The Analytical Scientist
  • Explore

    Explore

    • Latest
    • News & Research
    • Trends & Challenges
    • Keynote Interviews
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Product Profiles
    • App Notes
    • The Product Book

    Featured Topics

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Topics

    Techniques & Tools

    • Mass Spectrometry
    • Chromatography
    • Spectroscopy
    • Microscopy
    • Sensors
    • Data and AI

    • View All Topics

    Applications & Fields

    • Clinical
    • Environmental
    • Food, Beverage & Agriculture
    • Pharma and Biopharma
    • Omics
    • Forensics
  • People & Profiles

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Sitting Down With
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Business & Education

    Business & Education

    • Innovation
    • Business & Entrepreneurship
    • Career Pathways
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Content Hubs
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Analytical Scientist / Issues / 2026 / August / Can Blood Filtration Reduce PFAS?
Mass Spectrometry Clinical Spectroscopy Environmental News and Research

Can Blood Filtration Reduce PFAS?

Multi-platform analysis links therapeutic apheresis to reductions in circulating PFAS and selected plastic-associated signals  

08/20/2026 3 min read
  • Full Article
  • Summary
  • Takeaways
  • Report
  • Quiz
  • Topic Commentary

Share

Credit: Adobe Stock (edited)

A blood-filtering procedure used to lower lipoproteins may also reduce circulating PFAS and microplastic-related signals, according to preliminary patient data from researchers at Technische Universität Dresden.  

The study examined whether therapeutic apheresis, an extracorporeal treatment developed for severe lipid disorders, could also remove environmental contaminants from blood. The approach was based on the hypothesis that PFAS and micro- and nanoplastics may associate with lipoproteins, proteins, or larger “corona” complexes, making them accessible to filtration or adsorption.  

The team first confirmed the expected treatment effects. In 34 patients undergoing double filtration plasmapheresis, C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) were significantly reduced. Raman spectroscopy also showed lower cholesterol- and lipid-associated spectral bands after two apheresis approaches. 

The researchers then measured plasma PFAS by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in two independent laboratories. One laboratory found reductions of up to 25 percent in PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS in samples from 14 patients. A second, smaller analysis of four individuals reported larger average decreases across several PFAS, and several compounds were also detected in the discarded eluate. 

“We did not go looking for this,” said Stefan Bornstein, first and corresponding author, in 

the team’s press release. “When we finally asked what else was leaving the circulation, two independent laboratories found the same compounds falling in the plasma and turning up in the eluate. It means the machine caught them. It does not yet mean the body is rid of them.” 

Pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (Py-GC-MS) on blood from four patients showed polyethylene decreasing in all four and polyvinyl chloride decreasing in three. In two additional patients treated with double filtration plasmapheresis plus a selective nucleic acid adsorption device, several detectable polymers were no longer detectable after treatment, though the authors describe this result as suggestive rather than definitive.  

Raman spectroscopy was used to detect and spatially map polystyrene particles in human eyelid skin. In a small adrenal-cell experiment, 30 nm polystyrene particles produced a trend toward increased cell death, while serum collected after apheresis showed a trend toward reducing that signal. 

The authors stress that the findings remain preliminary. The study does not establish a shared clearance mechanism, show whether repeated apheresis can reduce total body burden, or resolve the analytical challenges that continue to complicate microplastic measurement in blood. Sample sizes were small, patient indications and apheresis systems varied, and contamination remains a persistent concern. 

Future work will focus on tracking whether apheresis changes how these particles move through the body.

“Our next step is to expose large animals to micro- and nanoplastics labeled with radiotracers or iron, image them by PET and MRI, and look again after apheresis,” Bornstein said. 

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

 This Week’s Mass Spec News
Mass Spectrometry
This Week’s Mass Spec News

April 4, 2025

2 min read

 What If Computers Could Smell?
Mass Spectrometry
What If Computers Could Smell?

April 3, 2025

13 min read

Computers can “see” and “hear,” but fully digitizing scent has so far eluded science – but that may soon change

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #6
Mass Spectrometry
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #6

December 3, 2024

3 min read

Syft Technologies’ William Pelet introduces the Syft Explorer – the world's first fully mobile, real-time, and direct trace gas analyzer

The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #4
Mass Spectrometry
The Analytical Scientist Innovation Awards 2024: #4

December 5, 2024

6 min read

Thermo Fisher Scientific’s high-sensitivity mass spec for translational omics research – the Stellar MS – is ranked 4th in our annual Innovation Awards

Affiliations:

Specialties:

Areas of Expertise:

Contributions:

False

The Analytical Scientist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2026 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.