Significant improvements in the analysis of perfluorinated compounds in water and fish: results from an interlaboratory method evaluation study
Abstract
The 2nd international interlaboratory study (ILS) on perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in environmental samples was organized to assess the performance of 21 North American and European laboratories on the analysis of PFCs in water and fish. A study protocol was provided to assess accuracy, precision, matrix effects and to study the use of in-house standards. The participants used shared native and mass-labelled standards that were provided for this study to quantify the PFC concentrations in the samples. Matrix effects in the determination of PFCs can be considerable and can decrease the sensitivity, the accuracy and internal standard recoveries. Therefore, two quantification methods were evaluated by all laboratories: standard addition quantification (SAQ) and solvent-based calibration curve quantification (SBCCQ; using mass-labelled internal standards (IS)). The between laboratory reproducibility (i.e. coefficient of variance) was smaller for the SBCCQ results (except for PFBS and PFHxS for which no mass-labelled analogues were available) compared to those obtained by the SAQ method. The within laboratory precision of individual laboratories is good (mean for all PFCs in water 12% and 6.8% in fish). The good performance is partially attributable to the use of well-defined native- and mass-labelled standards. Therefore, the SBCCQ method is recommended. The results show that analytical methods for PFCs in water and fish have improved considerably. Critical steps identified in this study are (i) the use of well-defined native standards for quantification, (ii) the use of mass-labelled internal standards (preferably one for each target compound) and (iii) minimization of matrix effects by a better clean up.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A round robin study measured aqueous PFOA concentrations of 0.021-0.083 μg/L in a sample with known concentration 0.025 μg/L, with RSD 32%.
“A round robin study of PFAS analysis measured aqueous PFOA concentrations of 0.021 – 0.083 μg/L in a sample with a known concentration of 0.025 μg/L, resulting in a relative standard deviation (RSD) of 32% (van Leeuwen et al. 2009).”
From Evaluation of a national data set for insights into sources, composition, and concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in U.S. drinking water (2018) · cites this paper as van Leeuwen et al. 2009
Aqueous PFOS measurements were 0.02-0.06 μg/L in a sample with known concentration 0.023 μg/L, with RSD 29%.
“Similarly, aqueous PFOS measurements were 0.02-0.06 μg/L in sample with a known concentration 0.023 μg/L, resulting in a RSD of 29% (van Leeuwen et al. 2009).”
From Evaluation of a national data set for insights into sources, composition, and concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in U.S. drinking water (2018) · cites this paper as van Leeuwen et al. 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 102
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [11]Powley, C.R. & Buck, R.C. (2005). Matrix-effect free analytical methods for the de-termination of perfluorinated carboxylic acids in biological matrices. Proceedings of Fluoros conference, Toronto, Canada (ed. S. Mabury) abstract ANA022.
- Authors
- van Leeuwen, S. P. J., Swart, C. P., van der Veen, I., & de Boer, J.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- ORCID
- Swart, C.P.
- Venue
- Journal of Chromatography A
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 1216
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 401-409
- ISSN
- 0021-9673 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2128368502
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 10.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Chromatography A (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical chemistry methods development
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Keywords
- perfluorinated compounds, interlaboratory comparison, water analysis, FISH analysis, matrix effects, PFBS, PFHxS, method evaluation, clean-up
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Calibration, Chromatography, Liquid, Fishes, Fluorocarbons, Reference Standards, Water Pollutants, Chemical, Reproducibility of Results, Spectrometry, Mass, Electrospray Ionization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review