LC–MS Determination of PFAS Distribution in Porcine Tissues for Food Safety Monitoring

Despite the increasing regulatory attention toward per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the high mobility and potential health risks associated with them, data on tissue-specific distribution in pigs remain scarce. As a response, researchers at the University of Bologna (Italy) aimed to assess PFAS occurrence in pig liver and muscle (longissimus dorsi, semimembranosus) to support risk-based monitoring strategies. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS) method was developed and validated for 13 PFAS, following European Union Reference Laboratory for Persistent Organic Pollutants and Regulation (EU) 2022/1428 guidelines. A paper based on their efforts was published in the Italian Journal of Food Safety. ⁽¹⁾

A large class of synthetic chemicals widely used in industrial and consumer products (including as nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, grease-resistant food packaging, and cosmetics) because of their water- and oil-repellent properties and high stability, the application of PFAS in non-stick coatings, food-contact materials, water-repellent textiles, and firefighting foams has added to their worldwide distribution. ^(2,3) As a result of their outstanding resistance to chemical and biological degradation, PFAS are frequently referred to as “forever chemicals,” raising intensifying alarm concerning their impact on environmental integrity and human health. ⁽⁴⁾ Previous research has shown that PFAS may bioaccumulate in animals, with tissue-dependent distribution patterns and an inclination for collecting in the liver. ^(5,6) The compounds detected most often in biomonitoring and food surveys are perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); these compounds have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “carcinogenic to humans” (Group 1) and “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B), respectively. ⁽⁷⁾

“Despite the central role of pigs in the European food supply chain,” state the authors of the article,⁽¹⁾ information on PFAS occurrence and tissue-specific distribution in porcine matrices remains limited. This gap constrains the interpretation of monitoring results and the refinement of risk-based control strategies, particularly for edible offal such as liver, which may represent a critical contributor to dietary exposure.”

The researchers conducted their analysis on liver and muscle samples from pigs reared under controlled dietary conditions were analyzed. The LC-MS method developed showed excellent linearity, precision, and trueness; the limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.04 µg/kg for all matrices. The perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were consistently detected in liver samples, whereas PFAS concentrations in the two muscle cuts remained mostly below the LOQ, with only occasional PFOA quantification in a subset of samples. None of the samples exceeded current EU maximum levels [Regulation (EU) 2023/915]. ⁽¹⁾

“Our findings,” write the authors of the article, ⁽¹⁾ “confirm a marked hepatic accumulation of PFAS and negligible contamination in muscle, showing the liver as a priority matrix for biomonitoring. Consumer exposure through pork muscle appears minimal, while offal consumption requires attention. These preliminary data contribute to defining risk-based control strategies in the pork production chain.” They believe that their findings “underscore the need for continued surveillance and targeted research to better elucidate PFAS accumulation dynamics across the food production chain.” ⁽¹⁾

Read More on Similar Topics
Simple Purification and Ultrahigh-Pressure Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Determination of Five Quinoxaline 1,4-dioxides and their Metabolites in Swine Liver

Accelerating Food Safety Analysis with an Open-Access LC–HRMS/MS Spectral Library

References

1. Depau, G.; Sardi, L.; Belperio, S. et al. Distribution of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Pig Liver and Muscle: Implications for Food Safety. Ital J Food Saf. 2026. DOI: 10.4081/ijfs.2026.14736

2. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (EFSA CONTAM Panel); Schrenk, D.; Bignami, M. et al. Risk to Human Health Related to the Presence of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in food. EFSA J. 2020, 18 (9), e06223. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223

3. Baker, E. S.; Knappe, D. R. U. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)—Contaminants of Emerging Concern. Anal Bioanal Chem 2022, 414, 1187-8118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03811-9

4. Peritore, A. F.; Gugliandolo, E.; Cuzzocrea, S. et al. Current Review of Increasing Animal Health Threat of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Harms, Limitations, and Alternatives to Manage Their Toxicity. Int J Mol Sci 2023, 24, 11707. DOI: 10.3390/ijms241411707

5. Peng, M.; Xu, Y.; Wu, Y. et al. Binding Affinity and Mechanism of Six PFAS with Human Serum Albumin: Insights from Multispectroscopy, DFT and Molecular Dynamics Approaches. Toxics 2024, 12, 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12010043

6. Birchfield, A. S.; Musayev, F. N.; Castillo, A. J. et al. Broad PFAS Binding with Fatty Acid Binding Protein 4 is Enabled by Variable Binding Modes. JACS Au 2025, 5, 2469-2474. DOI: 10.1021/jacsau.5c00504

7. Zahm, S.; Bonde, J. P.; Chiu, W. A. et al. Carcinogenicity of Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid. Lancet Oncol. 2023, 25, 16-17. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00622-8