Draft Australian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines – Frequently Asked Questions

Recreational water and human health

What is ‘recreational water’?

Recreational water refers to many types of natural and artificial bodies of water (such as lakes, rivers, thermal springs, water holes and marine water bodies) that are used for leisure and outdoor activities. These activities may or may not involve being fully immersed in the water, such as swimming, fishing, boating and wading.

For NHMRC guidelines, recreational water does not include water bodies that use chemical disinfection, such as aquatic facilities (e.g. swimming pools, spas or water theme parks).

How can recreational water quality harm human health?

Recreational water—like lakes, rivers, and marine water bodies—can sometimes contain things that might make people sick or uncomfortable. 
The main water quality hazards include:

• Microbial hazards: Infectious organisms like bacteria, viruses, and parasites can cause gastrointestinal illness, skin rashes, or ear infections. These are especially common after heavy rain or in areas with poor water circulation.
• Chemical contaminants: Chemicals from pollution, spills, illegal dumping or surface runoff after rain events can irritate skin or potentially pose longer-term health risks.
• Algal and cyanobacterial blooms: These can make the water look green, red, brown or scummy. Algal and cyanobacterial blooms may release toxins that cause skin irritation, breathing issues, or more serious health effects if swallowed.
• Radiological hazards: These include naturally occurring radioactive materials such as uranium and thorium. Monitoring is only recommended in areas where there is a known concern.
• Aesthetic and physical issues: Things like litter, oil, bad smells, or cloudy water don’t usually cause illness but can make swimming unpleasant and may indicate other problems with water quality.

Other hazards associated from recreational water that can cause harm include drowning, animal bites, injuries from submerged objects, or sun, heat and cold. While the current Guidelines for managing risks from recreational water provide advice on these hazards, the draft Guidelines (currently released for public consultation) provide information on water quality hazards only. See the draft Guidelines Information sheet – Resources on water quality and other hazards for further information.

How can I be exposed to hazards from recreational water, and does what I do in the water make a difference?

Spending time in water bodies is a great way to stay active, relax, and enjoy nature. While enjoying recreational activities (such as swimming, bathing or kayaking), it is important to be aware that there may be hazards that pose a risk to human health associated with the water.

You can be exposed to hazards in recreational water mainly by swallowing the water through your mouth or nose, getting it on your skin or in your eyes, or breathing in water droplets through spray or aerosols.

Your level of exposure depends on what you do in the water. Activities like swimming or diving (where your head goes under and you might swallow water) can lead to higher exposure. Activities with less direct water contact, like kayaking or canoeing, usually mean lower exposure.

Being informed helps you make safer choices while enjoying all the benefits of water-based recreation.

How do I know if a recreational water body is safe?

In natural water environments, it is not possible to guarantee the complete absence of risk. NHMRC’s current and draft Guidelines aim to reduce health risks to levels considered acceptable for recreational and cultural use.

For example, a recreational water body may be considered “safe” if, based on current knowledge, it is unlikely to cause health problems under normal conditions of recreational exposure. However, the inherent variability of natural waters means that some level of risk is always present and safety can’t be guaranteed at all times. The level of risk from recreational water bodies varies depending on an individual’s own health sensitivities and vulnerabilities.

To be aware of any potential risks from a recreational water body, it is recommended to look for signs or advisories at the water site. If the water looks oily, smells strange, is cloudy or discoloured, avoid swimming or contact with the water.

Information on a water body may also be online: water managers may test for indicators of faecal pollution, cyanobacteria and chemicals at popular swimming sites and will post warnings if there are any concerns.

Are there special precautions for pregnant women?

Activities such as swimming are supported as a physical activity during pregnancy (see Guidelines for physical activity during pregnancy). As per advice for the general population, pregnant women are advised to take steps to minimise health risks from recreational waters, including avoiding swallowing recreational water and showering after swimming. If you have specific health concerns, it’s best to consult your healthcare provider before swimming in recreational waters.

What can I do to help keep recreational water bodies clean?

You can help by:

• not littering or dumping chemicals
• using eco-friendly sunscreens and products
• reporting pollution or spills
• properly disposing of pet faeces
• following local rules and advisories.

If you have concerns or notice pollution, contact your local council, health department, or water authority. They can investigate and provide advice.

What should I do if I see a warning sign at a beach or river?

