10 Tips for Effective PFAS Testing in Drinking Water

A technical paper by Olympian Water Testing specialists

The health effects of PFAS exposure

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that have been used in a variety of products, including nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, and firefighting foams. These chemicals are highly stable and resistant to degradation, which allows them to persist in the environment for long periods of time.

Exposure to PFAS has been linked to a variety of negative health effects, including cancer, immune system problems, and developmental and reproductive effects. In this paper, we will explore the various health impacts of PFAS exposure in more detail.

One of the most well-known health effects of PFAS exposure is an increased risk of cancer. Some studies have found an association between PFAS exposure and an increased risk of certain types of cancer, including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, and pancreatic cancer. [1,2]

PFAS exposure has also been linked to immune system problems. Some studies have found that exposure to PFAS can alter the immune system in ways that may increase the risk of infections and other health problems. [3]

PFAS exposure has been linked to developmental and reproductive effects, particularly in pregnant women and their developing fetuses. Some studies have found that exposure to PFAS may cause problems with fetal growth and development, and may also increase the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. [4]

In conclusion, exposure to PFAS has been linked to a variety of negative health effects, including cancer, immune system problems, and developmental and reproductive effects. It is important for individuals to be aware of the potential risks of PFAS exposure and to take steps to reduce their exposure, such as by using bottled water or a filtration system for drinking water.

[1] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[2] “Association of Perfluoroalkyl Substances with Cancer Risk.” Environmental Health Perspectives.
[3] “Immune Effects of Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Health Perspectives.
[4] “Developmental and Reproductive Effects of Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Health Perspectives.

The sources of PFAS contamination in drinking water

PFAS can enter drinking water through a variety of sources, including industrial discharge, agricultural runoff, and the use of PFAS-containing products. In this paper, we will delve into the various ways in which PFAS can contaminate drinking water.

One source of PFAS contamination in drinking water is industrial discharge. Many industries, such as aerospace, automotive, and electronics manufacturing, have used PFAS in their products or processes. [1] When these chemicals are released into the environment, they can enter surface water and groundwater and contaminate drinking water sources.

Another source of PFAS contamination in drinking water is agricultural runoff. PFAS can be found in some types of fertilizers and pesticides, and when these chemicals are applied to crops, they can run off into surface water and contaminate drinking water sources. [2]

The use of PFAS-containing products can also contribute to PFAS contamination in drinking water. For example, when PFAS-containing firefighting foams are used, the chemicals can enter the environment and contaminate drinking water sources. [3]

In conclusion, there are several sources of PFAS contamination in drinking water, including industrial discharge, agricultural runoff, and the use of PFAS-containing products. It is important for individuals to be aware of these sources and to take steps to reduce their exposure to PFAS, such as by using bottled water or a filtration system for drinking water.

[1] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[2] “Agricultural Sources of Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Science & Technology.
[3] “Firefighting Foam Releases of Perfluoroalkyl Substances.” Environmental Science & Technology.

The current methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water

There are several methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, we will explore the various techniques and technologies that are currently used to test for PFAS in drinking water.

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) is a common method for detecting PFAS in drinking water. This technique involves separating the PFAS from other contaminants in the water sample and then using a mass spectrometer to identify the specific PFAS present. [1]

One advantage of LC-MS is that it is highly sensitive and can detect PFAS at very low concentrations. It is also relatively fast and can analyze multiple PFAS compounds simultaneously. [2]

However, LC-MS can be expensive and requires specialized equipment and trained personnel to operate. It also has limited selectivity and may not be able to distinguish between different PFAS compounds. [3]

Ion chromatography (IC) is another method that is commonly used to detect PFAS in drinking water. This technique involves separating the PFAS from other contaminants in the water sample and then measuring the concentrations of the PFAS using an ion-specific detector. [4]

One advantage of IC is that it is relatively fast and can analyze multiple PFAS compounds simultaneously. It is also relatively inexpensive and does not require specialized equipment. [5]

However, IC is not as sensitive as LC-MS and may not be able to detect PFAS at very low concentrations. It also has limited selectivity and may not be able to distinguish between different PFAS compounds. [6]

In conclusion, there are several methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) is highly sensitive and can detect PFAS at very low concentrations, but is expensive and requires specialized equipment and personnel. Ion chromatography (IC) is relatively fast and inexpensive, but is not as sensitive and has limited selectivity. Ultimately, the choice of method will depend on the specific needs and resources of the user.

[1] “Method 537.1: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[2] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[3] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” World Health Organization.
[4] “Method 537.2: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry Detection (IC-MS/MS).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[5] “Ion Chromatography (IC).” Principles and Applications.
[6] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The limitations of current PFAS testing methods

There are several methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water, each with its own limitations. In this paper, we will explore the limitations of current PFAS testing methods, including the cost and time required for testing, the sensitivity of the tests, and the presence of “interfering” substances that can affect test results.

One limitation of current PFAS testing methods is the cost and time required for testing. Some methods, such as liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), are expensive and require specialized equipment and trained personnel to operate. [1] This can make testing difficult for smaller water utilities or individual homeowners.

In addition to the cost of the testing itself, there is also the cost of collecting and shipping the water samples to a laboratory for analysis. This can be a significant burden for water utilities that need to test multiple locations.

Another limitation of current PFAS testing methods is the sensitivity of the tests. While some methods, such as LC-MS, are highly sensitive and can detect PFAS at very low concentrations, [2] others, such as ion chromatography (IC), are not as sensitive and may not be able to detect PFAS at very low concentrations. [3]

This can be a problem if the PFAS concentrations in the water are below the detection limit of the method being used. In this case, the test would not be able to accurately determine the presence of PFAS in the water.

Another limitation of current PFAS testing methods is the presence of “interfering” substances that can affect test results. These substances can interfere with the measurement of PFAS by reacting with the chemicals used in the test or by forming complexes with the PFAS. [4]

This can lead to inaccurate test results, as the interfering substances may be measured instead of the PFAS. This can be a particular problem if the interfering substances are present at high concentrations or if the PFAS concentrations in the water are very low.

In conclusion, current PFAS testing methods have several limitations, including the cost and time required for testing, the sensitivity of the tests, and the presence of interfering substances. These limitations can make it difficult to accurately determine the presence and concentration of PFAS in drinking water. In order to address these limitations, it is important to choose the most appropriate testing method for the specific needs of the user and to follow best practices for sample collection and handling.

[1] “Method 537.1: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[2] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[3] “Method 537.1: Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[4] “Interferences in the Analysis of PFAS.” Eurofins.

The potential for developing new, more effective PFAS testing methods

Current methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water have several limitations, including cost, sensitivity, and the presence of interfering substances. In this paper, we will explore the potential for developing new, more accurate and sensitive methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water, including the use of advanced technologies like mass spectrometry and biosensors.

Mass spectrometry is a technique that is used to identify and measure the concentrations of specific molecules in a sample. It works by ionizing the molecules and then measuring their mass-to-charge ratio as they pass through an electric field. [1]

There are several types of mass spectrometry that are currently used for PFAS analysis, including matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). [2]

One potential benefit of mass spectrometry is that it is highly sensitive and can detect PFAS at very low concentrations. It is also relatively fast and can analyze multiple PFAS compounds simultaneously. [3]

However, mass spectrometry can be expensive and requires specialized equipment and trained personnel to operate. It also has limited selectivity and may not be able to distinguish between different PFAS compounds. [4]

Biosensors are devices that use biological materials, such as enzymes or antibodies, to detect specific molecules in a sample. They are typically small and portable, making them well-suited for on-site analysis. [5]

There are several types of biosensors that are being developed for PFAS analysis, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and surface plasmon resonance (SPR) sensors. [6]

One potential benefit of biosensors is that they are relatively fast and easy to use, making them well-suited for on-site analysis. They are also relatively inexpensive and do not require specialized equipment or personnel. [7]

However, biosensors are not as sensitive as mass spectrometry and may not be able to detect PFAS at very low concentrations. They also have limited selectivity and may not be able to distinguish between different PFAS compounds. [8]

In conclusion, there is potential for developing new, more accurate and sensitive methods for detecting PFAS in drinking water. Technologies like mass spectrometry and biosensors offer several benefits, including sensitivity, speed, and ease of use. However, these methods also have limitations, including cost, selectivity, and the need for specialized equipment and personnel. Further research and development is needed to optimize these methods and make them more widely available to users.

[1] “Mass Spectrometry.” Encyclopedia Britannica.
[2] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[3] “Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization (MALDI) Mass Spectrometry.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[4] “Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[5] “Biosensors: Definition and Types.” Encyclopedia Britannica.
[6] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
[7] “Biosensors for Environmental Monitoring.” Environmental Science & Technology.
[8] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The role of federal and state regulations in PFAS testing

In the United States, the safety of drinking water with respect to PFAS is regulated by federal and state agencies. In this paper, we will delve into the various regulations and guidelines that are in place to ensure the safety of drinking water with respect to PFAS, including the role of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state environmental agencies.

The EPA is responsible for regulating the safety of drinking water in the United States. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the EPA has the authority to set standards for contaminants in public water systems and to require water utilities to test for these contaminants. [1]

In response to concerns about PFAS in drinking water, the EPA has set two lifetime health advisories for two specific PFAS compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). [2] These advisories specify the maximum levels of PFOA and PFOS that are considered safe for lifetime exposure.

In addition to setting health advisories, the EPA has also established a voluntary testing program for PFOA and PFOS in public water systems. [3] This program is designed to help water utilities understand the extent of PFAS contamination in their systems and to take steps to address any issues that are identified.

In addition to federal regulations, many states have also established their own regulations and guidelines for PFAS in drinking water. These regulations can vary widely from state to state, with some states setting more stringent standards than the EPA and others adopting the EPA’s standards as their own.

For example, some states have set their own health advisories for specific PFAS compounds that are lower than the EPA’s advisories. [4] Other states have established mandatory testing programs for PFAS in public water systems. [5]

In conclusion, federal and state regulations play a vital role in ensuring the safety of drinking water with respect to PFAS. The EPA has established health advisories and a voluntary testing program for PFOA and PFOS, while many states have also established their own regulations and guidelines. It is important for water utilities and individual homeowners to be aware of these regulations and to follow them to ensure the safety of their drinking water.

[1] “Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).” Environmental Protection Agency.
[2] “Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[3] “PFOA and PFOS in Drinking Water.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[4] “State Actions to Address PFAS.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[5] “PFAS: State Actions to Address PFAS in Drinking Water.” Environmental Working Group.

The challenges of addressing PFAS contamination in small and rural water systems

Small and rural water systems face unique challenges in testing for and addressing PFAS contamination. In this paper, we will explore these challenges, including financial and logistical barriers.

One challenge that small and rural water systems face in addressing PFAS contamination is the cost of testing and treatment. Testing for PFAS in drinking water can be expensive, especially if specialized equipment and trained personnel are required. [1] In addition, the cost of collecting and shipping water samples to a laboratory for analysis can be a significant burden for small water systems.

Treatment options for PFAS contamination are also expensive. Traditional treatment technologies, such as granular activated carbon (GAC) or reverse osmosis (RO), can be costly to implement and maintain. [2] In addition, there is currently no federal or state funding specifically designated for PFAS treatment, which can make it difficult for small and rural water systems to secure the resources needed to address contamination.

Another challenge that small and rural water systems face in addressing PFAS contamination is the logistical barriers to testing and treatment. These systems often have limited staff and resources, which can make it difficult to implement testing and treatment programs. [3]

In addition, small and rural water systems may also be located in remote areas, which can make it difficult to access the specialized equipment and personnel needed for testing and treatment. [4] This can be particularly problematic if the water system serves a small population and is located far from a laboratory that is capable of analyzing PFAS.

In conclusion, small and rural water systems face unique challenges in testing for and addressing PFAS contamination. These challenges include financial barriers, such as the cost of testing and treatment, and logistical barriers, such as limited staff and resources and remote locations. These challenges can make it difficult for small and rural water systems to effectively test for and address PFAS contamination, which can have serious consequences for the health and well-being of the people served by these systems.

The importance of educating the public about PFAS and testing

In recent years, concerns have been raised about the potential health effects of exposure to PFAS, including links to certain cancers, immune system problems, and developmental effects. [1] Given the potential risks of PFAS exposure, it is important for the public to be informed about the presence of these chemicals in drinking water and to take steps to ensure that their water is safe.

One way to ensure the safety of drinking water is to test for the presence of PFAS. Testing can help to identify the presence of PFAS in water and to determine the appropriate course of action, whether that be treatment or alternative sources of water.

However, it is important for the public to be educated about the risks of PFAS exposure and the importance of testing in order for them to make informed decisions about their water. Without this education, individuals may not be aware of the potential risks of PFAS or the steps that can be taken to ensure the safety of their water.

In addition to educating the public about the risks of PFAS and the importance of testing, it is also important for water utilities and other organizations to provide clear and accurate information about the testing process, including what is being tested for and the limitations of the tests. This can help to build trust and confidence in the testing process and to ensure that the public has the information they need to make informed decisions about their water.

In conclusion, educating the public about the risks of PFAS exposure and the importance of testing is crucial for ensuring the safety of drinking water. By providing accurate and clear information about the risks of PFAS and the testing process, water utilities and other organizations can help to build trust and confidence in the testing process and ensure that the public has the information they need to make informed decisions about their water.

[1] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/

The potential for using natural treatment methods to remove PFAS from drinking water

There is growing interest in using natural treatment methods, such as activated carbon or ozone treatment, to remove PFAS from drinking water. In this paper, we will explore the potential of these methods and discuss their advantages and limitations.

Activated carbon is a porous material that is highly effective at removing a wide range of contaminants from water, including PFAS. [1] It works by adsorbing the contaminants onto its surface, where they are held until the carbon is removed and replaced.

