ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
QuEChERS-Based LC-MS/MS and HRMS Methods for PFAS Determination in Food: A Systematic Review.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent contaminants that require very strict performance criteria from the methods that want to analyze them in food for research or regulatory purposes. This systematic literature review tried to evaluate Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged, Safe (QuEChERS) extraction methodologies coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) for PFAS determination in food. Peer-reviewed articles (2010-2025) were eligible if they analyzed PFAS in food matrices using QuEChERS extraction protocols with LC-MS/MS or HRMS and reported performance and/or validation data. Scopus, WoS and Google Scholar were searched up to 18 December 2025. Due to heterogeneity in matrices, PFAS panels and reported validation metrics, no meta-analysis was performed, and the results were synthesized narratively. Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Most methods used acidified acetonitrile (ACN)-based QuEChERS workflows and achieved limits of quantification (LOQ) reported to be compatible with EU Regulation 2023/915 and Commission Implementing Regulation 2022/1428. Analytical scope expanded from 9 to 15 legacy PFAS to >40 analytes. Short-chain PFAS analyses in vegetable matrices and methods from developing countries are underrepresented. QuEChERS-based LC-MS/MS and HRMS methods support regulatory PFAS monitoring and PFAS research. The main limitation of this review is the heterogeneity of included studies and the absence of formal meta-analysis.
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.