Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have earned the moniker "forever chemicals" due to their extreme persistence in the environment. Their detection is crucial for protecting public health and the environment as these synthetic compounds continue to pose significant challenges worldwide. This comprehensive exploration examines why PFAS detection matters, current detection methods, and future directions in addressing PFAS contamination.<h3>Understanding PFAS and Their Health Impacts</h3>PFAS are a class of synthetic organic compounds with diverse structures, properties, and uses. Despite their diversity, all PFAS contain perfluoroalkyl moieties that are extremely resistant to environmental and metabolic degradation [1]. This high persistence is a defining characteristic that makes PFAS management particularly challenging.<h3>Documented Health Effects</h3>Current scientific research has linked PFAS exposure to numerous adverse health outcomes:<ul><li>Reproductive effects including decreased fertility and increased high blood pressure in pregnant women [8]</li><li>Developmental effects in children such as low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and behavioral changes [8]</li><li>Reduced immune system function, including decreased vaccine response</li><li>Interference with natural hormones and endocrine disruption</li><li>Increased cholesterol levels and obesity risk</li><li>Increased risk of several cancers, including prostate, kidney, testicular, oral cavity/pharynx, brain, and endocrine cancers [3]</li></ul>A 2023 study linked PFAS-contaminated water with up to a 33% increase in cancer incidence in affected areas [3]. The study compared regions with elevated PFAS levels to cancer data from the National Cancer Institute, finding higher incidences of various cancers after controlling for factors like smoking and obesity.<h3>Environmental Persistence and Contamination</h3>The extreme persistence of PFAS represents a fundamental concern for environmental management. PFAS are considered the most environmentally persistent substances among organic chemicals [7]. This persistence means that even if all PFAS uses were immediately phased out, existing contamination would continue to affect ecosystems and water supplies for generations.A 2023 study at a military fire training site estimated that PFAS contamination will persist for centuries without remediation [7]. The research found that terminal PFAS still exceed regulatory limits by 2000-fold decades after aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) use ceased, with precursors accounting for around half of the extractable organofluorine across years.<h3>Current Detection Methods</h3><h4>EPA Standardized Methods</h4>The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed several standardized methods for PFAS detection, each with specific applications and capabilities:<h5>EPA Method 533</h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/epa-533-drying-down-pfas-samples-after-spe">EPA Method 533</a> focuses on "short chain" PFAS with carbon chain lengths of C4 to C12. Released in December 2019, this method complements Method 537.1 and includes several key features:<ul><li>Uses isotope dilution quantification approach with extracted internal standards, which reduces overall analytical uncertainty</li><li>Employs weak anion exchange solid phase extraction cartridges as opposed to polystyrene divinylbenzene used in 537.1</li><li>Can analyze 25 PFAS compounds, including additional short-chain PFAS that were not apart of Method 537.1</li><li>Allows for longer holding times: 28 days to extraction and 28 days to analyze (compared to 14 days to extraction in Method 537.1)</li><li>Uses ammonium acetate as a preservative (versus Trisma in Method 537.1) [1]</li></ul><h5>EPA Method 537/537.1</h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/sample-concentration-epa-method-537-pfas-determination">EPA Method 537 </a>was first published in 2009 for the determination of 14 PFAS in drinking water [6]. It was later updated to Method 537.1 in 2018 (with editorial updates in 2020) to expand its capabilities:<ul><li>Uses<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.organomation.com/what-is-solid-phase-extraction-spe"> solid phase extraction (SPE) </a>and<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.organomation.com/preparing-samples-for-lc-ms/ms-analysis"> liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)</a></li><li>Method 537.1 expanded detection to 18 PFAS compounds, including HFPO-DA (one component of GenX technology)</li><li>Utilizes styrene-divinylbenzene (SDVB) media for extraction</li><li>Requires samples to be extracted within 14 days and analyzed within 28 days</li><li>Methanol is used to elute the extracts. This should then be reconstituted with a 96:4 methanol:water mixture [1]</li></ul>Together, Methods 533 and 537.1 can detect a total of 29 unique PFAS compounds in drinking water and are approved for monitoring under the fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) and the PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation [1] [3].<h5>EPA Method 1633</h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/preparing-diverse-sample-matrices-for-epa-method-1633">EPA Method 1633</a>, released in 2024, represents a significant advancement in PFAS analysis:<ul><li>Developed for the analysis of 40 PFAS compounds in various matrices, including surface water, groundwater, wastewater, soil, biosolids, sediment, landfill leachate, and fish tissue</li><li>Expands beyond the drinking water focus of Methods 533 and 537.1</li><li>Provides a standardized approach that may replace modified drinking water methods (i.e., modified EPA 537) that were previously used for non-drinking water matrices [1]</li></ul><h4>Conventional Analytical Techniques</h4>The gold standard for PFAS analysis involves chromatographic techniques coupled with mass spectrometry:<ul><li>Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the most widely used method for PFAS analysis, offering high sensitivity and specificity [1]</li><li>High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) allows for rapid detection and identification of PFAS species at very low concentrations [5]</li></ul>These techniques can detect PFAS at parts per trillion (ppt) levels, which is essential given the low concentrations at which PFAS can cause health effects [1]. However, these methods require sophisticated equipment, specialized training, and significant financial resources, making them inaccessible in many regions, particularly in developing countries.