Behind the Makeup: An interview with Dr. A. A. Olomukoro
The cosmetics we use every day are formulated to be durable and long-lasting. But what gives them these properties? Often, the answer is a class of compounds called PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals." These substances are a growing concern for consumers and regulators due to their persistence in the environment and potential health risks. Tackling this analytical challenge requires innovative methods that can reliably detect trace amounts of PFAS in the complex matrices of cosmetic products.
At the forefront of this research is Dr. Aghogho Abigail Olomukoro. Her recent Ph.D. work at the University at Buffalo, under the supervision of Dr. Emanuela Gionfriddo, provides a critical roadmap for analyzing these compounds. By comparing two powerful, automated sample preparation techniques - Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) and Micro Solid Phase Extraction (µSPE) - her study offers a scientifically robust guide for laboratories worldwide.
This pivotal research is the foundation of a new PAL System application note and was a cornerstone of our recent PFAS webinar series. We sat down with Abigail to discuss her journey into analytical chemistry, the intricacies of her research, and the real-world implications of finding forever chemicals in our makeup bags.
Let's start at the beginning. What first drew you to the world of analytical chemistry? Was there a specific 'aha!' moment that made you decide to focus on this persistent challenge of "forever chemicals"?
My interest in analytical chemistry actually started as early as my undergraduate days when I was doing internship in an environmental laboratory that focused on testing different samples for heavy metals using AAS. This caught my attention and while I went back to school for my final year, I decided to do undergraduate research in analytical chemistry where I worked on determination of heavy metals bound particulate matter 2.5 in Covenant University Atmosphere. As a result of this I decided to further my education by doing a masters in environmental chemistry and pollution control and then PhD in Analytical/Environmental Chemistry.
At the time I joined Dr. Gionfriddo’s lab, PFAS was becoming a hot topic in the scientific community and Dr. Gionfriddo just won a grant on PFAS from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). So, I was immediately placed on the research to move the project forward.
About the Scientist
Dr. Aghogho Abigail Olomukoro recently obtained her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University at Buffalo, New York. Her doctoral research focused on the partitioning behavior of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in sorbents and investigating PFAS distribution in heterogeneous environmental and biological samples. To achieve these objectives, she applied micro-separation methodologies (SPME and µSPE) for preconcentration, coupled with liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). She currently works as an Analytical Chemist and Separation Subject Matter Expert at Corteva Agriscience.
The Science of "Forever Chemicals"
For those who might not be familiar, could you break down why PFAS are such a hot topic? Why should we be concerned about finding them in everyday products like mascara?
PFAS are a large family of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in several commercial and personal care products like nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, waterproof clothing, firefighting foams, even cosmetics like mascara and foundation.
They are called forever chemicals due to their extremely strong carbon–fluorine bonds. Those bonds do not easily break down in the environment or in our bodies. That means once PFAS are released, they can persist for decades (or longer), cycling through soil, water, air, and living organisms. They are bioaccumulative and have been linked to health effects including increased cholesterol, immune system suppression, thyroid disruption, reproductive issues, and even higher risk of certain cancers.
Cosmetics are applied close to sensitive tissues (like eyes and skin) and can be absorbed or ingested in trace amounts. While one use won’t make someone sick, the concern is long-term, low-level exposure layered on top of other daily PFAS exposures.
Your latest work, which our Application Note is based on, focuses on analyzing PFAS in mascara. What did a typical week look like during this research, and what was the biggest analytical hurdle?
When I’m working on something like analyzing PFAS in mascara, a typical week usually starts with planning out what experiments I need to run. That often means weighing mascara samples into vials, carrying out solvent extraction, and using techniques like SPME or micro-SPE for preconcentration. While that’s going on, I will set up the LC-MS: preparing the mobile phase, creating a run sequence and running some quality control samples to ensure the instrument is in good condition.
