Advancing Perfluorinated Compound Analysis Using Simultaneous Matrix Monitoring

Significance of the Topic

Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are persistent environmental contaminants of global concern, with perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) listed under the Stockholm Convention. Their widespread use in consumer products, food packaging and industrial applications raises the risk of human and ecological exposure through water supplies, biota and food chains. Reliable monitoring at ultra-trace levels is crucial for regulatory compliance and risk assessment.

Objectives and Study Overview

This study aimed to demonstrate the value of simultaneous matrix background monitoring during high-sensitivity PFC analysis in environmental waters and biological tissues. By combining routine multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) with full-scan acquisition, researchers evaluated sample matrix effects and analytical performance within a single injection.

Methodology and Instrumentation

Sample preparation covered environmental waters (tap, river and lake samples from Sweden) using solid-phase extraction (SPE) with Oasis WAX cartridges (ISO 25101) and fish liver homogenates (Norwegian salmon and cod) extracted with acetonitrile, cleaned by WAX SPE and dispersive carbon. Final extracts were adjusted to 40:60 methanol:water with ammonium acetate.

Instrumentation Used

• ACQUITY UPLC system with BEH C18 column (1.7 µm, 2.1×50 mm) and PFC Analysis Kit
• Xevo TQ-MS operating in negative electrospray ionization (ESI) mode
• RADAR dual scan-MRM acquisition (50–650 m/z at 3000 Da/s)
• TargetLynx and MassLynx software for data acquisition and quantitation

Main Results and Discussion

Rapid UPLC separations under a 0.65 mL/min gradient achieved baseline peak widths of ~3 s and enabled eight injections per hour. Calibration curves for PFCs showed excellent linearity (r2>0.999). Native PFOA and PFOS were quantified in environmental waters at 0.23–1.50 ng/L. RADAR dual scan-MRM provided uncompromised MRM sensitivity while capturing full-scan data on co-eluting matrix components.

Full-scan spectra revealed humic and fulvic substances in lake samples, explaining elevated background and potential ion suppression. In fish liver, bile acids (taurocholate and deoxytaurocholate) co-eluted with PFOS, causing retention shifts and MRM interference at the 499>80 transition. Dual scan data enabled identification of these interferences and guided use of the cleaner 499>99 transition.

Benefits and Practical Applications of the Method

Combining UPLC-MS/MS with RADAR dual scan-MRM offers high throughput, robust sensitivity and real-time intra-sample quality control. Laboratories can monitor both quantitative targets and matrix background simultaneously, reducing method development time and increasing confidence in ultra-trace PFC measurements.

Future Trends and Opportunities

Integrating continuous matrix monitoring into routine workflows will enhance analytical reliability for PFCs and other persistent pollutants. Further development of tailored cleanup protocols for challenging matrices, coupled with next-generation mass spectrometers, will push detection limits lower and broaden the range of detectable contaminants. Advanced data processing and machine learning may also enable automated identification of interferences in complex samples.

Conclusion

The UPLC-Xevo TQ-MS platform, paired with RADAR dual scan-MRM, delivers high-sensitivity PFC analysis and simultaneous matrix assessment in a single run. This approach streamlines workflows, improves data quality and supports robust environmental and biota monitoring at ultra-trace levels.

References

1. Stockholm Convention on POPs, PFOS inclusion announcement, 2009.
2. Jähne A, Berger U. J Chrom A. 2009;1216:410–421.
3. Lindström G, Kärrman A, van Bavel B. J Chrom A. 2009;1216:394–400.
4. van Leeuwen SPJ, Swart CP, van der Veen L, de Boer J. J Chrom A. 2009;1216:401–409.
5. Lee PJ et al. Waters Application Note no. 720002813en.
6. ISO/DIS 25101: Water quality—Determination of perfluorinated compounds.
7. Kärrman A et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2009;doi:10.1007/s11356-009-0178-5.
8. Pfeifer T et al. J Chrom A. 2001;926:151–159.
9. Steen RJCA et al. J Chrom A. 1999;857:157–166.
10. Stroobant V et al. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 1995;6:588–596.
11. Benskin JP, Bataineh M, Martin JW. Anal Chem. 2007;79:6455–6464.