2024-03-29T15:39:57Zhttps://repositori.uji.es/oai/requestoai:repositori.uji.es:10234/1824962024-03-27T13:50:22Zcom_10234_33596com_10234_9col_10234_33597
00925njm 22002777a 4500
dc
Rostkowski, Pawel
author
Haglund, Peter
author
Aalizadeh, Reza
author
Alygizakis, Nikiforos
author
Thomaidis, Nikolaos
author
Beltran Arandes, Joaquin
author
Bohlin-Nizzetto, Pernilla
author
Booij, Petra
author
Budzinski, Hélène
author
Brunswick, Pamela
author
Covaci, Adrian
author
Gallampois, Christine
author
Grosse, Sylvia
author
Hindle, Helen
author
Ipolyi, Ildiko M.
author
Jobst, Karl
author
Kaserzon, Sarit
author
Leonards, Pim
author
Lestremau, Francois
author
Letzel, Thomas
author
Magner, Jorgen
author
Matsukami, Hidenori
author
Moschet, Christoph
author
Oswald, Peter
author
Plassmann, Merle
author
Slobodnik, Jaroslav
author
Yang, Chun
author
2019-04
Untargeted analysis of a composite house dust sample has been performed as part of a collaborative effort to evaluate the progress in the field of suspect and nontarget screening and build an extensive database of organic indoor environment contaminants. Twenty-one participants reported results that were curated by the organizers of the collaborative trial. In total, nearly 2350 compounds were identified (18%) or tentatively identified (25% at confidence level 2 and 58% at confidence level 3), making the collaborative trial a success. However, a relatively small share (37%) of all compounds were reported by more than one participant, which shows that there is plenty of room for improvement in the field of suspect and nontarget screening. An even a smaller share (5%) of the total number of compounds were detected using both liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Thus, the two MS techniques are highly complementary. Most of the compounds were detected using LC with electrospray ionization (ESI) MS and comprehensive 2D GC (GC×GC) with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electron ionization (EI), respectively. Collectively, the three techniques accounted for more than 75% of the reported compounds. Glycols, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and various biogenic compounds dominated among the compounds reported by LC-MS participants, while hydrocarbons, hydrocarbon derivatives, and chlorinated paraffins and chlorinated biphenyls were primarily reported by GC-MS participants. Plastics additives, flavor and fragrances, and personal care products were reported by both LC-MS and GC-MS participants. It was concluded that the use of multiple analytical techniques was required for a comprehensive characterization of house dust contaminants. Further, several recommendations are given for improved suspect and nontarget screening of house dust and other indoor environment samples, including the use of open-source data processing tools. One of the tools allowed provisional identification of almost 500 compounds that had not been reported by participants.
Open image in new window
ROSTKOWSKI, Pawel, et al. The strength in numbers: comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques. Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2019, Vol. 411, no 10, p. 1-21
1618-2642
1618-2650
http://hdl.handle.net/10234/182496
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6
house dust
suspect and nontarget analysis
collaborative trial
complementary analytical techniques
mass spectrometry
The strength in numbers: comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques