Elemental analysis underpins much of modern environmental water science, providing the quantitative backbone for assessing water quality, tracing contamination sources, and evaluating compliance with regulatory standards. By measuring major ions, nutrients, trace metals, and ultra-trace elements across diverse matrices—from pristine surface waters to complex industrial effluents—analytical chemists generate data that inform ecological risk assessments, human health studies, and remediation strategies.
Elemental analysis has evolved significantly since the early 19th century when methods to determine carbon content in samples were first developed. Over time, additional techniques have been established, enabling the analysis of various substances and advancing elemental analysis to its current state—where it’s becoming even more critical as we learn more about forever chemicals and lean on lithium at unprecedented levels.
Labcompare recently spoke with Jess Gantt, lab manager and application specialist at Analytik Jena, about the highs and lows of elemental analysis, and what its role is in the modern laboratory and today’s society.
Q: What are the top three pain points in the elemental analysis of environmental water samples right now?
A: The first that comes to mind is the highly variable matrices. Environmental waters can range from clean drinking water to wastewater or seawater. We have a customer running wastewater effluents in the same sequence as their seawater samples, without changing methods. Traditionally, high TDS and particulates in these samples can cause clogging, carryover, and accelerated maintenance, which directly affects data quality.
The second is long‑term stability. Environmental programs depend on trends over time, but matrix‑driven fouling and drift can compromise precision and accuracy if systems aren’t robust.
Third is sensitivity at trace levels. Many regulated elements are present at very low concentrations, and interferences can make accurate quantification challenging. Balancing sensitivity with robustness remains a key challenge.
Q: How can these challenges be addressed and overcome?
A: These challenges are best addressed by starting with a clear understanding of the application and the customer’s priorities. Environmental labs often work with unknown or highly variable samples, so instrument selection must be based on worst‑case conditions rather than ideal ones.
From there, the solution needs to balance sensitivity, robustness and flexibility. Instruments must handle high TDS, particulates, and matrix variability while still delivering stable, trace‑level results over time. Designing for durability is critical.
That’s why, from an industry standpoint, building systems that tolerate particle‑rich and aggressive samples, such as wider internal flow paths for TOC or OES analysis, helps reduce clogging, minimize maintenance, and improve long‑term stability. Ultimately, robust design enables more reliable data and lower operational burden for the lab.
Q: With demand increasing, how do you balance sensitivity, speed and precision?
A: As demand and sample throughput increase, sensitivity, speed and precision all remain critical for laboratories, and the challenge is balancing those priorities without compromise. The current industry trend places growing emphasis on sensitivity and speed, particularly as detection limits decrease and turnaround times tighten.
To address this, instrumentation must be highly user‑friendly and intuitive. Simplified, intelligent workflows reduce operator error, minimize retraining requirements, and allow laboratories to maintain precision while increasing throughput. This directly improves data quality and overall lab efficiency.
A good example is the recently released multi N/C x300 TOC product line, which was designed with these trends in mind. The focus was placed on intuitive software, automated functions, and streamlined operation to enable faster analysis while maintaining the sensitivity and precision required for reliable environmental and industrial measurements
Q: Are non-target or high-resolution screening approaches practical for routine monitoring?
A: Screening approaches can be beneficial to provide a quick indicator of the level of contamination. Usually, this involves starting with broad screening to assess overall signal, then following up with elemental or compound‑specific analysis when needed.
We’ve seen this clearly with PFAS monitoring. Screening tools such as high-resolution continuum‑source molecular absorption spectroscopy (HR-CS MAS) or combustion ion chromatography (CIC) are increasingly used to measure total fluorine or adsorbable/extractable organic fluorine, which helps determine whether further investigation is warranted. The next question is often, “Which PFAS are present and at what levels?”
At that point, LC‑MS/MS or other speciation techniques are used to identify and quantify individual compounds. This combination allows labs to maintain throughput and cost efficiency, while still generating actionable data.
Q: How are automation and AI affecting overall elemental analysis?
A: As demand for elemental analysis continues to grow, laboratories are increasingly relying on automation and AI‑assisted tools to increase throughput while maintaining data quality. The primary goal is to reduce routine errors, improve consistency, and minimize the burden on operators, without compromising speed or precision.
Across techniques such as ICP‑OES, combustion‑based analyzers, and TOC systems, automation now plays a key role in areas like automated calibration checks, quality control standard monitoring, intelligent data‑entry validation, and real‑time performance tracking. These features help ensure stable operation even in high‑throughput or high‑matrix environments. One of my favorite features is the flame sensor utilized on the multi EA 5100. This controls the introduction of organic samples utilizing an optical sensor to ensure oxidation of the sample of interest, without the risk of soot. Complete recovery of sample for C, N, S, and Cl analysis can occur.
Automation is also transforming troubleshooting. In combustion and TOC analysis, tools like self‑check systems and automated flow‑management enable early detection of instability, improving long‑term system reliability and reducing maintenance intervals. Similar trends are seen in ICP‑OES, where diagnostics help flag issues before data quality is impacted.
While there’s sometimes concern that automation or AI will reduce the need for skilled operators, the opposite is true. Human expertise remains essential for interpreting trends, validating unexpected results, and making informed decisions. As these tools become more sophisticated, the demand for experienced analysts who can effectively leverage automated systems is expected to increase.
Q: Where do you see the biggest gaps between laboratory capability and field-scale environmental analysis?
A: Bridging the gap between lab to process has been an ongoing challenge in the industry. Differences in sampling procedures, detection techniques, sensitivity, and operator expertise can all lead to discrepancies between lab and field results.
Laboratory instruments typically offer much higher sensitivity and lower detection limits, but they operate on discrete samples collected at set intervals. In contrast, process instruments are designed for continuous, real‑time monitoring, often at higher concentration ranges. This difference can create confusion, particularly when a process instrument reports a value of ‘zero’ below its detection limit, while the lab reports a measurable low‑level concentration from a similar sampling point.
These differences can lead to misunderstandings between operators and lab staff if the limitations of each approach aren’t well understood. That said, this is an area receiving increased attention. We’re seeing better alignment through cross‑training, improved communication, and the use of comparable measurement techniques, all of which help close the gap between operational control and laboratory data.
Q: What are some elemental analysis trends for 2026 and beyond?
A: One of the most significant trends we’re seeing is continued growth in PFAS monitoring, along with increased analytical demand from the mining and resource extraction sectors. PFAS are often referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their extreme thermal and chemical stability, which makes them difficult to degrade and manage. As their environmental and health impacts continue to be investigated, industries ranging from drinking water and wastewater to recycling and waste management are placing more emphasis on reliable monitoring tools to ensure public safety.
In parallel, growth in mining, especially for critical and battery‑related materials, is driving demand for robust elemental analysis capable of handling complex, high‑matrix samples. Together, these trends are pushing the industry toward methods that are not only more sensitive, but also more durable, scalable, and suitable for real‑world environmental monitoring.