Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38280017›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024

PFAS ghosts: how to identify, evaluate, and exorcise new and existing analytical interference.

Jacqueline Bangma, Kitrina M Barry, Christine M Fisher, Susan Genualdi, Theresa C Guillette, Carin A Huset, James McCord, Brian Ng, Benjamin J Place, Jessica L Reiner and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jacqueline BangmaCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, USA. Bangma.jacqueline@epa.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-173X
Kitrina M BarryMinnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, MN, USA.
Christine M FisherCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, USA.
Susan GenualdiCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, USA.
Theresa C GuilletteArcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc, Raleigh, USA.
Carin A HusetMinnesota Department of Health, St. Paul, MN, USA.
James McCordCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, USA.
Brian NgCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, College Park, USA.
Benjamin J PlaceNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.
Jessica L ReinerNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.
Anna RobuckCenter for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, USA.
Alix E RodowaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, USA.
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USNational Institute of Standards and Technology · USMinnesota Department of Health · USArcadis (United States) · US

Funding

Untargeted Analysis ResourceU2CES026533 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PETERSON, LISA A · 2015 to 2025
$14.0M
NIEHS NIH HHS U2C ES026533
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increasing public awareness of PFAS, and their presence in biological and environmental media across the globe, comes a matching increase in the number of PFAS monitoring studies. As more matrices and sample cohorts are examined, there are more opportunities for matrix interferents to appear as PFAS where there are none (i.e., "seeing ghosts"), impacting subsequent reports. Addressing these ghosts is vital for the research community, as proper analytical measurements are necessary for decision-makers to understand the presence, levels, and potential risks associated with PFAS and protect human and environmental health. To date, PFAS interference has been identified in several matrices (e.g., food, shellfish, blood, tissue); however, additional unidentified interferents are likely to be observed as PFAS research continues to expand. Therefore, the aim of this commentary is several fold: (1) to create and support a publicly available dataset of all currently known PFAS analytical interferents, (2) to allow for the expansion of that dataset as more sources of interference are identified, and (3) to advise the wider scientific community on how to both identify and eliminate current or new analytical interference in PFAS analyses.

Indexed as

FluorocarbonsWater Pollutants, ChemicalErythrocyte MembraneHumansSeafoodShellfishFluorocarbonsWater Pollutants, ChemicalAnalytical methodsInterferenceMethod developmentPFAS

Identifiers

PMID38280017
PMCPMC10932892
OpenAlexW4391282192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.