GEN-MKT-18-7897-A
May 5, 2022 | Agriculture, Blogs, Environmental / Industrial, Industrial | 0 comments
Read Time: 2 minutes
As an ever-expanding group of chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) require novel techniques to monitor their current and historical presence in the environment. Concerns over exposure to PFAS chemicals continue to grow, with some having known toxic characteristics and the potential effects of others remaining unknown.1 In addition, while PFAS are one of the most persistent synthetic chemicals to date, most of them hardly degrade in the environment.2 So, how long do traces of PFAS last in our environment? Two tools used to help answer this question are active samplers and passive samplers.
Active samplers vs. passive samplers
Traditionally, persistent organic contaminants in the air are measured using high-volume active samplers, which typically sample more than 1,500 cubic meters (m3) of air over a 24-hour period.3 However, since these types of samplers are powered by electricity, active sampling becomes an impractical approach when testing in remote regions and rural areas. Also, active samplers only provide a snapshot from a short period of time (usually 1 day), and it can be difficult to get historical snapshots from past contaminant levels.
For looking at longer periods of time (weeks to months), scientists have been using passive samplers —including organic matter such as soils and artificial media such as polyurethane foam (PUF) disks—to get a time-integrated sample when measuring for organic contaminants.4 Excellent examples of passive sampling in action can be found in the work done by the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) Network, which has been monitoring chemicals such as PFAS, flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides around the world since 2005.5,6 Passive samplers can also overcome the difficulties of using active samplers in remote and rural locations.
A glimpse of the past using pine needles
It is often helpful to look at trends over even longer periods of time (years) using historical samples. When measuring for PFAS, historical trends can tell us which PFAS were used and when. In a recent study, researchers from North Carolina State University used pine needle samples from 1962 to the present to test for over 70 types of PFAS across six North Carolina counties.7 If you’ve been to North Carolina, you’ll know that pine trees are everywhere, and for this reason they make ideal passive samplers.
During this study, both traditionally monitored legacy perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) and their emerging replacements were identified across the six counties. Of particular interest was that the researchers were able to detect changes in the PFAAs profiles over time, which presumably reflects changes in the types of PFAS manufactured and used in the region.
The path to understanding
Through monitoring PFAS in vegetation, we can determine not only what was in the air, but also how animals and humans may have been exposed. By understanding this exposure, we can ultimately understand the potential risk PFAS pose to humans and the environment.
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.
In biopharmaceutical development, sequence variants (SV) are considered an inherent risk of producing complex proteins in living systems. Sequence variants are unintended changes to the amino acid sequence of a biotherapeutic and can be caused by errors in transcription or translation in the host cell, or cell culture and process conditions. Detailed analysis of SVs is important in process and product development to ensure the drug’s safety and efficacy. Even low‑level sequence variants can have significant implications for product quality, safety, and efficacy, making their accurate detection and characterization a critical requirement across development, process optimization, and regulatory submission.
CE‑SDS remains a cornerstone assay for characterizing fragmentation, aggregation, and product‑related impurities in therapeutic proteins. UV detection has been the long‑standing standard. However, it frequently struggles with baseline noise, limited sensitivity for minor fragments, and subjective integration.
At SCIEX, innovation doesn’t stop at instruments; it extends to how you interact with your LC-MS/MS or CE systems every day. That’s why we’re excited to introduce the SCIEX Now spring 2026 improvements: a set of meaningful enhancements shaped directly by your feedback.
Posted by
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Share this post with your network