We provide an initial insight into the occurrence and characteristics of animal-visitor interactions (AVIs) involving captive wild animals within zoos and aquaria. Using information provided online via official public websites of modern zoos and aquaria, we found that AVIs were provided by the majority of facilities. Our study revealed that a variety of AVI types were being offered. Globally, petting captive wild animals was the most prevalent AVI type advertised (n = 1241 observations, 43% (534) of facilities) and Mammalia was the most advertised taxonomic class (n = 5142; 53% (2739)). We found certain AVI types that were more commonly offered than predicted. These were opportunities to: (1) Hand feed captive wild animals in Asia, North America and Oceania; (2) ride wild animals in Europe and North America; (3) walk with or swim through wild animal enclosures in Asia; and (4) walk with wild animals in Asia and Europe. Given the global prevalence of AVIs in modern zoos and aquaria, and an apparent lack of animal welfare focused research, we provide recommendations to help effectively balance and manage captive wild animal welfare with other primary interconnected goals.

This manuscript systematically reviews 156 peer-reviewed articles on methods for estimating total per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Direct and indirect methods of estimating total PFAS include targeted analysis, total fluorine (TF), total organic fluorine (TOF), extractable organic fluorine (EOF), absorbable organic fluorine (AOF), and total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay. Combustion ion chromatography (CIC) was the most utilized method (>50%), followed by particle-induced gamma-ray emission (PIGE, 9%) and high-resolution-continuum source graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS, 6%). Techniques like instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) were less common. A geographic bias was evident, with 69% of studies from the US (33%), Sweden (12%), China (12%), and Germany (11%). Most research targeted environmental samples (water, soil, sediments), while significant data gaps were noted in South America, Africa, and atmospheric PFAS. Challenges in inter-laboratory comparisons arise from inconsistent reporting units (e.g., mg/L, μg/m³, %, etc.). About 75% of studies involved pre-treatment (e.g., solvent extraction, sorbents), while 25% did not. PFAS detection limit and observed concentrations varied widely, from low concentrations in water (ng/L) to higher levels in soil, biota, and products (mg/L). Limitations of total PFAS methods include contradictory results when complementary techniques are applied to the same sample, potentially leading to over- or under-estimation. Across studies, a substantial fraction of TF remains unaccounted for, highlighting the need for non-targeted screening (NTS) to identify unknown PFAS (UPFAS or UOPFAS). Bridging these gaps is critical for advancing PFAS research and environmental risk assessment.