Interactive Insights into the OVAM EmConSoil Initiative: Advancing Emerging Contaminant Management in Soils
AquaConSoil conference, Liège, Belgium
The OVAM EmConSoil initiative, led by OVAM (Public Waste Agency of Flanders), addresses the urgent issue of managing emerging contaminants (ECs) in soils and groundwater. This session was designed to bring together researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the unique challenges, innovative approaches, and collaborative solutions for assessing and mitigating ECs impacts on soil health, ecosystem sustainability and public safety.
- Introduction to the session
The OVAM EmConSoil initiative, led by OVAM (Public Waste Agency of Flanders), addresses the urgent issue of managing emerging contaminants (ECs) in soils and groundwater. This session was designed to bring together researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the unique challenges, innovative approaches, and collaborative solutions for assessing and mitigating ECs impacts on soil health, ecosystem sustainability and public safety. - Presentation of the EmConSoil initiative
The EmConSoil initiative was presented by Johan Ceenaeme of the OVAM.
The growing complexity and prevalence of emerging contaminants such as PFAS, microplastics, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides pose a significant threat to soil and groundwater systems across Europe. In response to this escalating environmental concern, the EmConSoil initiative was established in 2018 to serve as a collaborative platform for scientists, policy-makers, regulators, industry actors, problem owners, and civil society. Its aim is to promote knowledge exchange, drive innovation, and shape effective responses to contamination challenges. EmConSoil does this by its regular newsletter, setting up online webinars and periodically organizing the Ensor conference (more info on EmConSoil at www.emconsoil.eu). - Interactive poll
An interactive poll was conducted to obtain background information on the participants of the session and their view on EmConSoil and topics EmConSoil needs to focus on. Poll results are summarized in the following tables.
Where are you from? – one answer per participant
Nothern Europe 10 34% Central Europe
8 35% Southern Europe 1 4% Eastern Europe 1 4% North America 1 4% Australia 1 4%
What is your professional role in relation to ECs? - 3 answers per participant possible
Policy maker 10 34% Policy enforcer 1 3% Local or regional governance 4 14% Consultant 1 3% Contractor 2 7% Researcher 7 24% Problem owner 2 7% Manufacturer 0% NGO 0% Public 2 7% What is your interest in joining this session? - 3 answers per participant possible
Learn 5 15% Networking, sharing 11 33% Information 3 9% Policy 3 9% CEC 3 9% Challenges 4 3% New insights, inspiration 6 18% Non target screening 1 3% What are the ECs, you are currently focusing on? - 3 answers per participant possible
PFAS 20 39% Microplastics 6 12% Pesticides 12 24% Pharmaceuticals 4 14% Other hologenated hydrocarbons 1 2% Drugs (non-medical) 2 4% Others 3 6%
What are the ECs that you believe will become hot topics in the near future? - 3 answers per participant possiblePFAS 6 16% Microplastics 12 32% Pesticides 11 30% Pharmaceuticals 13 35% Bromated hydrocarbons 6 16% Drugs (non-medical) 0% Tyre wear 4 11% Dioxines 1 3% Others? 2 5%
What are the main issues you are confronted with in relation to EC? – rank top 3
1 - Human toxicology
2 - Lack of environmental standards
3 - Impracticable envrionmnetal standards
4 - Lack of regulation
5 - Ecotoxicology
5 - Unclear environmental fate
6 - Remedial technology
7 - No EC adapted policies
8 - Costs
9 - Hindering legislation
9 - Chemical analyses
What EC related topic do you want EmConSoil to focus on? – word cloud answer
Communication (to the public, risks) 6
Collaboration and sharing 3
Aligning/linking water and soil 2
Cost-benefit an social-benfit analyses 2
Risk assessment 2
Priorization (NTA) 2
Methods, good practices and guidelines 1
Reliability of data 1
Link to air 1
Link to health 1
Regulation of EC use 1
Flame retardants 1
Nanomaterials 1
1-4 dioxane 1
Transformation products 1
Solutions 1
Review 1
Transparency 1 - Methodology Showcase: Case Flanders
The Flanders case was presented by Johan Ceenaeme of the OVAM. Johan Ceenaeme is policy and legislation coordinator at the OVAM and chair of the PFAS team of Common Forum.
