An interlaboratory study on <scp>EPA</scp> methods 537.1 and 533 for per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substance analyses

Whitaker, Joshua S.; Hrabak, Robert B.; Ramos, Marnellie; Neslund, Charles; Li, Yongtao

doi:10.1002/aws2.1234

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, few studies have been published to support expanding the methods to other water matrices. Whitaker et al (2021) evaluate the performance of these two methods for use with both potable and nonpotable waters. Both methods are found to be generally applicable for the analysis of PFAS in pristine nonpotable water matrices.…”

Section: Sampling and Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These challenges are successfully resolved or reduced by enhancing post‐extraction bottle rinsing and elution procedures. The results of Whitaker et al (2021) illustrate the challenge of simultaneously analyzing an extensive suite of PFAS with diverse properties. EPA recently published Draft Method 1633 targeting 40 PFAS and applicable to aqueous solids and tissue samples.…”

Section: Sampling and Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

PFAS are forever? The state of the science and research needs for analyzing and treating PFAS‐laden water

Speth

Crimi

Chowdhury³

et al. 2022

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Sampling and Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling and Analysis Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

PFAS are forever? The state of the science and research needs for analyzing and treating PFAS‐laden water

Speth

Crimi

Chowdhury³

et al. 2022

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of persistent contaminants routinely monitored in the hydrosphere for both scientific (Barzen‐Hanson et al 2017; Vo et al 2020) and regulatory (Whitaker et al 2021) purposes. There are numerous sources of PFAS to the environment (Buck et al 2011), including landfills, biosolids, air emissions from industrial combustion processes, manufacturing and chemical production facilities, and Class B aqueous film‐forming foams (AFFFs) used to extinguish flammable liquid‐based fires (Glüge et al 2020; Saawarn et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field Evaluation of the Sentinel™ Integrative Passive Sampler for the Measurement of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water Using a Modified Organosilica Adsorbent

Edmiston

Carter

Toth

et al. 2023

Groundwater Monitoring Rem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A passive sampler specifically designed to measure perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in water was tested in four study areas (Ellsworth and Peterson Air Force bases, CO and SD; the Ohio River, OH, WV, KY, IN; and the Santa Ana River, CA). Locations included both groundwater and surface water locations. Over the 2‐year study, 96 passive samplers were deployed at 33 sample locations and were compared with co‐collected grab samples, all of which were measured for 19 PFAS analytes by HPLC–MS/MS. Correlations were observed (typically within 2× difference) between aqueous PFAS concentrations measured by passive versus discrete grab samples across over 5 orders of magnitude in concentration (0.5 to 150,000 ng/L). Overall relative percent difference between grab and passive results displayed a median of 18% (interquartile range of −19 to 73%). Detection limits were around 1 ng/L for a 2‐week sampling time with sampling rates ranging from 12 to 70 mL/day in flowing systems. Duplicate samplers were deployed in all study areas which indicated a 14 to 42% (median 24%) relative standard deviation in the precision of passive sampling. Larger variances were seen with sites with higher and potentially more variable water flows. A sub‐set of duplicate samplers were measured by a commercial laboratory which returned equivalent data to research laboratory measurements (43 [±26 SD]% relative percent difference). Standardized protocols and calculation methods were developed to facilitate expanded testing and future broader use of passive sampling for PFAS by site investigators.

show abstract

Surveillance of PFAS in sludge and biosolids at 12 water resource recovery facilities

Oza,

Bell,

et al. 2024

J of Env Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are refractory anthropogenic chemicals and current treatment processes at municipal water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) cannot efficiently degrade them, hence, these chemicals cycle through the environment. Certain PFAS can be concentrated in biosolids from WRRFs and are commonly land applied for beneficial reuse. Given recent advances in measurement of PFAS, documentation of the range of concentrations in pre‐stabilized sludge and stabilized biosolids is critical to evaluating treatment best practices and assessing potential human health and ecological risks. In this study, pre‐stabilized sludge and post‐stabilized biosolids samples were collected from 12 major WRRFs across the United States. PFAS were analyzed using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method SW846‐3500C/537.1, and Draft EPA Method 1633, by one commercial laboratory and two university research laboratories, respectively. Results comparison among laboratories demonstrated statistical differences in PFAS concentrations among split samples. For example, 5:3 FTCA (fluorotelomer carboxylic acid) concentrations in post‐stabilized sludge at Lab 1 were measured at 21 ng/g (dry), while they were detected at 151 ng/g (dry) in Lab 3. Further, higher PFAS concentrations were observed in post‐stabilized biosolids compared to pre‐stabilized sludges, regardless of the laboratory or analysis method, even when solids destruction through solids stabilization was considered. Further research is required to refine methods for analyses of PFAS in sludge and biosolids samples from WRRFs prior to being used for development of regulatory actions as well as understanding how various treatment protocols could impact concentrations of PFAS in land‐applied biosolids.

show abstract

An interlaboratory study on EPA methods 537.1 and 533 for per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substance analyses

Cited by 5 publications

References 26 publications

PFAS are forever? The state of the science and research needs for analyzing and treating PFAS‐laden water

PFAS are forever? The state of the science and research needs for analyzing and treating PFAS‐laden water

Field Evaluation of the Sentinel™ Integrative Passive Sampler for the Measurement of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Water Using a Modified Organosilica Adsorbent

Surveillance of PFAS in sludge and biosolids at 12 water resource recovery facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About