SANS 241 Edition 7: What South Africa’s Proposed New Drinking Water Standard Means for the Sector

[2024-07-11] | Draft for Public Comment | SABS/TC 147 Water

South Africa’s drinking water quality framework is on the verge of its most significant overhaul in nearly a decade. The South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), through its Technical Committee SABS/TC 147 Water, has released SANS 241 Edition 7 as a Draft South African Standard (DSS) for public comment. This seventh edition supersedes SANS 241-1:2015 and SANS 241-2:2015 (both Edition 2), consolidating what was previously a two-part standard into a single, unified document. The draft closed for public comment on 11 September 2024.

For water services authorities, water treatment operators, private sector water treatment companies, and testing laboratories, understanding what has changed — and why — is essential preparation for compliance.

Why a New Edition?

The previous edition (SANS 241:2015) served as the legal backbone for drinking water quality in South Africa, referenced across multiple pieces of legislation including the Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997), the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972), and the National Health Act (Act 61 of 2003). Edition 7 maintains those legal linkages while updating the scientific basis, monitoring philosophy, and compliance framework.

The core driver is alignment with the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 4th Edition (incorporating the first and second addenda, 2022). This alignment brings South Africa in step with the latest international evidence on health-based guideline values, risk management methodology, and emerging contaminants of concern.

The Structural Shift: From Two Parts to One

One of the most immediately practical changes is structural. Editions 1 and 2 of SANS 241 were split into a quality part and a management part. Edition 7 integrates these into a single document with nine clauses and five informative annexes, making it easier for responsible bodies to apply the standard end-to-end without cross-referencing across documents.

The integrated structure covers:

Clause 5 — Water quality risk assessment
Clause 6 — Water quality parameter numerical limits
Clause 7 — Water quality monitoring
Clause 8 — Management of non-compliant results
Clause 9 — Verification of water quality

This structure formalises a risk-based, catchment-to-consumer management cycle rather than simply specifying numerical limits. The standard explicitly states that compliance with numerical limits alone is not sufficient — a functioning water quality management system must also be in place.

Key Changes to Mandatory Parameters (Table 1)

Edition 7 retains the established microbiological, operational, and aesthetic mandatory parameters but introduces refinements that reflect advances in detection methodology and risk understanding.

Microbiological Parameters

E. coli remains the definitive indicator of faecal contamination, with a “not detected” standard in 100 mL. Critically, the standard now explicitly permits reporting in genome copies (GC) via PCR-based methods alongside the traditional CFU and MPN methods. This is a significant modernisation, reflecting the uptake of molecular detection in accredited laboratories — though the draft notes that genomic detection alone cannot confirm viability and must be interpreted with additional context.

Protozoan parasites (Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp.) remain mandatory for water supply systems but are not required for borehole systems. The standard continues to recommend maintaining final water turbidity at ≤ 0.20 NTU on average and ≤ 0.30 NTU for 95% of the time as a proxy indicator of protozoan removal — an important operational target for treatment plant operators.

Somatic coliphages are now positioned as an operational indicator of the water treatment plant’s ability to remove enteric viruses. Their inclusion as a mandatory parameter for water supply systems is noteworthy, as these bacteriophages provide a more conservative, cost-effective surrogate for viral risk assessment than direct enteric virus testing.

Intestinal enterococci is specifically designated for saline or brackish supply systems (conductivity ≥ 154 mS/m), acknowledging that E. coli survival is compromised in saline conditions.

Operational and Aesthetic Parameters

The standard retains the established limits for turbidity (≤ 1.00 NTU), conductivity (≤ 170.0 mS/m at 25°C), pH (5.0–9.7), and disinfectant residuals. The chlorination requirements are unchanged: ≥ 0.50 mg/L free chlorine as Cl₂ at the treatment plant after a minimum 30-minute contact time (within pH 7.0–9.0), and ≥ 0.10 mg/L throughout the distribution network.

Disinfection By-Products

Edition 7 brings greater clarity to the monitoring of disinfection by-products (DBPs). The trihalomethane (THM) suite, bromate, chlorite, and chlorate are maintained as mandatory parameters for water supply systems using chlorination, ozone, or hypochlorite. The standard reinforces that disinfection must never be compromised in the effort to minimise DBP formation — a principle that has practical implications for operators managing TOC-rich surface water sources.

