Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Toxicol Chem. 2021 Jan 29;40(3):631–657. doi: 10.1002/etc.4935

Table 1.

Comparison of analytical techniques for assessing PFAS exposure.a

Methods Applicable
matrices		 Advantages Limitations
Targeted analysis All matrices

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to the analysis targets

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries

  • Potential bias from sample extraction
Non-targeted analysisb All matrices

  • High inclusivity

  • Elucidate unknown structures

  • Not quantitative

  • Potential bias from sample extraction

  • Need expensive instruments and highly skilled users
TOP Mainly aqueous samples

  • Sensitive (0.1–1 ng/L)

  • High selectivity to PFAS

  • Limited inclusivity

  • Variable recoveries
EOF (CIC) All matrices

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Less sensitive (0.1-0.5 ppm F) than targeted analyses

  • Potential bias from sample extraction
AOF (CIC) Water

  • High selectivity to organofluorine

  • Not as sensitive (0.1-0.5 ppm F)
PIGE Solids

  • High-throughput

  • Non-destructive

  • No matrix effects

  • Surface measurement (100-250 μm)

  • Not as sensitive (50 nmol F/cm2)

  • Interference by fluoride
XPS Solids

  • High-throughput

  • Widely-available instrumentation

  • Identification of perfluoroalkyl moiety

  • Etching of surface possible to create depth profiles

  • Surface measurement (~10 nm)

  • High detection limits (~1% F)

  • Small area measurement

  • Can be affected by surface roughness and inhomogeneity
a

A more comprehensive discussion of the strengths and limitations of different analytical techniques is reviewed elsewhere (Guelfo 2020).

b

For a more detailed discussion of the strengths and limitations of non-targeted analysis please see the following viewpoints and response (Hites 2018, 2019; Samanipour 2019).