PFAS Testing: Is a Storm Brewing?

Importance of the Topic

Per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) present growing concerns in food and beverage safety due to their widespread presence, persistence in the environment, and links to adverse health effects. Regulatory bodies in the EU are considering the most extensive chemical ban in history, which would require manufacturers to ensure every stage of production—from raw materials, packaging, process water, to final products—is free of PFAS above defined thresholds. Analytical chemists play a critical role in detecting and quantifying these compounds to protect public health, support compliance, and guide risk management decisions for industry stakeholders.

Objectives and Overview of the Study

This white paper examines the evolving regulatory landscape for PFAS in Europe, the UK, and the US; explores the health implications associated with chronic PFAS exposure; highlights the potential impact of litigation on food producers and packagers; and surveys the latest analytical strategies designed to meet shifting compliance requirements. It aims to clarify where, when, and how the food industry must test for PFAS, and to illustrate the challenges posed by the sheer number and chemical diversity of PFAS molecules.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Targeted and non-targeted analytical approaches are both essential for robust PFAS surveillance:

• Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and high-resolution LC-MS for quantitation and suspect screening of known PFAS.
• Ionic chromatography-mass spectrometry (IC-MS) for short-chain PFAS (e.g., TFA).
• Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) for volatile or semi-volatile PFAS congeners.
• Non-targeted analysis (NTA) workflows to discover emerging PFAS species without prior standards.
• Sample pretreatment methods such as the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay, total/adsorbable organic fluorine (TOF/AOF) determination, and PIGE spectroscopy for overall fluorine content.
• Advanced surface and structural techniques including DESI-MS, DART-MS, FT-ICR MS, NMR, µ-XRF, and XANES to map PFAS on surfaces or elucidate novel structures.

Main Results and Discussion

Regulatory proposals by Germany, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden seek a blanket ban on all PFAS, pending EU scientific committee review. Current European Food Safety Authority limits target four key PFAS with a total weekly intake below 4.4 ng/kg body weight. UK guidance remains fragmentary, while the US has no federal food PFAS limits but state-level restrictions and FDA recall authority. Chronic PFAS exposure is linked to immunotoxicity, endocrine disruption, renal disorders, carcinogenicity, and impaired fetal growth. Analytical shortcomings include uncertain toxicological data for the majority of PFAS species, limited availability and purity of analytical standards, in-source fragmentation complicating accurate mass spectra, and large discrepancies in regulatory definitions of PFAS. Litigation has already targeted major brands over alleged PFAS in packaging foils, foreshadowing a tide of consumer and investor pressure.

Benefits and Practical Applications

Implementing comprehensive PFAS testing programs strengthens product safety profiles, helps manufacturers anticipate stricter future mandates, reduces litigation risks, and enhances consumer trust. Early adoption of supply-chain risk management—testing raw ingredient shipments, manufacturing process water, packaging components, and finished goods—enables proactive identification and mitigation of PFAS contamination sources. Certified reference materials, method validation using multiple detection platforms, and transparent reporting frameworks provide credibility and quality assurance for corporate compliance.

Future Trends and Opportunities

Advances in non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry and data-driven workflows will improve the identification and quantitation of unknown PFAS congeners. Broader availability of labeled standards and certified reference materials is expected as instrument and standards vendors lower costs. Enhanced integration of chemical and bio-screening assays may link PFAS presence to biological endpoints, supporting risk-based regulations. Global harmonization of PFAS definitions and limits will facilitate uniform testing requirements across markets. Emerging “benign by design” approaches may drive pre-market toxicity screening of novel fluorinated chemistries.

Conclusion

Food and beverage companies face an accelerating demand for PFAS testing driven by potential EU‐wide bans, fragmented national regulations, evolving consumer expectations, and litigation threats. Analytical chemists must deploy complementary targeted and non-targeted methodologies, invest in standard availability, and guide holistic testing strategies across the value chain. Early, comprehensive PFAS surveillance not only meets current compliance but positions industry players to adapt swiftly to future regulatory and market demands.

Reference

• Z. Habib et al., Pollutants, 4 (1), 136–153 (2024). DOI: 10.3390/pollutants4010009.