PFAS testing provides confidence for food producers, regulators and consumers

For laboratory leaders, the question is no longer whether PFAS testing in food matters, it’s if their testing programs are ready for what comes next.

As regulations evolve, customers are asking more detailed questions and laboratories are trying to deliver reliable answers across increasingly complex food matrices. Readiness depends on scalable and defensible testing programs.

PFAS testing should be treated as an operational capability that touches on sample preparation, contamination control, instrumentation, data review, staff training, quality systems and business continuity. Laboratories that recognise this early will be better positioned to respond as regulatory expectations mature.

Regulation is moving faster than harmonisation

One of the main challenges for food laboratories is the uneven pace of regulatory development. Different regions define priorities, compound lists, food categories and action levels in various ways.

For laboratory leaders, this creates planning uncertainty because they are often required to make investment decisions before final regulatory clarity is available. For example, a laboratory may need to support today’s target list while anticipating tomorrow’s expanded scope or verify performance for one matrix and later extend it to others. It may also be needed to meet customer requirements that go beyond current regulatory minimums.

This is why PFAS readiness should be built around adaptability. Laboratories need workflows that can support low-level detection, matrix diversity, method verification and future expansion without forcing teams to rebuild their approach each time expectations change.

The hidden operational challenge is consistency

Much of the PFAS conversation focuses on sensitivity for good reason as many compounds must be detected at very low concentrations. However, sensitivity alone does not make a laboratory ready. A more predictive operational question is whether a laboratory can generate consistent, defensible results with multiple analysts across sample types and batches over a long period of time.

Food matrices make that difficult because workflows can vary. A workflow that performs well in vegetables may not behave the same way in seafood, for example. Additionally, matrix components can affect extraction efficiency, cleanup performance, chromatographic separation, ionization and long-term instrument cleanliness. These are not minor technical details, as they determine whether a method can move from expert-led implementation to routine operation.

The laboratory itself can become a source of background contamination. Tubing, seals, solvents, water, consumables, pipette tips, containers, cartridges and routine handling can all contribute to low-level PFAS signals.² At low PPT levels, unexplained background can create false positives, mask real sample response, increase reruns and slow decision making.

Successful PFAS laboratories treat contamination control as a quality system, not an occasional troubleshooting exercise. This includes qualifying consumables before routine use, running blanks at the start of every batch, evaluating reagent and instrument background and having a clear procedure for investigating unexpected PFAS peaks. The goal is to understand it, control it, distinguish it from real sample response, and document decisions in a way that can withstand review.²

Official methods help laboratories move from uncertainty to implementation

Establishing official PFAS methods that are scientifically defensible, fit for purpose and consistent across a wide range of food matrices is critical. Developing an in-house method often requires extensive method optimisation, followed by demonstration of reliability across different sample types. This process can be resource intensive, time consuming and difficult to justify in an evolving regulatory landscape.

Official methods help address these challenges by providing a validated and independently reviewed framework that laboratories can implement with greater confidence. Rather than starting from scratch, laboratories can leverage a method that has already undergone rigorous evaluation, reducing development risk while improving consistency, reproducibility and defensibility of results.

A recent example is AOAC Official Method 2025.11 (First Action), which provides a validated workflow for the determination of PFAS compounds across a broad range of food and feed matrices.^3-4 The method combines QuEChERS extraction, pass-through cleanup and LC-MS/MS detection in a workflow specifically designed for PFAS analysis in food.

While laboratories must still perform local verification, establish quality control procedures, train analysts and define matrix-specific acceptance criteria, an official method like the AOAC provides more of an efficient path to implementation than independently developed methods.

Designing workflows for scale, not just feasibility

As testing demand increases, laboratories will need workflows that are not only technically sound but operationally scalable. This is where sample preparation becomes a strategic consideration.

