ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Quantitative assessment of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)-impacted soils: a comparison of analytical protocols.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Relative Importance of Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in AFFF-Impacted Soils.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Comparative transcriptomic analysis of perfluoroalkyl substances-induced responses of exponential and stationary phase Escherichia coli.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Decontamination and Surface Analysis of PFAS-Contaminated Fire Suppression System Pipes: Effects of Cleaning Agents and Temperature.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitatively assessing all per- and poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in an environmental sample, particularly soils impacted by aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs), has proven to be a challenge. To make such an assessment, a comprehensive sample processing procedure and analytical tool must be used. However, doubts remain whether current analytical tools such as high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) with targeted quantitation and semi-quantitative analysis of suspects (Semi-Q HRMS) or total organic fluorine (TOF) are capable of accurately quantifying all non-polymeric PFASs in a sample. Further, current comprehensive soil PFAS HRMS methods are incompatible with TOF, preventing direct comparisons of the approaches. To enable direct comparisons, a soil sample processing procedure that is comprehensive as well as compatible with multiple analytical tools is needed. In this study, we assessed the performance of a previously developed soil PFAS method, EPA Method 1633, and a hybrid solid phase extraction (SPE)-based method for characterizing AFFF-impacted soil composites while maintaining compatibility with multiple analytical tools (i.e., Semi-Q HRMS and TOF). Comparative results for AFFF-impacted soil composites indicate analysis via EPA Method 1633 (as compared to the novel hybrid method) results in maybe up to 75% of the PFAS mass being missed by only analyzing for compounds listed in EPA Method 1633. Simply expanding the EPA Method 1633 analyte list was insufficient to account for the missing mass: up to 69% of the PFAS mass was still missed because of EPA Method 1633's extraction and cleanup bias. Additionally, the novel method developed offers a more comprehensive analysis with minimal reductions to sensitivity when compared to those reported in EPA Method 1633, with limits of quantification ranging from 0.12 to 2.4 ng/g as compared to 0.16-4.0 ng/g, respectively. For these reasons, an alternative hybrid SPE-based method is proposed for comprehensive evaluation of PFASs in AFFF-impacted soils.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39414643What 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.