2020
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-136443/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Retrospective Non-target Analysis to Support Regulatory Water Monitoring: From Masses of Interest to Recommendations via in silico workflows

Abstract: BackgroundApplying non-target analysis (NTA) in regulatory environmental monitoring remains challenging - instead of having exploratory questions, regulators usually already have specific questions related to environmental protection aims. Additionally, data analysis can seem overwhelming because of the large data volumes and many steps required. This work aimed to identify environmental chemical unknowns via retrospective NTA within the scope of a pre-existing Swiss environmental monitoring campaign focusing … Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
(37 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A more detailed explanation of the parameters used is available elsewhere. 28,41 Annotation confidence levels were determined using the scheme described by Schymanski et al 42 Level 2a compounds were assigned when the MoNA score was greater than or equal to 0.9. Level 1 identifications were achieved using authentic standards and the ENTACT mixtures, 43 available in-house and analyzed using the same chromatographic method used for sample analysis.…”
Section: Suspect Screeningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more detailed explanation of the parameters used is available elsewhere. 28,41 Annotation confidence levels were determined using the scheme described by Schymanski et al 42 Level 2a compounds were assigned when the MoNA score was greater than or equal to 0.9. Level 1 identifications were achieved using authentic standards and the ENTACT mixtures, 43 available in-house and analyzed using the same chromatographic method used for sample analysis.…”
Section: Suspect Screeningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A more detailed explanation of the parameters used is available elsewhere. 28,40 Annotation confidence levels were determined using the scheme described by Schymanski et al 41 Level 2a compounds were assigned when the MoNA score was greater than or equal to 0.9. Level 1 identifications were achieved using authentic standards and the ENTACT mixtures 42 , available in-house and analyzed using the same chromatographic method used for sample analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%