GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
Nov 11, 2025 | Blogs, Environmental / Industrial, Food / Beverage | 0 comments
Read time: 4 minutes
We’re excited to launch our Ask the PFAS expert series, where we tackle some of the most pressing questions around PFAS testing, containment, and contamination control. In this first instalment, we sit down with Simon Roberts, a SCIEX application scientist, to share practical insights and expert advice.
From setting up new or expanded methods in manufacturing environments to exploring green technologies for PFAS containment and strategies for avoiding background contamination, Simon offers clear, actionable guidance for laboratories and manufacturers navigating this complex landscape.
Watch the full video to learn more, and don’t forget to send us your questions for future sessions-we’re here to help you stay ahead in PFAS analysis.
Let’s dive into the first set of questions
Great question! The manufacturing environment adds some unique challenges, so let’s break it down.
PFAS testing is an ongoing process because the list of compounds we need to monitor is constantly growing. For well-documented compounds, setup can be simple: check out SCIEX technical notes, which include optimised values for many PFAS. In these cases, it’s almost plug-and-play. And if you need help, our support team can provide lists and guidance.
However, manufacturing environments often involve proprietary or less-documented PFAS. In these cases:
If you hit a roadblock, reach out to us. We can help you optimise efficiently and effectively.
Pro tip: If you’re using QTOF or high-resolution instruments and acquiring in full scan mode, you might not need to set up new methods at all. Your existing data could already contain the information you need, allowing you to retrospectively analyse newly identified compounds.
This is the billion-dollar question-maybe even trillion! Whoever cracks the code on cost-effective, low-carbon PFAS containment will set a new gold standard.
Right now, the most common approach is using carbon or activated carbon, because PFAS bind well to these materials. But here’s the challenge: while this works for legacy PFAS, emerging compounds and short-chain PFAS don’t behave the same way. That means we’re turning to more expensive solutions like ion exchange or destruction technologies.
The reality is that PFAS cleanup currently has a huge carbon footprint. Every nanogram per litre you remove from water or sediments comes at a significant financial and environmental cost. It’s a delicate balance—reducing contamination without creating new environmental impacts.
For now, running water through a carbon filter remains the simplest option. But the hope is that in five years, we’ll look back and see how basic that was compared to the advanced, sustainable technologies we’ll have developed.
Avoiding PFAS contamination isn’t just about the initial setup—it’s an ongoing challenge. Getting your system clean is great; keeping it clean over time is where the real work begins.
Start by identifying potential contamination sources: water, methanol, ammonium acetate, and anything that touches your samples. Then, build redundancy into your supply chain. Don’t rely on a single “perfect” lot of methanol or water—vendors change processes, and that can throw off your results. Having backup suppliers for all critical reagents is essential.
Controlling contamination in your workflows matters too. Here are some practical steps:
And if you still can’t eliminate the source? Sometimes contamination comes from the building itself. In those rare cases, the only solution may be relocating to a different lab.
A big thank you to Simon Roberts for sharing such valuable insights in this first edition of our Ask the PFAS expert series. From method setup to green containment strategies and contamination control, these tips are designed to help you stay ahead in PFAS testing.
Have more questions? We’d love to hear them! Send your queries to our PFAS experts and we’ll feature them in future Q&A sessions.
You can also connect with Simon and our team on LinkedIn – we’re always happy to chat and help you optimise your workflows.
Stay tuned for the next instalment in the series!
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