Literature DB >> 25044843

Comparison of triple quadrupole mass spectrometry and Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry in ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography for the determination of veterinary drugs in sewage: benefits and drawbacks.

P Herrero1, N Cortés-Francisco, F Borrull, J Caixach, E Pocurull, R M Marcé.   

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison of triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) and Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) combined to ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography for the determination of glucocorticoids and polyether ionophores in sewage, in order to show the major benefits and drawbacks for each mass spectrometry analyser. Overall, HRMS measurements have enhanced performance in terms of confirmatory capabilities than MS/MS measurements. Moreover, similar limits of quantification, limits of detection, linear range and repeatability for glucocorticoids with both the MS/MS and HRMS methods were compared, but in the case of polyether ionophores, slightly better limits of detection and limits of quantification were obtained with the HRMS method because of the high sensitivity obtained when diagnostic ions are used for quantification instead of selected reaction monitoring transitions for these compounds. The two methods have been applied to the analysis of several influent and effluent sewage samples from sewage treatment plants located in the Tarragona region (Catalonia, Spain), showing an excellent correlation between the two methods.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  UHPLC-(Orbitrap)HRMS; UHPLC-(QqQ)MS/MS; glucocorticoids; polyether ionophores; sewage

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25044843     DOI: 10.1002/jms.3377

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mass Spectrom        ISSN: 1076-5174            Impact factor:   1.982


  7 in total

1.  The assessment of selectivity in different Quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometry acquisition modes.

Authors:  Bjorn J A Berendsen; Robin S Wegh; Thijs Meijer; Michel W F Nielen
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2014-11-13       Impact factor: 3.109

2.  Proposed Confidence Scale and ID Score in the Identification of Known-Unknown Compounds Using High Resolution MS Data.

Authors:  Bertrand Rochat
Journal:  J Am Soc Mass Spectrom       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 3.109

Review 3.  Quantitative mass spectrometry methods for pharmaceutical analysis.

Authors:  Glenn Loos; Ann Van Schepdael; Deirdre Cabooter
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography Q-Orbitrap MS/MS-based profiling and quantification of limonoids in Meliaceae plants.

Authors:  Fayaj A Mulani; Sharvani S Nandikol; Jagadeesh S Kajjihundi; Niranjana Pathappa; Sharanappa Puttappa; Hirekodathakallu V Thulasiram
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.478

5.  Comparison of data acquisition modes with Orbitrap high-resolution mass spectrometry for targeted and non-targeted residue screening in aquacultured eel.

Authors:  I-Lin Wu; Sherri B Turnipseed; Joseph M Storey; Wendy C Andersen; Mark R Madson
Journal:  Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 2.586

Review 6.  Advanced LC-MS-based methods to study the co-occurrence and metabolization of multiple mycotoxins in cereals and cereal-based food.

Authors:  Alexandra Malachová; Milena Stránská; Marta Václavíková; Christopher T Elliott; Connor Black; Julie Meneely; Jana Hajšlová; Chibundu N Ezekiel; Rainer Schuhmacher; Rudolf Krska
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 4.142

7.  Simultaneous quantification of all B vitamins and selected biosynthetic precursors in seawater and bacteria by means of different mass spectrometric approaches.

Authors:  Stefan Bruns; Gerrit Wienhausen; Barbara Scholz-Böttcher; Heinz Wilkes
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 4.478

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.