Forever filter focus
30-07-26
Featured in Inside Water
PFAS has pushed drinking water filtration from a technical specification into a public confidence issue, reshaping how suppliers prove performance against forever chemicals.
For many Australians, drinking water quality was once judged by taste, odour and trust in the network. That trust still matters, but PFAS has given facility managers a sharper language for asking what might be in water after centralised treatment.
At Zenith Water, that shift has changed product development.
Kevin Moult, R&D and Innovation Manager at Zenith Water, said point- of-use filtration now has to address questions that are both technical and personal. “We are offering filtered drinking water to consumers,” Moult said. “The focus is on giving that experience where they feel delighted in our product and in the water we deliver.”
PFAS has accelerated that task because it is not a single contaminant. It is a broad family of synthetic chemicals with different behaviours, risk profiles and levels of scientific certainty. For the water industry, that complexity creates a communication problem as much as an engineering one.
Zenith Water has gained broader technical expertise through the Culligan group, a link Moult said matters when it comes to understanding the emerging contaminants moving from laboratory concern to public knowledge.
“There are a lot of them,” Moult said. “As we go forward, we have on our radar those emerging contaminants that are now challenging us and saying, ‘How are we going to get those under control?”
Consumers are hearing about forever chemicals through the news, regulators and social media. A responsible manufacturer cannot simply respond with a bigger list of claims.
How do PFAS claims become evidence?
One of the most important distinctions in filtration is also one of the least visible to consumers. A filter may technically reduce many substances, but not every reduction can be promoted as a formal claim. For Moult, the difference is fundamental.
“Marketing claims are easy to make, but without testing, they’re hard for consumers to verify,” he said. “Compliance in filtration products allows the consumer the confidence in experiencing the best, healthy and contaminant free water.”
Zenith Water’s approach is to focus on claims that are tested, defensible and meaningful. Moult said some point-of-use systems can list dozens of contaminants, but that volume can become confusing rather than useful. Consumers are more likely to understand claims about substances such as lead, asbestos, chlorine, taste and odour, microplastics, and, increasingly, PFAS.
That does not mean the filter is doing nothing else. It means the company is choosing which claims to test, certify and communicate in a market where copy filters may make broad claims without the same evidence base.
“We undertake third party testing on competitor products and the results have shown that there are a lot of substandard filters out in the market,” he said.
For PFAS, that evidence burden is higher. Moult said Zenith Water initially focused on two of the most recognised PFAS compounds before extending its work to a broader group of commonly monitored PFAS substances. The company had to test, adjust, and retest rather than assume its existing platform would meet the new expectations.
“We took our filtration and said, okay, how can we counter this? How can we remove this PFAS?” he said. “Our priority was to give consumers confidence in their drinking water, knowing our filters are designed to address these contaminants.”
What happens after PFAS is captured?
PFAS also raises an important question for the industry. If a filter captures a persistent contaminant, what happens next?
Moult said this has prompted deeper consideration around product life, disposal and the broader environmental pathway of contaminants.
Zenith Water’s filters use a polypropylene housing with fibre carbon and pleated membrane components. The housing can be recycled, while the carbon media safely contains captured contaminants.
“PFAS has sharpened the focus on what comes next,” Moult said. “These are persistent substances, so it’s important they are effectively captured and contained, rather than remaining in the water people drink.”
For Moult, containment is a key part of the value of cartridge-based filtration. He contrasts this with reverse osmosis systems, which rejects water carrying contaminants to the drain. “Our focus is on reducing exposure at the tap while continuing to improve how filtration systems are managed at end of life.”
While PFAS remains a broader environmental challenge, filtration plays an important role in reducing exposure at the point of use and helping protect people in everyday settings.
Where does point-of- use filtration fit?
Moult is careful not to position point-of-use filtration as a replacement for municipal treatment. Centralised treatment remains the foundation of public health. Point- of-use systems sit at the final stage, removing contaminants that have been introduced post treatment such as lead, asbestos and other sediments, plus the chlorine that is dosed at treatment.
Regulatory standards, contaminant detection capability and consumer expectations are not moving at the same pace.
That pressures utilities, manufacturers and regulators to communicate clearly, act carefully and invest in improved compliance methods.