<h4>Emerging Detection Technologies</h4>Several innovative approaches are being developed to address the limitations of conventional methods:<ul><li>Electrochemical biosensors using modified electrodes have shown promise for selective PFAS detection with low detection limits [2]</li><li>Surface-Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS) uses metallic nanoparticles and can be made into a portable method for on-site testing [1]</li><li>Molecular imprinted polymers (MIPs) offer thermal and physical stability, reusability, and low-cost synthesis for PFAS detection [6]</li></ul>These emerging technologies aim to provide more accessible, field-deployable, and cost-effective alternatives to traditional laboratory-based methods.<h3>Challenges in PFAS Detection</h3><h4>Analytical Challenges</h4>Detecting PFAS presents several technical challenges:<ul><li>The ubiquity of PFAS in laboratory equipment and accessories can lead to background contamination when measuring at parts-per-trillion levels [1]</li><li>Many components in liquid chromatographs, mass spectrometers, and solid-phase extraction systems contain materials that can leach PFAS compounds [9]</li><li>The vast number of PFAS (thousands of compounds) makes comprehensive detection difficult, as analytical standards are only available for a small subset [1]</li><li>Complex matrices like food and environmental samples require sophisticated sample preparation techniques</li></ul><h4>Global Disparities in Detection Capabilities</h4>Access to PFAS detection technology varies significantly worldwide:<ul><li>Many developing regions, particularly in Africa, lack adequately equipped laboratories with the necessary instrumentation to detect and measure PFAS</li><li>There is often a scarcity of qualified professionals with experience in PFAS analysis in these regions</li><li>The high cost of acquiring and maintaining sophisticated analytical instruments presents a substantial obstacle to conducting extensive PFAS investigations in resource-limited settings [1]</li><li>Competing priorities such as infectious diseases, poverty, and food security often divert attention and resources from environmental pollutants like PFAS</li></ul><h4>Regulatory Landscape and Compliance</h4>The regulatory framework for PFAS is evolving rapidly worldwide:<ul><li>The EPA finalized Section 8(a)(7) of the Toxic Substances Control Act in September 2024, requiring manufacturers and importers to report on their use of PFAS since 2011 [10]</li><li>Electronic reporting for PFAS will open on July 11, 2025, with final reporting deadlines in 2026</li><li>Companies must report detailed information including chemical identity, production volumes, industrial and consumer products, worker exposure, and disposal methods [10]</li></ul>These regulations are driving demand for more effective and accessible PFAS detection methods to ensure compliance and protect public health.<h3>Future Directions in PFAS Detection</h3><h4>Technological Advancements</h4>The future of PFAS detection lies in developing more accessible, sensitive, and comprehensive methods:<ul><li>Non-targeted screening methods that can identify unknown PFAS compounds without requiring analytical standards for each specific compound</li><li>Total fluorine analysis techniques like Adsorbable Organic Fluorine and Total Oxidizable Precursor Assay that can quantify the presence of fluorine atoms within a sample [1]</li><li>Portable sensors and field-deployable technologies that enable on-site monitoring and rapid response to contamination events</li><li>AI-driven solutions that can improve data analysis and interpretation for complex PFAS mixtures</li></ul><h4>Collaborative Approaches</h4>Addressing the global challenge of PFAS detection requires coordinated efforts:<ul><li>International partnerships between researchers in developed and developing regions to enhance expertise and capacity building</li><li>Standardization of analytical methods to ensure consistency and comparability of results across different laboratories and regions</li><li>Open data sharing and collaboration across countries to leverage collective knowledge and resources</li><li>Integration of PFAS monitoring into broader environmental and public health surveillance systems</li></ul><h3>Conclusion</h3>The detection of PFAS is not merely a technical challenge but a critical public health and environmental imperative [1]. As these "forever chemicals" continue to persist in our environment, developing effective, accessible, and comprehensive detection methods becomes increasingly important. By advancing detection technologies, strengthening regulatory frameworks, and fostering global collaboration, we can better understand, monitor, and ultimately mitigate the impacts of PFAS contamination.The EPA's standardized methods (533, 537.1, and 1633) provide crucial tools for monitoring PFAS in various environmental matrices, but continued innovation is needed to address the full spectrum of PFAS compounds and to make detection more accessible globally [1] [6]. The path forward requires sustained investment in research and development, capacity building in resource-limited settings, and a commitment to environmental justice that ensures all communities have access to the tools and information needed to protect themselves from PFAS exposure. Only through such comprehensive approaches can we hope to address the complex challenges posed by these persistent pollutants.Be sure to check out our other installments of our&nbsp;<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/introducing-our-environmental-contaminants-series-making-sense-of-the-alphabet-soup">Environmental Contaminant Series</a>&nbsp;covering&nbsp;<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/the-importance-of-detecting-persistent-organic-pollutants-pops">Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)</a>,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/the-importance-of-detecting-polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons-pahs">Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)</a>,&nbsp;<a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/the-importance-of-detecting-semi-volatile-organic-compounds-svocs">Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)</a>, and <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://blog.organomation.com/blog/the-importance-of-detecting-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs">Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)</a>.

