PFAS in Dhaka's Drinking Water

A Scientific Review & Path Forward

Published April 4, 2026 | Drinkwell | Michael German, Ph.D., P.E.

Executive Summary

On April 3, 2026, Star News Bangladesh aired a report claiming that PFAS ("forever chemicals") were found in Dhaka WASA drinking water booth samples at levels up to 3,000x above Denmark's regulatory limits. The analysis was conducted by researchers at Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University (SAU) with confirmatory testing at Umea University, Sweden.

While the presence of PFAS in Dhaka's water environment is a legitimate concern supported by peer-reviewed literature, the Star News report raises serious questions about scientific rigor that must be addressed before conclusions are drawn or public alarm is escalated.

The Star News Report

Video: "ওয়াসার পানিতে ক্যানসারের বিষ" (Cancer-causing poison in WASA water)
Channel: Star News | Published: April 3, 2026 | Duration: 3:49 | Reporter: Foyzul Siddiqui

Reported Methodology

According to the broadcast:

1. Water samples were collected from WASA "Drinkwell" booths in 8 Dhaka neighborhoods: Uttara, Gulshan, Dhanmondi, Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Jatrabari, Khilgaon, and Keraniganj
2. Initial analysis was performed at the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University (SAU) Food Safety Lab
3. Samples were then sent to Umea University, Sweden for "deep analysis" at an internationally accredited laboratory
4. The researchers held a dissemination workshop where a WASA representative (unnamed) attended and stated they had not previously considered PFAS at their booths

Reported Findings

Health Risks Cited

The report cited: high blood pressure, reduced vaccine effectiveness, low birth weight, and liver cancer -- all established PFAS health endpoints, but presented without dose-response context or exposure duration analysis.

WASA Response

Star News reported attempting to contact the WASA Managing Director for comment. No response was provided. The unnamed WASA workshop representative had previously acknowledged that PFAS was not part of their booth water quality monitoring.

Methodological Concerns

1. No Published Protocol or Peer Review

The most fundamental issue: this work has not been peer-reviewed. The findings were presented at a "dissemination workshop" and then on television -- bypassing the standard scientific process entirely.

• No named principal investigator or lead researcher
• No published paper (preprint or otherwise)
• No methodology section available for scrutiny
• No raw data, detection limits, or quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) reporting
• No information on which specific PFAS compounds were detected or at what individual concentrations

A "3,000x exceedance" claim presented to the public without peer review warrants careful scrutiny before it can inform policy or public health decisions.

2. PFAS Sampling Is Notoriously Prone to Contamination

PFAS analysis is one of the most contamination-sensitive procedures in environmental chemistry. The US EPA, ITRC, and state environmental agencies all publish extensive guidance specifically because false positives are common and easy to produce.

Sources of PFAS contamination during sampling include:

3. Chain of Custody: Dhaka to Sweden

Samples were reportedly collected in Dhaka, initially analyzed at SAU, then shipped to Umea University in Sweden. This raises significant questions:

• How were samples preserved and shipped? PFAS samples require specific containers (polypropylene, NOT glass or HDPE), specific preservatives (Trizma buffer for some methods), and temperature control (< 6°C)
• What was the transit time? International shipping from Dhaka to Sweden could take 5-14 days. EPA Method 533 requires analysis within 28 days of collection; delays degrade sample integrity
• Were field blanks collected? Standard PFAS sampling requires trip blanks, field blanks, and equipment blanks to identify contamination introduced during collection and transport
• Were duplicate samples analyzed? Without duplicates, there is no way to assess precision or rule out single-sample contamination events
• What analytical method was used? EPA 533? EPA 537.1? ISO 21675? Each has different target analyte lists, detection limits, and quality control requirements

4. The Container Problem

This deserves special emphasis. In Bangladesh, common laboratory sample containers include:

• Plastic bottles -- many contain PFAS-based mold release agents or fluoropolymer linings
• Glass bottles with PTFE-lined caps -- the lining IS PFAS and will leach into samples

The US EPA and ITRC explicitly require:

"Samples shall be collected in polypropylene or HDPE containers verified to be PFAS-free. Containers with Teflon or PTFE components shall NOT be used."
-- ITRC PFAS Sampling Fact Sheet, 2022

If SAU used standard laboratory glassware with PTFE-lined caps or standard plastic containers for initial collection, the "3,000x exceedance" may be entirely an artifact of container contamination -- not actual water quality.

5. The 3,000x Claim Lacks Critical Context

The Star News report compared results to Denmark's limits -- the strictest in the world. Understanding the full landscape of PFAS standards reveals how complex and varied these regulations are:

Global PFAS Drinking Water Standards Comparison

Are these limits based on demonstrated health harm?

An important point often lost in PFAS reporting: the strictest standards are driven by the precautionary principle, not by direct evidence of health harm at those concentrations.

• Denmark's 2 ng/L limit is derived from EFSA's 2020 tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 4.4 ng/kg body weight/week for the sum of 4 PFAS, applied to the most sensitive population (1-year-old infants) and assuming only 10% of PFAS intake comes from drinking water (the rest from food). This is an ultra-conservative calculation designed for maximum protection, not a threshold above which health effects are observed.
• EFSA itself acknowledged that most PFAS exposure comes from food, not drinking water. The Danish population already exceeds the TWI through food alone, which is why so little "budget" remains for water exposure.
• The EU's 100 ng/L limit is 50x higher than Denmark's -- reflecting a different risk assessment approach, not different science.
• The US EPA's 4 ng/L limit was set using a different methodology (relative source contribution of 20%, not 10%) and has itself been criticized by some toxicologists as being below levels where health effects have been demonstrated in epidemiological studies.
• No regulatory agency has established that PFAS at the levels found in typical Dhaka drinking water (13-42 ng/L per peer-reviewed data) causes cancer or other acute health effects. The health endpoints cited in the Star News report (liver cancer, blood pressure, vaccine response, birth weight) are associated with chronic high-level occupational or community exposure -- not with the trace levels found in municipal water systems.

The point is not that PFAS contamination is harmless -- it is a legitimate emerging concern. The point is that comparing Dhaka water to Denmark's 2 ng/L standard and calling the result "3,000x" creates a misleading impression of imminent health danger that is not supported by the toxicological evidence at actual environmental concentrations.

If the Danish standard of 2 ng/L is the baseline, "3,000x" = 6,000 ng/L (6 ug/L). This would be an extraordinary concentration -- higher than levels found inside firefighting foam (AFFF) contamination zones and orders of magnitude above anything reported in peer-reviewed Dhaka water studies (13-42 ng/L total PFAS).

This extraordinary concentration warrants independent verification. Without published methodology and QA/QC data, it is not possible to determine whether this reflects actual water quality or sample contamination.

6. Comparison with Peer-Reviewed Data

The only peer-reviewed study of dissolved PFAS in Dhaka water is Morales-McDevitt et al. (2021) from the University of Rhode Island, published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry:

The peer-reviewed data shows PFAS contamination that is 100-400x lower than what Star News reports. This discrepancy alone demands explanation before the Star News findings can be considered credible.

7. Bangladesh Testing Context

Several facts about PFAS testing in Bangladesh provide important context for evaluating the Star News report:

PFAS is not part of Bangladesh's standard water quality testing. The Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI) requires testing of approximately 43 parameters for issuing Certification Mark (CM) licenses for drinking water under BDS 1240. PFAS is not included in these parameters. This means no drinking water provider in Bangladesh -- whether WASA, private bottled water companies, or community systems like Drinkwell -- is required to test for or monitor PFAS. The WASA representative's admission at the dissemination workshop that they "had not considered PFAS" is entirely consistent with the regulatory framework, not a sign of negligence.

PFAS testing requires highly specialized laboratory capacity. PFAS analysis requires liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) or equivalent instrumentation, ultra-clean sample preparation environments, and PFAS-free consumables. Most prominent laboratories in Bangladesh do not have the facilities to conduct PFAS analysis. This is precisely why the SAU researchers sent samples to Umea University in Sweden -- and it raises further questions about whether appropriate PFAS-free sampling protocols were followed during collection in Dhaka, given the limited local expertise.

