ReviewChemosphere2021
A critical review of environmentally persistent free radical (EPFR) solvent extraction methodology and retrieval efficiency.
Review in Chemosphere, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the influence of environmentally persistent free radical location on reactive oxygen species generation in soils.Chemosphere · 2026Article
- Spatial distribution of persistent components of particulate matter near a hazardous waste thermal treatment facility.Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2026Article
- Residential Wood Burning and Vehicle Emissions as Major Sources of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals in Fairbanks, Alaska.Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- Article
- Characteristics and Risk Assessment of Environmentally Persistent Free Radicals (EPFRs) of PMInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Long-lived environmentally persistent free radical (EPFR) exposures have been shown in toxicology studies to lead to respiratory and cardiovascular effects, which were thought to be due to the persistence of EPFR and their ability to produce reactive oxygen species. To characterize EPFR exposure and resulting health impacts, it is necessary to identify and systematize analysis protocols. Both direct measurement and solvent extraction methods have been applied to analyze environmental samples containing EPFR. The use of different protocols and solvents in EPFR analyses makes it difficult to compare results among studies. In this work, we reviewed EPFR studies that involved solvent extraction and carefully reported the details of the extraction methodology and retrieval recovery. EPFR recovery depends on the structure of the radical species and the solvent. For the limited number of studies available for review, the polar solvents had superior recovery in more studies. Radicals appeared to be more oxygen-centered following extraction for fly ash and particulate matter (PM) samples. Different solvent extraction methods to retrieve EPFR may produce molecular products during the extraction, thus potentially changing the sample toxicity. The number of studies reporting detailed methodologies is limited, and data in these studies were not consistently reported. Thus, inference about the solvent and protocol that leads to the highest EPFR extraction efficiency for certain types of radicals is not currently possible. Based on our review, we proposed reporting criteria to be included for future EPFR studies.
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.