The Importance of Detecting Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Scientists at CEITEC Brno University of Technology have developed microscopic robots that could one day accelerate beer production and simplify food quality control. The magnetically controlled biobots can actively mix liquids during fermentation, speed up the process, and separate themselves from the finished product once fermentation is complete. The results of the research, carried out by Professor Martin Pumera’s team, were published in the journal ACS Nano.“When people hear the word ‘robot’ today, they often imagine an electronic device. In reality, however, a robot can be any system capable of autonomously performing a specific task,” explains Martin Pumera of CEITEC Brno University of Technology.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_7d9ff82875.jpeg" alt="CEITEC BUT/Jakub Rozboud: CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control: Martin Pumera in his lab at CEITEC BUT." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_7d9ff82875.jpeg 235w," sizes="100vw" width="1600" height="1067">The research team created so-called biobots—biohybrid microrobotic capsules containing brewer’s yeast and magnetic nanoparticles. When the yeast produces carbon dioxide during fermentation, the resulting bubbles cause the biobots to move up and down through the liquid. This naturally mixes the contents of the vessel and makes fermentation more efficient. Compared with conventional static particles, the biobots can therefore accelerate chemical processes that are important in food production.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_4_af5fd4611f.jpg" alt="CEITEC BUT/Martin Pumera's archive: CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control: Hematite microrobot (image for illustrative purposes)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_4_af5fd4611f.jpg 209w," sizes="100vw" width="1600" height="1192">Another major advantage of the technology is that the biobots can be easily separated from the finished beverage. Thanks to the magnetic particles they contain, they can be controlled with a magnetic field and removed once fermentation is complete, eliminating the need for additional filtration. The researchers also demonstrated that the biobots can be reused over several production cycles.“Unlike conventional static particles, microrobots actively move throughout the entire volume of the liquid, allowing them to cover a larger area and make the whole process more efficient. At the same time, they also facilitate the automation of production,” adds Martin Pumera. The team is currently discussing potential applications of the technology with a major European brewery.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_3_e8e5a3a55a.jpg" alt="CEITEC BUT/Martin Pumera's archive: CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control: g-C₃N₄ microrobots (image for illustrative purposes)." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_3_e8e5a3a55a.jpg 158w," sizes="100vw" width="1476" height="1460">Martin Pumera’s group has long been exploring the use of microrobots and advanced materials in the food industry. In the past, for example, the team developed a flexible sensor for smart packaging capable of detecting spoiled fish. The new biobots therefore represent another step towards more advanced methods of food quality and safety control.<img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_2_75c7fed958.jpeg" alt="CEITEC BUT/ACS Nano: CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control: ACS Nano - cover featuring article by Martin Pumera et al." srcset="https://storage.googleapis.com/labrulez-bucket-strapi-h3hsga3/thumbnail_CEITEC_Mikroroboti_z_CEITEC_mohou_urychlit_vyrobu_piva_i_kontrolu_kvality_potravin_2_75c7fed958.jpeg 117w," sizes="100vw" width="1600" height="2128">

 CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control 

In this episode of ‪ChromatographyTalk‬, ‪Organomation‬ General Manager David Oliva sits down with Michelle Taylor, Editor-in-Chief of LabCompare, to go behind the scenes of their groundbreaking two-part documentary series on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).The conversation kicks off with a startling revelation: many of the world’s leading PFAS experts have completely stopped eating seafood due to high contamination levels discovered during testing. From there, we dive deep into the technical and regulatory challenges facing today's analytical laboratories.<h4>In this episode, we discuss:</h4><ul><li>The Laboratory Throughput Crisis: Why labs are currently "overwhelmed with samples" and how tiered testing—using single quad instruments for screening before moving to triple quads—is helping to manage capacity without sacrificing sensitivity.</li><li>The Battle Against Background Contamination: Why PTFE-free (PFAS-free) laboratory equipment is no longer optional when trying to detect "forever chemicals" at the parts-per-trillion and parts-per-quadrillion levels.</li><li>Complex Matrices (Seafood &amp; Packaging): The technical hurdles of analyzing high-lipid samples like fish and the rising demand for migration testing as states like Rhode Island begin to phase out PFAS in food packaging.</li><li>Global Regulatory Shifts: A look at the "dual compliance model" required for labs supporting international exporters, especially with the European Union’s stricter enforcement compared to the U.S. monitoring approach.</li><li>The "Grand Challenge" of Unknowns: How EPA Method 1621 (Total Organic Fluorine) is helping labs close the mass balance gap and why the next generation of bench chemists must embrace *AI and data science* to manage the massive datasets generated by high-resolution mass spectrometry.</li><li>PFAS Destruction vs. Remediation: &nbsp;The promising (and problematic) methods for breaking the carbon-fluorine bond, and why incineration may inadvertently be spreading shorter-chain PFAS into the air.</li></ul>Whether you are a lab manager looking to future-proof your workflow or a chemist navigating the ever-evolving landscape of EPA Method 1633, this episode provides essential insights into the most pressing environmental crisis of our time.<h3>Video Transcription</h3><h4>Michelle Taylor: PFAS Testing Is Becoming a Much Bigger Analytical Challenge</h4>PFAS analysis has rapidly evolved from a specialized environmental testing problem into a much broader challenge involving drinking water, food, packaging, laboratory contamination, international regulation, data analysis, and even destruction technologies. In an interview with Michelle Taylor, Editor-in-Chief of Labcompare, the discussion explored what laboratories are learning from the latest PFAS research—and why the analytical demands are likely to continue growing.Taylor leads editorial content for Labcompare, an online resource covering analytical laboratory instrumentation, products, and scientific developments. Among the projects she considers particularly important are two long-form documentaries produced by Labcompare examining per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), first through drinking water and subsequently through food.The documentaries brought together subject-matter experts working across PFAS analysis and exposed some of the practical realities laboratories now face: rapidly changing regulations, extremely low detection limits, complex matrices, contamination risks, and sample volumes that can overwhelm laboratory capacity.<h4>From drinking water to seafood</h4>One of the most memorable findings for Taylor came during production of the second documentary, which focused on PFAS in food.Several experts interviewed for the project told her they had stopped eating seafood, in some cases many years earlier, because of concerns surrounding contamination. For Taylor, the consistency and immediacy of those responses illustrated how closely analytical research can intersect with everyday decisions.Seafood also demonstrates why PFAS testing can become analytically difficult.Fish and other high-lipid samples require effective extraction to release the analytes, followed by rigorous cleanup to remove fats. According to the experts Taylor interviewed, the cleanup step is particularly critical because residual lipids can damage LC columns and create severe matrix interferences.Laboratories are therefore using approaches such as enhanced matrix removal and carbon- or silica-based sorbents to reduce the lipid content of extracts before instrumental analysis. The goal is not simply obtaining sufficient recovery, but producing an extract clean enough to maintain analytical performance and laboratory throughput.<h4>How laboratories are handling the PFAS sample burden</h4>The analytical sensitivity now required for PFAS testing presents another challenge: laboratories may need to measure compounds at parts-per-trillion levels while processing growing numbers of samples.Automation has therefore become increasingly important, particularly during sample preparation, where repetitive manual procedures can otherwise create a major bottleneck.Taylor also described a tiered analytical strategy being used by some laboratories. A less demanding measurement can first be used for screening, while samples generating a positive result are subsequently transferred to a more sensitive platform, such as triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry, for confirmation and quantitation.This type of workflow can help laboratories concentrate their highest-performance instrumentation on the samples that actually require it rather than applying the most intensive analysis to every incoming sample.The broader principle is likely to become increasingly important as PFAS testing expands: laboratories must find ways to increase throughput without sacrificing the sensitivity demanded by regulatory methods.