Always follow local advice and warning signs—they are there to protect your health and safety. The most up to date information may be available online.

Where can I find more information or resources on recreational water?

Additional information and/or resources on managing risks in recreational water including online jurisdictional information can be found in the draft Guidelines Information sheet – Resources on water quality and other hazards.

About the current Guidelines and proposed updates

What advice does NHMRC currently provide on recreational water?

NHMRC is responsible for the Guidelines for managing risks in recreational water, (current Guidelines) which were published in 2008; and the Guidance on per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in recreational water, which was published as an addendum to the Guidelines in 2019.

These Guidelines form part of the National Water Quality Management Strategy, an Australian Government initiative in partnership with state and territory governments.

These Guidelines are currently under review, and an updated draft (draft Guidelines) is available for public comment.

The current Guidelines contain information and guidance on health risks from recreational use of coastal, estuarine and fresh waters. Risks to human health can arise from harmful algae and cyanobacteria, microorganisms from faecal pollution, other microbial hazards, chemical or radiological hazards. The current Guidelines also currently include information on risks posed by other hazards, such as heat/cold, drowning and animal attacks, although this information is proposed to be removed in the draft Guidelines. The guidance on PFAS is incorporated into the draft Guidelines.

What are the draft Australian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines

NHMRC has reviewed the 2008 Guidelines with advice from the Recreational Water Quality Advisory Committee and updated the guidance to align with international best practice for the management of recreational water environments. The draft Guidelines are currently available for public comment.

The draft Australian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines are intended to replace the 2008 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water once they are finalised and published.

How do the draft Guidelines compare to the current 2008 Guidelines? What’s different?

A major change from the current 2008 NHMRC Guidelines is a proposed change in scope to focus on the risks from water quality hazards.

Unlike the 2008 version, the draft Guidelines no longer cover risks from non-water quality hazards such as animal attacks, submerged objects, or drowning. These hazards and associated risks are addressed by other organisations.

Links to these resources are provided in the draft Guidelines (see the Information sheet – Resources on water quality and other hazards for further information).

Other key changes are:

• inclusion of a preventive risk management framework which details the key elements for managing water quality at water sites used for recreational and cultural purposes
• updated advice on hazards in recreational water including chemical, microbial, harmful algal blooms and radiological hazards
• updated guideline values and biomass triggers for several key cyanotoxins and a revised alert level framework
• a revised screening approach for chemicals in recreational water, using screening values that are 20 times the guideline values in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (instead of 10 times previously).

Do the draft Guidelines cover consuming what is caught or foraged (e.g. fish, plants) in recreational water?

No. The draft Guidelines cover the exposure to recreational water that may occur through activities such as swimming, fishing and boating. However, consuming what is caught through fishing or harvesting/foraging activities in recreational waters is out of scope of the guidance and requires a separate health risk assessment.

For information about toxins in seafood refer to Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

Do the draft Guidelines consider foam in rivers and/or sediment or soil in rivers?

The scope of the draft Guidelines focusses on recreational water quality, which can include impacts from foam and sediments if they contribute to the hazardous substances present in the water. Risk assessment of factors surrounding the water site should be considered as part of a preventive risk management planning approach as outlined in the Framework for the management of recreational water quality (see Chapter 2 of the draft Guidelines).

Do the draft Guidelines protect sensitive/vulnerable populations (e.g. pregnant women, children)?

Yes, the draft Guidelines aim to protect the health of the general population as well as that of vulnerable groups, including pregnant women and children, based on the use of conservative exposure assumptions.

The calculations used in the draft Guidelines incorporate factors that are conservative and account for vulnerable groups and a range of recreational scenarios. The draft Guidelines recognise that children are more sensitive to hazards from recreational water because they tend to spend more time in direct contact with the water and swallow more water than adults. That’s why the safety calculations in the draft Guidelines are based on how much water children typically ingest, helping to protect everyone—including the most vulnerable.

Sensitive populations (including those who are severely immunocompromised) should seek further medical advice appropriate for their individual circumstances

How did NHMRC review and update the draft Guidelines?

In late 2018 NHMRC commenced the update of the 2008 Guidelines to reflect current scientific evidence and align with international best practice. Oversight of the guideline update was provided by the Recreational Water Quality Advisory Committee, with input from technical experts and jurisdictional representatives.

