Toward Comprehensive Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Annotation Using FluoroMatch Software and Intelligent High-Resolution Tandem Mass Spectrometry Acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exist in the environment and pose a potential health hazard. Suspect and nontarget screening with liquid chromatography (LC)–high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (HRMS/MS) can be used for comprehensive characterization of PFAS. To date, no automated open source PFAS data analysis software exists to mine these extensive data sets. We introduce FluoroMatch, which automates file conversion, chromatographic peak picking, blank feature filtering, PFAS annotation based on precursor and fragment masses, and annotation ranking. The software library currently contains ∼7 000 PFAS fragmentation patterns based on rules derived from standards and literature, and the software automates a process for users to add additional compounds. The use of intelligent data-acquisition methods (iterative exclusion) nearly doubled the number of annotations. The software application is demonstrated by characterizing PFAS in landfill leachate as well as in leachate foam generated to concentrate the compounds for remediation purposes. FluoroMatch had wide coverage, returning 27 PFAS annotations for landfill leachate samples, explaining 71% of the all-ion fragmentation (CF2)n related fragments. By improving the throughput and coverage of PFAS annotation, FluoroMatch will accelerate the discovery of PFAS posing significant human risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".