<h4>When the laboratory itself becomes a source of PFAS</h4>At trace concentrations, contamination introduced during sample preparation or measurement can become comparable to the concentration being determined.This makes the materials used throughout the analytical workflow particularly important.Taylor emphasized that PFAS laboratories must maintain continuous awareness of potential contamination from solvents, water, tubing, containers, and other laboratory components. Equipment containing fluoropolymers such as PTFE may be problematic in certain PFAS workflows because background contamination can contribute to false positives or elevated blanks.As detection limits move lower, dedicated PFAS-compatible or fluoropolymer-free laboratory equipment becomes increasingly valuable.Taylor described manufacturers offering clearly identified PFAS-free configurations as an important response to this problem. Rather than forcing laboratories to investigate the material composition of each component individually, dedicated configurations can simplify method implementation and reduce uncertainty about potential background sources.For laboratories already dealing with demanding workflows and large sample loads, eliminating potential contamination before it occurs can save considerable troubleshooting time.<h4>Food packaging could drive the next major wave of testing</h4>PFAS concerns are not limited to the food itself.The interview also examined food-contact materials, including takeout containers and other packaging from which PFAS may migrate into food. State-level restrictions in the United States are already beginning to affect the materials manufacturers can use.For contract laboratories, this creates the possibility of another significant increase in demand for compliance and migration testing.Taylor’s recommendation is straightforward: laboratories should follow proposed regulations before they become final.Waiting until a new requirement takes effect can leave a laboratory simultaneously trying to acquire instrumentation, establish methods, train staff, and respond to customer demand. Monitoring regulatory agencies, scientific meetings, and industry discussions earlier gives laboratories time to prepare analytical capabilities before the testing requirement becomes urgent.She expects PFAS restrictions in food packaging to continue developing first through a patchwork of individual state regulations. Once a sufficient number of states adopt restrictions, however, the economics may increasingly encourage suppliers to move toward PFAS-free materials regardless of whether every jurisdiction requires them.A national standard could eventually follow that transition.<h4>One sample, two regulatory environments</h4>International food exporters face another complication: PFAS requirements are not necessarily the same between the United States and European Union.Taylor noted that laboratories serving both markets may effectively need to operate under a dual-compliance model.In the interview, she highlighted EU requirements targeting specific PFAS—including PFOS, PFOA, PFNA, and PFHxS—at very low concentrations in certain foods, while the U.S. approach has historically involved a different combination of monitoring programs, evolving compound lists, and import-related requirements.For laboratories supporting international customers, this means more than simply selecting a different reporting limit.Different markets may require different target lists, methods, documentation, auditing, and compliance procedures. Laboratories therefore need analytical platforms capable of ultratrace measurements while also maintaining the operational flexibility to support multiple regulatory frameworks.That additional complexity also carries a practical cost: performing different protocols for different jurisdictions means more staff time, additional workflow management, and potentially greater instrument demand.<h4>Total fluorine screening can help laboratories decide what to analyze next</h4>Targeted LC-MS/MS methods are highly sensitive, but they only measure compounds included in the analytical panel.This creates an important question: what about fluorinated substances that are present but are not included in the targeted method?The interview discussed EPA Method 1621, which uses a broader fluorine-based screening approach. Taylor described this type of measurement as useful for helping laboratories assess the gap between compounds captured by targeted LC-MS/MS methods and the broader amount of organofluorine present in a sample.Such screening can also become part of a tiered workflow.For applications such as food packaging, laboratories could initially use a broader fluorine measurement to determine whether a sample warrants further investigation. Positive or suspicious samples could then move to more selective and sensitive targeted analysis for identification and quantitation.Non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry can add another layer by revealing compounds outside conventional target lists.Together, these approaches create a funnel from broad screening toward increasingly detailed characterization rather than attempting the most comprehensive analysis on every sample from the outset.