Suspect screening workflow comparison for the analysis of organic xenobiotics in environmental water samples.

LC-q-Orbitrap Organic xenobiotics Suspect screening Target analysis Water

Journal

Chemosphere
ISSN: 1879-1298
Titre abrégé: Chemosphere
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0320657

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Historique:
received: 19 06 2020
revised: 03 02 2021
accepted: 08 02 2021
entrez: 13 5 2021
pubmed: 14 5 2021
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Suspect screening techniques are able to determine a broader range of compounds than traditional target analysis. However, the performance of the suspect techniques relies on the procedures implemented for peak annotation and for this, the list of potential candidates is clearly a limiting factor. In order to study this effect on the number of compounds annotated in environmental water samples, a method was validated in terms of absolute recoveries, limits of quantification and identification, as well as the peak picking capability of the software (Compound Discoverer 2.1) using a target list of 178 xenobiotics. Four suspect screening workflows using different suspect lists were compared: (i) the Stoffident list, (ii) all the NORMAN lists, (iii) suspects containing C, H, O, N, S, P, F or Cl in their molecular formula with more than 10 references in Chemspider and (iv) the mzCloud library. The results were compared in terms of the number of annotated compounds at each confidence level. The same 8 compounds (atenolol, caffeine, caprolactam, carbendazim, cotinine, diclofenac, propyphenazone and trimetoprim) were annotated at the highest confidence level using the four workflows. Remarkable differences were observed for lower confidence levels but only 4 features were annotated at different levels by the four workflows. While the third approach provided the highest number of annotated features, the workflow based on the mzCloud library rendered satisfactory results with a simpler approach. Finally, this latter approach was extended to the analysis of organic xenobiotics in different environmental water samples.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33979938
pii: S0045-6535(21)00433-1
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.129964
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Water Pollutants, Chemical 0
Xenobiotics 0
Water 059QF0KO0R

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

129964

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Auteurs

B González-Gaya (B)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain; Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Basque Country, Spain.

N Lopez-Herguedas (N)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain.

A Santamaria (A)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain.

F Mijangos (F)

Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain.

N Etxebarria (N)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain; Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Basque Country, Spain.

M Olivares (M)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain; Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Basque Country, Spain.

A Prieto (A)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain; Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Basque Country, Spain.

O Zuloaga (O)

Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Leioa, Basque Country, Spain; Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Basque Country, Spain. Electronic address: olatz.zuloaga@ehu.eus.

Articles similaires

Animals Dietary Fiber Dextran Sulfate Mice Disease Models, Animal
Silicon Dioxide Water Hot Temperature Compressive Strength X-Ray Diffraction
Nigeria Environmental Monitoring Solid Waste Waste Disposal Facilities Refuse Disposal
1.00
Oryza Agricultural Irrigation Potassium Sodium Soil

Classifications MeSH