To prioritise areas for review, scoping was undertaken by NHMRC with expert advice from the Committee. This included:

• targeted consultation: key stakeholders, including environmental protection agencies, health departments, industry and other stakeholders with an interest in recreational water quality were invited to complete a survey. The survey findings were used to identify which sections were of most importance to stakeholders, information gaps and emerging issues relating to recreational water quality.
• comparison of international, national and jurisdictional recreational water guidelines to provide additional evidence for topics to be prioritised for review.

For each priority topic, a comprehensive evidence review was undertaken to evaluate human health risks from each hazard as well as monitoring and risk management approaches required to ensure protection of public health.

A review of the evidence on radiological water quality was also conducted by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in collaboration with NHMRC to support the development of a radiological hazards chapter.

The findings of these reviews and recently published guidance from other agencies such as the World Health Organization were considered by the Committee when making decisions about risk management recommendations. Decisions on guideline recommendations were captured through an evidence-to-decision process.

Further information on NHMRC’s review process is available in the Administrative Report.

What consultation has NHMRC undertaken on the draft Guidelines?

As part of initial scoping of the draft Guidelines, NHMRC undertook a targeted consultation survey with key stakeholders. The survey results helped identify priority sections, information gaps and emerging issues in recreational water quality.

NHMRC also undertook targeted consultation with jurisdictions (including the enHealth Water Quality Expert Reference Panel) and expert review on selected sections of the draft Guidelines prior to public consultation.

In accordance with Section 13 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992, NHMRC has released the draft Guidelines for public consultation from 15 January to 27 February 2026. Public consultation ensures that NHMRC’s guidance and evidence review processes remain transparent and accountable. Feedback received through public consultation will be considered by NHMRC with advice from the Recreational Water Quality Advisory Committee prior to finalising the Guidelines for publication.

How do the draft Guidelines compare to international advice for recreational water?

The draft Guidelines have been developed through a comprehensive review of both international and national guidance, including the latest advice from the World Health Organization (WHO) and other leading jurisdictions. This ensures the draft Guidelines reflect current global best practice while being tailored to Australian conditions and needs.

The draft Guidelines are closely aligned with the 2021 WHO Guidelines for recreational water, adopting similar frameworks for managing microbial, chemical, algal/cyanobacterial and radiological hazards.

The draft Guidelines provide a nationally consistent, evidence-based approach that is internationally comparable, while also being responsive to Australia’s unique recreational water environments and public health priorities.

Implementation of NHMRC guidelines

Are the current NHMRC Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water mandatory?

Adherence to the current NHMRC Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (2008) is not mandatory. NHMRC developed these Guidelines as a tool for state and territory governments to develop legislation and standards appropriate for local conditions and circumstances.

The updated version of the 2008 Guidelines, the draft Australian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines, is currently undergoing public consultation. As these are draft Guidelines only and may change, the 2008 NHMRC Guidelines for managing risks in recreational water remain current until the draft Guidelines are finalised and published on the NHMRC website. Publication is anticipated for late 2026.

Who will use the draft Guidelines?

The draft Guidelines are aimed at a broad audience who are involved in the management or operation of natural water environments where human exposure occurs, including environmental protection agencies, parks authorities, local councils and water authorities, state and territory health departments, key peak bodies, and health/environmental advocacy groups. The general public may also be interested in the draft Guidelines.

How can local authorities and water managers use this guidance?

Recognising that the management of recreational waters around Australia is complex and resource-dependent, the draft Guidelines propose a risk-based approach for implementation.

Where there is sufficient evidence, 'default' screening values or guideline values have been developed by NHMRC for use across all recreational water environments in Australia. However, 'site specific' values can also be derived using local recreational water usage patterns and local health risk determined using a strong risk assessment approach. The developed site-specific values should better reflect their community use and associated risk of recreational water. This must be done in consultation with the local health regulator and/or responsible authority.

How long do local authorities have to comply with the draft Guidelines?

The draft Guidelines are recommendations only and it is up to the responsible authority whether and how the Guidelines are implemented once they are finalised.

The draft Guidelines are currently undergoing public consultation. These are draft Guidelines only and will not be considered final until they are published, which is anticipated for late 2026. Until then, the 2008 NHMRC Guidelines for managing risks in recreational water remain current until the draft Guidelines are finalised and published on the NHMRC website.

