What is in the fish? Collaborative trial in suspect and non-target screening of organic micropollutants using LC- and GC-HRMS
Fecha
2023-10-25Autor
Dürig, Wiebke
Lindblad, Sofia
Golovko, Oksana
Gkotsis, Georgios
Aalizadeh, Reza
Nika, Maria-Cristina
Thomaidis, Nikolaos
Alygizakis, Nikiforos A.
Plassmann, Merle
Haglund, Peter
Fu, Qiuguo
Hollender, Juliane
Chaker, Jade
David, Arthur
Kunkel, Uwe
Macherius, André
Belova, Lidia
Poma, Giulia
Preud'Homme, Hugues
Munschy, Catherine
Aminot, Yann
Jaeger, Carsten
Lisec, Jan
Hansen, Martin
Vorkamp, Katrin
Zhu, Linyan
Capelli, Francesca
Roscioli, Caludio
Valsecchi, Sara
Baagnati, Renzo
González Gaya, Belén
Prieto Sobrino, Ailette
Zuloaga Zubieta, Olatz
Gil Solsona, Rubén
Gago Ferrero, Pablo
Rodríguez Mozaz, Sara
Budzinski, Hélène
Devier, Marie-Helene
Dierkers, Georg
Boulard, Lise
Jacobs, Griet
Voorspoels, Stefan
Rüdel, Heinz
Ahrens, Lutz
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítem
Environmental International 181 : (2023) // Article ID108288
Resumen
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 from − 9.9 to 16 and
mass-to-charge ratios (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.