System-Specific Risk Parameters: A More Nuanced Framework (Table 2)

Table 2 in Edition 7 represents a more sophisticated approach to system-specific risk. Rather than treating all parameters as equally applicable to all systems, the standard distinguishes between:

Parameters applicable to all water supply systems
Parameters applicable to borehole systems
Parameters applicable only under specific conditions (e.g., algal blooms, desalination, chloramination)

This is operationally important. It means responsible bodies must conduct formal risk assessments — at minimum twice per year — to determine which Table 2 parameters require inclusion in their routine monitoring programmes.

Key parameters in Table 2 include the full suite of inorganic micro-parameters (arsenic ≤ 10 µg/L, lead ≤ 10 µg/L, chromium ≤ 50 µg/L, cadmium ≤ 3 µg/L, fluoride ≤ 1.5 mg/L, nitrate as N ≤ 11 mg/L), organic parameters (benzene ≤ 10 µg/L, atrazine ≤ 100 µg/L, total organic carbon ≤ 10.0 mg/L), and cyanotoxin-related parameters triggered by algal bloom conditions.

The nitrate/nitrite ratio (≤ 1.0) and THM ratio (≤ 1.0) requirements are retained, with worked calculation examples provided in Annex C.

Infrastructure Protection: Corrosion and Scaling — Now More Prominent

Section 6.6 of Edition 7 significantly expands the guidance on corrosive and scaling water, a concern directly relevant to desalination output, borehole water, and RO-treated water. The standard explicitly identifies low-mineral water from boreholes, desalination plants, and reverse osmosis systems as requiring chemical stabilisation before entering a distribution network.

Permitted assessment tools include the Langelier Saturation Index, Ryznar Saturation Index, Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential, Aggressive Index, Larson Index, and Riddick Corrosion Index. The standard requires that these assessments be conducted at self-defined locations and frequencies, with parameters including pH, alkalinity, conductivity, hardness, calcium, magnesium, and temperature monitored regularly on final and distribution network water.

For TCSC clients operating desalination or RO systems, this clause has direct compliance implications — and represents a measurable value-add for post-treatment stabilisation services.

Borehole Systems: Specific Obligations Clarified

Edition 7 provides greater clarity for borehole systems serving up to 5 000 people. These systems are distinguished from larger water supply systems, with a tailored monitoring regime:

Monthly monitoring of applicable Table 1 mandatory parameters on final water
Bi-annual risk analysis covering Table 2 parameters including HPC, arsenic, fluoride, iron, manganese, nitrate, and nitrite
Monthly monitoring of at least one distribution network sample point where piped distribution exists
Systems serving ≥ 5 000 people automatically classified as water supply systems and subject to the more stringent monitoring requirements

The Parameters of Concern: Annex A — The Future Agenda

Annex A (informative) lists parameters of concern — currently non-mandatory but earmarked for future editions. This list is a strategic planning tool for laboratories and responsible bodies seeking to get ahead of the compliance curve.

The parameters of concern include:

Category	Examples
Endocrine disruptors	17β-estradiol (E2) ≤ 0.175 µg/L; 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2)
PFAS (“forever chemicals”)	PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS — combined limit of 70 ng/L
Pharmaceuticals	Ibuprofen, carbamazepine, sulfamethoxazole, ARVs (50–100 ng/L)
Enteric viruses	Adenovirus, norovirus, hepatitis A, rotavirus — not detected
Cyanotoxins (additional)	Cylindrospermopsin, anatoxin, saxitoxin, nodularin
Disinfection by-products	Haloacetic acids (DCA ≤ 50 µg/L, TCA ≤ 200 µg/L)
Transformation products	NDMA ≤ 0.10 µg/L
Radioactivity	Gross alpha ≤ 0.5 Bq/L; gross beta ≤ 1 Bq/L

The inclusion of PFAS reflects global regulatory momentum following US EPA and EU action. The listing of antiretrovirals (ARVs) including stavudine and lamivudine as parameters of concern is particularly relevant to South Africa given the high burden of HIV treatment and its documented environmental load in water systems receiving wastewater effluent. This signals that future editions of SANS 241 will require testing infrastructure and analytical capacity that most South African laboratories do not yet possess at scale.