Every manual step, transfer, concentration, solvent exchange, drying step and cleanup decision introduces opportunities for contamination, analyte loss and variability. A method that performs well during development may become difficult to sustain when laboratories are processing larger numbers of samples across a growing range of food matrices.⁵

Food and feed extracts often contain lipids, proteins, sugars, pigments and other co-extractives that may contribute to matrix effects and interfere with trace-level PFAS analysis. One effective strategy is to remove these matrix components while allowing PFAS analytes to remain in the extract.

This pass-through approach, implemented with Agilent Captiva EMR PFAS Food cleanup, simplifies sample preparation. Applied across diverse matrices, the approach can reduce opportunities for PFAS contamination, improve removal of challenging matrix components and support reliable quantitation across diverse food types.

The value extends beyond a shorter preparation process. Because the cleanup removes matrix components rather than selectively capturing and eluting PFAS, it can more readily accommodate expanding PFAS target lists without extensive redevelopment of the sample preparation method. Fewer sample handling steps decreases opportunity for contamination and the number of variables to manage when troubleshooting analytical results.

Traditional LC-MS/MS workflows often require dilution or dry-down and reconstitution steps before analysis, increasing sample handling and the potential for PFAS background contamination.

The Agilent 1290 Infinity III Hybrid Multisampler enables controlled injection of acetonitrile-rich extracts through a sandwich injection approach, allowing laboratories to avoid additional sample preparation steps while preserving chromatographic performance. The result is a streamlined workflow that reduces contamination risk, maintains sensitivity and supports higher-throughput PFAS testing.⁶

Robustness is a business continuity issue

As PFAS testing expands, laboratories are expected to deliver while meeting tighter detection limits and growing sample volumes. At the same time, PFAS target lists continue to evolve, requiring laboratories to monitor more compounds without sacrificing data quality or throughput. This places significant demands on LC-MS/MS systems, particularly in high-throughput environments where consistent performance over thousands of injections is critical.

To address these challenges, laboratories need instrumentation that can maintain sensitivity and precision as analytical demands increase. The Agilent 6495D LC/TQ, when applied in PFAS food testing workflows, supports large multi-analyte methods while maintaining performance at the low concentration levels required for routine monitoring.

The platform demonstrates stable performance over more than 13,700 continuous injections in a PFAS analysis of salmon extract, which can help support laboratory uptime and throughput.⁷

Robustness is ultimately a business continuity consideration. As PFAS testing evolves from an emerging capability to a routine requirement, long-term reliability and operational resilience will become just as important as analytical sensitivity.

Operational readiness extends beyond instrument performance alone. Tools that support automated tuning, method optimisation, instrument health monitoring, maintenance planning and data review can help laboratories standardise workflows and reduce reliance on manual intervention.⁸

This can make it easier to onboard new staff, maintain operational consistency and sustain testing capability as sample volumes, analytical complexity and regulatory expectations continue to grow.

What laboratory leaders can do now

A practical readiness plan starts with prioritisation. Laboratories should identify the matrices most relevant to their business or regulatory exposure, define the compounds and reporting limits they need to support, and assess whether current workflows are verified for those needs.

They should also review contamination-control practices, approved consumables, blank acceptance criteria, reagent and instrument background checks, analyst training and procedures for investigating unexpected results.

Five questions can help guide that assessment. Which food matrices are most relevant to our customers? Are our workflows validated for those matrices and reporting limits? Do we understand and control PFAS background in the laboratory environment? Can our method scale without increasing variability? Do our instruments, workflows, staff training and quality systems support defensible results over time?

Just as importantly, leaders should plan for change. Regulatory lists may expand. New food categories may become priorities. Customers may request lower limits or faster turnaround. A laboratory that designs PFAS testing around adaptability, validated workflows, scalable preparation, robust instrumentation and analyst support will be better prepared to respond without repeated disruption.

PFAS testing readiness is therefore a leadership decision as much as a technical one. It requires investment, planning, quality discipline and the right scientific foundation. Laboratories that act now will not only be better prepared for evolving regulations, but they will also be able to provide the confidence that food producers, regulators and consumers increasingly expect: confidence in results that can be explained, defended and repeated.

To learn more or speak to an Agilent representative, click here.

References