ReviewAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
The hidden fluorine: a critical review of analytical methods for unmasking PFAS and closing fluorine mass balance in environmental samples.
Review in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are recognized as persistent environmental contaminants, yet their regulatory definitions differ substantially. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applies a narrow structural definition, whereas the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopts a broader framework encompassing millions of fluorinated species. This discrepancy directly affects which compounds are monitored and quantified, leaving many environmentally relevant fluorochemicals, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), refrigerants, and other organofluorine (OF) compounds, unaccounted for. Compared to the OECD's classification of PFAS, which can include up to 7 million species, the EPA definition only covers about 14,000 PFAS. Recent studies reveal that currently known PFAS explain only a small fraction of the total organofluorine (TOF) in environmental samples, underscoring the limitations of liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) commonly used for targeted analysis. This review provides critical insights on other analytical methods that are underutilized for PFAS analysis, including combustion ion chromatography (CIC), fluorine-19 nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (
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.