ArticleACS measurement science au2025
Challenges in PFAS Postdegradation Analysis: Insights from the PFAS-CTAB Model System.
Article in ACS measurement science au, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are synthetic chemicals widely used for their oil and water-repellent properties. Their environmental persistence and potential health risks have raised significant concerns. As PFAS degrades through remediation or natural processes, they form complex mixtures of the original chemicals, transformation byproducts, and degradation additives. Analyzing PFAS after degradation presents analytical challenges due to possible chemical and physical interactions, including ion pairing, micelle formation, and complexation. These factors can significantly impact the precision and accuracy of PFAS measurements, yet they are often overlooked in PFAS degradation studies. In this work, we demonstrate that with the addition of ppb-level cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), a cationic surfactant used in PFAS plasma-based degradation, the PFAS calibration curve linearity, sensitivity, and reproducibility are severely compromised. Isotopically labeled internal standards cannot fully correct these issues. Furthermore, the standard EPA methods 537.1, 533, and 1633 could not accurately recover PFAS concentrations in the PFAS and CTAB mixtures, with severe matrix effects observed for longer-chain and nitrogen-containing PFAS. Among these methods, Method 1633 is currently the most suitable option for postdegradation analysis. Method 1633 showed the lowest CTAB interference because this method used another weak ion pair additive, formic acid or acetic acid (in commercial lab analysis), to acidify the sample before LC-MS/MS analysis and added an isotopically labeled internal standard. For future PFAS degradation studies, we recommend systematically evaluating the matrix effect on the PFAS quantification using a recovery matrix to validate the analytical methods before use.
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.