GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Sep 17, 2021 | Blogs, Environmental / Industrial | 0 comments
Read time: 2 minutes
According to a recent study from Harvard University, the US EPA, and NIEHS, traditional targeted analysis techniques poorly characterize the PFAS composition of contemporary PFAS-based firefighting foams, know as aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). Using the EPA 533 PFAS drinking water method for the analyte list, the researchers found that targeted mass spectrometry methods accounted for <1% of organic fluorine content. This is important because it demonstrates that targeted analysis methods miss nearly all the PFAS compounds in modern AFFF mixtures, thus underestimating the risk to human health and the environment.
In the second episode of PFAS Fireside chats, the lead author, Bridger Ruyle, joined me to discuss the study’s main findings and implications. Bridger is a PhD student in Environmental Science and Engineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science.
The study examined both legacy and modern commercial AFFF mixtures. AFFF are used to combat petroleum-based fires by creating a barrier between the fire and air, and they are they used extensively at airports and by the military around the globe.
If targeted analytical methods don’t adequately capture all the PFAS compounds in a sample, how did the researchers know what they were missing? First, the researchers used techniques such as “extractable organofluorine (EOF)” to quantify the total potential PFAS compounds in the AFFF mixtures. That is how they showed their targeted methods were missing a substantial portion of the PFAS. Next, they used high-resolution accurate mass spectrometry to identify the unknown PFAS.
So, what’s in these modern AFFF mixtures? It turns out that >90% of the PFAS compounds are 6:2 fluorotelomer-based compounds. While the exact fate of these isn’t well understood, they could potentially degrade to very persistent PFAS compounds, several of which are covered by various state and federal regulations.
The study focused on commercial AFFF mixtures, but what does it look like in the real-world environment where AFFF releases have impacted the surface and groundwater? Bridger and his colleagues addressed that question in a follow-up paper, and perhaps we will talk about it in a future episode of PFAS Fireside chats.
*This content does not constitute legal advice. You should consult counsel to assure your procedures comply with applicable law and that it meets your needs.
RUO-MKT-18-13829-A
As therapeutic pipelines continue to diversify, bioanalysis is being asked to do more than ever before. From small molecules to complex biologics, today’s scientists must generate high‑quality, reliable data across a growing range of molecule types and workflows, often under increasing time pressure.
Regulated laboratories are evolving faster than ever. New analytical modalities, higher sample throughput, increasing regulatory scrutiny, and leaner teams are reshaping how work gets done. At the same time, expectations for data integrity, standardization, and operational efficiency continue to increase complexity and/or scope. In this environment, LC-MS software is no longer simply an instrument control platform—it has become a critical part of a laboratory’s quality management system. The question is no longer whether your lab has changed, but whether your software has evolved to support the way regulated labs operate today, and if they are ready and able to meet the demands, they will face tomorrow.
Analyst software has long been a trusted foundation in regulated LC-MS laboratories—and for many, it still performs reliably today. But regulated environments are evolving faster than ever. As labs transition to Windows 11, strengthen cybersecurity policies, modernize IT infrastructure, and prepare for future compliance expectations, software decisions are no longer just about what works today—they’re about managing tomorrow’s risk. Analyst will not be supported on Windows 11. While some labs may continue operating in unsupported environments temporarily, the bigger question is: when that risk becomes reality, will your lab be reacting under pressure—or executing a planned mitigation strategy with confidence?
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network