Read time: 5 Minutes

As PFAS testing continues to expand, laboratories face increasing pressure to deliver reliable results at lower detection limits and faster turnaround times. While much of the conversation focuses on analytical methods and regulations, maintaining instrument performance and minimizing downtime are equally critical to success.

In this edition of our ‘Ask the expert’ series, we spoke with Franco Sisco, a SCIEX Service Engineer based in California, to learn what he’s seeing firsthand in PFAS laboratories and what labs can do to keep their workflows running smoothly.

 

1. With the rise in PFAS testing, have you noticed any changes in laboratory operations or customer expectations?

PFAS still feels like a rapidly developing market. There is constant pressure to detect more compounds at lower reporting limits, and customer expectations continue to increase.

It’s also a highly competitive space. Laboratories are always looking for ways to improve performance, expand capabilities, and increase throughput. As a service engineer, my role is to help customers meet those goals by keeping systems running reliably and helping them overcome technical challenges along the way.

 

2. What are the biggest challenges you see PFAS laboratories facing today?

If I had to put together a top challenges list, contamination would be at the very top.

PFAS compounds are everywhere. Laboratories must consider potential contamination sources throughout the entire workflow, from sample preparation and consumables to the LC-MS/MS system itself.

There are really two separate contamination challenges:

• Contamination originating from the LC system
• Contamination originating from the mass spectrometer

Both require different troubleshooting approaches.

Beyond contamination, PFAS methods themselves are incredibly demanding. Laboratories are often trying to monitor hundreds of transitions in a single method while achieving reporting limits in the low parts-per-trillion range. Add in delay columns, guard columns, specialized tubing, and complex workflows, and it’s easy to see why PFAS analysis can be so challenging.

As Franco puts it, PFAS methods almost feel as though they were designed to be as difficult as possible.

 

3. What maintenance best practices do you recommend for PFAS workflows?

Preventive maintenance is critical.

Regular front-end cleaning, routine LC flushing, and scheduled maintenance activities all help keep systems operating at peak performance.

One challenge is that when a method is running well, nobody wants to stop and perform maintenance. Laboratories are understandably focused on throughput and productivity, especially when they have a passing calibration curve and samples waiting to be analyzed.

However, investing time in routine maintenance can help prevent unexpected downtime later.

I also encourage users to become comfortable performing basic maintenance themselves. Understanding how the system works and recognizing potential issues early can save time and improve overall performance.

 

4. Beyond repairing instruments, what else does a service engineer contribute?

Service engineers bring a different perspective to the laboratory.

Because we’re not involved in the day-to-day operation of the lab, we can often identify issues or opportunities that may be difficult to see when you’re focused on routine workload and deadlines.

When I’m onsite, I’m always happy to answer questions, provide informal training, or help users better understand how their instrumentation operates.

One area that’s especially important in PFAS testing is workflow understanding. If a contamination issue originates during sample preparation rather than the instrument, troubleshooting only the analytical system can waste valuable time. Understanding the complete workflow allows us to identify root causes more efficiently and minimize disruption to the laboratory.

Ultimately, I see my role as helping customers become more confident and self-sufficient while ensuring they get the most from their systems.

 

5. Have you noticed any new trends in PFAS testing recently?

The biggest change has been the continued rise in expectations.

Laboratories are under pressure to deliver faster turnaround times, maintain higher instrument uptime, and support increasingly complex methods.

At the same time, the number of compounds being monitored continues to grow, and new methods seem to appear every few months.

Many PFAS laboratories are running instruments almost continuously because downtime directly affects sample throughput. Customers need systems they can trust to perform consistently day after day.

 

6. Do most laboratories dedicate instruments to PFAS testing?

In many cases, yes.

Because PFAS analysis requires specialized components and contamination control measures, most laboratories choose to dedicate specific systems to PFAS applications.

Specialized tubing, sample flow paths, and PFAS-free components are often installed to reduce contamination risks. Given the effort required to prepare a system for PFAS analysis, laboratories generally prefer to keep that system dedicated to PFAS workflows.

Many of the laboratories I visit focus almost exclusively on PFAS testing, with other instruments reserved for different applications.

 

Key takeaway

PFAS analysis continues to push laboratories to their technical limits. Achieving extremely low detection limits while preventing contamination and maintaining instrument uptime requires a combination of robust workflows, preventive maintenance, and trusted support.

As testing demands increase, collaboration between laboratory teams and service engineers becomes even more important. By understanding the complete workflow and proactively addressing potential challenges, laboratories can maximize productivity, minimize downtime, and stay ahead in a rapidly evolving field.

Have a question for our experts? Submit and it may be featured in an upcoming episode.