Compliance Verification: A Refined Weighted Scoring System

Edition 7 retains and refines the weighted overall compliance index (F) introduced in earlier editions:

$$F = (0.4 \times A) + (0.2 \times B) + (0.1 \times C) + (0.1 \times D) + (0.2 \times E)$$

Where:

A = Acute health microbiological compliance (weighted 40%)
B = Acute health chemical compliance (weighted 20%)
C = Chronic health chemical compliance (weighted 10%)
D = Aesthetic compliance (weighted 10%)
E = Operational compliance (weighted 20%)

The performance categorisation in Table 8 maintains the Excellent / Good / Unacceptable tiering, with stricter thresholds applied to systems serving more than 100 000 people. For acute health parameters in large systems, the “Excellent” threshold requires ≥ 99% compliance.

A critical provision: where monitoring requirements are not being met, the water is deemed unsafe by default. This clause removes any ambiguity about the consequences of under-monitoring.

Implications for the Water Sector

Water Services Authorities and Municipalities face a more demanding risk assessment obligation, requiring documented water safety plans, incident management protocols, and compliant consumer registers. The consolidated structure simplifies the compliance pathway but raises the performance bar.

Private Water Treatment Operators providing services under the Water Services Act will need to ensure that their monitoring programmes, reporting systems, and treatment chemical compliance (Annex B lists accepted SANS-compliant chemicals) align with the new edition before promulgation.

Analytical Laboratories must prepare for expanded parameter scopes. The endorsement of PCR-based genome copy detection, the inclusion of somatic coliphages as a mandatory parameter, and the Annex A forward agenda signal growing demand for molecular and advanced analytical capabilities.

Desalination and RO System Operators face explicit corrosivity stabilisation requirements in Section 6.6, making post-treatment remineralisation and corrosivity indexing a compliance requirement rather than an optional service enhancement.

Sustainability Implications: SANS 241 Edition 7 and the Imperative for Industry

Water is not merely a utility — it is a finite planetary resource, a human right, and increasingly a geopolitical and economic pressure point. SANS 241 Edition 7 arrives at a moment when South African industry, agriculture, mining, and municipalities are being asked to do more with less water, under greater scrutiny, and against the backdrop of accelerating climate stress. The new standard’s requirements, read through a sustainability lens, are not just compliance obligations — they are a framework for responsible industrial citizenship.

Closing the Loop on Industrial Pollution Inputs

One of the most consequential sustainability dimensions of Edition 7 is its explicit positioning of industrial and agricultural activity as a primary driver of catchment risk. The standard requires that risk analyses consider proximity to effluent from wastewater treatment plants, sludge irrigation, urban runoff, industrial effluent, mining runoff, and agricultural chemicals — all as mandatory inputs into the water quality risk assessment.

This places a formal obligation on responsible bodies to trace pollution pathways back to source. For industries operating near water abstraction points — mining operations, food processors, chemical manufacturers, textile dyers, and agro-processors — this signals a tightening of the informal tolerance that has historically existed between industrial discharge practices and downstream water quality monitoring. The inclusion of benzene (≤ 10 µg/L) as a system-specific parameter, with a specific note that exceedance should trigger broader industrial chemical risk assessment, and atrazine and its metabolites (≤ 100 µg/L) as a marker for agricultural contamination, makes explicit the link between industrial practice and drinking water safety.

The industrial implication is clear: companies whose operations could affect raw water catchments should treat SANS 241 Edition 7 compliance, at their nearest downstream water supply system, as part of their own environmental due diligence — not solely the problem of the water services authority.

PFAS: The “Forever Chemical” Reckoning Begins

Perhaps no single addition to Annex A carries greater long-term industrial significance than the listing of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) — perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and four related compounds — at a combined indicative limit of 70 ng/L (adopting the US EPA threshold given the absence of a WHO guideline value at time of drafting).

PFAS are synthetic chemicals used across a vast range of industrial applications: firefighting foams (AFFF) at airports and military facilities, non-stick cookware coatings, food packaging, stain-resistant textiles, semiconductor manufacturing, and industrial lubricants. They do not break down in the environment — hence the designation “forever chemicals” — and bioaccumulate through food chains and water systems. Globally, PFAS contamination has been found in drinking water sources near airports, military bases, industrial estates, and landfills.

