3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 1 OF 20

Final Report

Analysis of PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Ground Water Samples Collected at 

the Former Sludge Incorporation Area (FSIA) from Decatur, AL

4th Quarter 2013

Laboratory Request Number: ISO13-05-05

Method Requirement: 3M Method ETS-8-044.1

Report Date – Date of Final Signature

Testing Laboratory

3M Environmental Health and Safety Operations

Environmental Laboratory

3M Center, Bldg 260-05-N-17

St. Paul, MN 55144

Requester 

Gary Hohenstein

3M Building 224-5W-03

Saint Paul, MN 55144-1000

Phone: (651) 737-3570

The testing reported herein meet the requirements of ANSI/ISO/IEC 

17025:2005 “General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and 

Calibration Laboratories”, in accordance with A2LA Certificate # 2052.01. 

Additionally, the laboratory’s quality system has been audited and was 

determined to be in conformance with the EPA GLPs (40 CFR 792) by an 

independent assessment. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 2 OF 20

3M Environmental Laboratory

3M Environmental Laboratory Technical Director: William K. Reagen, Ph.D.

3M Principal Analytical Investigator: Susan Wolf

Report Author: Kevin Eich

Analytical Report ISO13-05-05

Analysis of PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS in Ground Water Samples Collected at the 

Former Sludge Incorporation Area (FSIA) from Decatur, AL

4th Quarter 2013

Report Date: Date of Final Signature

1 Introduction/Summary 

The 3M Environmental Laboratory prepared and analyzed water samples collected by Weston 

Solutions personnel from Decatur, AL. Samples were collected on November 19, November 20, and 

November 21 and returned to the 3M Environmental Laboratory on November 25, 2013 at ambient 

conditions. All samples were analyzed for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorobutane sulfonate 

(PFBS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHS) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) under laboratory 

project number ISO13-05-05.

The 3M Environmental Laboratory prepared sample containers for thirty-one groundwater well 

locations. Each empty container was marked with a “fill to here” line that corresponded to a final 

volume of 200 mL. Sample bottle sets for each groundwater sampling location included a field sample

and field sample duplicate. Select locations also included one field spike sample. Containers 

designated for field matrix samples were fortified with an appropriate matrix spike solution containing 

PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS prior to being sent to the field for sample collection. Sampling 

locations DAL-GW-136R, DAL-GW-137R, DAL-GW-137S, DAL-GW-138R, and DAL-GW-143R were 

not collected due to the well being dry.

Samples were analyzed for PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS by ETS-8-044.1 “Method of Analysis for 

the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis”. 

Table 1 summarizes the sample results using the analytical method identified above. All results for 

quality control samples prepared and analyzed with the samples will be reported and discussed 

elsewhere in this report.

The testing reported herein meet the requirements of ANSI/ISO/IEC 

17025:2005 “General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and 

Calibration Laboratories”, in accordance with A2LA Certificate # 2052.01. 

Additionally, the laboratory’s quality system has been audited and was 

determined to be in conformance with the EPA GLPs (40 CFR 792) by an 

independent assessment.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 3 OF 20

Table 1. Sample Results Summary (1)

3M LIMS ID Sample Description 

PFOA 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFBS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFHS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFOS

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

ISO13-05-05-001 DAL-GW-130R-0-131121 955 17.6 132 571

ISO13-05-05-002 DAL-GW-130R-DB-131121 962 17.9 132 585

Average 959 17.8 132 578

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.73 1.7 0.0 2.4

ISO13-05-05-003 DAL-GW-130S-0-131121 195 3.84 33.4 147

ISO13-05-05-004 DAL-GW-130S-DB-131121 187 3.71 32.8 140

Average 191 3.78 33.1 144

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 4.2 3.4 1.8 4.9

ISO13-05-05-005 DAL-GW-130L-0-131121 62.7 1.47 11.6 72.7

ISO13-05-05-006 DAL-GW-130L-DB-131121 59.5 1.39 10.8 68.5

Average 61.1 1.43 11.2 70.6

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 5.2 5.6 7.1 5.9

ISO13-05-05-007 DAL-GW-131R-0-131121 2300 54.8 303 1210

ISO13-05-05-008 DAL-GW-131R-DB-131121 2530 58.9 326 1300

Average 2420 56.9 315 1260

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 9.5 7.2 7.3 7.2

ISO13-05-05-010 DAL-GW-131S-0-131121 33.1 1.08 5.81 7.08

ISO13-05-05-011 DAL-GW-131S-DB-131121 33.2 1.05 6.08 6.58

Average 33.2 (2) 1.07 (2) 5.95 (2) 6.83 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.30 2.8 4.5 7.3

ISO13-05-05-012 DAL-GW-131L-0-131121 104 3.73 22.6 45.6

ISO13-05-05-013 DAL-GW-131L-DB-131121 108 3.96 27.1 47.2

Average 106 (2) 3.85 (2) 24.9 (2) 46.4 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 3.8 6.0 18 3.4

ISO13-05-05-014 DAL-GW-133R-0-131120 51.7 2.80 17.9 35.9

ISO13-05-05-015 DAL-GW-133R-DB-131120 52.1 2.90 16.1 31.7

Average 51.9 (2) 2.85 (2) 17.0 (2) 33.8 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.77 3.5 11 12

ISO13-05-05-017 DAL-GW-133S-0-131120 393 9.68 70.5 251

ISO13-05-05-018 DAL-GW-133S-DB-131120 399 10.2 70.8 256

Average 396 9.94 70.7 254

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 1.5 5.2 0.42 2.0

NA = Not Applicable

(1) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were diluted and analyzed by external standard calibration unless 

noted otherwise. The analytical method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection 

are as follows: PFOA ± 17%, PFBS ± 17%, PFHS ± 16%, and PFOS ± 19%.

