Search

Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS) continue to need novel analytical tools for their proper characterization. Regulatory bodies are lowering the acceptable concentrations for contaminated matrices, requiring state-of-the-art instrumentation to detect sub-ng/L levels. Suspect screening (for known PFAS without certified analytical standards) is becoming more popular as the list of known PFAS grows to thousands of compounds. The methods that currently exist for suspect screening require updating to move them from boutique, study-by-study methods to those that can be adopted more universally to generate transferable data sets. Some of those updates are presented here with the hope that they are adopted by laboratories in industry, government, and academia.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are important environmental contaminants, yet relatively few analytical reference standards exist for this class. Nontarget analyses performed by means of high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) are increasingly common for the discovery and identification of PFASs in environmental and biological samples. The certainty of PFAS identifications made via HRMS must be communicated through a reliable and harmonized approach. Here, we present a confidence scale along with identification criteria specific to suspect or nontarget analysis of PFASs by means of nontarget HRMS. Confidence levels range from level 1a-"Confirmed by Reference Standard," and level 1b-"Indistinguishable from Reference Standard," to level 5-"Exact Masses of Interest," which are identified by suspect screening or data filtering, two common forms of feature prioritization. This confidence scale is consistent with general criteria for communicating confidence in the identification of small organic molecules by HRMS (e.g., through a match to analytical reference standards, library MS/MS, and/or retention times) but incorporates the specific conventions and tools used in PFAS classification and analysis (e.g., detection of homologous series and specific ranges of mass defects). Our scale clarifies the level of certainty in PFAS identification and, in doing so, facilitates more efficient identification.

Vaping is the process of inhaling and exhaling an aerosol produced by an e-cigarette, vape pen, or personal aerosolizer. When the device contains nicotine, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists the product as an electronic nicotine delivery system or ENDS device. Similar electronic devices can be used to vape cannabis extracts. Over the past decade, the vaping market has increased exponentially, raising health concerns over the number of people exposed and a nationwide outbreak of cases of severe, sometimes fatal, lung dysfunction that arose suddenly in otherwise healthy individuals. In this review, we discuss the various vaping technologies, which are remarkably diverse, and summarize the use prevalence in the U.S. over time by youths and adults. We examine the complex chemistry of vape carrier solvents, flavoring chemicals, and transformation products. We review the health effects from epidemiological and laboratory studies and, finally, discuss the proposed mechanisms underlying some of these health effects. We conclude that since much of the research in this area is recent and vaping technologies are dynamic, our understanding of the health effects is insufficient. With the rapid growth of ENDS use, consumers and regulatory bodies need a better understanding of constituent-dependent toxicity to guide product use and regulatory decisions.

Information is needed on the concentration of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in foams on surface waters impacted by aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Nine pairs of foam and underlying bulk water were collected from a single freshwater lake impacted by PFAS and analyzed for PFAS by liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QToF) and for dissolved organic carbon (DOC). The DOC of two foam:bulk water pairs was characterized by 1H NMR. Foams were comprised of 16 PFAS with concentrations as high as 97 000 ng/L (PFOS) along with longer-chain, more hydrophobic PFAS. Only five PFAS (PFOS and shorter chain lengths) were quantified in underlying bulk waters. Enrichment factors (foam:bulk water) ranged from 10 (PFHxA) up to 2830 (PFOS). Foams impacted by AFFF gave the greatest concentrations and number of PFAS classes with PFOS concentrations exceeding the EPA health advisory level (70 ng/L). PFAS concentrations were significantly below published critical micelle concentrations and constituted