<h4>PFAS analysis is becoming a data problem too</h4>High-resolution mass spectrometry can generate enormous datasets containing signals from large numbers of known and unknown compounds.As a result, Taylor believes the role of the analytical chemist is changing.Strong laboratory skills remain essential, but scientists increasingly need data literacy as well. Understanding complex datasets, working with advanced software, and interacting effectively with artificial intelligence and machine-learning tools are becoming important parts of modern analytical work.Taylor does not see this change primarily as replacing scientific expertise.Instead, she compares it with earlier laboratory automation: repetitive or technically demanding tasks can increasingly be handled by software, allowing scientists to spend more time interpreting results and making decisions.AI may also make sophisticated analytical information more accessible. A less experienced mass spectrometry user could potentially receive explanations of complex data through software capable of presenting results in natural language, reducing dependence on a single specialist being immediately available.There is another potential advantage beyond speed.Machine-learning systems can recognize patterns across large datasets that may be difficult or impossible for an individual scientist to detect manually. As analytical datasets become larger and multidimensional, that pattern-recognition capability could become increasingly valuable.<h4>Finding PFAS is only the first half of the problem</h4>For years, much of the PFAS discussion has focused on answering two questions:<ul><li>Are PFAS present, and how much is there?</li></ul>The next challenge is considerably harder: how do we actually remove or destroy them?Taylor described this as an expanding research field that will increasingly involve analytical laboratories.The strength of the carbon-fluorine bond makes PFAS destruction difficult. Some treatment approaches seek to break this bond and achieve complete defluorination, but incomplete destruction can create another analytical problem.For example, thermal treatment may transform longer-chain PFAS into shorter-chain fluorinated compounds rather than eliminating them completely. Those products may then enter another environmental compartment, including atmospheric emissions.Consequently, laboratories studying PFAS destruction must do more than measure disappearance of the original compound. They also need to determine whether fluorinated transformation products or other byproducts remain.Analytical chemistry therefore has two roles: monitoring PFAS contamination and demonstrating whether remediation technologies truly destroy the substances they are intended to remove.<h4>The PFAS problem is expanding beyond water and food</h4>The first two Labcompare documentaries focused primarily on water and food, two matrices already receiving substantial regulatory and public attention.But Taylor does not expect the story to end there.If Labcompare produces another PFAS documentary, she sees PFAS in air as a likely subject. Discussions with experts during earlier filming repeatedly raised atmospheric contamination, including both direct environmental occurrence and emissions potentially associated with treatment or destruction processes.The progression illustrates how quickly the PFAS field is expanding.Drinking water regulation accelerated analytical development. Food testing introduced more difficult matrices and new exposure pathways. Packaging is creating another compliance challenge. Environmental remediation raises questions about destruction products. Atmospheric monitoring could become another significant frontier.For laboratories already working with chromatography and mass spectrometry, Taylor’s message is essentially to be prepared—even organizations that do not currently consider themselves “PFAS laboratories” may eventually become involved.<h4>An analytical field that is still changing rapidly</h4>Perhaps the strongest theme running through the interview is that PFAS analysis has no fixed endpoint yet.Methods continue to evolve. Regulations change. Target compound lists expand. Instrument sensitivity improves. Laboratories discover new sources of background contamination, while researchers identify additional exposure pathways and investigate new destruction technologies.Taylor compares the situation to earlier periods of rapid analytical development, such as the evolution of forensic DNA analysis: each technological advance reveals more information, which in turn creates new questions and new analytical requirements.That makes preparation particularly important.Laboratories cannot predict every future regulation, but they can follow proposed requirements, develop flexible workflows, invest in contamination control and data capabilities, and understand how their existing chromatography and mass spectrometry expertise could be applied to emerging PFAS challenges.The analytical problem is no longer simply detecting a group of “forever chemicals.”It is becoming a much larger question of how we identify them, quantify them, prevent contamination during analysis, understand their movement through food and the environment, comply with evolving regulations, and ultimately prove that they have actually been destroyed.<blockquote>This text has been automatically transcribed from a video presentation using AI technology. It may contain inaccuracies and is not guaranteed to be 100% correct.</blockquote><blockquote><h4>Concentrating on Chromatography Podcast</h4>Dive into the frontiers of chromatography, mass spectrometry, and sample preparation with host David Oliva. Each episode features candid conversations with leading researchers, industry innovators, and passionate scientists who are shaping the future of analytical chemistry. From decoding PFAS detection challenges to exploring the latest in AI-assisted liquid chromatography, this show uncovers practical workflows, sustainability breakthroughs, and the real-world impact of separation science. Whether you’re a chromatographer, lab professional, or researcher you'll discover inspiring content!You can find Concentrating on Chromatography Podcast in podcast apps:<ul><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/1wZg67rCjoGju4yhqxI3tL">Spotify</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/tz/podcast/concentrating-on-chromatography/id1788429185">Apple podcast</a></li><li><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://podscan.fm/podcasts/concentrating-on-chromatography">podscan</a></li></ul>and on <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.youtube.com/@ChromatographyTalk/videos">YouTube channel</a></blockquote>