(2) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were analyzed by internal standard calibration. The analytical 

method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection are as follows: PFOA ± 12%, 

PFBS ± 14%, PFHS ± 22%, and PFOS ± 14%.

(3) The RPD value did not meet method acceptance criteria of ≤20%.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 4 OF 20

Table 1 continued. Sample Results Summary (1)

3M LIMS ID Sample Description 

PFOA 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFBS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFHS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFOS

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

ISO13-05-05-020 DAL-GW-133L-0-131120 367 8.29 59.2 310

ISO13-05-05-021 DAL-GW-133L-DB-131120 369 8.67 59.4 325

Average 368 8.48 59.3 318

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.54 4.5 0.34 4.7

ISO13-05-05-022 DAL-GW-134R-0-131120 1720 43.9 390 1240

ISO13-05-05-023 DAL-GW-134R-DB-131120 1820 45.6 405 1280

Average 1770 44.8 398 1260

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 5.6 3.8 3.8 3.2

ISO13-05-05-024 DAL-GW-134S-0-131120 25.8 0.688 7.49 27.8

ISO13-05-05-025 DAL-GW-134S-DB-131120 25.9 0.628 7.53 29.1

Average 25.9 (2) 0.658 (2) 7.51 (2) 28.5 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.39 9.1 0.53 4.6

ISO13-05-05-027 DAL-GW-134L-0-131120 536 9.93 100 515

ISO13-05-05-028 DAL-GW-134L-DB-131120 535 10.6 97.4 498

Average 536 10.3 98.7 507

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.19 6.5 2.6 3.4

ISO13-05-05-030 DAL-GW-135R-0-131119 4060 71.8 812 1180

ISO13-05-05-031 DAL-GW-135R-DB-131119 4020 72.3 787 1210

Average 4040 72.1 800 1200

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.99 0.69 3.1 2.5

ISO13-05-05-033 DAL-GW-135S-0-131119 59.0 2.33 20.2 16.0

ISO13-05-05-034 DAL-GW-135S-DB-131119 60.0 2.32 21.6 15.8

Average 59.5 (2) 2.33 (2) 20.9 (2) 15.9 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 1.7 0.43 6.7 1.3

ISO13-05-05-035 DAL-GW-135L-0-131119 595 15.7 124 183

ISO13-05-05-036 DAL-GW-135L-DB-131119 605 16.8 124 186

Average 600 16.3 124 185

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 1.7 6.8 0.0 1.6

ISO13-05-05-039 DAL-GW-136S-0-131120 120 2.98 20.6 126

ISO13-05-05-040 DAL-GW-136S-DB-131120 119 2.96 20.3 125

Average 120 2.97 20.5 126

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.84 0.67 1.5 0.80

NA = Not Applicable

(1) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were diluted and analyzed by external standard calibration unless 

noted otherwise. The analytical method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection 

are as follows: PFOA ± 17%, PFBS ± 17%, PFHS ± 16%, and PFOS ± 19%.

(2) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were analyzed by internal standard calibration. The analytical 

method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection are as follows: PFOA ± 12%, 

PFBS ± 14%, PFHS ± 22%, and PFOS ± 14%.

(3) The RPD value did not meet method acceptance criteria of ≤20%.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 5 OF 20

Table 1 continued. Sample Results Summary (1)

3M LIMS ID Sample Description 

PFOA 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFBS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFHS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFOS

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

ISO13-05-05-041 DAL-GW-136L-0-131120 96.5 2.51 16.1 97.1

ISO13-05-05-042 DAL-GW-136L-DB-131120 96.7 2.52 16.0 97.2

Average 96.6 2.52 16.1 97.2

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 0.21 0.40 0.62 0.10

ISO13-05-05-049 DAL-GW-137L-0-131119 0.477 0.0920 0.115 1.84

ISO13-05-05-050 DAL-GW-137L-DB-131119 0.450 0.0903 0.0956 1.64

Average 0.464 (2) 0.0912 (2) 0.105 (2) 1.74 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 5.8 1.9 18 11

ISO13-05-05-053 DAL-GW-138S-0-131119 178 5.64 24.3 247

ISO13-05-05-054 DAL-GW-138S-DB-131119 184 5.45 25.4 254

Average 181 5.55 24.9 251

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 3.3 3.4 4.4 2.8

ISO13-05-05-055 DAL-GW-138L-0-131119 0.613 <0.0250 0.0568 0.486

ISO13-05-05-056 DAL-GW-138L-DB-131119 0.664 <0.0250 0.0618 0.404

Average 0.639 (2) <0.0250 (2) 0.0593 (2) 0.445 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 8.0 NA 8.4 18