South Africa is not immune. With PFAS now listed in Annex A and explicitly flagged for inclusion in future mandatory editions, industries that manufacture, use, or dispose of PFAS-containing products should regard this as a material environmental liability signal. Early voluntary monitoring and substitution of PFAS-containing inputs is significantly less costly than regulatory enforcement or contaminated aquifer remediation. The standard, in effect, is giving South African industry a lead time to act.

Pharmaceuticals and Antiretrovirals in Water: A Uniquely South African Dimension

The listing of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) — specifically stavudine and lamivudine — alongside conventional pharmaceuticals (ibuprofen, carbamazepine, diclofenac) as parameters of concern is a signal that demands contextual appreciation. South Africa carries one of the largest antiretroviral treatment programmes in the world, with millions of people on daily ARV regimens. These compounds, excreted unchanged or as active metabolites, pass through wastewater treatment infrastructure that was not designed to remove them, and accumulate in surface water, groundwater, and ultimately drinking water systems.

From a sustainability perspective this creates an uncomfortable intersection between public health success — keeping people alive and healthy on ARVs — and water quality degradation. It is a systems-level challenge that the pharmaceutical and healthcare waste sector, wastewater treatment operators, and public health planners must engage with collectively. Edition 7 is, in essence, calling the sector’s attention to an ecological debt that is accruing.

For pharmaceutical manufacturers and healthcare waste managers, the Annex A listing should accelerate investment in take-back programmes, secure pharmaceutical waste disposal streams, and advanced wastewater treatment technologies capable of removing micropollutants — including ozonation, advanced oxidation processes, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.

Endocrine Disrupting Compounds: Agriculture and Wastewater Reuse at the Crossroads

The listing of 17β-estradiol (E2) at ≤ 0.175 µg/L and 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2) as parameters of concern, specifically linked to systems receiving municipal sludge or wastewater discharges, brings the sustainability of wastewater reuse for agricultural irrigation into sharp focus.

As Cape Town, Johannesburg, and other major urban centres face increasing pressure to recycle treated wastewater into agricultural supply or potable augmentation, the endocrine disrupting compound load in treated effluent becomes a critical gating parameter. Farms irrigating with treated effluent, and municipalities considering potable reuse schemes, will need to demonstrate that E2 and EE2 concentrations in their water supply are within safe bounds — a requirement that current tertiary wastewater treatment infrastructure in South Africa is generally not designed to meet.

This is both a challenge and an opportunity. The water reuse sector — including companies designing membrane bioreactors, UV/ozone hybrid systems, and constructed wetland polishing systems — stands to benefit significantly as the regulatory environment catches up with the ecological reality that endocrine disruptors are already present in South African water bodies.

Climate Change Adaptation: The Standard Acknowledges Operational Extremes

Edition 7 is notably more explicit than its predecessor about climate change as a water quality risk driver. Section 5.2.6 requires that risk analyses account for increased incidence of extreme weather events resulting in water treatment plants operating beyond their design capacity for extended periods — a direct acknowledgement of the longer, more intense rainfall events and extended droughts that characterise South Africa’s changing hydrology.

For industries that depend on consistent, compliant water supply — food and beverage manufacturing, pharmaceutical production, electronics, and textile processing — this clause is a quiet but consequential reminder that water supply resilience is a business continuity issue. Companies that have invested in on-site water storage, private borehole systems, or point-of-use treatment to buffer against municipal supply interruptions are already acting on the logic that Edition 7 now formalises in the regulatory framework.

Monitoring as Stewardship: Reducing Plastic Waste in Testing

Section 6.7.3 introduces a notable sustainability-aligned provision, acknowledging that presence/absence testing using enzyme substrate methods for faecal indicator bacteria can be used as a faster, less expensive, and — importantly — lower plastic waste alternative to traditional membrane filtration for routine screening. The standard specifically notes plastic waste reduction as a benefit, marking the first explicit environmental sustainability consideration embedded within a SANS 241 testing provision.

For large water utilities generating thousands of test results monthly, the adoption of validated presence/absence test kits — confirmed by quantitative methods where positive — could meaningfully reduce single-use plastic consumption in laboratory operations. This aligns with national and global plastic waste reduction targets and demonstrates that analytical practice itself can be a domain for environmental stewardship.

