Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36535553›Full record

ArticleToxicology and applied pharmacology2023

Targeted Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) assessments for high throughput screening: Analytical and testing considerations to inform a PFAS stock quality evaluation framework.

Marci G Smeltz, M Scott Clifton, W Matthew Henderson, Larry McMillan, Barbara A Wetmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Evaluation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Chemical research in toxicology · 2023
    Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Marci G SmeltzCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, United States of America.
M Scott CliftonCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, United States of America.
W Matthew HendersonCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA 23605, United States of America.
Larry McMillanNational Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc, Durham, NC, United States of America.
Barbara A WetmoreCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Office of Research and Development, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, United States of America. Electronic address: wetmore.barbara@epa.gov.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a large chemical class lacking hazard, toxicokinetic, and exposure information. To accelerate PFAS hazard evaluation, new approach methodologies (NAMs) comprised of in vitro high-throughput toxicity screening, toxicokinetic data, and computational modeling are being employed in read across strategies to evaluate the larger PFAS landscape. A critical consideration to ensure robust evaluations is a parallel assessment of the quality of the screening stock solutions, where dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) is often the diluent of choice. Challenged by the lack of commercially available reference standards for many of the selected PFAS and reliance on mass spectrometry approaches for such an evaluation, we developed a high-throughput framework to evaluate the quality of screening stocks for 205 PFAS selected for these NAM efforts. Using mass spectrometry coupled with either liquid or gas chromatography, a quality scoring system was developed that incorporated observations during mass spectral examination to provide a simple pass or fail notation. Informational flags were used to further describe findings regarding parent analyte presence through accurate mass identification, evidence of contaminants and/or degradation, or further describe characteristics such as isomer presence. Across the PFAS-DMSO stocks tested, 148 unique PFAS received passing quality scores to allow for further in vitro testing whereas 57 received a failing score primarily due to detection issues or confounding effects of DMSO. Principle component analysis indicated vapor pressure and Henry's Law Constant as top indicators for a failed quality score for those analyzed by gas chromatography. Three PFAS in the hexafluoropropylene oxide family failed due to degradation in DMSO. As the PFAS evaluated spanned over 20 different structural categories, additional commentary describes analytical observations across specific groups related to PFAS stock composition, detection, stability, and methodologic considerations that will be useful for informing future analytical assessment and downstream HTS efforts. The high-throughput stock quality scoring workflow presented holds value as a tool to evaluate chemical presence and quality efficiently and for informing data inclusion in PFAS or other NAM screening efforts.

Indexed as

Dimethyl SulfoxideFluorocarbonsComputer SimulationExcipientsHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysDimethyl SulfoxideExcipientsFluorocarbonsChemical qualityHigh-throughput screeningIn vitro toxicity testingMass spectrometryNew approach methodsPFAS

Identifiers

PMID36535553
PMCPMC10367912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.