ISO13-05-05-057 DAL-GW-CW26C-0-131121 443 8.14 63.3 448

ISO13-05-05-058 DAL-GW-CW26C-DB-131121 460 8.73 64.6 462

Average 452 8.44 64.0 455

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 3.8 7.0 2.0 3.1

ISO13-05-05-060 DAL-GW-CW26L-0-131121 897 14.1 118 1400

ISO13-05-05-061 DAL-GW-CW26L-DB-131121 871 14.6 113 1350

Average 884 14.4 116 1380

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 2.9 3.5 4.3 3.6

ISO13-05-05-063 DAL-GW-140R-0-131120 110 1.10 13.8 118

ISO13-05-05-064 DAL-GW-140R-DB-131120 113 1.06 13.3 119

Average 112 1.08 13.6 119

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 2.7 3.7 3.7 0.84

ISO13-05-05-065 DAL-GW-141R-0-131119 2.56 0.0731 0.418 7.41

ISO13-05-05-066 DAL-GW-141R-DB-131119 2.59 0.0491 0.459 6.93

Average 2.58 (2) 0.0611 (2) 0.439 (2) 7.17 (2)

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 1.2 39 (3) 9.4 6.7

NA = Not Applicable

(1) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were diluted and analyzed by external standard calibration unless 

noted otherwise. The analytical method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection 

are as follows: PFOA ± 17%, PFBS ± 17%, PFHS ± 16%, and PFOS ± 19%.

(2) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were analyzed by internal standard calibration. The analytical 

method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection are as follows: PFOA ± 12%, 

PFBS ± 14%, PFHS ± 22%, and PFOS ± 14%.

(3) The RPD value did not meet method acceptance criteria of ≤20%.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 6 OF 20

Table 1 continued. Sample Results Summary (1)

3M LIMS ID Sample Description 

PFOA 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFBS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFHS 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

PFOS

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

ISO13-05-05-067 DAL-GW-142R-0-131121 65.4 2.32 12.6 163

ISO13-05-05-068 DAL-GW-142R-DB-131121 68.1 2.30 13.3 166

Average 66.8 2.31 13.0 165

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 4.0 0.87 5.4 1.8

ISO13-05-05-071 DAL-GW-145R-0-131122 83.0 2.24 9.57 177

ISO13-05-05-072 DAL-GW-145R-DB-131122 85.3 2.32 10.0 181

Average 84.2 2.28 9.79 179

%RPD Sample/Sample Dup 2.7 3.5 4.4 2.2

NA = Not Applicable

(1) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were diluted and analyzed by external standard calibration unless 

noted otherwise. The analytical method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection 

are as follows: PFOA ± 17%, PFBS ± 17%, PFHS ± 16%, and PFOS ± 19%.

(2) All samples associated with the reported sampling location were analyzed by internal standard calibration. The analytical

method uncertainties for the reported results using method ETS-8-044.1 by direct injection are as follows: PFOA ± 12%, 

PFBS ± 14%, PFHS ± 22%, and PFOS ± 14%.

(3) The RPD value did not meet method acceptance criteria of ≤20%.

2 Methods - Analytical and Preparatory

2.1 Methods

Analysis was completed using 3M Environmental Laboratory Method ETS-8-044.1 “Method of Analysis 

for the Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis”.

Table 2. Target Analytes

Target Analytes Acronym

Reference Material 

Structure

Perfluorobutanoic Acid (C4 Acid) PFOA Linear and Branched

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (C8 Acid) PFBS Linear

Perfluorobutanesulfonate (C4 Sulfonate ) PFHS Linear

Perfluorooctanesulfonate (C8 Sulfonate) PFOS Linear and Branched

2.2 Sample Collection

All samples were collected in 250 mL NalgeneTM (high-density polyethylene) bottles prepared at the 3M 

Environmental Laboratory. Samples were collected on November 19, November 20, and November 

21 and returned to the 3M Environmental Laboratory on November 25, 2013 at ambient conditions. 

Prior to sample collection, bottles designated for field matrix spikes were spiked in the laboratory with a 

known volume of an appropriate matrix spiking solution containing PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, and PFOS. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 7 OF 20

Table 3. Sample Description Key Code.

String Number String Descriptor Example: DAL-GW-130R-DB-131121

1 Sample Location DAL= Decatur, Alabama

2 Sample Type GW= Ground Water

3 Well Identifier Example: 130

4 Well Level R = Residuum shallow water-bearing zone 

L = Bedrock water-bearing zone

S = Epikarst middle water-bearing zone

5 Sample Type 0 =primary sample 

DB =duplicate sample

FMS = Field Matrix Spike

LS = Low field matrix spike

HS = High field matrix spike

6 Sampling Date 131121 – November 21, 2013

2.3 Sample Preparation

12/5/13: Solvent dilution / external standard analysis. All samples and laboratory control spikes were 

diluted with methanol prior to sample analysis. Samples requiring a 1:10 dilution were prepared by 

removing a 1.0 mL aliquot of the well mixed sample and diluting it with 9.0 mL of methanol. Samples 

requiring a 1:20 dilution were prepared by removing a 0.5 mL aliquot of the well mixed sample and 

diluting it with 9.5 mL of methanol. Samples requiring a 1:50 dilution were prepared by removing a 0.2 

mL aliquot of the well mixed sample and diluting it with 9.8 mL of methanol. Samples requiring a 1:100 

dilution were prepared by removing a 0.1 mL aliquot of the well mixed sample and diluting it with 9.9 

mL of methanol.

12/10/13: All samples were prepared by removing a 0.4 mL aliquot of the well mixed sample and 

diluting it with 0.4 mL of methanol (dilution factor of 2). During the preparation of the laboratory control 

samples, an aliquot of a separate internal standard spiking solution was added to the laboratory control 

samples (nominal concentration of 1 ng/mL). The sample bottles were spiked with an internal standard 

mix at a nominal concentration of 1 ng/mL prior to being sent to the field for sample collection. The 

laboratory control samples were then diluted with methanol in the same manner as the samples. 

2.4 Analysis

All samples and quality control samples were analyzed for the four target analytes using high 

performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS). Pertinent instrument 

parameters, the liquid chromatography gradient program, and the specific mass transitions analyzed 

are described in the tables below. The following analytical runs were processed and reported herein:

• 12/5/13: Solvent dilution / external standard analysis for PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, PFOS

(samples extracted 12/5/13); locations 130R, 130S, 130L, 131R, 133S, 133L, 134R, 134L, 

135R, 135L, 136S, 136L, 138S, CW26C, CW26L, 140R, 142R, 145R, Trip Blank mid and high 

FMS.

• 12/10/13: Solvent dilution / internal standard analysis for PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, PFOS (samples 

extracted 12/10/13); locations 131S, 131L, 133R, 134S, 135S, 137L, 138L, 141R, rinseate 

blanks, trip blank and trip blank low FMS. 

Due to the nature of the sample, the wide range of concentrations found in the sample, and the 

environmental occurrence of multiple isomers of the laboratory’s analytes of interest, the software used 

for processing the analytical results is not able to consistently integrate the analytical peak, manual 

integration of the analytical peak is necessary. All manual integrations are performed following the 

procedures outlined in method ETS-12-010. The consistency of the laboratory’s integration is ensured 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 8 OF 20

through the training of laboratory personnel, the peer review process required for all manual 

integrations, the review of manual integrations by the QAU, and where necessary the review of manual 

integrations by laboratory management.

Table 4. Instrument Parameters

Instrument Name ETS Buster

Analysis Dates 12/5/13, 12/10/13

Analytical Method ETS-8-044.1 

Liquid Chromatograph Agilent 1100

Guard column Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5 μ

Analytical column Betasil C18 (4.6 mm X 100 mm), 5 μ

Injection Volume 5, 10, 20, 25, μL

Mass Spectrometer Applied Biosystems API 4000

Ion Source Turbo Spray

Polarity Negative

Software Analyst 1.6.1

Table 5. Liquid Chromatography Gradient Program

Step

Total Time 

(min)

Flow Rate 

(μL/min) 2 mM Ammonium Acetate Methanol

ETS Buster 12/5/13 and 12/10/13

0 0 750 90.0 10.0

1 0.5 750 90.0 10.0

2 4.0 750 70.0 30.0

3 6.0 750 70.0 30.0

4 11.0 750 20.0 80.0

5 13.0 750 20.0 80.0

6 13.5 750 10.0 90.0

7 16.0 750 10.0 90.0

8 16.5 750 90.0 10.0

9 19.0 750 90.0 10.0
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 9 OF 20

Table 6. Mass Transitions

Analyte

Mass Transition

Q1/Q3

Internal Standard Mass Transition

Q1/Q3

Reference Material 

Structure

PFOA

413/369

[

13C8]PFOA (1) 413/219 421/376 Linear and Branched

413/169

PFBS

299/80

[

18O2]PFBS (1) 303/84 Linear

299/99

PFHS

399/99

[

13C3]PFHS (1) 402/99 Linear

399/80

PFOS

499/99

[

13C8]-PFOS (1) 499/80 507/80 Linear and Branched

499/130

Dwell time was 50 msec for each transition. The individual transitions were summed to produce a “total ion chromatogram” 

(TIC), which was used for quantitation.

(1) Internal standard was used for the analysis on 12/10/13. 

3 Data Analysis

3.1 Calibration

12/5/13: Solvent dilution / external standard calibration.

Diluted samples were analyzed against an external standard calibration curve for PFOA, PFBS, PFHS, 

and PFOS. Calibration standards were prepared by spiking known amounts of stock solutions 

containing the analytes of interest into 50 mL of 90:10 methanol: laboratory Milli-QTM water. A total of 

eleven calibration standards ranging from 0.1 ng/mL to 150 ng/mL (nominal) were analyzed. A 

quadratic, 1/x weighted, calibration curve was used to fit the data for each analyte. The data were not 

forced through zero during the fitting process. Calculating the standard concentration using the peak 

area counts and the resultant calibration curve confirmed accuracy of each curve point. The reference 

standards of PFOA and PFOS used to prepare the calibration standards consisted of both linear and 

branched isomers.

12/10/13: Direct Injection / internal standard calibration.

Samples were analyzed against a matrix-matched stable isotope internal standard calibration curve. 

Calibration standards were prepared by spiking known amounts of the stock solution into laboratoryprepared reagent water. The calibration standards contained an internal standard mix at a nominal 

concentration of 0.5 ng/mL. A total of fourteen curve points were analyzed with the samples ranging 

from 0.0125 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL. A quadratic, 1/x weighted, calibration curve of the ratio of the 

standard peak area counts over the internal standard peak area counts was used to fit the data for 

each analyte. The data were not forced through zero during the fitting process. 

For all analyses, each curve point was quantitated using the overall calibration curve and reviewed for 

accuracy. Method calibration accuracy requirements of 100±25% (100±30% for the lowest curve point) 

were met for all analytes. The correlation coefficient (r) was greater than 0.995 for all analytes.

3.2 System Suitability

A calibration standard was analyzed four times at the beginning of the analytical sequence to 

demonstrate overall system suitability. The acceptance criteria for system suitability samples is less 

than or equal to 5% relative standard deviation (RSD) for peak area or peak area ratio and retention 

time criteria of less than or equal to 2% RSD. These criteria were met for all analytes with the following 

exceptions:
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 10 OF 20

• 12/10/13 Analysis: The system suitability for area counts was greater than five percent for 

PFHS (8.9%). 

