In this article, a dataset from a collaborative non-target screening trial organized 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 spectrometric 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 highlight major challenges such as 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. While 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 considerably harmonized between the participants, but the data processing remains time-consuming. Although the dream of a "fully-automated identification workflow" remains elusive in the short-term, important steps in this direction have been taken, exemplified in 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.

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. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In the present study, an easy and efficient method based on the serial coupling of analytical reversed-phase and zwitterionic hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography was developed for the simultaneous separation of polar and nonpolar phenols occurring in wine. The zwitterionic hydrophilic column was connected in series to the reversed-phase one via a T-piece, with which the ACN content in eluent of the second dimension was increased, in order to cope the solvent strength incompatibility between the two columns. The final mobile phase at low-flow rate (≤0.5 mL/min), high-ACN content (90%), and low-salt concentration was directed to an ESI-TOF-MS , for high accurate mass detections. The developed method was applied for the identification of target phenols in several wines. Retention time and peak width intra- and interday repeatability studies proved the reliability of the method for the simultaneous analysis of all the polar and nonpolar analytes in wine. The serial reversed-phase/zwitterionic hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography coupling offered the possibility to enlarge the number of identified compounds and it represents a valid approach for nontarget analysis of complex samples by a single injection.

No abstract

Trace organic compounds are important in environmental analysis because they impact water quality and introduce potential (eco)toxicological effects. Current analytical methods mostly rely on gas chromatography (GC) or reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) coupled with (tandem) mass spectrometry. However, neither method can easily separate very polar molecules. This study presents two chromatographic separation strategies, a serial RPLC-hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (RPLC-HILIC) coupling and an analytical scale supercritical fluid chromatography (SFC) system, and validates their separation effectiveness as polarity-extended chromatographic methods for 274 environmentally relevant compounds. Compounds tested were grouped into three polarity classes, "very polar" {log D (pH 7) below -2.5}, "polar" {log D (pH 7) -2.5 to +2}, and "non-polar" {log D (pH 7) higher than +2}). Nearly all compounds could be retained in both systems with relative standard deviations of retention times (RT; n = 6) typically between 2 and 5%. Both techniques have considerable benefits when combined with accurate mass spectrometric detection. Molecules RT and accurate mass were recorded in a database for each set up. This information was used for compound screening measurements like "hidden-target screening" in complex environmental matrices (such as wastewater treatment plant effluents). Results of both techniques are complementary and useful for all types of molecules polarity. In this study, more than 80% of the compounds found in wastewater treatment plant effluent samples possessed a negative log D (pH 7) value. This result highlights the basic necessity to include "very polar" compounds in water monitoring techniques and protocols.

No abstract

Background The NORMAN Association (https://www.norman-network.com/) initiated the NORMAN Suspect List Exchange (NORMAN-SLE; https://www.norman-network.com/nds/SLE/) in 2015, following the NORMAN collaborative trial on non-target screening of environmental water samples by mass spectrometry. Since then, this exchange of information on chemicals that are expected to occur in the environment, along with the accompanying expert knowledge and references, has become a valuable knowledge base for “suspect screening” lists. The NORMAN-SLE now serves as a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) chemical information resource worldwide. Results The NORMAN-SLE contains 99 separate suspect list collections (as of May 2022) from over 70 contributors around the world, totalling over 100,000 unique substances. The substance classes include per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pharmaceuticals, pesticides, natural toxins, high production volume substances covered under the European REACH regulation (EC: 1272/2008), priority contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and regulatory lists from NORMAN partners. Several lists focus on transformation products (TPs) and complex features detected in the environment with various levels of provenance and structural information. Each list is available for separate download. The merged, curated collection is also available as the NORMAN Substance Database (NORMAN SusDat). Both the NORMAN-SLE and NORMAN SusDat are integrated within the NORMAN Database System (NDS). The individual NORMAN-SLE lists receive digital object identifiers (DOIs) and traceable versioning via a Zenodo community (https://zenodo.org/communities/norman-sle), with a total of > 40,000 unique views, > 50,000 unique downloads and 40 citations (May 2022). NORMAN-SLE content is progressively integrated into large open chemical databases such as PubChem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and the US EPA’s CompTox Chemicals Dashboard (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/), enabling further access to these lists, along with the additional functionality and calculated properties these resources offer. PubChem has also integrated significant annotation content from the NORMAN-SLE, including a classification browser (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/classification/#hid=101). Conclusions The NORMAN-SLE offers a specialized service for hosting suspect screening lists of relevance for the environmental community in an open, FAIR manner that allows integration with other major chemical resources. These efforts foster the exchange of information between scientists and regulators, supporting the paradigm shift to the “one substance, one assessment” approach. New submissions are welcome via the contacts provided on the NORMAN-SLE website (https://www.norman-network.com/nds/SLE/).

Mass spectral libraries represent versatile tools for the identification of small bioorganic molecules. Libraries based on electron impact spectra are rated robust and transferable. Tandem mass spectral libraries are often considered to work properly only on the instrument that has been used to build the library. An exception from that rule is the 'Wiley Registry of Tandem Mass Spectral Data, MSforID'. In various studies with data sets from different kinds of tandem mass spectrometric instruments, the outstanding sensitivity and robustness of this tandem mass spectral library search approach was demonstrated. The instrumental platforms tested, however, mainly included various tandem-in-space instruments. Herein, the results of a multicenter study with a focus on upfront and tandem-in-time fragmentation are presented. Five laboratories participated and provided fragment ion mass spectra from the following types of mass spectrometers: time-of-flight (TOF), quadrupole-hexapole-TOF, linear ion trap (LIT), 3-D ion trap and LIT-Orbitrap. A total number of 1231 fragment ion mass spectra were collected from 20 test compounds (amiloride, buphenin, cinchocaine, cyclizine, desipramine, dihydroergotamine, dyxirazine, dosulepin, ergotamine, ethambutol, etofylline, mefruside, metoclopramide, phenazone, phentermine, phenytoin, sulfamethoxazole, sulfamoxole, sulthiame and tetracycline) on seven electrospray ionization instruments using 18 different instrumental configurations for fragmentation. For 1222 spectra (99.3%), the correct compound was retrieved as the best matching compound. Classified matches (matches with 'relative average match probability' >40.0) were obtained for 1207 spectra (98.1%). This high percentage of correct identifications clearly supports the hypothesis that the tandem mass spectral library approach tested is a robust and universal identification tool.