Prior PFAS findings in Bangladeshi bottled water also raise questions. A separate group of researchers previously reported finding excessive PFAS in commercially bottled water sold in Bangladesh. This finding is itself surprising: the bottled water industry in Bangladesh sources water from public supplies and purifies it using reverse osmosis (RO), which is one of the EPA-designated Best Available Technologies for PFAS removal. If RO-treated bottled water shows high PFAS, it suggests either (a) the PFAS entered the water after RO treatment (i.e., from packaging, containers, or lab contamination), or (b) the testing methodology had issues. This pattern of unexpectedly high PFAS findings across multiple Bangladeshi studies warrants careful methodological review.

Drinkwell's water treatment chain. The water that Dhaka WASA supplies to Drinkwell's ATM network comes primarily from surface sources (rivers) and undergoes chlorination at WASA treatment plants before delivery. Drinkwell then applies additional purification using adsorbent media filtration and UV disinfection at each Water ATM before dispensing to consumers. The Star News report sampled at WASA booths but did not disclose whether samples were taken before or after the point-of-use treatment stage -- a critical distinction.

The Real Source: Garment Industry

Two major studies have established that PFAS contamination in Bangladesh originates overwhelmingly from the garment and textile manufacturing sector -- not from drinking water infrastructure.

ESDO/IPEN Study (2024)

The Environment and Social Development Organization (ESDO) and IPEN published a comprehensive study finding:

• 87% of surface water samples (27 of 31) contained PFAS
• 67% contained globally banned PFAS compounds (PFOA, PFOS)
• Samples downstream from Export Processing Zones showed higher concentrations than upstream samples -- confirming industrial point-source discharge
• The Karnatali River near textile zones had PFOA at 1,700x above Dutch limits and PFOS at 54,000x above Dutch limits

Key finding: The contamination is concentrated around textile manufacturing zones and Export Processing Zones (EPZs), not distributed across the municipal water system.

University of Rhode Island Study (Morales-McDevitt et al., 2021)

This peer-reviewed study deployed passive samplers across 11 Dhaka sites and found:

• Canal Savar (near Denitex textile mill) had the highest total PFAS: 42 ng/L
• Short-chain PFAS (PFBA, PFHxA) dominated, consistent with industry switching from banned long-chain compounds to "safer" alternatives
• Neutral PFAS (6:2 FTOH) was detected in Dhaka air at up to 70 ng/m³ -- indicating atmospheric emissions from textile processing
• The pattern of contamination clearly traced to industrial discharge, not water treatment

Why This Matters

What Dhaka Actually Needs

The Star News report, despite its methodological shortcomings, touches on a real issue: Bangladesh has no PFAS monitoring or regulatory framework. Here is what a credible response looks like:

1. A Rigorous, Peer-Reviewed Baseline Study

• Systematic sampling across WASA's entire supply chain: source water, treatment stages, distribution, and point-of-use (booths/ATMs)
• Conducted under EPA Method 533 or ISO 21675 with full QA/QC
• PFAS-free sampling protocols (PP containers, field/trip blanks, no PTFE equipment)
• Published in a peer-reviewed journal with open data
• This would give Dhaka its first defensible PFAS baseline

2. Source Identification & Industrial Wastewater Intervention

• Map PFAS discharge from garment factories, tanneries, and other industrial sources
• Assess current ETP capabilities for PFAS removal (spoiler: essentially zero)
• Pilot advanced treatment technologies (granular activated carbon, ion exchange, high-pressure membranes) at industrial discharge points
• Develop a PFAS phase-out roadmap for the textile sector in coordination with international brands sourcing from Bangladesh

3. Regulatory Framework Development

• Bangladesh currently has no PFAS drinking water standard
• The Department of Environment (DoE) needs technical support to develop evidence-based limits
• Standards should be achievable and informed by actual contamination levels -- adopting Denmark's 2 ng/L limit without infrastructure to meet it would be counterproductive

4. Treatment Technology Assessment

• Evaluate which technologies can cost-effectively reduce PFAS at both municipal scale and point-of-use
• Assess whether existing WASA treatment stages provide any incidental PFAS reduction
• Test point-of-use technologies (including ion exchange, GAC, and nanofiltration) at actual Dhaka PFAS concentrations

Drinkwell's Role

Drinkwell combines deep water treatment expertise, existing infrastructure at scale, and a direct contractual relationship with DWASA -- a rare combination in Dhaka's water sector.

