You are likely aware of the upcoming national drinking water regulation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This regulation mandates water systems begin to monitor, publicly disclose PFAS levels, and potentially even treat PFAS starting in 2027. As a result, addressing PFAS contamination has become a top priority for treatment and remediation technology developers, environmental consultants, municipalities, and industrial emitters. They are all urgently working to identify PFAS-contaminated water sources and develop strategies to comply with the new regulations. However, amidst this rush to tackle these pervasive “Forever Chemicals,” a significant challenge remains undiscussed… the bottleneck in PFAS water sample testing and analysis that stands to turn this rush into a crawl. How will these players go about testing and analyzing for where PFAS even is? While some data is available, more work is needed to understand how PFAS is impacting communities.
Today’s Confusing PFAS Testing Environment
The bad news is PFAS testing can be complicated, confusing, and time consuming but the industry is driving towards solutions. There are at least 15,000 different PFAS compounds that have been identified so far, various federal and state regulations which monitor these compounds on an individual species level, and multiple methods exist with different levels of analytical performance and water matrix use. Finding the right tool for the job is critical so let’s start by thinking of PFAS testing in a few main groups:
- Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS)-Based Methods: This category includes well-known methods like EPA 533 and 537.1 for drinking water, as well as EPA 1633 for various water sources, solids, and tissue samples. While each method tests for different numbers of PFAS analytes, they all involve a sample preparation phase prior to analysis. This phase can vary depending on factors like the solids content of the water matrix. These methods also differ in the number of PFAS they measure. EPA method 537.1 is largely becoming the go-to-method for drinking water-based analysis.
- Direct Injection LC-MS Methods: Applicable to both potable and non-potable water, this group includes methods such as ASTM D7979, ASTM D7968, and EPA 8421. These methods bypass the sample preparation phase (i.e., the SPE step), reducing concerns about variation, and instead dilute the sample for direct analysis via LC-MS/MS. Although quicker and less expensive to run, they generally have higher detection limits, can be less accurate, and may suffer from matrix effects, particularly with complex matrices. In the remedial and site investigation space, high sample numbers and long turnaround times from the lab make these types of approaches much more attractive than conventional 537.1 or 1633 methods.
- TOP, AOF and TOF Test Methods: These methods focus on a broader scope by quantifying total oxidizable precursors (TOP) or total organic fluorine (TOF), rather than individual contaminants. In between these two is an Adsorbable Organic Fluorine (AOF) method that measures a subset of PFAS compounds that can be captured using a carbon filtration step. While they capture a wider range of compounds, they do not provide specific compound analysis.
So, which test method to choose? This depends on your end goal, the type of PFAS information you need, detection limits, numerous other water matrix factors, and your purpose for testing (whether for regulatory, process control, or investigation).
To Certify or Not?
Beyond the various testing methods, it is important to consider whether your water samples require analysis by a certified laboratory. The EPA mandates that laboratories analyzing drinking water samples be certified and use EPA-approved analytical methods. However, not every sample necessitates this level of rigor. For instance, a PFAS remediation technology company may only need a general assessment of system performance during early bench testing to inform necessary adjustments. Similarly, a semiconductor manufacturer might seek more frequent monitoring of wastewater discharge to avoid costly fines. Or a utility that is simply looking to screen and analyze an area for an initial assessment may not always need regulatory-approved sampling. In such cases, analysis by a certified lab may not be essential, allowing for more flexibility and potentially speedier turnarounds and reduced costs.
The PFAS Mitigation Bottleneck
Unlocking the analytical potential of the PFAS market may be what is holding the industry back from its ability to quickly and effectively mitigate PFAS risks. Whether you manage a utility with extensive water infrastructure, requiring numerous sampling points and targeted treatment processes, or oversee industrial site remediation to ensure proper cleanup and regulatory compliance, today’s PFAS lab testing options are complicated, costly, and slow to return results. This limits the ability of developers, operators, and consultants to expand sampling programs and accelerate PFAS mitigation efforts. For instance, many contaminated sites are implementing newly developed destruction technologies that rely on real-time analytics data to optimize their processes. However, a significant gap in today’s PFAS testing is the lack of real-time, in-field analysis. Such real-time analysis would provide instant water quality feedback and create valuable datasets to support more efficient decision-making. Instead, PFAS lab testing currently takes 4-8 weeks, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars over time, and requires a complex supply chain with potential refrigeration and hold times that are difficult to manage. This constant “looking through the rear-view mirror” makes process control changes difficult and it slows down your ability to generate datasets and information necessary to bring new solutions to market.
These industry challenges are further amplified by the urgent need for immediate PFAS-related action happening across the country. Faster lab testing and real-time, in-field testing solutions are essential to meet this demand and improve the efficiency of PFAS mitigation efforts. We need to start at the front of the process with PFAS testing, analysis, and reliable data we can trust.
FREDsense’s industry-first, in-field PFAS test kit dramatically accelerates very low concentration PFAS analysis and decision making complementing their new 5-day turnaround PFAS lab analysis services.
How do we Overcome the Challenges & Accelerate PFAS Remediation?
First and foremost, it’s important to identify the obstacles, such as the excessive backlog at traditional PFAS testing labs, which is only expected to worsen. Next, you need to understand the type of PFAS sample testing required and whether a certified lab is necessary for every sample. Not all PFAS testing situations are the same, so categorizing your testing needs can save time and money while expediting important decisions and projects. That’s why at FREDsense, we’ve recently introduced compliance lab-quality PFAS water sample analysis with a 5-day turnaround. We offer the same rigor and quality as certified labs, but our faster LC-MS testing bridges the gap when larger labs can’t deliver results promptly.
Additionally, we’ve launched the industry’s first in-field portable PFAS analyzer, providing reliable on-site analysis of very low PFAS concentrations. This innovation is crucial for ensuring PFAS mitigation happens as quickly as needed.
This past spring, the EPA gave the industry a necessary push to address the escalating PFAS contamination problem. However, it also inadvertently created a significant bottleneck that could hinder progress for years. While I applaud their goal to control PFAS at the source and hold polluters accountable, we’re now realizing that new, more advanced analysis tools and options are essential to getting ahead of this widespread environmental issue. More reliable, timely PFAS data helps us all drive forward the solutions we need to live in a PFAS-free world.