Tags

  • Sorting

  • Filters

Back to the new basics: Part 1 | Making the leap from GC-MS to LC-MS

Producing accurate results quickly in a demanding environment is no easy feat for analytical scientists. What’s more, many of us are constantly questioning ourselves—I certainly am—about whether we are employing the best technique for the analysis at hand.

It’s an overwhelming thought, considering the wide range of tools that are available to choose from, each of which offers varying levels of capacity, sensitivity, selectivity, specificity and cost. How do you meet the unique needs of your organization without breaking the bank? I get it, and I’m not here to convince you it’s easy. My aim is to guide you through the process to help you make the right decision for you.

Identifying the unknown PFAS profile in firefighting foams/AFFF

According to a recent study from Harvard University, the US EPA, and NIEHS, traditional targeted analysis techniques poorly characterize the PFAS composition of contemporary PFAS-based firefighting foams, know as aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF).  Using the EPA 533 PFAS drinking water method for the analyte list, the researchers found that targeted mass spectrometry methods accounted for <1% of organic fluorine content.  This is important because it demonstrates that targeted analysis methods miss nearly all the PFAS compounds in modern AFFF mixtures, thus underestimating the risk to human health and the environment.