MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163158345 · doi:10.48448/1c4r-6296

Non-Targeted Analysis of PFAS in Food Contact Materials: Unveiling Hidden Dangers with LC-QTOF MS and FluoroMatch

2025· other· W7163158345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AOAC 2025, M. Lorna De Leoz

Bibliographic record

VenueUnderline Science Inc. · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood contact materialsFood packagingFood processingFood productsCosmeticsFood safety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Per-and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) are diverse synthetic chemicals widely used in industry because of their thermal stability, hydrophobicity, and relative inertness. These “forever chemicals” have been detected in food and food packaging and may cause harmful health effects. With thousands of PFAS compounds identified, processing non-targeted PFAS data poses a significant challenge. In this study, 40 paper-based food contact materials (FCMs) from shops in Montreal, Canada -- including to-go boxes, microwave popcorn bags, wrappers, paper straws, and baking liners -- were analyzed for the occurrence of PFAS using LC-QTOF MS. The highest PFAS concentrations were detected in clamshell to-go boxes, with levels reaching up to 356.6 ng/g. PFOA (up to 187.2 ng/g) and PFDA (up to 92.2 ng/g) were major contributors to the overall PFAS content. FluoroMatch Modular was used to annotate previously unidentified PFAS, confirming a homologous series (C3 to C14) of perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (PFCA) and C6 and C8 perfluoroalkyl sulfonic acids (PFSA). The study also demonstrated that the migration of both short-chain (PFHxA and PFHpA) and long-chain (PFOA, PFDA, PFNA) PFAS into food simulants increased upon heating (65 ℃), indicating that higher temperatures facilitate the release of these substances from packaging into food. These findings raise concerns about potential for PFAS exposure through food consumption, particularly under heated conditions such as hot meals and microwave heating. The widespread detection of PFAS in clamshell to-go boxes and other FCMs in this study highlights the need for more stringent regulations and oversight to minimize PFAS use in FCMs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0150.027
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnderline Science Inc.French-language works237,207