The SDG Alignment: SANS 241 Edition 7 as a Living Policy Instrument

Viewed at the highest level, SANS 241 Edition 7 is a direct legislative instrument in support of UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 — Clean Water and Sanitation — but its reach extends across the SDG framework:

SDG	Linkage to SANS 241 Edition 7
SDG 3 — Good Health & Well-being	Health-based numerical limits aligned to WHO 2022 protect consumer health across the population lifecycle
SDG 6 — Clean Water & Sanitation	Direct: sets the national standard for safe drinking water quality and management
SDG 9 — Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure	Drives investment in treatment technology, laboratory capability, and digital monitoring infrastructure
SDG 12 — Responsible Consumption & Production	PFAS listing and pharmaceutical parameters incentivise circular economy approaches to chemical and waste management
SDG 13 — Climate Action	Explicit recognition of climate-driven operational extremes in risk assessment requirements
SDG 17 — Partnerships for the Goals	Multi-sector responsible body framework; laboratory accreditation requirements encourage institutional collaboration

For South African companies reporting against ESG frameworks — whether the JSE Sustainability Disclosure Guidance, GRI Standards, or the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) — Edition 7 compliance is increasingly a material water-related disclosure item. Water stress, water quality risk in the supply chain, and dependencies on compliant water supply are now squarely in the ESG reporting mainstream. The standard gives those disclosures a regulatory anchor.

A Call to Industry: From Compliance to Leadership

The trajectory is clear. What is in Annex A today — PFAS, ARVs, endocrine disruptors, enteric viruses — will be in the mandatory tables of future editions. Industries that wait for final promulgation before beginning to understand their exposure will find themselves in reactive, costly compliance mode. Those that treat Edition 7 as a strategic planning document — auditing their catchment footprint, investing in advanced treatment and monitoring capacity, and engaging proactively with water services authorities — will be positioned as water stewardship leaders in an economy where water is already a constrained and contested resource.

The planet cannot afford to treat water quality standards as bureaucratic housekeeping. SANS 241 Edition 7 is, at its core, a document about what kind of relationship South African society — including its industries — chooses to have with the water that sustains all life.

Conclusion

SANS 241 Edition 7 is a technically mature and forward-looking standard. Its risk-based architecture, WHO 2022 alignment, consolidated structure, and early signalling of emerging contaminant priorities make it the most comprehensive iteration of South Africa’s drinking water quality framework to date. For water quality practitioners, the transition from the 2015 edition will require careful review of existing monitoring programmes, laboratory capabilities, treatment system designs, and incident management protocols.

TCSC and other water quality specialists operating in Southern Africa would do well to use the period before final promulgation to audit current client compliance status against Edition 7 requirements — particularly around borehole system monitoring, corrosivity assessment, and the expanding disinfection by-product monitoring obligations.

References and Further Reading

The following authoritative sources underpin the technical, regulatory, and sustainability content of this article. They are provided to support practitioners, researchers, ESG analysts, and policymakers seeking to deepen their understanding of South African drinking water quality standards, WHO water quality guidelines, PFAS contamination, water safety planning, and sustainable water treatment practice.

Primary Standard and Regulatory Documents

South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). SANS 241ED7: Drinking Water Quality — Draft South African Standard for Public Comment. Document number SANS 241ED7; Reference SABSTC147/SANS 241. Circulated 11 July 2024. Pretoria: SABS Standards Division. Available via: www.store.sabs.co.za
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). SANS 241-1:2015 — Drinking Water: Part 1: Microbiological, Physical, Aesthetic and Chemical Determinands, Edition 2. Pretoria: SABS. (Superseded by SANS 241 Edition 7 upon promulgation.)
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS). SANS 241-2:2015 — Drinking Water: Part 2: Management Requirements, Edition 2. Pretoria: SABS. (Superseded by SANS 241 Edition 7 upon promulgation.)
Republic of South Africa. Water Services Act, 1997 (Act No. 108 of 1997). Pretoria: Government Printer. Available at: www.gov.za
Republic of South Africa. National Health Act, 2003 (Act No. 61 of 2003). Pretoria: Government Printer. Available at: www.gov.za
Republic of South Africa. Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1972 (Act No. 54 of 1972). Pretoria: Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa, Department of Water Affairs. Regulations Relating to Compulsory National Standards and Measures to Conserve Water. Government Notice No. 509, Government Gazette No. 22355, 8 June 2001.

