What is in the fish? Collaborative trial in suspect and non-target screening of organic micropollutants using LC- and GC-HRMS
| Type | Article | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date | 2023-11 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Language | English | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Author(s) | Dürig Wiebke1, Lindblad Sofia 1, Golovko Oksana1, Gkotsis Georgios2, Aalizadeh Reza2, Nika Maria-Christina2, Thomaidis Nikolaos2, Alygizakis Nikiforos A.2, 3, Plassmann Merle4, Haglund Peter5, Fu Qiuguo6, 7, Hollender Juliane6, 8, Chaker Jade9, David Arthur9, Kunkel Uwe10, Macherius André10, Belova Lidia11, Poma Giulia11, Preud'Homme Hugues12, Munschy Catherine13, Aminot Yann13, Jaeger Carsten14, Lisec Jan14, Hansen Martin15, Vorkamp Katrin15, Zhu Linyan15, Cappelli Francesca16, Roscioli Claudio16, Valsecchi Sara16, Bagnati Renzo17, González Belén18, 19, Prieto Ailette18, 19, Zuloaga Olatz18, 19, Gil-Solsona Ruben20, 21, 22, Gago-Ferrero Pablo20, 22, Rodriguez-Mozaz Sara20, 21, Budzinski Hélène23, Devier Marie-Helene23, Dierkes Georg24, Boulard Lise24, 25, Jacobs Griet26, Voorspoels Stefan26, Rüdel Heinz27, Ahrens Lutz1 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Affiliation(s) | 1 : Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7050, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden 2 : Department of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 15771 Athens, Greece 3 : Environmental Institute, Okružná 784/42, 97241 Koš, Slovakia 4 : Department of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden 5 : Department of Chemistry, Chemical Biological Centre (KBC), Umeå University, Linnaeus väg 6, 90187 Umeå, Sweden 6 : Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland 7 : Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany 8 : Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 16, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 9 : Université de Rennes, Inserm, EHESP, Irset - UMR_S, 1085 Rennes, France 10 : Bavarian Environment Agency, Bürgermeister-Ulrich-Straße 160, 86179 Augsburg, Germany 11 : Toxicological Centre, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium 12 : IPREM-UMR5254, E2S UPPA, CNRS, 2 avenue Angot, 64053 Pau cedex, France 13 : Ifremer, CCEM Contamination Chimique des Écosystèmes Marins, 44000, Nantes, France 14 : Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM), Analytical Chemistry, Richard-Willstätter-Straße 11, 12489 Berlin, Germany 15 : Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark 16 : Water Research Institute, National Research Council of Italy, Via del Mulino 19, 20861 Brugherio MB, Italy 17 : Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156 Milan, Italy 18 : Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Barrio Sarriena s/n, 48940 Leioa, Spain 19 : Research Centre for Experimental Marine Biology and Biotechnology (PIE), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Plentzia, Spain 20 : Catalan Institute for Water Research (ICRA), Carrer Emili Grahit 101, 17003 Girona, Spain 21 : Universitat de Girona, Girona, Spain 22 : Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research – Severo Ochoa Excellence Center (IDAEA), Spanish Council of Scientific Research (CSIC), Barcelona 08034, Spain 23 : University Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, EPOC, UMR 5805, 33600 Pessac, France 24 : Federal Institute of Hydrology, Am Mainzer Tor 1, 56068 Koblenz, Germany 25 : Metabolomics Core Facility, Centre de Ressources et Recherches Technologiques (C2RT), Institut Pasteur, 25-28 Rue du Dr Roux, 75015 Paris, France 26 : Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Unit Separation and Conversion Technology, Boeretang 200, 2400 Mol, Belgium 27 : Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology (Fraunhofer IME), Auf dem Aberg 1, 57392 Schmallenberg, Germany |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Source | Environment International (0160-4120) (Elsevier BV), 2023-11 , Vol. 181 , P. 108288 (11p.) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| DOI | 10.1016/j.envint.2023.108288 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Keyword(s) | Suspect and non-target analysis, Biota, LC-HRMS, GC-HRMS, Collaborative trial, Exposome | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract | A collaborative trial involving 16 participants from nine European countries was conducted within the NORMAN network in efforts to harmonise suspect and non-target screening of environmental contaminants in whole fish samples of bream (Abramis brama). Participants were provided with freeze-dried, homogenised fish samples from a contaminated and a reference site, extracts (spiked and non-spiked) and reference sample preparation protocols for liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). Participants extracted fish samples using their in-house sample preparation method and/or the protocol provided. Participants correctly identified 9-69% of spiked compounds using LC-HRMS and 20-60% of spiked compounds using GC-HRMS. From the contaminated site, suspect screening with participants’ own suspect lists led to putative identification of on average ∼145 and ∼20 unique features per participant using LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS, respectively, while non-target screening identified on average ∼42 and ∼56 unique features per participant using LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS, respectively. Within the same sub-group of sample preparation method, only a few features were identified by at least two participants in suspect screening (16 features using LC-HRMS, 0 features using GC-HRMS) and non-target screening (0 features using LC-HRMS, 2 features using GC-HRMS). The compounds identified had log octanol/water partition coefficient (KOW) values ranging from -9.9 to 16 and mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 68 to 761 (LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS). A significant linear trend was found between log KOW and m/z for the GC-HRMS data. Overall, these findings indicate that differences in screening results are mainly due to the data analysis workflows used by different participants. Further work is needed to harmonise the results obtained when applying suspect and non-target screening approaches to environmental biota samples. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Licence |  |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text |
|