Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30467767›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2019

A new analytical framework for multi-residue analysis of chemically diverse endocrine disruptors in complex environmental matrices utilising ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution tandem quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Luigi Lopardo, Axel Rydevik, Barbara Kasprzyk-Hordern

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Luigi LopardoDepartment of Chemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Axel RydevikDepartment of Chemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Barbara Kasprzyk-HordernDepartment of Chemistry, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. B.Kasprzyk-Hordern@bath.ac.uk.
University of Bath · GB

Funding

Leverhulme Trust RPG-2013-297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This manuscript presents a comprehensive analytical framework for identification and quantification of chemically diverse endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) used in personal care and consumer products in diverse solid and liquid environmental matrices with an ultimate goal of evaluating public exposure to EDCs via water fingerprinting. Liquid chromatography coupled with tandem quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS) was used for targeted analysis of selected EDCs as well as to identify and quantify a few metabolites using post-acquisition data mining. Solid-phase extraction (SPE) was applied to liquid matrices in order to reduce matrix effects and provide required sample concentration and ultimately, high sensitivity and selectivity of measurements. SPE recoveries in liquid samples ranged from 49 to 140% with method quantification limits not exceeding 1 ng L

Indexed as

Chromatography, High Pressure LiquidCosmeticsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental MonitoringFresh WaterLimit of DetectionReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsRiversSewageSolid Phase ExtractionSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationTandem Mass SpectrometryWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalCosmeticsEndocrine DisruptorsSewageWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalEndocrine disruptorEnvironmentHigh-resolution LC-MSPersonal care productsSludgeWastewater

Identifiers

PMID30467767
PMCPMC6338708
OpenAlexW2901582889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.