Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40353877›Full record

ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025

The quest for the perfect "total PFAS" method: how can the total oxidisable precursor (TOP) assay be made reliable?

Xavier Dauchy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Xavier DauchyNancy Laboratory for Hydrology, Water Chemistry Department, ANSES, 40 Rue Lionnois, Nancy, 54000, France. xavier.dauchy@anses.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1452-3761

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) make up a large and complex class of manmade chemicals. They have been widely used in numerous industrial branches and are incorporated into many consumer products. Today, there is a consensus on the fact that PFAS are present in all environmental compartments and that populations all over the world are subjected to them via internal exposure. It has been estimated that thousands of individual PFAS have been manufactured and marketed since the 1950s, to which impurities present in commercial products and intermediate environmental transformation products should be added. Since it is unrealistic to be able to individually identify, detect and quantify all the PFAS present in a sample, several analytical approaches have been developed to assess the presence of "hidden/unseen" PFAS. One of these, known as the total oxidisable precursor (TOP) assay, was first described in 2012. Basically, it converts some PFAS, hereafter referred to as precursors, into stable terminal products readily measurable by routine target methods. This review is based on more than 100 studies in which the original TOP assay was simply applied or optimised. The review found that the TOP assay was selective, sensitive, applicable to many matrices, useful within a forensic context, inexpensive, and easy to implement and has been assessed in the literature on a wide range of precursors. However, this method comprises many subtleties and has some flaws that operators should be made aware of so that they may be addressed as far as possible. Finally, this review tries to lay the foundations for better practices and quality assurance/quality control measures, in order to improve accuracy and reliability of TOP assay results.

Indexed as

DTOPOxidisable precursorPFASPhotoTOPQuality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)Surrogate methodTOP assayTotal PFAS

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.