PFAS in Water, Food & Packaging: Michelle Taylor on the "Forever Chemicals" Documentary Series

Article

Scientists

Environment

Food

Water

Interview

Science and research

Video

Since its establishment in 2011, CEITEC has quickly developed into a cutting-edge infrastructure for research which performs highly alongside the best institutes in Europe. Among the main priorities of CEITEC are the promotion of a motivating and dynamic international scientific environment, the provision of state-of-the-art research infrastructure, and the policy of open communication and equal opportunities.

CEITEC

Organomation, founded in 1959, designs and manufactures high-quality nitrogen evaporators and extraction systems. Known for innovation and durability, their lab instruments are used globally for efficient sample preparation with strong customer support.

Organomation

rHGH fragment or AOD-9604 (LCMS+CHNS) analysis

Combined LC-MS, CHNS and HPLC analysis of rHGH fragment 176–191 and AOD-9604 for identification, amount, peptide purity and contamination screening.

This analysis is designed to identify and determine the amount and purity of recombinant Human Growth Hormone fragment 176–191 and AOD-9604. It combines LC-MS, CHNS and HPLC to provide information about peptide identity, net peptide content, peptide purity and potential contamination with other peptides or degradation products.The test can detect and measure either target compound. It is therefore not necessary to know in advance whether the sample contains rHGH fragment 176–191 or AOD-9604.<h4>rHGH Fragment 176–191</h4>rHGH fragment 176–191, also known as somatropin 176–191, is a peptide corresponding to amino acids 176 to 191 of Human Growth Hormone. It consists of 16 amino acids and represents the C-terminal region of the HGH molecule.Its molecular weight is approximately 1,799 Da. It differs from AOD-9604 in the first amino acid of its sequence.<h4>AOD-9604</h4>AOD-9604 is a synthetically modified peptide derived from Human Growth Hormone fragment 176–191. Like the rHGH fragment, it contains 16 amino acids, but its sequence begins with tyrosine instead of phenylalanine.This structural difference allows the two peptides to be distinguished by LC-MS. The molecular weight of AOD-9604 is approximately 1,815 Da.<h4>Analytical Methods</h4><h5>LC-MS – Identification and Contamination Screening</h5>LC-MS is used to confirm the identity of the peptide in the sample. It also provides screening for detectable contamination with other peptides and peptide degradation products.<h5>CHNS – Net Peptide Content Determination</h5>CHNS elemental analysis measures the carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulphur content of the sample. The measured values can be used to determine Net Peptide Content.Because the sample is combusted during CHNS analysis, the result is not affected by solubility issues that may complicate chromatographic measurement of peptide amount.<h5>HPLC – Peptide Purity Determination</h5>HPLC is used to determine peptide purity and the relative proportion of the main peptide component compared with chromatographically detectable impurities.<h4>What the Analysis Determines</h4><ul><li>Identity of rHGH fragment 176–191 or AOD-9604</li><li>Amount of peptide in the sample</li><li>Net peptide content determined by CHNS</li><li>Peptide purity determined by HPLC</li><li>Presence of other peptides or degradation products detected by LC-MS</li><li>Differentiation between rHGH fragment 176–191 and AOD-9604</li></ul><h4>Analysis Parameters</h4><ul><li>Target compounds: rHGH fragment – somatropin 176–191 and AOD-9604</li><li>CAS number of AOD-9604: 221231-10-3</li><li>Molecular weight of AOD-9604: 1,815 Da</li><li>AOD-9604 sequence: H-Tyr-Leu-Arg-Ile-Val-Gln-Cys(1)-Arg-Ser-Val-Glu-Gly-Ser-Cys(1)-Gly-Phe-OH</li><li>CAS number of rHGH fragment: 66004-57-7</li><li>Molecular weight of rHGH fragment: 1,799 Da</li><li>rHGH fragment sequence: H-Phe-Leu-Arg-Ile-Val-Gln-Cys(1)-Arg-Ser-Val-Glu-Gly-Ser-Cys(1)-Gly-Phe-OH</li><li>Identification method: LC-MS</li><li>Amount determination method: CHNS</li><li>Peptide purity method: HPLC</li><li>Detection limit: less than one twentieth of the usual dosage per vial</li><li>Result format for lyophilizates: mg per vial and peptide purity</li><li>Alternative result format: m/m purity and peptide purity</li><li>Minimum lyophilizate sample: one whole unopened vial containing the lyophilizate</li><li>Minimum raw API powder sample: 30 mg in a sealed glass vial to prevent moisture absorption</li><li>Average turnaround time: 7 business days</li></ul><blockquote><h5>Important Notice</h5>The alternative m/m purity result format is intended exclusively for raw API powders. For lyophilized samples, the standard result format provides the peptide amount in mg per vial together with peptide purity.</blockquote><h4>Additional Analyses</h4><h5>TFA Analysis</h5><ul><li>Detection and measurement of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) in the sample. Results are reported in mg per vial.</li></ul><h5>Raw Data</h5><ul><li>Delivery of the available raw analytical data from the primary test and all applicable additional analyses.</li></ul><h5>Fentanyl Presence Analysis</h5><h5>Alternative Result Format – m/m Purity</h5><ul><li>Alternative reporting of the result as mass-by-mass purity. This option is intended exclusively for raw API powders.</li></ul><h5>Variance Testing</h5><ul><li>Analysis of multiple sample units to assess variation within a single batch. All submitted samples must originate from the same batch of the same product.</li></ul><h5>pH Measurement</h5><h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2522">Endotoxin Analysis</a></h5><ul><li>Measurement of bacterial endotoxins, particularly lipopolysaccharides (LPS), in the sample. This analysis is available only for finished products and should not be ordered for raw powders.</li><li>The standard test provides accurate results up to 10 EU per vial. Values above 10 EU per vial are estimated and require an additional test with a different dilution for precise determination. Sending two vials is therefore recommended.</li><li>Where endotoxin levels above 10 EU per vial are expected, the method can be calibrated for the higher range in advance.</li></ul><h5>Additional Report</h5><ul><li>A separate additional laboratory report issued under a different client name.</li></ul><h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lcms.labrulez.com/products/2527">Sterility Testing</a></h5><ul><li>TAMC and TYMC testing checks the product for the presence of bacteria, yeasts and moulds. Additional unopened sample units must be submitted for analysis. The average turnaround time for this test is 14 days.</li></ul><h5><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://icpms.labrulez.com/products/2525">Heavy Metals Analysis</a></h5><ul><li>Detection of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury in the sample. Testing for other metals can be arranged individually.</li></ul>

