As regulations on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) tighten worldwide, environmental laboratories face increasing pressure to deliver defensible data at higher throughput and lower detection limits. At the PFAS and Emerging Environmental Contaminants Symposium hosted by Separation Science, Lily Sanchez, Supervising Chemist at the Orange County Water District’s (OCWD’s) Philip L. Anthony Water Quality Laboratory, presents a real-world perspective on what it takes to translate complex regulatory requirements into practical, sustainable PFAS workflows.
Sanchez draws on more than a decade of hands-on experience leading PFAS testing at a large groundwater management agency, where analytical results directly inform treatment, compliance, and long-term water management decisions. Her presentation focuses on how laboratories can efficiently bring EPA PFAS methods online, scale capacity as monitoring demands increase, and maintain rigorous QA/QC under evolving compliance frameworks.
Why Regulatory-Ready PFAS Workflows Matter
Sanchez frames PFAS analysis as both a scientific and operational challenge. Regulatory limits continue to drop, while the number of samples continues to rise. “PFAS regulations keep evolving, and laboratories have to evolve with them,” notes Sanchez. “Your workflow has to support compliance today, but it also has to be flexible enough to adapt as requirements change,” she adds.
Working in analytical science?
Register for a FREE Separation Science account to subscribe to the Separation Science Newsletter.
At OCWD, PFAS data directly support the safety of drinking water for more than 2.5 million people. Sanchez explains that analytical results guide treatment decisions, regulatory reporting, and long-term groundwater management. “Our PFAS testing program plays a critical role in ensuring every drop of water meets the highest standards for safety and compliance.”
Building Capacity Under EPA Method 533
Sanchez walks through the laboratory’s transition from earlier PFAS methods to EPA Methods 537.1 and 533, emphasizing that each update expands analyte coverage while tightening performance expectations. “Method 533 requires more efficient extraction and much tighter control of background contamination,” she notes. “Those requirements drive how you design the entire workflow.”
To meet growing demand, OCWD brings PFAS analysis in-house rather than relying on external laboratories. Sanchez explains that this decision improves turnaround time, data quality, and operational control. “By handling PFAS testing internally, we gain flexibility, faster reporting, and the ability to respond quickly when regulatory changes come up”.
From Manual Extraction to Automation
A central theme of the presentation centers on throughput. Early PFAS testing relied on manual solid-phase extraction, which limited daily capacity and increased analyst burden. Sanchez describes how the lab establishes performance baselines using manual extraction before transitioning to automation. “Manual extraction helped us define recovery and QC expectations,” she explains. “Once we understood the method, automation allowed us to scale without sacrificing quality.”
Automation more than doubles sample throughput while improving reproducibility and reducing analyst-to-analyst variability across routine runs. “Automation doesn’t replace the chemist,” Sanchez observes. “It improves consistency and frees analysts to focus on data review, troubleshooting, and method optimization.”
Controlling Contamination and Protecting Data Integrity
Sanchez emphasizes that contamination control remains one of the most persistent challenges in PFAS analysis. Background PFAS can originate from solvents, consumables, tubing, and even laboratory water. “When you’re working at low nanogram-per-liter levels, even small sources of contamination matter,” she advises.
Her team addresses this risk through rigorous screening of consumables, frequent reagent replacement, instrument maintenance, and detailed run checklists. These controls help ensure that low-level detections reflect true sample concentrations rather than laboratory artifacts.
QA/QC is the Backbone of Compliance
Throughout the session, Sanchez returns to the importance of traceability and documentation. Calibration strategies, isotopically labeled standards, recovery criteria, and ongoing performance checks all contribute to defensible data packages. “Strong QA/QC systems are what make your results stand up to regulatory scrutiny,” she emphasizes.
Sanchez also highlights the importance of training and cross-functional collaboration. PFAS methods are complex. Success depends on well-trained analysts, clear SOPs, and constant communication between the lab, operations, and regulatory teams.”
What This Means for Environmental Laboratories
Sanchez’s presentation delivers a clear message: regulatory compliance and operational efficiency need not compete. With thoughtful method implementation, automation, and contamination control, laboratories can meet stringent PFAS requirements while sustaining high sample volumes.
The on-demand presentation expands on method setup decisions, automation strategies, QA/QC frameworks, and lessons learned from years of regulatory PFAS testing. For laboratories preparing to implement or scale EPA Method 533, the full session provides practical insight into building PFAS workflows that remain robust, defensible, and adaptable over time.
