study in Thornton-Cleveleys, where a former PFAS manufacturing plant is located, reported that residents’ blood contained elevated levels of PFOA compared with baseline levels recorded in the US. PFOA is one member of the wider PFAS group. A measurement in residents’ blood and a measurement from the new survey’s urine samples are different kinds of data; the survey will add a national reference, but it will not directly replicate that local study.

David Megson, an environmental forensics researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University who led the Thornton-Cleveleys analysis, called the monitoring “an incredibly important first step” in understanding exposure in the UK. He said a UK benchmark would help communities and individuals who believe they have had high exposure compare their situation with what typical exposure looks like. He also said he was concerned that population exposure in the UK might be higher than in places such as the US, which he described as having acted more proactively on PFAS. He stressed that he hoped that concern would prove unfounded.

Exposure data and health evidence

The survey arrives amid continuing uncertainty about how measured exposure relates to long-term health. UKHSA director Edward Wynne-Evans said there are evidence gaps around the significance of different exposure levels for an individual. He described the agency’s work as spanning research, biomonitoring and evidence reviews, and said the strongest evidence currently concerns possible associations with raised cholesterol and potentially lower birth weight. He added that further work is needed to understand those findings and their significance.

That cautious assessment sets a limit on what the first survey results can establish. A measured level can document exposure, but it does not by itself prove that exposure caused a health condition. Nor does a population pattern automatically explain the circumstances of a specific person or neighbourhood. Interpreting results will require details about the compounds measured, the survey population, the collection methods and how readings compare across groups and years.

Stephanie Metzger, a sustainable chemicals policy advisor at the Royal Society of Chemistry, said a UK baseline would help track trends and identify groups with unusually high levels, including people with occupational exposure or those living near a PFAS hotspot. That use depends on the survey publishing results with enough context to make meaningful comparisons while protecting participants’ privacy. The announcement establishes that monitoring will begin, but does not set out those reporting details.

Hélène Duguy, a lawyer at ClientEarth, said measuring exposure is necessary to understand the extent of PFAS contamination. She also argued that monitoring should be accompanied by action to phase out the chemicals to prevent future pollution. The survey can improve the evidence available for assessing exposure; decisions about reducing sources would require separate measures.

The next milestone is the first set of results, expected in 2027. Its practical value will depend on how clearly UKHSA reports what was measured and who was represented. A recurring national dataset could give researchers a consistent way to follow exposure over time, while local studies may still be needed to investigate particular industrial sites and communities.