Exposure assumptions

Why do the draft Guidelines focus on swallowing water as the main exposure route, and how do they decide how much water people might swallow during recreational activity?

The draft Guidelines focus on swallowing water (ingestion) because it is the most common and easiest way to measure exposure during recreational activities like swimming and playing in natural waters. There is less data on how much water is absorbed through the skin or inhaled.

Data from studies in Australia and overseas were used to estimate how much water people—especially children—might accidentally swallow while swimming or playing in lakes, rivers, or the ocean.

To make sure everyone is protected, the draft Guidelines use “worst-case” numbers as a default (e.g. 250 mL per swimming event and up to 150 swimming days per year). These figures can be adjusted if there is local data available e.g. on frequency of swimming.

Are the assumptions about recreational water use the same for everywhere in Australia?

Yes. However, the amount of time people spend in the water can vary depending on where they live which will affect how much they accidentally swallow (e.g. people in warmer areas may swim more often). If local data on recreational water usage is available, 'site specific' values can be derived to develop screening values that better reflect their community use of recreational water.

Is dermal exposure to chemicals during swimming a concern?

Dermal absorption is considered negligible for most chemicals during recreational water use, including swimming and wading.

Dermal exposure may need to be considered as part of a risk assessment if concentrations exceed screening values based on ingestion for chemicals with moderate to high skin permeability. Generally, these chemicals will only be present in significant concentrations in the event of a spill.

Can wetsuits increase exposure to pathogens or absorption of chemicals?

Extended wetsuit use may increase the absorption of chemicals through the skin because water gets trapped against your body. This could lead to skin irritation or allergies. However, more research is needed to fully understand these risks and how common or serious they might be.

Microbial hazards in recreational water

Why are enterococci the primary indicator instead of E. coli?

Enterococci are recommended as the primary indicator because research shows it has a stronger correlation with risk of illness in recreational waters, particularly in marine environments.

Compared to E. coli, enterococci survive longer in saltwater and better reflect contamination from human and animal faecal sources. This makes it a more reliable predictor of health risk for swimmers and other water users.

The choice aligns with international best practice and WHO guidance, ensuring consistency and improved protection for public health. While E. coli remains useful for some freshwater sites, the draft Guidelines encourage transitioning to enterococci for both marine and freshwater monitoring.

What is Naegleria fowleri and how can we manage risks from this organism?

Naegleria fowleri Naegleria fowleri is a pathogen that can cause primary amoebic meningitis when water, typically from warm, untreated freshwater, enters the nose. N. fowleri infections are rare in Australia. The draft Guidelines do not include a health-based guideline value for N. fowleri because infection risk is not linked to a specific concentration of the organism—illness depends on exposure through the nasal passage rather than ingestion.

Routine testing is not recommended because the presence of N. fowleri varies significantly. Instead, the draft Guidelines advise managing risk through preventive measures such as avoiding warm stagnant water and providing public health advice for high-risk environments. This approach reflects international best practice and focuses on practical risk reduction rather than prescriptive monitoring.

Harmful algal and cyanobacterial blooms

What are cyanobacteria and why are they a concern in recreational waters?

Cyanobacteria, often called blue-green algae, are naturally occurring microorganisms found in many freshwater and some marine environments. Under certain conditions, such as warm temperatures, low water flows and high nutrient levels, they can multiply rapidly and form blooms.

Some species produce toxins (cyanotoxins) which may be associated with skin irritation, gastrointestinal illness, or, in severe cases, liver or neurological effects. Health effects can also arise from direct contact with algal cells.

Recreational activities like swimming or water play increase the risk of exposure, especially for children who may spend more time in the water.

How do harmful algal and cyanobacterial blooms affect water quality and public health?

Harmful algal and cyanobacterial blooms can degrade water quality by producing toxins, reducing oxygen levels, and creating unpleasant odours and scums. These toxins can pose health risks to people and animals through direct contact, accidental ingestion, or inhalation of aerosolised particles.

Blooms may also lead to temporary closures of swimming areas and impact recreational and cultural use of waterways.

What triggers harmful algal and cyanobacterial blooms and can they be prevented?

Blooms are typically triggered by a combination of factors such as warm temperatures, low water flows and high nutrient levels (often from agricultural runoff or urban stormwater).

