GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Jun 9, 2022 | Agriculture, Blogs, Environmental / Industrial, Industrial, Other | 0 comments
Read Time: 3 minutes
Per-and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) are known for their water- and grease-resistant properties, which make them useful in many everyday items. In fact, a study from 2020 estimated over 200 “use categories” covering more than 1,400 individual PFAS compounds in commercial products1—they are truly all around us. Due to their extensive presence and potentially harmful effects (these effects are still mostly uncertain), exposure to PFAS is a growing concern. Humans and wildlife have been exposed to these chemicals through a variety of routes, including food packaging, drinking water and cleaning products.2
The potential health risks of PFAS chemicals stem from a combination of “exposure” and inherent “toxicity,” so it is essential to properly identify and quantify PFAS exposure. So, how do we monitor exposure to contaminants such as PFAS?
Monitoring human exposure to contaminants
When individuals are exposed to PFAS, the PFAS accumulate in protein-rich tissues such as blood, liver and kidneys. For this reason, biological examination of PFAS exposure is often conducted using blood matrices. However, many of the approaches used for this type of examination are difficult to conduct when looking at exposures across a population.3 For example, obtaining a statistically significant sample size in a moderately sized city or country requires a lot of human samples. These large studies can be difficult to coordinate, not to mention the difficulties involved with handling human samples.
Another option is using environmental matrices to monitor exposure. Wastewater, for instance, can serve as a powerful tool for assessing the chemical use or consumption patterns of a population over time.4 For many years, wastewater has been used to monitor contaminants such as personal care products and pharmaceuticals (PPCPs) and illegal drugs, and it can also play an important role with PFAS.
Understanding the fate of PFAS through water treatment plants (WTPs) and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can benefit society in addressing PFAS issues.5 While WTPs and WWTPs can remove some contaminants, these plants are not designed to break down persistent organic pollutants such as PFAS, which means that they are detected in the final effluent. This, of course, has implications for aquatic toxicity in the receiving sources, but it can also inform us about PFAS exposure trends within the community.
Analyzing PFAS trends using wastewater
In a recent study from the Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences and its collaborators, scientists accessed a 10-year wastewater archiving program to conduct a temporal analysis of PFAS trends in an urban Australian population between the years 2010 and 2020. Although the results showed a decline in concentrations for most PFAS, the study also observed a shift in the types of PFAS compounds detected. Specifically, the researchers measured greater proportions of shorter chain-length PFAS as well as replacement compounds.4 These results imply significant shifts in community exposure to PFAS—both the magnitude of exposure and the specific compounds that people were exposed to—which has an impact on the potential human health risk.
Observing these historical trends would have been extremely difficult using traditional exposure techniques such as measuring PFAS serum levels. This study is a useful example of how creative approaches and mass spectrometry can improve our understanding of the human health risk of PFAS.
References
*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-18-14771-A
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?
As regulatory scrutiny increases and detection requirements tighten, laboratories are facing a new question: How can TFA be measured reliably, sensitively, and at scale?
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network