ArticleScientific reports2024
Formaldehyde quantification using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry reveals high background environmental formaldehyde levels.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitive Methanol and Formaldehyde Detection in Enzyme Assays Shows Applicability to Diverse Sample Matrices.ACS omega · 2026Article
- A Smartphone-Assisted Approach to Formaldehyde Detection Using Diethanolamine-Grafted Carbon Nanoparticles.ACS omega · 2026Article
- 1-Amino-but-3-enes scavenge formaldehyde and glyoxylic acid.Communications chemistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Formaldehyde (HCHO) is a human toxin that is both a pollutant and endogenous metabolite. HCHO concentrations in human biological samples are reported in the micromolar range; however, accurate quantification is compromised by a paucity of sensitive analysis methods. To address this issue, we previously reported a novel SPME-GC-MS-based HCHO detection method using cysteamine as an HCHO scavenger. This method showed cysteamine to be a more efficient scavenger than the widely used O-(2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorobenzyl)hydroxylamine, and enabled detection of aqueous HCHO in the nanomolar range and quantification in the micromolar range. However, quantification in this range required immersive extraction of the HCHO-derived thiazolidine, while a high background signal was also observed. Following on from these studies, we now report an optimised head-space extraction SPME-GC-MS method using cysteamine, which provides similarly sensitive HCHO quantification to the immersive method but avoids extensive wash steps and is therefore more amenable to screening applications. However, high background HCHO levels were still observed A Complementary GC-MS analyses using a 2-aza-Cope-based HCHO scavenger also revealed high background HCHO levels; therefore, the combined results suggest that HCHO exists in high (i.e. micromolar) concentration in aqueous samples that precludes accurate quantification below the micromolar range. This observation has important implications for ongoing HCHO quantification studies in water, including in biological samples.
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.