WHO and International Health Authority Guidelines

World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality: Fourth Edition Incorporating the First and Second Addenda. Geneva: WHO, 2022. ISBN: 9789240045064. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240045064
World Health Organization (WHO). Water Safety Plan Manual: Step-by-Step Risk Management for Drinking-Water Suppliers. Geneva: WHO, 2009. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241562638
World Health Organization (WHO). Pharmaceuticals in Drinking-Water. WHO/HSE/WSH/11.05. Geneva: WHO, 2012. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/pharmaceuticals-in-drinking-water
World Health Organization (WHO). Water Quality and Health — Review of Turbidity: Information for Regulators and Water Suppliers. WHO/FWC/WSH/17.01. Geneva: WHO, 2017.
World Health Organization (WHO). Potable Reuse: Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking Water. Geneva: WHO, 2017. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258715
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. Washington DC: US EPA, 2024. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
European Environment Agency (EEA). Emerging Contaminants in Water: PFAS, Pharmaceuticals and Microplastics. Copenhagen: EEA, 2023. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emerging-contaminants

South African Water Research and Policy

Water Research Commission (WRC) South Africa. WRC Knowledge Review 2022/23: Water Quality and Treatment Research. Pretoria: WRC. Available at: https://www.wrc.org.za
Water Research Commission (WRC) South Africa. Rizak S and Hrudy SE. Strategic Water Quality Monitoring for Drinking Water Safety. WRC Research Report 37. Pretoria: WRC, 2007. ISBN: 1876616628.
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), South Africa. National Water Resource Strategy 2: Water for an Equitable and Sustainable Future. Pretoria: DWS, 2013. Available at: https://www.dws.gov.za
South African National Accreditation System (SANAS). TR 26: Criteria for Validation of Methods Used by Chemical Laboratories in the Coal, Oil, Petroleum, Metals and Minerals, Food, Pharmaceutical, Water and Related Industries. Pretoria: SANAS. Available at: https://www.sanas.co.za
South African National Accreditation System (SANAS). TR 28: Criteria for Validation, Verification, Uncertainty of Measurement and Quality Assurance in Microbiological and Molecular Testing. Pretoria: SANAS.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) and Water Research Commission. Quality of Domestic Water Supplies — Volume 1: Assessment Guide, 2nd Edition. Pretoria: DWAF/WRC, 1998.

PFAS, Emerging Contaminants, and Industrial Water Risk

Evich MG, Davis MJB, McCord JP, et al. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment.” Science, 375(6580), 2022. DOI: 10.1126/science.abg9065
Glüge J, Scheringer M, Cousins IT, et al. “An Overview of the Uses of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 22(12), 2582–2640, 2020. DOI: 10.1039/D0EM00291G
Kümmerer K. “Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: Sources and Cycling.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 57–75, 2010. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-052809-161223
Heberer T. “Occurrence, Fate and Removal of Pharmaceutical Residues in the Aquatic Environment: A Review of Recent Research Data.” Toxicology Letters, 131(1–2), 5–17, 2002. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4274(02)00041-3
Fick J, Söderström H, Lindberg RH, et al. “Contamination of Surface, Ground, and Drinking Water from Pharmaceutical Production.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(12), 2522–2527, 2009. DOI: 10.1897/09-073.1
Swanepoel A, Du Plessis G, Liebenberg C. “Occurrence of Antiretrovirals in Surface Water in South Africa.” Water SA, 41(5), 660–666, 2015. Available at: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wsa

Disinfection By-Products, Cyanotoxins, and Microbiological Risk

Richardson SD, Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, et al. “Occurrence, Genotoxicity, and Carcinogenicity of Regulated and Emerging Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water.” Mutation Research, 636(1–3), 178–242, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2007.09.001
Chorus I and Welker M (eds). Toxic Cyanobacteria in Water: A Guide to Their Public Health Consequences, Monitoring and Management, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press/WHO, 2021. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9781000027310
Ashbolt NJ, Grabow WOK, Snozzi M. “Indicators of Microbial Water Quality.” In: Fewtrell L and Bartram J (eds), Water Quality: Guidelines, Standards and Health. London: IWA Publishing/WHO, 2001, pp. 289–315.
Grabow WOK, Taylor MB, de Villiers JC. “New Methods for the Detection of Viruses: Call for Review of Drinking Water Quality Guidelines.” Water Science and Technology, 43(12), 1–8, 2001.
Payment P and Locas A. “Pathogens in Water: Value and Limits of Correlation with Microbial Indicators.” Ground Water, 49(1), 4–11, 2011. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2010.00710.x