Once preconcentration is finished, I filter the samples, load them into the autosampler, and start the sequence. Depending on how many samples I’m running, that can take anywhere from several hours to a full day or more. Afterward comes the data processing, where I analyze and interpret the results. That part is critical because it tells me whether I need to design the next set of experiments or do some troubleshooting.
One of the biggest hurdles I faced in this project was simply getting the mascara out of its packaging. The tubes are small and not easy to work with but making sure I collected as much material as possible was important for getting a representative sample.
A Head-to-Head Comparison: SPME vs. Automated µSPE
Your study compares two powerful sample preparation techniques. For a lab setting up a new PFAS testing workflow, what's your key advice on choosing between SPME and automated µSPE?
Both SPME and automated µSPE offered clear but complementary strengths in our study. SPME was very effective for the more hydrophilic PFAS, showing minimal matrix effects thanks to the biocompatible coating that allows direct immersion into complex mascara formulations. It is greener and more sustainable because the devices are reusable, and it also enables higher throughput since many samples can be processed in parallel. However, its sensitivity decreases for the more hydrophobic PFAS, such as PFOS or 6:2 diPAP.
On the other hand, µSPE performed better for hydrophobic PFAS, providing lower limits of quantification for those compounds. The automation of µSPE also makes it highly reproducible and user-friendly once set up, though it requires single-use cartridges and a pre-filtration step to prevent clogging.
If a lab were setting up a new PFAS workflow for cosmetics, my advice would be to choose based on the target compounds and priorities. If the focus is on routine screening of a broad set of PFAS, particularly hydrophilic ones, SPME is a cost-effective, greener, and high-throughput option. But if the lab is targeting more hydrophobic PFAS with regulatory relevance, or values automation and precision over throughput, µSPE may be the better choice. Ideally, combining both in a complementary way provides the most complete analytical picture.
What has been the most challenging part of your Ph.D. research, and on the flip side, what has been the most rewarding moment?
The most challenging part of my Ph.D. research was dealing with a major setback: my primary research instrument was down for nearly a year, right when I was approaching graduation. Without access to the equipment, progress came to a standstill. It was a tough period, as there was little I could do to move forward, and the uncertainty was mentally draining.
On the flip side, the most rewarding moment was seeing my hard work culminate in published scientific papers. That moment brought immense satisfaction; it was proof that the effort, perseverance, and long hours were not in vain. In addition to the publication, I received several awards, and I believe having my research published gave me a competitive edge in earning those recognitions.
We know life as a Ph.D. student is demanding. I saw online that you enjoy baking, singing, and adventurous activities; how did you balance these with your work in the lab? Looking back on your experience, what's one piece of advice you'd give to a student just starting their own research journey?
Balancing graduate school with other activities was definitely challenging at first. Many of the things I enjoyed had to take a back seat as I adjusted to the demands of research. But as I grew in my understanding of my work and became more confident in my progress, I gradually reintroduced those activities, mostly as a way to relieve stress and recharge. It’s not easy to find balance in the beginning, but with time and familiarity, it becomes possible to integrate other aspects of life alongside research.
My advice? Start early. Begin by understanding your research deeply and getting things done proactively. Five years may seem like a long time, but it goes by faster than you think. Start writing early. As soon as you begin a project, document everything: experiments, data, results, and discussions. Stay organized with your data and notes. This habit will be invaluable when it’s time to compile everything you’ve done over the years into a cohesive dissertation or publication.
Real-World Impact and Future Horizons
Your work confirmed the presence of regulated PFAS in commercial mascara. How do you see your findings helping the industry and regulators ensure product safety?
From the industry perspective, I will say that this research can create more awareness in the effects of PFAS and can propel innovation towards product reformulation, whereby cosmetic manufacturers reevaluate their ingredient lists and supply chains, forcing new and safer alternatives to PFAS use. Also, transparency and labelling: Brands may be encouraged to improve ingredient transparency and adopt clearer labeling practices. This aligns with growing consumer demand for clean beauty and safer formulations. Finally, I will say competitive advantage because companies that proactively eliminate PFAS and adopt safer alternatives can position themselves as leaders in sustainability and consumer safety, gaining trust and market share.
