Do We Have Enough PFAS Characterization Tools?

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Environment
Oral Presentation

Prepared by S. Zeiner
Environmental Standards, 1140 Valley Forge Road, PO Box 810, Valley Forge, PA, 19482-0810, United States


Contact Information: [email protected]; 484-808-4386

ABSTRACT

There are growing number of preparation and instrumental techniques for the analysis of specific target PFAS compounds, non-target PFAS, and total and fractionated fluorine. Each of these tools have advantages and disadvantages. Practitioners apply these tools to many matrices to characterize real (target PFAS analytes) or potential PFAS (precursor analytes or non-specific results). Some of the methods that are utilized have US EPA methods or have been published in journals, posted on websites, or developed by non-governmental consensus organizations and some just utilize laboratory specific procedures.

Practitioners use available analytical technologies such as, LC/MS/MS, CIC, and GC/MS/MS, for analysis for speciated PFAS (and oxidizable precursors) and non-speciated or “proxy” total or fractionated fluorine in order to characterize fluorochemicals present in aqueous, solids, tissue, as of late air matrices.

One of the limiting factors for characterization of PFAS is the availability of reference standards for qualitative and quantitative assessment. US EPA Method 1633 has the most extensive list of target analytes at 40. Non-target analyses enable qualitative identification of PFAS analytes; however, quantitation is estimated at best. The CIC methods provide concentrations of total and fractionated fluorine.

Do we have enough tools? This presentation will utilize information provided from each of available techniques and discuss their application for the characterization of environmental media.