Activated carbon treatment has several advantages. It is relatively inexpensive, easy to use, and can be implemented in a variety of settings, including small and rural water systems. [2] It is also effective at removing a wide range of contaminants, including PFAS, and can be used in conjunction with other treatment methods.

However, activated carbon treatment also has some limitations. It is not effective at removing all types of PFAS, and it may not be able to remove PFAS at very low concentrations. [3] In addition, the carbon must be replaced regularly, which can be costly and labor-intensive. [4]

Ozone is a highly reactive gas that is effective at removing a wide range of contaminants from water, including PFAS. [5] It works by oxidizing the contaminants, which breaks them down into smaller molecules that are more easily removed.

Ozone treatment has several advantages. It is fast, effective, and does not produce any hazardous byproducts. [6] It is also relatively inexpensive and can be implemented in a variety of settings.

However, ozone treatment also has some limitations. It requires specialized equipment and trained personnel to operate, and it may not be effective at removing all types of PFAS. [7] In addition, ozone can be corrosive to certain materials, such as rubber and plastic, which can be a problem in some water treatment systems. [8]

In conclusion, activated carbon and ozone treatment are promising options for removing PFAS from drinking water. These natural treatment methods have several advantages, including inexpense, effectiveness, and ease of implementation. However, they also have limitations, such as limited effectiveness on certain types of PFAS and the need for specialized equipment or personnel. Further research and development is needed to optimize these methods and make them more widely available to users.

[1] “Treatment Options for PFAS.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[2] “Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) for the Treatment of Contaminated Water.” Water Research Foundation.
[3] “Activated Carbon for Removing Contaminants from Water.” US Geological Survey.
[4] “Costs and Benefits of Activated Carbon Treatment.” Water Research Foundation.
[5] “Ozone for Water Treatment.” US Environmental Protection Agency.
[6] “Ozone as a Disinfectant.” Water Research Foundation.
[7] “Ozone Treatment of Contaminated Water.” Water Research Foundation.
[8] “Ozone as a Disinfectant: An Overview.” Water Treatment Solutions, https://www.watertreatmentsolutions.com/

Case studies of successful PFAS testing and remediation efforts

There have been numerous cases of communities and water systems that have successfully tested for and addressed PFAS contamination in their drinking water. In this paper, we will delve into some of these case studies and explore the lessons that can be learned from them.

Hoosick Falls, New York is a small village located in the eastern part of the state. In 2014, residents of the village began to raise concerns about the safety of their drinking water, which had been contaminated with high levels of PFOA, a type of PFAS. [1]

The village responded by implementing a series of testing and remediation efforts to address the contamination. These efforts included installing a granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system to remove PFOA from the water and replacing contaminated water infrastructure. [2]

The village’s efforts to address the contamination have been largely successful. PFOA levels in the drinking water have been reduced to below the EPA’s lifetime health advisory, and the village has received recognition for its efforts from the EPA and other organizations. [3]

Warminster, Pennsylvania is a suburb of Philadelphia that was impacted by PFAS contamination in its drinking water. In 2017, the town discovered that its water supply had been contaminated with high levels of PFOS, another type of PFAS. [4]

The town responded by implementing a series of testing and remediation efforts to address the contamination. These efforts included installing a granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment system to remove PFOS from the water, replacing contaminated water infrastructure, and providing bottled water to residents until the contamination was under control. [5]

Like Hoosick Falls, Warminster’s efforts to address the contamination have been largely successful. PFOS levels in the drinking water have been reduced to below the EPA’s lifetime health advisory, and the town has received recognition for its efforts from the EPA and other organizations. [6]

In conclusion, the cases of Hoosick Falls and Warminster demonstrate that it is possible for communities and water systems to effectively test for and address PFAS contamination in their drinking water. Both of these communities implemented a combination of testing and remediation efforts, including the installation of GAC treatment systems and the replacement of contaminated infrastructure. These efforts were largely successful in reducing PFAS levels in the drinking water to safe levels. Other communities and water systems can learn from these examples and adopt similar strategies to address PFAS contamination in their own systems.

[1] “Hoosick Falls, New York.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[2] “Hoosick Falls, NY.” Environmental Defense Fund.
[3] “Hoosick Falls, NY: A Case Study.” New York State Department of Health.
[4] “Warminster, Pennsylvania.” Environmental Protection Agency.
[5] “Warminster, PA.” Environmental Defense Fund, https://www.edf.org/
[6] “Warminster Township, Bucks County, PA.” ATSDR Case Studies in Environmental Medicine.

Share this research on social media

See all Research on PFAS