In terms of regulatory bodies, it can lead to policy development and enforcement, standard testing, where acceptable PFAS thresholds can be put in place. Increase in awareness of PFAS risk exposure and assessment to the public.
Finally, what's next for you? And for fun, if your research journey were a movie, what would its title be?
I plan to continue pursuing research as a scientist, as I truly enjoy exploring new questions and finding answers through experimentation. Currently, I work as an Analytical Chemist at Corteva Agriscience where I develop, validate, and optimize analytical methods (HPLC, UPLC, LC-MS, UV-VIS) for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of active ingredients, co-formulants, degradation products, and impurities in complex formulations.
If my research journey were a movie, I would call it Behind the Makeupa title that reflects both the hidden chemicals uncovered in cosmetics and the deeper struggles and discoveries behind the scenes of scientific research.
The world of PFAS analysis is demanding, with tightening regulations and complex sample matrices pushing laboratories to their limits. This complimentary webinar series cuts through the noise, offering practical, expert-led guidance on how automated sample preparation can transform your workflows. Explore our webinars to learn how to boost sensitivity, ensure reproducibility, and tame the forever chemicals for good. We will touch on different sample workflows as well as spotlight different matrices, from food & food safety to environmental sample types.
This application note showcases a fully automated workflow for the precise quantification of 73 PFAS in seafood. Utilizing a PAL RTC autosampler and Agilent triple quadrupole LC/MS system (LC/TQ), the method automates calibration, QuEChERS extraction, and μSPE clean-up.
Measuring PFAS is challenging due to their persistence, complex chemical nature, and presence at extremely low levels (parts per trillion) in environmental samples. Rigorous sample preparation, advanced analytical instrumentation, and robust quality control are essential for reliable PFAS quantification.
PAL System focusses on PFAS-free tubing, tools, and modules enabling:
Fully automated workflows
Specialized LC/MS tools
Multi valve setups for increased productivity using online SPE
ASMS 2025 - Fully automated implementation of EPA Method 1633 for LC-MS/MS analysis of PFAS in environmental samples using a customized robotic autosampler
Widespread use and persistence of PFAS has led to ubiquitous detection in water, soil, air, and living organisms.
US EPA Method 1633 is intended for analysis of PFAS in aqueous, solid and tissue samples using LCMS/ MS at part-per-trillion concentrations.
This method involves significant sample preparation and purification steps prior to instrumental analysis, leading to bottlenecks in sample processing.
We have developed a fully automated, online μSPE-LC-MS/MS workflow based on a customized LC TriPlus RSH SMART Advanced system for high-throughput analysis of PFAS in environmental samples following EPA Method 1633 guidelines
ASMS 2025 - Fully Automated Sensitive Quantitation of PFAS in Seafood for Regulatory Screening Using Triple Quadrupole LC/MS
Detecting trace PFAS level is challenging due to complex sample preparation like QuEChERS extraction followed by SPE cleanup, and evaporation/reconstitution. The manual steps can be labor-intensive and error-prone, affecting accuracy and reliability. This study developed a fully automated workflow for PFAS quantitation in seafood – shrimp.
ASMS 2025 - Fully Automated Workflow for Volatile PFAS Analysis in Food Contact Materials Using GC-Triple Quadrupole
Gas Chromatography coupled with Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry (GC/TQ) offers a robust and sensitive method for detecting volatile PFAS. However, manual sample preparation could pose a bottleneck, impacting lab productivity. This study presents a robust and fully automated method using the PAL3 platform with GC/TQ for quantifying more than 30 volatile PFAS in FCMs, such as paper coffee cups. The automation approach minimizes human error, improving reliability and reproducibility for routine analysis and safety assessments of PFAS in FCMs.
