Air monitoring
Most regulatory PFAS air methods, including the US Environmental Protection Agency's OTM-45, OTM-50 and forthcoming OTM-55, rely on collecting a sample and sending it for laboratory analysis.
This approach cannot detect short-lived process upsets between sampling windows, and results are typically available only after a delay of several weeks.
A recent review in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment found that even incineration or pyrolysis processes reporting destruction efficiencies above 99.99% can still release measurable fluorinated by-products that a fixed target list may miss entirely.
Chemical ionisation mass spectrometry, typically paired with iodide reagent ions for PFAS-specific sensitivity, ionises an air stream directly and identifies compounds by mass in seconds, without sample preparation.
Detection limits in the parts-per-trillion range are achievable, allowing continuous, unattended operation.
Deployments over the past two years illustrate the range of applications.
At a Swiss municipal waste incineration plant, a two-week campaign sampling treated flue gas resolved short-chain PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid, at concentrations in the tens of parts per trillion – below the resolution of conventional flue gas monitoring techniques such as FTIR.
In Denmark, a thermal desorption pilot at a former firefighter training ground tracked PFAS off-gassing in real time across a 90-day heating ramp from ambient temperature to 400°C.
Laboratory testing of polymer-based semiconductor process materials measured multiple PFAS species outgassing during elevated-temperature processing, at concentrations from sub-parts-per-trillion to around one part per billion.
Testing of consumer products, including nail polish and wall paint, found measurable off-gassing of fluorinated compounds even at room temperature.
ASTM's D8560-24 guide for indoor air PFAS measurement now recognises chemical ionisation mass spectrometry as a complement to sorbent-based sampling, particularly for capturing fast-moving emission events.
Sorbent methods retain lower detection limits for some compounds and remain the basis for most regulatory compliance work.
IET 36.3 May