PFAS has pushed drinking water filtration from a technical specification into a public confidence issue, reshaping how suppliers prove performance against forever chemicals.
For many Australians, drinking water quality was once judged by taste, odour and trust in the network. That trust still matters, but PFAS has given facility managers a sharper language for asking what might be in water after centralised treatment.
At Zenith Water, that shift has changed product development.
Kevin Moult, R&D and Innovation Manager at Zenith Water, said point- of-use filtration now has to address questions that are both technical and personal. “We are offering filtered drinking water to consumers,” Moult said. “The focus is on giving that experience where they feel delighted in our product and in the water we deliver.”
PFAS has accelerated that task because it is not a single contaminant. It is a broad family of synthetic chemicals with different behaviours, risk profiles and levels of scientific certainty. For the water industry, that complexity creates a communication problem as much as an engineering one.
Zenith Water has gained broader technical expertise through the Culligan group, a link Moult said matters when it comes to understanding the emerging contaminants moving from laboratory concern to public knowledge.
“There are a lot of them,” Moult said. “As we go forward, we have on our radar those emerging contaminants that are now challenging us and saying, ‘How are we going to get those under control?”
Consumers are hearing about forever chemicals through the news, regulators and social media. A responsible manufacturer cannot simply respond with a bigger list of claims.
How do PFAS claims become evidence?
One of the most important distinctions in filtration is also one of the least visible to consumers. A filter may technically reduce many substances, but not every reduction can be promoted as a formal claim. For Moult, the difference is fundamental.
“Marketing claims are easy to make, but without testing, they’re hard for consumers to verify,” he said. “Compliance in filtration products allows the consumer the confidence in experiencing the best, healthy and contaminant free water.”
Zenith Water’s approach is to focus on claims that are tested, defensible and meaningful. Moult said some point-of-use systems can list dozens of contaminants, but that volume can become confusing rather than useful. Consumers are more likely to understand claims about substances such as lead, asbestos, chlorine, taste and odour, microplastics, and, increasingly, PFAS.
That does not mean the filter is doing nothing else. It means the company is choosing which claims to test, certify and communicate in a market where copy filters may make broad claims without the same evidence base.
“We undertake third party testing on competitor products and the results have shown that there are a lot of substandard filters out in the market,” he said.
For PFAS, that evidence burden is higher. Moult said Zenith Water initially focused on two of the most recognised PFAS compounds before extending its work to a broader group of commonly monitored PFAS substances. The company had to test, adjust, and retest rather than assume its existing platform would meet the new expectations.
“We took our filtration and said, okay, how can we counter this? How can we remove this PFAS?” he said. “Our priority was to give consumers confidence in their drinking water, knowing our filters are designed to address these contaminants.”
What happens after PFAS is captured?
PFAS also raises an important question for the industry. If a filter captures a persistent contaminant, what happens next?
Moult said this has prompted deeper consideration around product life, disposal and the broader environmental pathway of contaminants.
Zenith Water’s filters use a polypropylene housing with fibre carbon and pleated membrane components. The housing can be recycled, while the carbon media safely contains captured contaminants.
“PFAS has sharpened the focus on what comes next,” Moult said. “These are persistent substances, so it’s important they are effectively captured and contained, rather than remaining in the water people drink.”
For Moult, containment is a key part of the value of cartridge-based filtration. He contrasts this with reverse osmosis systems, which rejects water carrying contaminants to the drain. “Our focus is on reducing exposure at the tap while continuing to improve how filtration systems are managed at end of life.”
While PFAS remains a broader environmental challenge, filtration plays an important role in reducing exposure at the point of use and helping protect people in everyday settings.
Where does point-of- use filtration fit?
Moult is careful not to position point-of-use filtration as a replacement for municipal treatment. Centralised treatment remains the foundation of public health. Point- of-use systems sit at the final stage, removing contaminants that have been introduced post treatment such as lead, asbestos and other sediments, plus the chlorine that is dosed at treatment.
Regulatory standards, contaminant detection capability and consumer expectations are not moving at the same pace.
That pressures utilities, manufacturers and regulators to communicate clearly, act carefully and invest in improved compliance methods.