A method deviation is included in the raw data. 

3.3 Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)

The LOQ as defined in method ETS-8-044.1 is the lowest non-zero calibration standard in the curve 

that meets linearity and accuracy requirements and for which the peak area ratio (or peak area) is at 

least two times the average peak area ratio (or peak area) of the method blanks. The LOQs 

associated with the sample analysis are listed in the table below.

Table 7. LOQ

Analysis 

Date Calibration Dilution Factor

PFOA

LOQ, ng/mL

PFBS

LOQ, ng/mL

PFHS

LOQ, ng/mL

PFOS

LOQ, ng/mL

12/5/13 External standard

2 0.192 0.200 0.200 0.185

5 0.479 0.500 0.500 0.464

10 0.958 1.00 1.00 0.927

20 1.92 2.00 2.00 1.85

50 4.79 5.00 5.00 4.64

100 9.58 10.0 10.0 9.27

12/10/13 Internal standard 2 0.0480 0.0250 0.0250 0.0232

3.4 Continuing Calibration 

During the course of the analytical sequence, several continuing calibration verification samples 

(CCVs) were analyzed to confirm that the instrument response and the initial calibration curve were still 

in control. The method acceptance criteria of 100% ± 25% was met for all analytes for all analyses.

3.5 Blanks

Three types of blanks were prepared and analyzed with the samples: method/procedural blanks, a 

field/trip blank, and a single equipment rinseate blank. Method blank results were reviewed and used 

to evaluate method performance to determine the LOQ for each analyte. 

3.6 Lab Control Spikes (LCSs) 

Low, mid, and high lab control spikes were prepared with each sample preparation batch for the target 

analytes and analyzed in triplicate. LCSs were prepared by spiking known amounts of the analytes into 

synthetic groundwater or laboratory Milli Q water to produce the desired concentration. The LCS 

samples were then diluted in a similar manner as the samples (if diluted) prior to sample analysis. The 

method acceptance criteria, average of each level of LCS should be within 100% ± 20% with an RSD 

≤20%, was met for all LCSs with the following exceptions: 

12/10/13 analysis: The acceptance criteria for accuracy were met with the exception of the high set of 

LCS for PFHS (122%).

A method deviation is filed in the raw data. All batch LCS recovery results were used in the evaluation 

of the analytical method uncertainty in section 3.7 of the report. 

The following calculations were used to generate data in Table 8.

* 100%

Spike Concentration

Calculated Concentration LCSPercent Recovery =
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 11 OF 20

* 100%

average LCS recovery

standard deviation LCS replicates LCS% RSD =

Table 8. Lab Control Spike Results

ETS-8-044.1

Analyzed 12/5/13

External Standard 

Calibration PFOA (Linear and Branched) PFBS

Lab ID

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

LCS-131204-1 0.477 0.496 104 0.498 0.490 98.5

LCS-131204-2 0.477 0.370 77.6 0.498 0.402 80.8

LCS-131204-3 0.477 0.457 95.7 0.498 0.473 95.0

Average ± %RSD 92.4% ± 15% 91.4% ± 10%

LCS-131204-4 4.77 5.58 117 4.98 6.02 121

LCS-131204-5 4.77 5.20 109 4.98 5.53 111

LCS-131204-6 4.77 4.45 93.2 4.98 4.62 92.8

Average ± %RSD 106% ± 11% 108% ± 13%

LCS-131204-7 38.2 38.3 100 39.8 41.1 103

LCS-131204-8 38.2 38.3 100 39.8 40.5 102

LCS-131204-9 38.2 41.0 107 39.8 42.8 107

Average ± %RSD 102% ± 3.9% 104% ± 2.5%

ETS-8-044.1

Analyzed 12/5/13

External Standard 

Calibration PFHS PFOS (Linear and Branched)

Lab ID

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

LCS-131204-1 0.498 0.482 96.8 0.461 0.481 104

LCS-131204-2 0.498 0.377 75.7 0.461 0.346 75.1

LCS-131204-3 0.498 0.511 103 0.461 0.437 94.7

Average ± %RSD 91.8% ± 16% 91.3% ± 16%

LCS-131204-4 4.98 5.96 120 4.61 5.46 118

LCS-131204-5 4.98 5.53 111 4.61 4.85 105

LCS-131204-6 4.98 4.62 92.8 4.61 4.33 93.9

Average ± %RSD 108% ± 13% 106% ± 11%

LCS-131204-7 39.8 39.8 100 36.9 37.4 101

LCS-131204-8 39.8 40.2 101 36.9 36.7 99.4

LCS-131204-9 39.8 42.9 108 36.9 40.3 109

Average ± %RSD 103% ± 4.2% 103% ± 5.0%
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 12 OF 20

Table 8 continued. Lab Control Spike Results 

ETS-8-044.1

Analyzed 12/10/13

Internal Standard 

Calibration PFOA (Linear and Branched) PFBS

Lab ID

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

LCS-131210-1 0.190 0.197 104 0.199 0.203 102

LCS-131210-2 0.190 0.194 102 0.199 0.251 126

LCS-131210-3 0.190 0.203 107 0.199 0.232 116

Average ± %RSD 104% ± 2.4% 115% ± 11%

LCS-131210-4 9.52 10.8 114 9.94 11.6 117

LCS-131210-5 9.52 10.2 107 9.94 10.3 104

LCS-131210-6 9.52 10.6 111 9.94 10.8 109

Average ± %RSD 111% ± 3.2% 110% ± 6.0%

LCS-131210-7 38.0 41.7 110 39.6 42.8 108

LCS-131210-8 38.0 44.4 117 39.6 44.9 113

LCS-131210-9 38.0 42.3 111 39.6 44.9 113

Average ± %RSD 113% ± 3.4% 111% ± 2.6%

ETS-8-044.1

Analyzed 12/10/13

Internal Standard 

Calibration PFHS PFOS (Linear and Branched)