- Initial Triggers
The PFAS crisis in Flanders served as a wake-up call. Between 2016 and 2018, a comprehensive PFAS measuring campaign was launched, targeting high-risk activities. Twenty-four sites were selected for soil and groundwater testing involving 21 PFAS compounds. The results highlighted significant contamination, particularly at firefighting training grounds. This prompted the integration of PFAS into routine soil investigations and marked the beginning of a structured and preventive policy approach. - Initial Issues
Following the crisis escalation in July 2021, the Flemish authorities, through OVAM and local municipalities, launched two large-scale inventory calls. The first targeted sites where fire extinguishing foam had been used—including training facilities, industrial fire services, and airports—resulting in the identification of 826 locations. The second focused on industries known to process or produce PFAS, such as textile, paper, and galvanic sectors, leading to the identification of over 7,500 locations. - Developed Solutions
Several remedial and policy solutions emerged in response. These included extensive site investigations, the issuance of precautionary communication ("no-regret measures"), and the establishment of a temporary legal framework for PFAS soil remediation and reuse. Background levels of anthropogenic PFAS were studied, and co-financing mechanisms were introduced for soil investigations. PFAS-related
activities were officially classified as risk activities, triggering new regulatory obligations. - Current, new challenges
Despite significant progress, several challenges remain. There is a pressing need to develop a robust and adaptive legal framework that reflects the evolving scientific understanding of PFAS. Remediation technologies must be refined, and concepts of remediation need to account for cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability. Parallel investigations are also underway for other contaminants, including pesticides and micro- and nanoplastics. - Ongoing developments and expectations
The PFAS experience has compelled a re-evaluation of policies and legislative approaches. OVAM has initiated a social cost-benefit analysis to support policy development. International cooperation is seen as essential for harmonizing approaches to ECs, and the European Soil Monitoring Law is expected to play a critical role in standardizing risk assessment and remediation practices across borders. - Future Hurdles and collaborative opportunities
The presence of PFAS in residential areas due to historical land use changes underscores the complexity of legacy contamination. Legal uncertainty, rapidly evolving knowledge, and the widespread use of PFAS outside of production sites present considerable challenges for environmental management and real estate development.
- Initial Triggers
- Methodology Showcase: Case Denmark
The Denmark case was presented by Dr. Nanette Schouw of the Region Sjaelland and ATV soil and groundwater. Dr. Nanette Schouw has a PhD in environmental engineering with focus on pesticides in groundwater and use of contaminated sludge on agricultural land. As a public administrator she deals
with PFAS, pesticides, non target screening, industrial and pharmaceutical residues in soil and groundwater.
- Initial Triggers
In Denmark, regulatory changes significantly tightened the PFAS threshold in drinking water from 100 ng/L to just 2 ng/L. This shift, coupled with national data infrastructure, led to a surge in environmental measurements and the identification of major contamination events. - Initial issues
The Korsør Fire Academy and Tune water utility can be considered ground zero for the PFAS crisis in Denmark. - Developed Solutions
Denmark responded with a multi-faceted approach. Strategic alliances were formed, turning impacted sites into living labs for testing and innovation. Data sharing and prioritization efforts were emphasized, focusing first on the most severely affected areas. Public funding supported research into advanced remediation technologies, including stabilization, separation, degradation, and destruction. New analytical methods were developed with extremely low detection limits. - Current, new challenges
The advancement of non-target analysis (NTA) and fingerprinting techniques has opened new possibilities for identifying thousands of unknown or lesser-known environmental compounds. This has led to questions about their persistence, mobility, and toxicity, prompting a reevaluation of previously "closed" sites. Collaborative projects have emerged to coordinate sampling, interpret data, and create national databases for NTA results, involving scientists, regulators, utilities, and laboratories. - Ongoing developments and expectations
Acting on scientific data that is still evolving has required Danish authorities to embrace new strategies for risk communication. Balancing realism with reassurance has become essential for maintaining public trust. Initiatives aim to inform the public without causing inaction or panic, acknowledging that perfect scientific certainty is rarely attainable. - Future Hurdles and collaborative opportunities
The Danish experience has highlighted the pervasive nature of anthropogenic pollution. Authorities must navigate a path from ambitious goals toward realistic and pragmatic solutions, accepting temporary tolerance in some cases. A holistic approach is needed to avoid unintended consequences, such as regrettable substitutions. The continued protection of sensitive areas, particularly drinking water resources, remains a priority.
