PFAS testing presents laboratories with a difficult combination of demands. Analysts must detect compounds at low concentrations while controlling contamination from the instruments, consumables, and laboratory environment. At the same time, regulations continue to evolve across regions.
During an interview at ASMS 2026, Iris Mangelschots, Vice President and General Manager, Liquid Phase Division at Agilent Technologies, discusses how application-specific workflows could help laboratories manage this complexity.
Closing the Application Knowledge Gap
Many testing laboratories have strong analytical capabilities but less experience optimizing instruments for a specific application. Mangelschots sees this challenge in commercial testing facilities and regulatory laboratories working with food and environmental samples.
The problem extends beyond instrument operation. Analysts must understand how tubing, solvents, sample containers, columns, and other consumables could introduce PFAS contamination or affect method performance.
Fit-for-purpose workflows aim to reduce that development burden by combining hardware, consumables, columns, and software around a defined application. In PFAS analysis, this may include components selected to reduce background contamination and delay columns that help distinguish PFAS originating from the instrument from compounds in the sample.
Working in analytical science?
Register for a FREE Separation Science account to subscribe to the Separation Science Newsletter.
This approach does not eliminate the need for analytical expertise. It gives laboratories a validated starting point and reduces the number of variables analysts must investigate before routine testing can begin.
Preparing for Changing Regulations
Mangelschots identifies regulatory expansion as another factor driving demand for standardized PFAS workflows. European requirements currently set a demanding benchmark, while countries across Asia are developing or strengthening their own approaches.
She points to India, where authorities are building laboratory capacity for PFAS analysis in water. South Korea has also introduced requirements, and further activity is expected across Southeast Asia.
Regulations will differ between markets, but laboratories can prepare by developing workflows that support low detection limits, reproducible results, and future method adjustments. A system designed around current demanding requirements may give laboratories more flexibility as other jurisdictions adopt tighter limits.
Connecting Each Part of the Workflow
The same principle applies beyond PFAS analysis. Pharmaceutical laboratories analyzing GLP-1 therapies and other complex products also need to detect impurities, maintain reproducibility, and process growing sample volumes.
Mangelschots describes impurity detection as a common link across these applications. Higher-pressure LC systems can improve productivity, but hardware alone cannot solve every workflow problem. Columns, detectors, reference materials, data analysis tools, and instrument methods must work together.
Closer integration could shorten method development and reduce the dependence on trial-and-error optimization. It may also help laboratories transfer methods between analysts or sites with fewer performance differences.
As testing demands expand, laboratories need workflows that turn instrument capability into consistent routine results. For PFAS analysis, that means treating contamination control, sensitivity, consumables, and compliance as parts of the same analytical problem.
