Hafiz M. Abd-ur-Rehman, Wayne J. Parker, Anh Le-Tuan Pham
{"title":"Improved Measurement of Extractable Organic Fluorine in Biosolids and Compost and Its Implications for Fluorine Speciation","authors":"Hafiz M. Abd-ur-Rehman, Wayne J. Parker, Anh Le-Tuan Pham","doi":"10.1021/acsestwater.6c00294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Extractable organic fluorine (EOF)\r\nanalysis is increasingly\r\nused\r\nto quantify organic fluorine (OF) not captured by targeted liquid\r\nchromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS),\r\nyet method standardization and quality assurance remain unresolved\r\nfor solids, where isolating low OF from much larger inorganic fluorine\r\n(IF) is analytically challenging. Here, an enhanced EOF method was\r\ndeveloped and validated for biosolids and compost to selectively isolate\r\nanionic OF while minimizing IF carryover. Methanolic extraction alone\r\ncoextracted substantial IF (22–35%), whereas incorporating\r\na 0.1% aqueous ammonium hydroxide wash into a modified weak anion-exchange\r\nsolid-phase extraction protocol reduced IF to below the limit of quantification\r\n(<0.056 μg g<sup>–1</sup>) while maintaining good\r\nOF recoveries (79–101%). Application of the validated method\r\nshowed that EOF represented 0.24–0.69% of total fluorine, indicating\r\nthat most fluorine was inorganic and/or nonextractable. Fluorine from\r\ntargeted per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) accounted for\r\n4.3–46% of EOF, suggesting that targeted PFAS explained only\r\na subset of EOF. The improved quality-assured workflow provides more\r\nreliable EOF measurements for screening-level fluorine speciation\r\nand mass-balance evaluation, while emphasizing that EOF remains a\r\nmethod-defined metric and should not be interpreted as a stand-alone\r\nmeasure of PFAS burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":93847,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T water","volume":"6 10","pages":"6282–6291"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T water","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestwater.6c00294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Extractable organic fluorine (EOF)
analysis is increasingly
used
to quantify organic fluorine (OF) not captured by targeted liquid
chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS),
yet method standardization and quality assurance remain unresolved
for solids, where isolating low OF from much larger inorganic fluorine
(IF) is analytically challenging. Here, an enhanced EOF method was
developed and validated for biosolids and compost to selectively isolate
anionic OF while minimizing IF carryover. Methanolic extraction alone
coextracted substantial IF (22–35%), whereas incorporating
a 0.1% aqueous ammonium hydroxide wash into a modified weak anion-exchange
solid-phase extraction protocol reduced IF to below the limit of quantification
(<0.056 μg g–1) while maintaining good
OF recoveries (79–101%). Application of the validated method
showed that EOF represented 0.24–0.69% of total fluorine, indicating
that most fluorine was inorganic and/or nonextractable. Fluorine from
targeted per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) accounted for
4.3–46% of EOF, suggesting that targeted PFAS explained only
a subset of EOF. The improved quality-assured workflow provides more
reliable EOF measurements for screening-level fluorine speciation
and mass-balance evaluation, while emphasizing that EOF remains a
method-defined metric and should not be interpreted as a stand-alone
measure of PFAS burden.