- Initial Triggers
- Panel Reflections and Open Discussion
After the presentation of the two methodology showcases a panel reflection and open discussion guided by prepared questions from the discussion monitor and open questions from the audience.
During the concluding panel discussion, speakers reflected on how the PFAS crisis has changed their approaches. Johan emphasized the importance of avoiding political blame games and instead building constructive, cross-departmental collaboration. Nanette noted that high-profile contamination cases had
drawn media and political attention, which helped secure funding and prompted greater involvement from public authorities. The panel agreed that the classical regulatory model may not be sufficient for managing widespread, low-concentration contaminants. Standards may need to be adapted to specific
land uses, and focus should shift toward identifying and mitigating hotspots.
Participants agreed that the PFAS crisis has changed the landscape. Cross-sectoral collaboration is now stronger, and there is greater institutional preparedness. However, traditional approaches may not be sufficient for widespread, low-concentration contaminants. New methods such as NTA, retrospective analysis, and trend monitoring are needed to identify sources and manage diffuse pollution.
Recent developments highlight the complexity of dealing with ECs. In Wallonia, for example, siloxane pollution was discovered, pointing to potential new issues in waste treatment that may become relevant at the European level. There is increasing recognition that communication around ECs is difficult yet
essential, especially in relation to best practices, measurement techniques, and regulatory guidance.
Future hurdles include the need to acknowledge diffuse anthropogenic pollution and adopt a more pragmatic, holistic approach. This means moving from ambitious ideals toward realistic, flexible standards and accepting temporary tolerances for some substances. A particular focus must be placed
on protecting sensitive areas like drinking water sources and avoiding regrettable substitutions. Breaking down institutional silos and learning to manage uncertainty are essential for long-term progress.
Speakers also emphasized the importance of managing expectations and communicating uncertainties. While scientific understanding continues to evolve, regulatory frameworks must balance ambition with pragmatism. Protecting sensitive areas, such as drinking water sources, and avoiding regrettable
substitutions are key priorities moving forward.
In response to the PFAS crisis in Denmark, Danish stakeholders formed a strategic alliance that included authorities, utilities, and laboratories. The contaminated Korsør site was transformed into a “living lab” to pilot and demonstrate remediation techniques. Public funding supported the development of new analytical methods with lower detection limits, and efforts were prioritized based on worst-case scenarios. A strong culture of data sharing and collaboration was established, helping to foster innovation and transparency.
The discussion also highlighted significant knowledge gaps. Databases such as REACH offer high-level overviews, but they often lack the granularity needed to determine what substances were used where and when. Transformation products, like TFA, present further complications, as do understudied compounds.
Non-target analysis and retrospective data evaluation—especially in water systems—can help identify trends, sources, and polluters through chemical fingerprinting.
Overall, participants acknowledged that we still do not know enough to fully address the risks posed by emerging contaminants. Issues like landfill leachate and indoor exposure to PFAS (e.g., via house dust) continue to receive limited attention despite their potential significance. Communicating these
uncertainties effectively to both policymakers and the public remains one of the most urgent and complex challenges ahead.
Share this post!