GCMS/LCMS screening for contamination

GCMS/LCMS screening for identification of contaminants in samples, with the analytical method selected according to sample type.

The GCMS/LCMS Screening for Contamination is a standalone laboratory service designed to identify potential contaminants in a sample using either gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GCMS) or liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LCMS).The appropriate analytical method depends on the sample type. GCMS is used primarily for volatile and semi-volatile compounds, while LCMS is suitable for peptide-related contamination.<h4>About the Screening</h4><ul><li>GCMS screening uses the NIST 2014 mass spectral library to identify a broad range of potentially harmful substances in the product. Detection is limited to volatile and semi-volatile compounds and this method is not suitable for peptide samples. &nbsp;</li><li>LCMS screening is intended for peptide products and can detect contamination with other peptides or degraded peptide. Detection is limited to peptides included in the laboratory’s available reference list.</li></ul>Both methods provide identification of detected contaminants only. Quantitative determination of a detected substance can be offered separately.<h4>Key Features</h4><ul><li>Standalone contamination screening by GCMS or LCMS</li><li>Analytical method selected according to sample type</li><li>GCMS screening for volatile and semi-volatile contaminants</li><li>GCMS identification using the NIST 2014 mass spectral library</li><li>LCMS screening for peptide contamination and degraded peptide</li><li>Identification of detected contaminants</li><li>Quantitative determination available separately after identification</li><li>Suitable for tablets, capsules, liquid solutions, raw materials, and vials depending on the selected method</li><li>Average turnaround time of 7 business days</li></ul><h4>Analysis Parameters</h4><ul><li>Testing method: GCMS or LCMS</li><li>Amount of sample required: 1 tablet/capsule, 1 ml solution, 200 mg raw material, or 1 vial</li><li>Average turnaround time: 7 business days</li></ul><blockquote>Important Notice<ul><li>The analytical method is selected according to the type of sample and the expected contaminants.</li><li>GCMS detection is limited to volatile and semi-volatile compounds and cannot be used for peptide samples.</li><li>LCMS detection is limited to peptides included in the laboratory’s available reference list.</li><li>Both GCMS and LCMS screening provide identification only. Quantitative determination of a detected contaminant is not included in the standard analysis and can be offered separately.</li></ul></blockquote><h4>Optional Additional Analyses</h4>The following optional laboratory services are available:<ul><li>Additional Laboratory Report</li></ul>

Products focused on LC/MS - page 1

Related content

PFAS in Water, Food & Packaging: Michelle Taylor on the "Forever Chemicals" Documentary Series

CEITEC Microrobots Could Speed Up Beer Production and Food Quality Control

The Importance of Detecting Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)