FEATURE
Julianne Nassif, MS, director of APHL’s
environmental health program, said
national capacity for PFAS testing falls
well short of demand, especially as the
potential dangers of PFAS exposure
become more publicized and as the
chemicals turn up in more and more sites.
The newly launched National Biomoni-
toring Network (NBN) is preparing to offer
training and technical assistance to states
seeking to institute clinical PFAS testing
programs, but there is no comparable
entity to boost capacity for environmental
PFAS testing.
Serum PFAS analysis by isotope-dilution
liquid chromatography tandem mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) showing the
chromatographic separation of PFAS
peaks. Photo: Wadsworth Center
Testing for PFAS in aqueous
samples involves an extraction
of the analytes using solid phase
extraction (SPE) techniques
and determination using liquid
chromatography coupled to tandem
mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).”
Patrick Parsons, PhD
Currently, state laboratories in at least
ten jurisdictions—CA, IA, MI, MN, NH, NJ,
NY, RI, UT, WI—have tested or currently
test for select PFAS in human blood,
drinking water or both. At least three of
these states also test other matrices, such
as groundwater, wastewater and surface
water. Michigan has tested deer and fish.
Wadsworth, a leader in PFAS analytics,
can measure up to 11 PFAS targets
in human serum and up to 16 PFAS
compounds and eight perfluoroalkyl ether
carboxylic acids (a newer class of PFAS
chemicals) in drinking water. Additionally,
Wadsworth scientists have developed
more than ten novel methods for PFAS
measurement in a variety of matrices,
including newborn screening dried blood
spots. The laboratory serves as a resource
to neighboring states and contributes to a
number of federal biomonitoring studies.
The California Department of Toxic
Substances Control uses two test methods
to detect PFAS in serum. One targets 12
long carbon chain perfluorochemicals—
the most persistent, bioaccumulative
and toxic compounds within the PFAS
class (the same test panel historically
used for CDC’s population-based PFAS
surveillance). The other targets some of
the newer, short carbon chain PFAS and
precursor compounds.
But even with these state resources,
6
LAB MATTERS Winter 2019
“NBN funding comes from CDC, so it’s
limited in how it can be used,” said
Nassif. “We’d love to have a similar
structure to build capability and capacity
for PFAS water testing in the state
laboratories,” perhaps supported by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and US Department of Defense.
At present, much of this environmental
work has been handed off to commercial
laboratories. While “expedient,”
Nassif said, “I don’t think [reliance on
contractors] is a good long term solution.
... States should have capability to perform
that testing. It would be prioritized;
it would be high quality testing.”
Moreover, a state “primacy” laboratory
for environmental PFAS testing could be
responsible for quality oversight in the
commercial sector and for confirmatory
testing in cases where contract labs report
differing results.
“The public is just up in arms”
While laboratory data are critical to
inform PFAS investigations and response,
the utility of the data is limited by
serious scientific gaps. For example, since
1999 CDC has been measuring serum
levels of select PFAS chemicals as part
of its National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES), but
there is no national standard for human
PFAS exposure to explain what those
findings mean.
Eden Wells, MD, MPH, FACPM, former chief
medical officer for the state of Michigan,
said, “There is no blood level that can
PublicHealthLabs
@APHL
APHL.org