Lab ID

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Spiked 

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Calculated 

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

LCS-131210-1 0.199 0.196 98.7 0.184 0.204 111

LCS-131210-2 0.199 0.218 109 0.184 0.188 102

LCS-131210-3 0.199 0.221 111 0.184 0.205 112

Average ± %RSD 106% ± 6.2% 108% ± 5.1%

LCS-131210-4 9.94 10.7 108 9.21 10.4 113

LCS-131210-5 9.94 10.7 108 9.21 10.3 112

LCS-131210-6 9.94 11.5 116 9.21 9.91 108

Average ± %RSD 111% ± 4.2% 111% ± 2.4%

LCS-131210-7 39.6 51.7 130 36.7 39.4 107

LCS-131210-8 39.6 44.9 113 36.7 42.2 115

LCS-131210-9 39.6 49.0 124 36.7 41.2 112

Average ± %RSD 122% ± 7.0%(1) 111% ± 3.6%

(1) The average LCS recovery did not meet method acceptance criteria of 100% ± 20%. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 13 OF 20

3.7 Analytical Method Uncertainty

Analytical method uncertainty is based on historical QC data that is control charted and used to 

evaluate method accuracy and precision. The method uncertainty is calculated following ETS-12-

012.2. The standard deviation is calculated for the set of accuracy results (in %) obtained for the QC 

samples. The expanded uncertainty is calculated by multiplying the standard deviation by a factor of 2, 

which corresponds to a confidence level of 95%. 

• The analytical method uncertainty as calculated by ETS-12-012.2 for PFHS by internal 

standard calibration was ±15%. However, the recovery of the high set of LCS analyzed 

on 12/10/13 was 122% for PFHS by internal standard calibration for the samples 

analyzed on this date. Therefore, the analytical method uncertainty was expanded for 

samples analyzed by internal standard calibration for PFHS to ±22%.

Table 9. Analytical Method Uncertainty

Analyte Calibration Standard Deviation (%) Method Uncertainty

PFOA External 8.26 ±17%

PFBS External 8.67 ±17%

PFHS External 7.81 ±16%

PFOS External 9.34 ±19%

PFOA Internal 5.98 ±12%

PFBS Internal 7.07 ±14%

PFHS Internal NA ±22%

PFOS Internal 7.19 ±14%

NA = Not Applicable

3.8 Field Matrix Spikes (FMS) and Laboratory Matrix Spikes (LMS)

Field matrix spike sample containers were prepared for all locations to verify that the analytical method 

is applicable to the collected matrix. Field matrix spikes are generated by adding a measured volume 

of field sample to a container spiked by the laboratory with the target analytes prior to shipping sample 

containers to the field for sample collection. Field matrix spikes must be at least 0.5 times the analyte 

concentration to be considered an appropriate spike level. Field matrix spike recoveries within method 

acceptance criteria of 100±30% confirm that “unknown” components in the sample matrix do not 

significantly interfere with the extraction and analysis of the analytes of interest. The reference 

standards for PFOA and PFOS in the field matrix spiking solution consisted of linear and branched 

isomers. The locations for which FMS sample containers were prepared are listed in Table 10.

Field matrix spikes are presented in section 4 of this report. 

*100%

Spike Concentraton

(Sample Concentration of FMS Average Concentration:FieldSample & FieldSample Dup.) FMS Recovery − =
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 14 OF 20

Table 10. Field Matrix Spike (FMS) Concentrations

Sampling location

Spike 

Level

PFOA

ng/mL

PFBS

ng/mL

PFHS

ng/mL

PFOS

ng/mL

137S FMS 0.992 1.00 1.00 0.998

134S FMS 9.92 10.0 10.0 9.98

133R, 136L FMS 49.6 50.0 50.0 49.9

133S, CW26C FMS 198 200 200 200

134L, CW26L FMS 496 500 501 499

131R, 135R FMS 1980 2000 2000 2000

Trip Blank

FMS Low 9.92 10.0 10.0 9.98

FMS Mid 49.6 50.0 50.0 49.9

FMS High 1980 2000 2000 2000

4 Data Summary and Discussion

Tables 11-21 below summarize the sample results and target analyte field matrix spike recoveries for 

the sampling locations as well as the Trip Blank. Each table provides the average concentration and 

the relative percent difference (%RPD) of the sample and sample duplicate. Results and average 

values are rounded to three significant figures. Percent relative difference (%RPD) values are rounded 

to two significant figures. Because of rounding, values may vary slightly from those listed in the raw 

data. Field matrix spikes meeting the method acceptance criteria of ± 30%, demonstrate that the 

method is appropriate for the given matrix. All target analyte field matrix spikes met method 

acceptance criteria. 

Table 11. DAL-GW-131R

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-007 DAL-GW-131R-0-131121 2300 NA 54.8 NA

ISO13-05-05-008 DAL-GW-131R-DB-131121 2530 NA 58.9 NA

ISO13-05-05-009 DAL-GW-131R-FMS-131121 4510 106 2070 101

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 2420 ng/mL ± 9.5% 56.9 ng/mL ± 7.2%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-007 DAL-GW-131R-0-131121 303 NA 1210 NA

ISO13-05-05-008 DAL-GW-131R-DB-131121 326 NA 1300 NA

ISO13-05-05-009 DAL-GW-131R-FMS-131121 2380 103 3250 99.8

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 315 ng/mL ± 7.3% 1260 ng/mL ± 7.2%

NA = Not Applicable

Samples were diluted 1:100 and analyzed using external standard quantitation. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 15 OF 20

Table 12. DAL-GW-133R

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-014 DAL-GW-133R-0-131120 51.7 NA 2.80 NA

ISO13-05-05-015 DAL-GW-133R-DB-131120 52.1 NA 2.90 NA

ISO13-05-05-016 DAL-GW-133R-FMS-131120 100 97.0 61.9 118

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 51.9 ng/mL ± 0.77% 2.85 ng/mL ± 3.5%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-014 DAL-GW-133R-0-131120 17.9 NA 35.9 NA

ISO13-05-05-015 DAL-GW-133R-DB-131120 16.1 NA 31.7 NA

ISO13-05-05-016 DAL-GW-133R-FMS-131120 66.2 98.4 85.9 104

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 17.0 ng/mL ± 11% 33.8 ng/mL ± 12%

NA = Not Applicable

Samples were diluted 1:2 and analyzed using internal standard quantitation. 

Table 13. DAL-GW-133S

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-017 DAL-GW-133S-0-131120 393 NA 9.68 NA

ISO13-05-05-018 DAL-GW-133S-DB-131120 399 NA 10.2 NA

ISO13-05-05-019 DAL-GW-133S-FMS-131120 570 87.7 234 112

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 396 ng/mL ± 1.5% 9.94 ng/mL ± 5.2%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-017 DAL-GW-133S-0-131120 70.5 NA 251 NA

ISO13-05-05-018 DAL-GW-133S-DB-131120 70.8 NA 256 NA

ISO13-05-05-019 DAL-GW-133S-FMS-131120 288 108 471 109

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 70.7 ng/mL ± 0.42% 254 ng/mL ± 2.0%

NA = Not Applicable

Samples were diluted 1:10 and analyzed using external standard quantitation. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 16 OF 20

Table 14. DAL-GW-134S

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-024 DAL-GW-134S-0-131120 25.8 NA 0.688 NA

ISO13-05-05-025 DAL-GW-134S-DB-131120 25.9 NA 0.628 NA

ISO13-05-05-026 DAL-GW-134S-FMS-131120 35.7 NC 11.5 108

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 25.9 ng/mL ± 0.39% 0.658 ng/mL ± 9.1%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-024 DAL-GW-134S-0-131120 7.49 NA 27.8 NA

ISO13-05-05-025 DAL-GW-134S-DB-131120 7.53 NA 29.1 NA

ISO13-05-05-026 DAL-GW-134S-FMS-131120 18.3 108 38.0 NC

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 7.41 ng/mL ± 0.53% 28.5 ng/mL ± 4.6%

NA = Not Applicable

NC = Not Calculated; Spike level was less than 0.5x the endogenous sample concentration.

Samples were diluted 1:2 and analyzed using internal standard quantitation. 

Table 15. DAL-GW-134L

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-027 DAL-GW-134L-0-131120 536 NA 9.93 NA

ISO13-05-05-028 DAL-GW-134L-DB-131120 535 NA 10.6 NA

ISO13-05-05-029 DAL-GW-134L-FMS-131120 1000 93.6 536 105

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 536 ng/mL ± 0.19% 10.3 ng/mL ± 6.5%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-027 DAL-GW-134L-0-131120 100 NA 515 NA

ISO13-05-05-028 DAL-GW-134L-DB-131120 97.4 NA 498 NA

ISO13-05-05-029 DAL-GW-134L-FMS-131120 644 109 1080 115

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 98.7 ng/mL ± 2.6% 507 ng/mL ± 3.4%

NA = Not Applicable

Samples were diluted 1:10 and analyzed using external standard quantitation.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 17 OF 20

Table 16. DAL-GW-135R

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-030 DAL-GW-135R-0-131119 4060 NA 71.8 NA

ISO13-05-05-031 DAL-GW-135R-DB-131119 4020 NA 72.3 NA

ISO13-05-05-032 DAL-GW-135R-FMS-131119 5530 NC 2080 100

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 4040 ng/mL ± 0.99% 72.1 ng/mL ± 0.69%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-030 DAL-GW-135R-0-131119 812 NA 1180 NA

ISO13-05-05-031 DAL-GW-135R-DB-131119 787 NA 1210 NA

ISO13-05-05-032 DAL-GW-135R-FMS-131119 2750 97.5 3040 92.3

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 800 ng/mL ± 3.1% 1200 ng/mL ± 2.5%

NA = Not Applicable

NC = Not Calculated; Spike level was less than 0.5x the endogenous sample concentration.

Samples were diluted 1:50 and analyzed using external standard quantitation.

Table 17. DAL-GW-136L

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-041 DAL-GW-136L-0-131120 96.5 NA 2.51 NA

ISO13-05-05-042 DAL-GW-136L-DB-131120 96.7 NA 2.52 NA

ISO13-05-05-043 DAL-GW-136L-FMS-131120 153 114 60.5 116

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 96.6 ng/mL ± 0.21% 2.52 ng/mL ± 0.40%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-041 DAL-GW-136L-0-131120 16.1 NA 97.1 NA

ISO13-05-05-042 DAL-GW-136L-DB-131120 16.0 NA 97.2 NA

ISO13-05-05-043 DAL-GW-136L-FMS-131120 74.7 117 153 112

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 16.1 ng/mL ± 0.62% 97.2 ng/mL ± 0.10%

NA = Not Applicable

Samples were diluted 1:10 with a larger injection volume to achieve a dilution factor of 2 and analyzed using external standard 

quantitation. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 18 OF 20

Table 18. DAL-GW-CW26C

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-057 DAL-GW-CW26C-0-131121 443 NA 8.14 NA

ISO13-05-05-058 DAL-GW-CW26C-DB-131121 460 NA 8.73 NA

ISO13-05-05-059 DAL-GW-CW26C-FMS-131121 617 NC 236 114

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 452 ng/mL ± 3.8% 8.44 ng/mL ± 7.0%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-057 DAL-GW-CW26C-0-131121 63.3 NA 448 NA

ISO13-05-05-058 DAL-GW-CW26C-DB-131121 64.6 NA 462 NA

ISO13-05-05-059 DAL-GW-CW26C-FMS-131121 284 110 680 NC

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 64.0 ng/mL ± 2.0% 455 ng/mL ± 3.1%

NA = Not Applicable

NC = Not Calculated; Spike level was less than 0.5x the endogenous sample concentration.

Samples were diluted 1:10 and analyzed using external standard quantitation. 

Table 19. DAL-GW-CW26L

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-060 DAL-GW-CW26L-0-131121 897 NA 14.1 NA

ISO13-05-05-061 DAL-GW-CW26L-DB-131121 871 NA 14.6 NA

ISO13-05-05-062 DAL-GW-CW26L-FMS-131121 1330 89.9 524 102

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 884 ng/mL ± 2.9% 14.4 ng/mL ± 3.5%

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-060 DAL-GW-CW26L-0-131121 118 NA 1400 NA

ISO13-05-05-061 DAL-GW-CW26L-DB-131121 113 NA 1350 NA

ISO13-05-05-062 DAL-GW-CW26L-FMS-131121 622 101 2030 NC

Average Concentration (ng/mL) ± %RPD 116 ng/mL ± 4.3% 1380 ng/mL ± 3.6%

NA = Not Applicable

NC = Not Calculated; Spike level was less than 0.5x the endogenous sample concentration.

Samples were diluted 1:20 and analyzed using internal standard quantitation. 
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

REPORT NO. ISO13-05-05

PAGE 19 OF 20

Table 20. Trip Blank

PFOA PFBS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-075 DAL-GW-TRIP-0-131121 <0.0480 (1) NA <0.0250 (1) NA

ISO13-05-05-076 DAL-GW-TRIP-LS-131121 11.1 (1) 112 11.7 (1) 117

ISO13-05-05-077 DAL-GW-TRIP-MS-131121 55.0 (2) 111 57.1 (2) 114

ISO13-05-05-078 DAL-GW-TRIP-HS-131121 2010 (3) 102 2200 (3) 110

PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

Concentration 

(ng/mL) %Recovery

ISO13-05-05-075 DAL-GW-TRIP-0-131121 <0.0250 (1) NA <0.0232 (1) NA

ISO13-05-05-076 DAL-GW-TRIP-LS-131121 10.9 (1) 109 10.7 (1) 107

ISO13-05-05-077 DAL-GW-TRIP-MS-131121 56.4 (2) 113 56.5 (2) 113

ISO13-05-05-078 DAL-GW-TRIP-HS-131121 2140 (3) 107 2100 (3) 105

NA = Not Applicable

(1) Samples were diluted 1:2 and analyzed using internal standard quantitation.

(2) Samples were diluted 1:10 and analyzed using external standard quantitation.

(3) Samples were diluted 1:50 and analyzed using external standard quantitation. 

Table 21. Rinseate Blank

PFOA PFBS PFHS PFOS

3M LIMS ID Description

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

Concentration 

(ng/mL)

ISO13-05-05-073 DAL-GW-145R-RB01-131122 <0.0480 <0.0250 <0.0250 <0.0232

ISO13-05-05-074 DAL-GW-135R-RB02131119 <0.0480 <0.0250 <0.0250 <0.0232

. 

Samples were diluted 1:2 and analyzed using internal standard quantitation.

5 Conclusion

Laboratory control spikes were used to determine the analytical method accuracy and precision for all 

analytes. The accuracy and precision were then used to estimate the method uncertainty for the 

results. Field and laboratory matrix spike recoveries demonstrated that the analytical method was 

appropriate for the given sample matrix. Method ETS-8-044.1 “Method of Analysis for the 

Determination of Perfluorinated Compounds in Water by LC/MS/MS; Direct Injection Analysis” was 

used for analysis. Analytical results are reported in Table 1 and 11-21 of this report.
3M ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY 

REPORT NO. IS013-05-05 

6 Data / Sample Retention 

All remaining sample and associated project data (hardcopy and electronic) will be archived according 

to 3M Environmental Laboratory standard operating procedures. 

7 Signatures 

i/^^7 

Susan T. Wolf, 3M Pcincipal Analytical Investigator Date 

William K. Reagen, Ph.D., 3M Environmental Technical Director ' Date 

The 3M Environmental Laboratory's Quality Assurance Unit has audited the data and report for this 

project. 

Quality Assurance Representative ' Date 

This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the 3M 

Environmental Laboratory. 

PAGE 20 OF 20