While complete prevention is not possible, risks can be reduced through catchment management, controlling nutrient inputs, and monitoring water bodies during periods of increased risk. The draft Guidelines provide a proposed alert level framework to help managers respond promptly when conditions favour bloom development.

Why do the draft Guidelines include an alert level framework for cyanobacteria and algae rather than only guideline values?

Cyanobacteria populations can change rapidly. Toxin production varies by species and environmental conditions, with some cyanobacteria not producing toxins. Instead of a single fixed limit, the draft Guidelines use an alert level framework that helps managers respond proportionately as risk increases. This approach supports early intervention, such as increased monitoring or public warnings, before conditions become hazardous. This reduces the likelihood of sudden closures or health impacts.

What is the difference between cyanotoxins and algal toxins?

Cyanotoxins are produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), commonly found in freshwater and some marine environments. These toxins include microcystins, cylindrospermopsins and saxitoxins. Cyanotoxins include compound with different modes of action. Some are hepatotoxins that primarily affect the liver, while neurotoxins primarily affect the nervous system. Cyanotoxins can also be associated with gastrointestinal illness or skin irritations.

Algal toxins, such as brevetoxins or domoic acid, are produced by marine algae (e.g. dinoflagellates or diatoms) rather than cyanobacteria. These toxins are more often associated with harmful algal blooms in coastal waters and can cause neurological effects from consumption of contaminated shellfish.

The key difference lies in the organisms that produce them and the environments where they occur. Cyanotoxins are primarily a freshwater concern, while other algal toxins are typically present in marine environments.

Why are some cyanobacterial and algal species included in the draft Guidelines while others are not?

The draft Guidelines focus on species known to produce toxins or pose health risks based on available evidence. Emerging species are monitored, and advice will be updated as new research becomes available, ensuring the draft Guidelines remain evidence-based and practical.

Why are there no guideline recommendations for Karenia species, given the current bloom in South Australia?

The draft Guidelines do not include a guideline recommendation specifically for Karenia species because there is insufficient evidence to establish a guideline value for brevetoxins, which are the toxins associated with this species.

While the current 2008 NHMRC Guidelines included a cell count trigger for Karenia brevis (which had not yet been detected in Australian waters), a recent evidence review did not find suitable evidence for setting a guideline value. Considering ongoing research into species involved in the current 2025 South Australian bloom, the Recreational Water Quality Advisory Committee has agreed to consider the evidence for Karenia following public consultation.

Why is the proposed guideline value for microcystins lower than the World Health Organization guideline value?

The draft Guidelines use the same underpinning studies as the World Health Organization for deriving a guideline value for microcystins but apply an additional uncertainty factor to address recognised gaps in the evidence base.

Chemicals and radiological hazards recreational water

What is a screening value?

A screening value is a safety level used to help decide if chemicals or other hazards in recreational water might pose a health risk. These values are not strict limits, but practical tools to flag when further investigation is needed.

If a chemical or radiological hazard in recreational water is found above its screening value, it doesn’t automatically mean the water is unsafe. Instead, it’s a signal for authorities to look more closely and decide if any action is needed to protect public health

Screening values are designed to be protective for everyone, especially children, and are based on how people typically use recreational water. This approach is consistent with advice from the World Health Organization and helps keep water activities as safe and enjoyable as possible.

Screening values are used as a precautionary measure when conducting recreational water site investigations and providing advice to affected communities. They include a safety margin and are expected to be well below the level at which any negative effects could occur.

Why don’t the draft Guidelines recommend health-based guideline values for chemicals in recreational water?

There isn’t enough scientific evidence to set strict, one-size-fits-all limits for every chemical in recreational water. This is because people use water in different ways—sometimes just wading, sometimes swimming or boating—and each activity means different types and amounts of exposure to the water.

Instead, NHMRC recommends using “screening values” based on the current health-based guideline values in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC 2011) and how people typically use recreational water (estimate of exposure).

If chemical concentration levels are above these screening values, further investigations should be done to see if there is a risk to human health.

Should I avoid swimming if levels of chemicals are slightly above the screening value?

If monitoring finds that screening values are exceeded, further investigation should be triggered. Exceeding screening values does not automatically mean a health risk exists. It signals the need for a specific evaluation considering local circumstances and conditions of the recreational water area, types and frequencies of recreational water activities, and environmental factors (e.g. winds, currents, tides). Local authorities should advise on appropriate risk management actions based on site-specific risk assessments.