Operational Presence

• 300+ Water ATMs across all major Dhaka neighborhoods -- including every area sampled in the Star News report (Uttara, Gulshan, Dhanmondi, Mirpur, Mohammadpur, Jatrabari, Khilgaon, Keraniganj)
• Direct DWASA contract (renewed February 2026) -- we are embedded in the utility's water delivery infrastructure
• 600+ trained booth operators who can serve as sampling and monitoring network
• Real-time IoT telemetry on water dispensing volumes and system status

Technical Expertise

Drinkwell's core technology -- HIX-Nano (Hybrid Ion Exchange Nanotechnology) -- was invented by Prof. Arup K. SenGupta at Lehigh University and commercialized by co-founder Dr. Mike German (Ph.D., Lehigh, 2017).

HIX-Nano is an ion exchange platform. Ion exchange is one of four EPA-designated Best Available Technologies (BATs) for PFAS removal, alongside:

• Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
• Reverse osmosis
• Nanofiltration

Our team has 188 peer-reviewed publications on ion exchange water treatment, including the foundational science of selective contaminant removal using hybrid polymer-nanoparticle materials. The same selectivity principles that make HIX-Nano effective for arsenic apply to PFAS anions (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS are all anionic at environmental pH).

What Drinkwell Can Do That Nobody Else Can

The Garment Wastewater Opportunity

This is the critical gap -- and Drinkwell's biggest opportunity:

No company in Bangladesh currently offers effective PFAS removal for garment industry wastewater. The 4,000+ factories in Greater Dhaka discharge PFAS-laden effluent through ETPs that were never designed to capture fluorinated compounds.

Drinkwell's ion exchange expertise and international partnerships position us to:

1. Bring advanced PFAS treatment technology from Europe and the US -- including high-selectivity anion exchange resins (e.g., Purolite/Lanxess single-use AER), foam fractionation, and membrane-based separation systems proven at full scale in EU and US municipal systems
2. Pilot PFAS-specific treatment modules at garment factory ETPs, adapting international best practices to Bangladesh's industrial context
3. Develop cost-effective anion exchange media optimized for textile PFAS (primarily 6:2 FTOH transformation products and short-chain PFCAs/PFSAs)
4. Partner with international brands (H&M, Zara/Inditex, Nike, etc.) who face regulatory pressure under the EU PFAS Restriction Proposal to clean up their supply chains
5. Generate the first credible Bangladeshi PFAS dataset across the full water cycle: industrial discharge, surface water, treatment plant influent/effluent, and point-of-use

Drinkwell is ready to be Bangladesh's bridge to proven international PFAS treatment technology. Our co-founder Dr. Mike German trained at Lehigh University under the inventor of hybrid ion exchange nanotechnology, and we maintain active research relationships with leading water treatment institutions in the US, Sweden, and Europe.

The brands need this. The EU's proposed universal PFAS restriction (expected 2025-2027) will require supply chain due diligence. California has already banned intentionally added PFAS in textiles (effective January 2025), and France follows in January 2026. Factories that can demonstrate PFAS treatment will have a competitive advantage. Drinkwell can be the technology partner that makes Bangladesh's garment sector PFAS-compliant.

Recommendations

For DWASA

1. Respond with measured confidence. The Star News report has not been peer-reviewed and contains methodological questions that must be resolved. A measured, science-based response will be more effective than reactive interventions based on unverified claims.
2. Commission a proper baseline study. Partner with Drinkwell and an accredited international laboratory to conduct PFAS sampling across the WASA supply chain using published EPA/ISO methods with full QA/QC.
3. Engage the Department of Environment on industrial discharge -- the documented source of PFAS in Dhaka waterways.

For the Research Community

1. Publish the data. If the SAU/Umea findings are real, they belong in a peer-reviewed journal where methodology can be scrutinized and results replicated.
2. Follow established PFAS sampling protocols. The ITRC and EPA have published detailed guidance specifically because PFAS sampling contamination is so common.
3. Collaborate with stakeholders. Working with WASA, Drinkwell, and other water sector partners to understand contamination pathways will produce the strongest outcomes for public health.

For International Brands Sourcing from Bangladesh

1. Fund PFAS monitoring in your supply chain. The contamination originates from your products' manufacturing processes.
2. Invest in ETP upgrades that include PFAS treatment capability.
3. Partner with Drinkwell to deploy ion exchange treatment at factory discharge points -- addressing the problem at its source.