Water Treatment Technology and Corrosion Science

Crittenden JC, Trussell RR, Hand DW, Howe KJ, Tchobanoglous G. MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design, 3rd Edition. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ISBN: 9780470405390.
Stumm W and Morgan JJ. Aquatic Chemistry: Chemical Equilibria and Rates in Natural Waters, 3rd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996. ISBN: 9780471511854.
Withers N. “Desalinated Water and Corrosion Control: Infrastructure Protection Challenges.” Desalination and Water Treatment, 51(1–3), 152–162, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/19443994.2012.710623
Van der Merwe B, Menge J, Naidoo D, et al. “Desalination as a Water Supply Option in South Africa.” Water SA, 40(4), 613–622, 2014. Available at: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/wsa

Sustainability, ESG, and Water Stewardship

United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution A/RES/70/1. New York: UN General Assembly, 2015. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
UN-Water. Sustainable Development Goal 6: Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation. Geneva: UN-Water, 2018. Available at: https://www.unwater.org/publications/sdg-6-synthesis-report-2018-on-water-and-sanitation
CEO Water Mandate / Pacific Institute. Corporate Water Stewardship: Understanding Water Challenges and Finding Common Ground. Oakland: Pacific Institute, 2021. Available at: https://ceowatermandate.org
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018. Amsterdam: GRI, 2018. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1909/gri-303-water-and-effluents-2018.pdf
JSE Limited. JSE Sustainability Disclosure Guidance. Johannesburg: JSE, 2022. Available at: https://www.jse.co.za/services/sustainability
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Basel: Financial Stability Board, 2017. Available at: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/recommendations
Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, et al. “Global Threats to Human Water Security and River Biodiversity.” Nature, 467, 555–561, 2010. DOI: 10.1038/nature09440
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Sixth Assessment Report (AR6): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — Chapter 4: Water. Geneva: IPCC, 2022. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2

South African Water Sector Institutions and Resources

Water Institute of Southern Africa (WISA). South African Water Quality Guidelines and Research Resources. Available at: https://www.wisa.org.za
Water Research Commission (WRC) South Africa. Knowledge Hub and Research Repository. Available at: https://www.wrc.org.za
Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). Water Infrastructure Investment Programme. Available at: https://www.dbsa.org
Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), South Africa. Blue Drop and Green Drop Certification Programmes. Available at: https://www.dws.gov.za/bluedrop
Technology Innovation Agency (TIA), South Africa. Water Technology Innovation Programmes. Available at: https://www.tia.org.za
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) Standards Store. Available at: https://www.store.sabs.co.za
The Chemistry Solutions Company (TCSC). Water Quality Analysis, Chemical Dosing and Treatment Management Services. Muizenberg, Cape Town. Available at: https://www.chemistrysolutions.co.za

Keywords for search and discovery: SANS 241 Edition 7, SANS 241 2024, South Africa drinking water quality standard, SABS drinking water, WHO drinking water guidelines 2022, water quality South Africa, PFAS drinking water South Africa, water safety plan South Africa, borehole water quality standards, disinfection by-products South Africa, water treatment South Africa, E. coli water testing, Cryptosporidium water standards, trihalomethanes drinking water, water corrosivity Langelier index, reverse osmosis water quality, desalination South Africa, ARV contamination water, cyanobacteria water quality, water stewardship ESG South Africa, SDG 6 South Africa, TCSC water quality, Chemistry Solutions Company water testing.

This article is based on the Draft South African Standard SANS 241ED7 (Document number SANS 241ED7, Reference SABSTC147/SANS 241, circulated 11 July 2024). The draft has not been published as a final South African National Standard. All numerical limits and requirements referenced herein are from the draft document and are subject to change following the public comment process.

[2026-06-01] Article prepared by TCSC | Water Quality Intelligence Series