Why do the draft Guidelines recommend that a default screening value for a chemical in recreational water is set at 20 times the Australian drinking water guideline value?

The value of 20 was selected as a health protective option, intended to be broadly applicable to a wide range of recreational scenarios using existing, conservative guideline values developed for drinking water.

The default screening value is set at 20 times the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines health-based guideline vale based on estimates of how much water a child might accidentally swallow while swimming—about 250 mL per swimming event, and up to 150 swimming days a year. That adds up to approximately 37.5 litres a year, which is only about 5% of what a person drinks in a year (730 litres assuming 2 litres per day ingested).

This is different from the 2008 Guidelines, which use a default chemical screening value set at 10 times the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines health-based guideline value. This assumed that people might accidentally ingest 200 mL of recreational water every day of the year (equating to 10% volume of drinking water ingested per year, assuming 2 litres per day ingested), which is considered overly conservative and may overestimate health risks.

The draft Guidelines also propose developing site-specific screening values in consultation with health authorities or regulators if required. This allows for more flexibility for different communities and water bodies as it reflects local water use and exposure patterns. See Information sheet – Deriving site-specific screening values for chemicals in recreational water for more information.

Will the draft Guidelines replace NHMRC’s 2019 advice for PFAS in recreational water?

Yes, the updated and renamed draft Australian Recreational Water Quality Guidelines are intended to replace NHMRC’s Guidance on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in recreational water once finalised and published on the NHMRC website.

Once the final Guidelines are published (anticipated for late 2026), NHMRC’s Guidance on per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in recreational water will be rescinded.

How do the draft Guidelines manage PFAS in recreational water, and what’s changed since the 2019 guidance?

NHMRC’s Recreational Water Quality Committee has advised that no PFAS health-based guideline values are required. The draft Guidelines introduce a new, more streamlined approach to managing chemicals in recreational water. Unlike the 2019 guidance which set health-based guideline values for 3 PFAS (PFOA and the sum of PFOS and PFHxS), the draft Guidelines propose a broader chemical screening method that applies to all chemicals, not just PFAS. In the new proposed approach, screening values that are 20 times the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines health-based guideline values for chemicals can be used to assess whether further investigation is required. Site-specific screening values can also be derived using local data if required, in consultation with the relevant authority.

This shift ensures the draft Guidelines are more adaptable, site-specific, and protective of public health while avoiding unnecessary site closures due to overly conservative assumptions.

What are the health effects from exposure to PFAS?

For information on the health effects of PFAS in humans, see Questions and answers on review of PFAS in drinking water | NHMRC.

Most people are unlikely to get sick from a single swim in water with low levels of PFAS. However, long-term or repeated exposure to high concentrations may increase health risks. As PFAS persist in humans and the environment, it is recommended that human exposure is minimised where possible. As a precaution, people living in or near an area that has been identified as being contaminated with PFAS should take steps to minimise their exposure to these chemicals. State and territory governments can provide localised advice on how to minimise exposure to PFAS.

I work for a local health authority. What do I do when we have detected an exceedance of PFAS at our local recreational water site?

When an exceedance is detected, follow your risk management procedures for managing contaminated recreational water sites. This should also include informing the community of any contaminated areas and/or closures of recreational water sites.

State and territory governments can provide advice regarding PFAS specific to your location and circumstances.

I’m pregnant. Can I swim in water contaminated with PFAS?
 

If PFAS levels in recreational water are below the guideline screening values, everyone, including pregnant women and children, can swim and play in the water. There is no evidence that PFAS is a major contributor to poor health outcomes in pregnant women or their babies.

Aesthetic water quality

Why are there no guideline values for aesthetic water quality?

Aesthetic qualities such as colour, clarity, odour, and the presence of debris are highly variable and influenced by natural factors such as rainfall, organic matter, and seasonal changes.

Unlike health-based parameters, there is no single threshold that reliably indicates when recreational water is aesthetically acceptable or unacceptable. Instead, the draft Guidelines provide descriptive advice and management principles to help maintain water that is visually appealing and pleasant for recreational and cultural activities, while recognising that some natural variation is expected and does not necessarily pose a health risk.