Tags

  • Sorting

  • Filters

Overcoming uncertainty in your PFAS analysis

Just like gum on the bottom of a shoe, the existence of per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in our environment is a sticky one. If you’re in the field of environmental testing, then you’re all too familiar with the threat these substances have on public health. While we have learned a lot about them over the years, there is still much more to understand. With the right detection methods, we can gather the information we need to empower us to make informed decisions on reducing the risks they impose.

PFAS analysis in food: a robustness study in sensitivity and stability

The combination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) testing, trace-level regulatory requirements and complex MS applications can be intimidating. In a recent webinar, now available on demand, SCIEX PFAS expert Craig Butt demonstrated how the new SCIEX 7500+ system can help make PFAS testing easier.

What mobile phases can be used with the PFAS Free LC Kit?

I have a Exion LC AD fitted with the Exion LC AC PFAS kit – I’m looking into running another application on the instrument alongside PFAS analyses that uses 0.2% Formic Acid in H2O as one of the mobile phases. I can’t find any literature on whether the components in the kit are compatible with a formic acid solution as the mobile phase. Has anyone had experience running with this MP on this kit?

Take out the PFAS in our takeout

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were first detected in wildlife1 and oceanic waters2 in the early 2000s. Recently, however, these chemicals have been found in school uniforms,3 cosmetics4 and food contact materials,5 shifting what was initially considered an environmental issue to a public health crisis. As concerns have grown about the toxicological impact of long-term PFAS exposure on human health, questions about food-borne exposure have surged, especially since these chemicals are used in disposable food packaging materials, non-stick cookware and even in food processing machinery.

Overcoming uncertainty in your PFAS analysis

Overcoming uncertainty in your PFAS analysis

Just like gum on the bottom of a shoe, the existence of per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) in our environment is a sticky one. If you’re in the field of environmental testing, then you’re all too familiar with the threat these substances have on public health. While we have learned a lot about them over the years, there is still much more to understand. With the right detection methods, we can gather the information we need to empower us to make informed decisions on reducing the risks they impose.

Take out the PFAS in our takeout

Take out the PFAS in our takeout

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were first detected in wildlife1 and oceanic waters2 in the early 2000s. Recently, however, these chemicals have been found in school uniforms,3 cosmetics4 and food contact materials,5 shifting what was initially considered an environmental issue to a public health crisis. As concerns have grown about the toxicological impact of long-term PFAS exposure on human health, questions about food-borne exposure have surged, especially since these chemicals are used in disposable food packaging materials, non-stick cookware and even in food processing machinery.

The secrets of recycling: PFAS and 6PPD

The secrets of recycling: PFAS and 6PPD

Recycling and reusing items is generally accepted as the “right” thing to do. But what if there were unintended, negative consequences to recycling? For example, old car tires are often ground down and reused for synthetic turf, with roughly 40,000 tires used per field.1 However, car tires contain the chemical 6PPD,5 which is converted by ozone to a quinone compound 6PPD-quinone (6PPD-Q) and enters river systems where it is toxic to coho salmon. In addition, some studies have detected per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS)— the” forever chemicals”—in artificial turf,1,4 which means it may be a source of PFAS found in nearby water supplies and potentially in drinking water.

Telling the PFAS story with pine needles

Telling the PFAS story with pine needles

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.

The hidden ingredient in anti-fog sprays: PFAS

The hidden ingredient in anti-fog sprays: PFAS

A recent study led by researchers from Duke University, conducted with colleagues from Wayne State University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, found that four of the top-rated anti-fog sprays contained up to 20.7 milligrams of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) per milliliter of solution. This study has received a lot of exposure in popular media, and it should not be overlooked. The researchers used several creative approaches to obtain a comprehensive characterization of the anti-fog sprays, including using total organic fluorine measurements, GC-MS methods and both nominal mass and accurate mass instruments. A unique finding of the study was the detection of fluorotelomer ethoxylates (FTEOs), which are relatively unknown PFAS compounds.

Previously unknown group of PFAS compounds detected near Solvay manufacturing site in New Jersey

Previously unknown group of PFAS compounds detected near Solvay manufacturing site in New Jersey

In a recent PFAS fireside chat, Dr. John Washington from the US EPA discussed the findings of a recent study published in Science that detected a novel group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—called chloroperfluoropolyether carboxylates (ClPFPECAs)—in soil samples from New Jersey. The study, conducted by Dr. Washington and his colleagues, detected 10 unique ClPFPECAs in these samples, with the highest concentrations measured near the Solvay manufacturing plant in West Deptford Townhouse, New Jersey, and decreased amounts detected as the distance from the plant increased.

PFAS testing: solid phase extraction vs. direct injection methods

PFAS testing: solid phase extraction vs. direct injection methods

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Defense (DoD) methods for testing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water require using solid phase extraction (SPE). SPE has been used extensively in environmental contaminant analysis both for concentrating large sample volumes (improving method sensitivity) and removing matrix interferences (sample cleanup).

Should you bring your PFAS testing in-house?

Should you bring your PFAS testing in-house?

As the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulatory landscape evolves in the US and across the globe, the interest in PFAS continues to grow. Drinking water and food packaging are under particular scrutiny, and monitoring programs and requirements will continue to expand to include an increasing variety of sample types and PFAS compounds.

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial