Can I use EPA 1633 or other environmental methods for cosmetics?

**You should not use** environmental methods like EPA 1633. They were designed for water and soil and **miss critical PFAS classes** common in cosmetics, such as PAPs, FTOHs, and polymeric PFAS, leading to false negatives.

Do I need testing if the FDA says PFAS levels are low risk?

Yes, testing is critical. The FDA’s risk assessment does not address brand exposure or evolving global bans. Testing is necessary to future-proof against stricter limits like **California's AB 2771**.

How does Total Fluorine (TF) compare to Total Extractable Organofluorine (EOF)?

EOF and TOF are valuable, but our dual-approach (Total Fluorine + LC-MS/MS) provides the most robust, cosmetics-validated verification for 'no-added PFAS' claims, reducing the risk of false negatives that targeted methods can introduce.

Will this data be accepted by major retailers and consumer groups?

Yes. Our outputs are structured to satisfy the QA requirements of major retailers (e.g., **Sephora, Ulta, Amazon**) and provide the data needed to address concerns from watchdogs like **EWG Skin Deep**.

Will this testing meet MoCRA and EU requirements?

Yes, ALS outputs are structured for **MoCRA safety substantiation** and EU SCCS documentation, making them suitable for global submission preparedness.

Validated PFAS Testing for Cosmetics

Total Fluorine screening and LC-MS/MS testing with defensible results that retailers and regulators can trust.

Take the next step.

Request a quote for our quality-assured analysis and testing services, and we will get back to you within the next business day.

Request a quote

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Phone (optional)

Service Location *

State/Province

Service location (free text)

Service Industry *

Service of Interest * Privacy Policy *

Get in touch with us.

Have questions or comments about our services? Please send us a message and we will get in touch with you soon.

📢 WEBINAR RECORDING

PFAS Testing in cosmetics: Confident claims in an unclear landscape

Recorded Oct. 28, 2025

Watch the recording

PFAS-Testing built for complex cosmetic formulations

ALS delivers cosmetics-validated PFAS testing built for the challenges of complex products like waterproof mascaras and liquid lipsticks. This service provides the most defensible verification of no-added PFAS. ALS provides results that hold up with major retailers and anticipate compliance with strict emerging regulations, including MoCRA and California's AB 2771.

Our approach combines:

Total Fluorine (TF) screening to detect the presence of fluorinated compounds through ion chromatography (IC).
Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) targeted analysis validated on cosmetic matrices to identify and quantify PFAS compounds when confirmation or reformulation guidance is needed.

This validation sets the benchmark for PFAS testing, giving brands confidence and defensible results. ALS’ validated methods deliver submission-ready outputs and capture PFAS classes that environmental tests miss, such as PAPs, FTOHs, and polymeric PFAS.

Read the full report on environmental method limitations

What you receive from PFAS testing for cosmetics

Defensible “not detected” results validated for cosmetic formulations.
Total Fluorine (TF) screening to verify the presence of fluorinated material.
Optional LC-MS/MS targeted analysis for identification and reformulation support when PFAS is detected.
Matrix-specific validation for mascaras, sunscreens, lipsticks, ffoundations, and other complex products.
Submission-ready documentation for retailer QA and evolving MoCRA/EU expectations.
Context benchmarks (e.g., 100 ppm / 50 ppm TF, used in other sectors) to aid interpretation while cosmetics-specific limits evolve.

Get defensible, retailer-ready PFAS results

Book a consult

Why choose ALS for PFAS testing?

Cosmetics Validation: Methods designed for cosmetic formulations, not repurposed from environmental testing. Our Total Fluorine (TF) screen provides a practical, quantitative first step that is more efficient for commercial risk assessment than complex Non-Targeted Analysis (NTA).
Two Pathways: TF provides scalable screening; LC-MS/MS supports deeper analysis and reformulation.
Retail-Ready Outputs: Results formatted for Sephora, Ulta, Amazon, QVC, and HSN.
Compliance Alignment: Structured for MoCRA safety substantiation, EU SCCS documentation, and state-level bans, including California's AB 2771.
Risk Reduction: Defensible data to avoid recalls, relabeling, or brand exposure from misleading PFAS results and FDA-related confusion.

