ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021
Determination of organically bound fluorine sum parameters in river water samples-comparison of combustion ion chromatography (CIC) and high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS).
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantification of the amount of surface groups of aminated silica nano- and microparticles utilizing a fluorine tag and HR-CS-GFMAS.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Development of a sample preparation protocol for fast fluorine screening of sealing materials-Considering potential PFAS regulations.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- The hidden fluorine: a critical review of analytical methods for unmasking PFAS and closing fluorine mass balance in environmental samples.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Toward Accurate Estimation of Extractable Organic Fluorine by Analysis of Fluoride Contamination in Extracts Using Gas Chromatography.Analytical chemistry · 2026Article
- A new multi-residue method for PFAS analysis in wastewater for environmental and public health risk assessment.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of analytical strategies for the monitoring of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from lithium-ion battery recycling materials.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Practical Guidance on Selecting Analytical Methods for PFAS in Semiconductor Manufacturing Wastewater.ACS measurement science au · 2025Review
- Prion diseases: Lessons from historical outbreaks and potential emerging ones.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Review
- Post-ICP Chemical Ionization MS for Total Extractable Organic Fluorine Quantitation.ACS omega · 2024Article
- Closing PFAS analytical gaps: Inter-method evaluation of total organofluorine techniques for AFFF-impacted water.Journal of hazardous materials letters · 2024Article
- Interlaboratory Comparison of Extractable Organofluorine Measurements in Groundwater and Eel (Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- EOF and target PFAS analysis in surface waters affected by sewage treatment effluents in Berlin, Germany.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we compare combustion ion chromatography (CIC) and high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS) with respect to their applicability for determining organically bound fluorine sum parameters. Extractable (EOF) and adsorbable (AOF) organically bound fluorine as well as total fluorine (TF) were measured in samples from river Spree in Berlin, Germany, to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques used as well as the two established fluorine sum parameters AOF and EOF. TF concentrations determined via HR-CS-GFMAS and CIC were comparable between 148 and 270 μg/L. On average, AOF concentrations were higher than EOF concentrations, with AOF making up 0.14-0.81% of TF (determined using CIC) and EOF 0.04-0.28% of TF (determined using HR-CS-GFMAS). The results obtained by the two independent methods were in good agreement. It turned out that HR-CS-GFMAS is a more sensitive and precise method for fluorine analysis compared to CIC. EOF and AOF are comparable tools in risk evaluation for the emerging pollutants per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances; however, EOF is much faster to conduct. Graphical abstract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.