Table 1.
Open in new tab

Comparison of analytical techniques for assessing poly‐ and perfluoroalkyl substance exposurea

MethodsApplicable matricesAdvantagesLimitations
Targeted analysisAll matrices

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to the analysis targets

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

Nontargeted analysisbAll matrices

  • High inclusivity

  • Elucidate unknown structures

  • Not quantitative

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

  • Need expensive instruments and highly skilled users

TOPMainly aqueous samples

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to PFAS

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

EOF (CIC)All matrices

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Less sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F) than targeted analyses

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

AOF (CIC)Water

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Not as sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F)

PIGESolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Nondestructive

  • No matrix effects

  • Surface measurement (100–250 μm)

  • Not as sensitive (50 nmol F/cm2)

  • Interference by fluoride

XPSSolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Widely available instrumentation

  • Identification of perfluoroalkyl moiety

  • Etching of surface possible to create depth profiles

  • Surface measurement (~10 nm)

  • High detection limits (~1% F)

  • Small area measurement

  • Can be affected by surface roughness and inhomogeneity

MethodsApplicable matricesAdvantagesLimitations
Targeted analysisAll matrices

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to the analysis targets

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

Nontargeted analysisbAll matrices

  • High inclusivity

  • Elucidate unknown structures

  • Not quantitative

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

  • Need expensive instruments and highly skilled users

TOPMainly aqueous samples

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to PFAS

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

EOF (CIC)All matrices

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Less sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F) than targeted analyses

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

AOF (CIC)Water

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Not as sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F)

PIGESolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Nondestructive

  • No matrix effects

  • Surface measurement (100–250 μm)

  • Not as sensitive (50 nmol F/cm2)

  • Interference by fluoride

XPSSolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Widely available instrumentation

  • Identification of perfluoroalkyl moiety

  • Etching of surface possible to create depth profiles

  • Surface measurement (~10 nm)

  • High detection limits (~1% F)

  • Small area measurement

  • Can be affected by surface roughness and inhomogeneity

a

A more comprehensive discussion of the strengths and limitations of different analytical techniques is reviewed elsewhere (Mills et al., 2019).

b

For a more detailed discussion of the strengths and limitations of nontargeted analysis, please see the following viewpoints and response (Hites and Jobst 2018, 2019; Samanipour et al. 2019).

AOF = adsorbable organofluorine; CIC = combustion ion chromatography; EOF = extractable organofluorine; PFAS = poly‐ and perfluoroalkyl substances; PIGE = particle‐induced gamma‐ray emission spectrometry; TOP = total oxidizable precursor assay; XPS = X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy.

Table 1.
Open in new tab

Comparison of analytical techniques for assessing poly‐ and perfluoroalkyl substance exposurea

MethodsApplicable matricesAdvantagesLimitations
Targeted analysisAll matrices

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to the analysis targets

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

Nontargeted analysisbAll matrices

  • High inclusivity

  • Elucidate unknown structures

  • Not quantitative

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

  • Need expensive instruments and highly skilled users

TOPMainly aqueous samples

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to PFAS

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

EOF (CIC)All matrices

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Less sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F) than targeted analyses

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

AOF (CIC)Water

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Not as sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F)

PIGESolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Nondestructive

  • No matrix effects

  • Surface measurement (100–250 μm)

  • Not as sensitive (50 nmol F/cm2)

  • Interference by fluoride

XPSSolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Widely available instrumentation

  • Identification of perfluoroalkyl moiety

  • Etching of surface possible to create depth profiles

  • Surface measurement (~10 nm)

  • High detection limits (~1% F)

  • Small area measurement

  • Can be affected by surface roughness and inhomogeneity

MethodsApplicable matricesAdvantagesLimitations
Targeted analysisAll matrices

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to the analysis targets

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

Nontargeted analysisbAll matrices

  • High inclusivity

  • Elucidate unknown structures

  • Not quantitative

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

  • Need expensive instruments and highly skilled users

TOPMainly aqueous samples

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to PFAS

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

EOF (CIC)All matrices

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Less sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F) than targeted analyses

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

AOF (CIC)Water

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Not as sensitive (0.1–0.5 ppm F)

PIGESolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Nondestructive

  • No matrix effects

  • Surface measurement (100–250 μm)

  • Not as sensitive (50 nmol F/cm2)

  • Interference by fluoride

XPSSolids

  • High‐throughput

  • Widely available instrumentation

  • Identification of perfluoroalkyl moiety

  • Etching of surface possible to create depth profiles

  • Surface measurement (~10 nm)

  • High detection limits (~1% F)

  • Small area measurement

  • Can be affected by surface roughness and inhomogeneity

a

A more comprehensive discussion of the strengths and limitations of different analytical techniques is reviewed elsewhere (Mills et al., 2019).

b

For a more detailed discussion of the strengths and limitations of nontargeted analysis, please see the following viewpoints and response (Hites and Jobst 2018, 2019; Samanipour et al. 2019).

AOF = adsorbable organofluorine; CIC = combustion ion chromatography; EOF = extractable organofluorine; PFAS = poly‐ and perfluoroalkyl substances; PIGE = particle‐induced gamma‐ray emission spectrometry; TOP = total oxidizable precursor assay; XPS = X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy.

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close