Most food and environmental analytical testing labs struggle with similar challenges—rising costs, increased employee turnover, an evolving testing and regulatory landscape and higher demand with shorter turnaround times. This is now combatted by a focus on PFAS testing. Today’s heightened interest in PFAS is driven by the recent surge in global regulations, health studies, remediation projects, and research and development efforts to find alternatives to fluorine-containing compounds.
[Labcompare just launched the second installment in our PFAS Documentary Series on Tuesday: Forever Chemicals: Contamination in Food and Packaging. Check it out now!]
To address challenges in environmental matrices of all kinds, including PFAS, laboratories must strike the right balance between rapid and comprehensive testing methods, while also reducing costs and increasing throughput. One way to do this is to identify, assess and address your lab’s top pain points.
Pain Point 1: Throughput
Today, laboratories analyze 250 or more pesticides in a single LC-MS analysis. The expectation is that results will comply with regulatory levels/tolerances and method performance criteria—and still be available within 48 hours. Dual channel chromatography can provide a substantial decrease in analysis time without compromising separation and peak width. The method significantly reduces the time of analysis in comparison with a standard single-channel UHPLC system.
For PFAS testing laboratories, the demand to analyze over 100 PFAS samples per week has become commonplace. These laboratories are expected to deliver results that comply with regulatory levels and tolerances, as well as meet method performance criteria, all within a matter of days rather than weeks. For targeted PFAS regulations such as EPA Method 533 and 1633, which require accurate measurement of PFAS at low to sub-part per trillion concentrations in water samples, many laboratories employ solid-phase extraction (SPE) for sample pre-concentration. While using a vacuum manifold is a viable option, it can be labor-intensive. An alternative approach is to utilize an automated SPE instrument.
Did you know? The best way to improve efficiency is to use fewer methods to cover the same scope in your laboratory.
Pain Point 2: Instrument downtime
More throughput means more instrumentation use. With that could come unexpected instrument downtime, which can be tremendously costly—in hard costs, lost efficiency and reputation. Many laboratories analyzing environmental matrices rely on GC-MS in addition to LC-MS. To help prevent GC-MS downtime, invest in systems that offer easy, routine maintenance and cleaning. For example, look for a system where the ionization source can be cleaned, filaments replaced, and analytical column can be changed all without venting the instrument—saving time and money.
For specific PFAS testing workflows, laboratories commonly incorporate a delay column on the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system before the mass spectrometer. The inclusion of a delay column serves the purpose of separating trace amounts of PFAS compounds that may be present in the LC flow path prior to the injection valve. By doing so, it significantly improves data quality and instrument uptime. This separation technique prevents any PFAS compounds attributed to the LC flow path from interfering with the subsequent analysis, ultimately enhancing the reliability and consistency of the results obtained. When evaluating workflows for PFAS testing, laboratories should prioritize instrument data quality and robustness to ensure the integrity of their analytical processes.
Did you know? You could save up to 5 full-time-employee days by reducing unplanned downtime.1
Pain Point 3: Costly sample prep and consumables
For most laboratories, manual sample handling and preparation is a bottleneck that requires extensive time, labor, and costs—while adding complexity to sample and operating logistics. The key to meeting demand while ensuring reliable, accurate results is automation. Automating sample prep procedures is possible using state-of-the-art autosampler technology for unattended operations that offer relief from high sample loads and tedious work. In addition, automated workflows reduce the variability associated with manual procedures and enable laboratories to scale down sample and solvent volumes and to use less hazardous chemicals, reducing operational costs and safety risks.
Did you know? Compared with manual procedures, automation can reduce solvent use nearly 200%.2