ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024
There's Something in What We Eat: An Overview on the Extraction Techniques and Chromatographic Analysis for PFAS Identification in Agri-Food Products.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seafood-Linked and Sex-Specific Signatures of Legacy and Emerging PFAS Body Burden During Dietary Transition in Sichuan, China.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Ultrasound for degradation of complex matrices of PFAS mixtures.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025Article
- Advancing PFASs monitoring in food: from targeted SPE-LC-MS/MS to non-targeted QuEChERS-LC-HRMS approaches.Food chemistry: X · 2025Article
- Trans Fats in Spanish Pastries and Their Influence on Mesenchymal Stem Cell Behavior In Vitro and Related Health Risks.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Variability in the Occurrence of PFAS in Fish Tissues from Selected Fisheries in the Baltic Sea.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) are a group of anthropogenic chemicals used in a range of industrial processes and consumer products. Recently, their ubiquitous presence in the environment as well as their toxicological effects in humans have gained relevant attention. Although the occurrence of PFASs is widely investigated in scientific community, the standardization of analytical method for all matrices still remains an important issue. In this review, we discussed extraction and detection methods in depth to evaluate the best procedures of PFAS identification in terms of analytical parameters (e.g., limits of detection (LODs), limits of quantification (LOQs), recoveries). Extraction approaches based on liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), alkaline digestion, and solid phase extraction (SPE), followed by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis are the main analytical methods applied in the literature. The results showed detectable recoveries of PFOA and PFOS in meat, milk, vegetables, eggs products (90.6-101.2% and of 89.2-98.4%), and fish (96-108%). Furthermore, the low LOD and LOQ values obtained for meat (0.00592-0.01907 ng g
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.