New PPWR Support Service for Heavy Metals, Total Fluorine and PFAS Testing
Packaging compliance is getting more demanding, especially for materials that may enter the EU market. The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, known as PPWR, is pushing companies to take a closer look at substances of concern, documentation, and test evidence.
Our new PPWR support service helps packaging manufacturers, converters, importers, retailers, and brand owners assess key chemical risks in packaging materials. The service focuses on Heavy Metals Testing in line with CEN Report CR 13695-1:2000, with added support for Total Fluorine Testing and PFAS Testing where fluorinated substances may be present.
This review explains what the service covers, where it performs well, what its limits are, and when it makes sense to use it.
What this PPWR support service is designed to do
The service is a testing and technical support package for packaging materials that need evidence related to regulated substances and potential chemical concerns.
At its core, it covers three areas:
Heavy Metals Testing
Assessment of heavy metals linked to packaging compliance, with reference to CEN Report CR 13695-1:2000.
Total Fluorine Testing
Screening for total fluorine content, often used as an indicator that fluorinated chemistry may be present in a material or coating.
PFAS Testing
Targeted testing for selected per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances when a more specific chemical profile is needed.
This is not a generic laboratory test menu. The value is in the combination of analysis, packaging context, and support for PPWR-related documentation.
The service is especially useful for companies reviewing:
Paper and board packaging with grease-resistant coatings
Molded fiber packaging
Food contact packaging
Flexible plastic films
Laminates and coated substrates
Printed or treated packaging components
Imported packaging with limited supplier documentation
How it supports PPWR readiness
PPWR increases the need for clearer material knowledge across the packaging supply chain. Testing alone does not prove full compliance with every regulatory requirement, but it can provide strong evidence for substance control and risk assessment.
Heavy metals have long been a key concern in packaging regulation. CEN Report CR 13695-1:2000 provides a technical framework for evaluating and verifying the presence of certain heavy metals in packaging and packaging components. In practice, this means the service helps identify whether materials contain substances such as lead, cadmium, mercury, or chromium VI at levels that may require further review.
Total fluorine and PFAS testing add another layer. Fluorinated treatments can be used to improve grease, oil, water, or stain resistance. That can be relevant for packaging used with food, cosmetics, consumer goods, or industrial products. If total fluorine is detected, targeted PFAS testing can help clarify whether specific PFAS compounds are present.
The strongest use case is early risk detection. Finding a concern before launch, import, or customer audit is far easier than reacting after a failed review.
How the service performs on the checks that matter
A useful compliance support service needs to do more than produce numbers. It needs to answer practical questions.
It gives a clear starting point for heavy metals control
For packaging teams, heavy metals testing is often the first check because it is well established and widely recognized. The service performs well here because it ties the analysis to a known technical reference, CEN Report CR 13695-1:2000.
That helps make the results easier to review internally and easier to discuss with customers, suppliers, or auditors. Reports can support material qualification, supplier comparisons, and corrective action when a result is not expected.
It uses total fluorine as a useful screening tool
Total fluorine testing is not the same as PFAS testing. That distinction matters.
Total fluorine can help detect the possible presence of fluorinated substances in a material. It is often used as a first screen because it can point to materials that deserve closer review. A high or unexpected result may suggest that fluorinated treatments, processing aids, or contaminants are present.
The strength is speed and direction. The limitation is specificity. Total fluorine does not identify individual PFAS compounds by name.
It adds targeted PFAS testing when more detail is needed
PFAS testing is the more specific next step. It can look for selected PFAS compounds and give a clearer picture of what is present, depending on the test scope and method.
This is important for packaging where fluorinated coatings may have been used, or where customer requirements ask for evidence beyond a general screen. It is also useful when total fluorine results need explanation.
The best workflow is simple:
Review the material and its intended use.
Test heavy metals where packaging compliance evidence is needed.
Use total fluorine screening where fluorinated chemistry is possible.
Move to targeted PFAS testing when the screen or risk profile supports it.
Main strengths of the service
Focused on packaging
The service is built around packaging materials, not unrelated product categories.
Supports documentation
Results can help with technical files, supplier reviews, and customer requests.
Covers three important risk areas
Heavy metals, total fluorine, and PFAS can be reviewed in one coordinated program.
Useful before market launch
Testing can identify issues before packaging is scaled, imported, or placed on the market.
One of the strongest points is flexibility. A simple material may only need heavy metals testing. A coated food-service board may need heavy metals plus total fluorine. A material with a fluorine signal may then need targeted PFAS testing.
That makes the service practical for both one-off checks and broader packaging portfolio reviews.
Main drawbacks and limits
No testing service can answer every regulatory question by itself. This one has clear limits, and they are worth stating.
First, PPWR compliance is broader than chemical testing. Packaging may also need review for recyclability, minimization, labeling, recycled content, and other requirements. Heavy metals, total fluorine, and PFAS testing support substance assessment, but they do not replace a full regulatory review.
Second, total fluorine is a screen, not a compound-specific answer. A fluorine result can guide action, but it cannot name individual PFAS substances without further testing.
Third, PFAS testing scope matters. There are many PFAS compounds, and no single targeted method covers every possible substance. The test plan should match the material, the intended market, and the specific customer or regulatory concern.
This content is informational only and does not replace legal advice.
Who should use it
This service fits best when packaging materials need stronger chemical evidence, especially before a product launch, supplier change, tender, import, or customer audit.
It is a good match for:
Packaging producers validating raw materials or finished components
Brands asking suppliers for PPWR-related evidence
Importers reviewing documentation from overseas suppliers
Food packaging teams assessing coated or treated materials
Sustainability and compliance teams reviewing packaging portfolios
It is less useful for companies that only need a broad legal opinion with no testing, or for teams looking for a complete PPWR assessment covering every design and waste requirement.
Verdict and recommendation
This is a strong support service for companies that need practical evidence on substances of concern in packaging. Its best feature is the combined approach: heavy metals testing based on CEN Report CR 13695-1:2000, total fluorine screening, and targeted PFAS testing when needed.
The service is most valuable when used early. Testing before production scale-up or before supplier approval gives teams time to change materials, request better documentation, or run a more specific analysis.
For packaging teams preparing for PPWR expectations, the recommendation is clear: start with a material risk review, test heavy metals where evidence is needed, use total fluorine to screen for fluorinated chemistry, and apply PFAS testing when the result or application calls for more detail.
That sequence gives a clearer technical file, fewer surprises, and better control over packaging materials before they reach the market.
Comments