For Donors and Development Partners

The World Bank's $370M Dhaka water program (approved February 2026) should include a PFAS component. UNICEF, ADB, JICA, and GIZ -- all current Drinkwell partners -- should support a coordinated PFAS response rather than reactive measures driven by unverified media reports.

References

Peer-Reviewed Studies

1. Morales-McDevitt, M.E., et al. (2021). "Poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances in air and water from Dhaka, Bangladesh." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. University of Rhode Island. PMC9558080

Reports

2. ESDO/IPEN (2024). "Study Finds the Textile Industry in Bangladesh is a Significant Source of PFAS Water Pollution." Environment and Social Development Organization & International Pollutants Elimination Network. (Not peer-reviewed.) IPEN Report

Regulatory & Guidance Documents

3. ITRC (2022). "PFAS Sampling and Laboratory Analytical Methods Fact Sheet." Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. ITRC Fact Sheet
4. ITRC (2024). "Sampling and Analytical Methods -- PFAS Technical Guidance." ITRC Chapter 11
5. US EPA (2024). Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. MCLs: PFOA 4 ng/L, PFOS 4 ng/L.
6. EU Drinking Water Directive 2020/2184. Sum of 20 PFAS: 100 ng/L (effective January 12, 2026).
7. Danish EPA. Sum of 4 PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA): 2 ng/L.

Media

8. Star News Bangladesh (2026). "ওয়াসার পানিতে ক্যানসারের বিষ" (Cancer-causing poison in WASA water). Reporter: Foyzul Siddiqui. Published April 3, 2026. YouTube

Drinkwell & HIX-Nano Technology

9. SenGupta, A.K. (2007). US Patent 7,291,578 -- Hybrid anion exchanger with HFO nanoparticles. Recipient of USPTO "Patents for Humanity" award.
10. German, M.S. (2017). Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University. Commercialization of HIX-Nano for arsenic and fluoride removal in South Asia.
11. Prof. Arup K. SenGupta publication record: 188 peer-reviewed papers, h-index 42, 10,900+ citations. ASCE Fellow.

PFAS Treatment Technology

12. Dixit, F., et al. (2021). "PFAS removal by ion exchange resins: A review." Chemosphere, 272, 129777. ScienceDirect
13. US EPA (2024). "Best Available Technologies and Small System Compliance Technologies for the PFAS NPDWR." EPA Document No. 815R24011. EPA BAT Document
14. Zaggia, A., et al. (2024). "PFAS in textile wastewater: An integrated scenario analysis for interventions prioritization to reduce environmental risk." Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 183, 116-127. ScienceDirect

Health Effects

15. EFSA (2020). "Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food." EFSA Journal, 18(9), e06223. Established tolerable weekly intake of 4.4 ng/kg bw for sum of 4 PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA). Wiley/EFSA
16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022). "Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up." Chapter 3: Potential Health Effects. NASEM

Bangladesh Water Infrastructure

17. ADB (2013-ongoing). "Dhaka Environmentally Sustainable Water Supply Project." Project 42173-013. Includes Saidabad WTP (450,000 m³/day) and Gandharbpur WTP (500 MLD, under construction). ADB Project
18. Islam, M.S., et al. (2023). "Removal efficiencies of microplastics of the three largest drinking water treatment plants in Bangladesh." Science of the Total Environment, 905, 167232. Documents treatment processes at Saidabad and Padma WTPs. ScienceDirect

Textile Industry & PFAS Regulation

19. European Environment Agency (2024). "PFAS in textiles in Europe's circular economy." EEA Report
20. California AB 1817 (2025). Ban on intentionally added PFAS in textiles. Effective January 1, 2025.
21. France LOI n 2024-1217 (2026). Ban on PFAS in textiles, footwear, and waterproofing agents for consumer use. Effective January 1, 2026.

Background

22. World Bank (2026). "World Bank Helps Reduce Dhaka's Water Pollution." $370M Metro Dhaka Water Security and Resilience Program. February 10, 2026. Press Release

Contact Us

We welcome inquiries from researchers, journalists, government officials, development partners, and anyone working on water quality in Bangladesh. We are committed to open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving.