Literature DB >> 25976391

Non-target screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry: critical review using a collaborative trial on water analysis.

Emma L Schymanski1, Heinz P Singer, Jaroslav Slobodnik, Ildiko M Ipolyi, Peter Oswald, Martin Krauss, Tobias Schulze, Peter Haglund, Thomas Letzel, Sylvia Grosse, Nikolaos S Thomaidis, Anna Bletsou, Christian Zwiener, María Ibáñez, Tania Portolés, Ronald de Boer, Malcolm J Reid, Matthias Onghena, Uwe Kunkel, Wolfgang Schulz, Amélie Guillon, Naïke Noyon, Gaëla Leroy, Philippe Bados, Sara Bogialli, Draženka Stipaničev, Pawel Rostkowski, Juliane Hollender.   

Abstract

In this article, a dataset from a collaborative non-target screening trial organised by the NORMAN Association is used to review the state-of-the-art and discuss future perspectives of non-target screening using high-resolution mass spectrometry in water analysis. A total of 18 institutes from 12 European countries analysed an extract of the same water sample collected from the River Danube with either one or both of liquid and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection. This article focuses mainly on the use of high resolution screening techniques with target, suspect, and non-target workflows to identify substances in environmental samples. Specific examples are given to emphasise major challenges including isobaric and co-eluting substances, dependence on target and suspect lists, formula assignment, the use of retention information, and the confidence of identification. Approaches and methods applicable to unit resolution data are also discussed. Although most substances were identified using high resolution data with target and suspect-screening approaches, some participants proposed tentative non-target identifications. This comprehensive dataset revealed that non-target analytical techniques are already substantially harmonised between the participants, but the data processing remains time-consuming. Although the objective of a "fully-automated identification workflow" remains elusive in the short term, important steps in this direction have been taken, exemplified by the growing popularity of suspect screening approaches. Major recommendations to improve non-target screening include better integration and connection of desired features into software packages, the exchange of target and suspect lists, and the contribution of more spectra from standard substances into (openly accessible) databases. Graphical Abstract Matrix of identification approach versus identification confidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25976391     DOI: 10.1007/s00216-015-8681-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem        ISSN: 1618-2642            Impact factor:   4.142


  69 in total

1.  EPA's non-targeted analysis collaborative trial (ENTACT): genesis, design, and initial findings.

Authors:  Elin M Ulrich; Jon R Sobus; Christopher M Grulke; Ann M Richard; Seth R Newton; Mark J Strynar; Kamel Mansouri; Antony J Williams
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2018-12-06       Impact factor: 4.142

2.  Expanded Target-Chemical Analysis Reveals Extensive Mixed-Organic-Contaminant Exposure in U.S. Streams.

Authors:  Paul M Bradley; Celeste A Journey; Kristin M Romanok; Larry B Barber; Herbert T Buxton; William T Foreman; Edward T Furlong; Susan T Glassmeyer; Michelle L Hladik; Luke R Iwanowicz; Daniel K Jones; Dana W Kolpin; Kathryn M Kuivila; Keith A Loftin; Marc A Mills; Michael T Meyer; James L Orlando; Timothy J Reilly; Kelly L Smalling; Daniel L Villeneuve
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  ISiCLE: A Quantum Chemistry Pipeline for Establishing in Silico Collision Cross Section Libraries.

Authors:  Sean M Colby; Dennis G Thomas; Jamie R Nuñez; Douglas J Baxter; Kurt R Glaesemann; Joseph M Brown; Meg A Pirrung; Niranjan Govind; Justin G Teeguarden; Thomas O Metz; Ryan S Renslow
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 6.986

4.  Ontology-based metabolomics data integration with quality control.

Authors:  Patricia Buendia; Ray M Bradley; Thomas J Taylor; Emma L Schymanski; Gary J Patti; Mansur R Kabuka
Journal:  Bioanalysis       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Consensus Modeling of Median Chemical Intake for the U.S. Population Based on Predictions of Exposure Pathways.

Authors:  Caroline L Ring; Jon A Arnot; Deborah H Bennett; Peter P Egeghy; Peter Fantke; Lei Huang; Kristin K Isaacs; Olivier Jolliet; Katherine A Phillips; Paul S Price; Hyeong-Moo Shin; John N Westgate; R Woodrow Setzer; John F Wambaugh
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-24       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  Combination of different chromatographic and sampling modes for high-resolution mass spectrometric screening of organic microcontaminants in water.

Authors:  Verónica Castro; José Benito Quintana; Inmaculada Carpinteiro; Julio Cobas; Nieves Carro; Rafael Cela; Rosario Rodil
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 4.142

7.  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

8.  Open Science for Identifying "Known Unknown" Chemicals.

Authors:  Emma L Schymanski; Antony J Williams
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 9.  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

Review 10.  Identification of small molecules using accurate mass MS/MS search.

Authors:  Tobias Kind; Hiroshi Tsugawa; Tomas Cajka; Yan Ma; Zijuan Lai; Sajjan S Mehta; Gert Wohlgemuth; Dinesh Kumar Barupal; Megan R Showalter; Masanori Arita; Oliver Fiehn
Journal:  Mass Spectrom Rev       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 10.946

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.