How It Works

Intake – Share product details, target claims, and regions.
Total Fluorine (TF) Screening (Ion Chromatography) – A broad, first-pass screen using Ion Chromatography (IC). It quickly identifies all fluorinated content, including known and unknown PFAS.
Confirmation – If TF is elevated, we proceed with LC-MS/MS analysis. This detects and quantifies specific PFAS at trace (parts per billion) levels. Crucially, our validated methods confirm precursors (PAPs, FTOHs) that environmental tests miss.
Reporting – Receive submission-ready results, formatted for regulators, major retailers, and internal QA/R&D teams.

Claim support & regulatory alignment

Reliable Verification for No-Added PFAS

Defensible 'No-Added PFAS' Claims: Supports the highest level of defensible verification for your marketing and legal claims.
Aligned to evolving restrictions including California's AB 2771, France (2026), and EU proposals.
Validated on real cosmetic samples, not simulated models.
Meets Audit Standards: Our labs hold ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation, ensuring data quality and acceptance by auditors, retailers, and consumer watchdogs like EWG Skin Deep.
Submission-Ready Outputs: Deliverables are formatted for regulatory, QA, marketing, and investor use.

Frequently asked questions

Do I need testing if the FDA says PFAS levels are low risk?
- Testing is critical even if the FDA suggests PFAS levels are low risk. This is because the FDA’s risk assessment does not address brand exposure or evolving global bans. Testing is necessary to eliminate unknown toxicity risks and future-proof against stricter limits like California's AB 2771.
How does Total Fluorine (TF) compare to Total Extractable Organofluorine (EOF)?
- EOF (Extractable Organofluorine) and TOF (Total Organic Fluorine) are valuable screening methods.
  
  However, our current dual-approach (Total Fluorine + LC-MS/MS) provides the most robust and commercially defensible verification for 'no-added PFAS' claims.
  
  This is because our Total Fluorine screening component is specifically validated for cosmetics and serves as the primary compliance screen. We utilize validated LC-MS/MS only when needed—primarily for identifying specific PFAS compounds to support reformulation—thereby avoiding the risk of false negatives that targeted methods can introduce when used as the sole compliance proof.
Can I use EPA 1633 or other environmental methods for cosmetics?
- You should not use EPA 1633 or similar environmental methods. EPA 1633 was designed for water and soil and misses critical PFAS classes common in cosmetics, such as PAPs, FTOHs, and polymeric PFAS, leading to false negatives.
Will this data be accepted by major retailers and consumer groups?
- Yes, this data is accepted. Our outputs are structured to satisfy the QA requirements of retailers (e.g., Sephora, Ulta, Amazon) and provide the data needed to address consumer concerns raised by watchdogs like EWG Skin Deep.
Will this testing meet MoCRA and EU requirements?
- Yes, this testing meets MoCRA and EU requirements. ALS outputs are structured for MoCRA safety substantiation and EU SCCS documentation, making them suitable for global submission preparedness.
Do I need PFAS testing for all cosmetics?
- It is highly recommended to test high-risk products like waterproof mascaras, liquid lipsticks, foundations, and sunscreens. Testing helps reduce compliance risk and avoids late-stage reformulation costs.

Request a quote

First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Phone (optional)

Service Location *

State/Province

Service location (free text)

Service Industry *

Service of Interest * Privacy Policy *

Validated PFAS Testing for Cosmetics

Total Fluorine screening and LC-MS/MS testing with defensible results that retailers and regulators can trust.

Request a quote

PFAS Testing in cosmetics: Confident claims in an unclear landscape

PFAS-Testing built for complex cosmetic formulations

What you receive from PFAS testing for cosmetics

Get defensible, retailer-ready PFAS results

Why choose ALS for PFAS testing?

How It Works

Claim support & regulatory alignment

Reliable Verification for No-Added PFAS

Frequently asked questions

Request a quote

Online Payment Centre

USA clients only

USA clients only

Online Payment Centre

Australian clients only - AUD invoice payments

Search

GLOBAL WEBSITE

REGIONAL WEBSITES

ALS Solutions

Geochemistry WebtrieveTM

Tribology 360

Validated PFAS Testing for Cosmetics

Total Fluorine screening and LC-MS/MS testing with defensible results that retailers and regulators can trust.

Request a quote

PFAS Testing in cosmetics: Confident claims in an unclear landscape

PFAS-Testing built for complex cosmetic formulations

What you receive from PFAS testing for cosmetics

Get defensible, retailer-ready PFAS results

Why choose ALS for PFAS testing?

How It Works

Claim support & regulatory alignment

Reliable Verification for No-Added PFAS

Frequently asked questions

Request a quote

Geochemistry Webtrieve^TM