Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water

Bibliographic Details
Title: Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water
Authors: Fuhar Dixit, Edmund H. Antell, Katharine A. Faber, Chuhui Zhang, Manmeet W. Pannu, Megan H. Plumlee, Jean Van Buren, Abraham Doroshow, William C.K. Pomerantz, William A. Arnold, Christopher P. Higgins, Graham F. Peaslee, Lisa Alvarez-Cohen, David L. Sedlak, Mohamed Ateia
Source: Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters, Vol 5, Iss , Pp 100122- (2024)
Publisher Information: Elsevier, 2024.
Publication Year: 2024
Subject Terms: PFASs, Analytical methods, LC/MS-MS, TOP assay, GC-MS/MS, Suspect screening, Hazardous substances and their disposal, TD1020-1066
More Details: Multiple poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are present in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) used for firefighting activities. Currently, no single analytical technique provides a complete accounting of total PFASs or total organofluorine content in AFFF-contaminated samples. To provide insight into the performance of existing methods, we compared ten previously described PFAS measurement techniques. In AFFF-amended tap water, US EPA Methods 533 and 1633, adsorbable organic fluorine with particle induced gamma emission spectroscopy (AOF-PIGE) and fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance (19F NMR) provided similar estimates of total fluorine. The total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay, suspect screening, and adsorbable organic fluorine with combustion ion chromatography (AOF-CIC) yielded estimates of total organic fluorine that were about two to three times higher than the other techniques. Proximate to AFFF sources, suspect screening and modified EPA Method 1633 yielded higher results, while the TOP assay results were between the other two sets of analyses. Further from sources, suspect screening, modified EPA Method 1633, and the TOP assay yielded similar results that were 4-fold higher than results from targeted quantification methods, such as EPA Method 1633. These results are consistent with expectations about PFAS behavior and inform the selection of analytical techniques used for PFAS contamination characterization efforts.
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 2666-9110
Relation: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666911024000212; https://doaj.org/toc/2666-9110
DOI: 10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/770f12d832cd416dab1b82c92fdc2c5a
Accession Number: edsdoj.770f12d832cd416dab1b82c92fdc2c5a
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
More Details
ISSN:26669110
DOI:10.1016/j.hazl.2024.100122
Published in:Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters
Language:English