The strength in numbers: comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques

Pawel Rostkowski, Peter Haglund, Reza Aalizadeh, Nikiforos Alygizakis, Nikolaos Thomaidis, Joaquin Beltran Arandes, Pernilla Bohlin Nizzetto, Petra Booij, Hélène Budzinski, Pamela Brunswick, Adrian Covaci, Christine Gallampois, Sylvia Grosse, Ralph Hindle, Ildiko Ipolyi, Karl Jobst, Sarit L. Kaserzon, Pim Leonards, Francois Lestremau, Thomas Letzel & 7 others Jörgen Magnér, Hidenori Matsukami, Christoph Moschet, Peter Oswald, Merle Plassmann, Jaroslav Slobodnik, Chun Yang

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

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. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
JournalAnalytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 4 Mar 2019

Fingerprint

Dust
Spectrometry
Spectrum Analysis
Screening
Gases
Hydrocarbons
Ionization
Liquids
Impurities
Fragrances
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Electrospray ionization
Glycols
Atmospheric Pressure
Flavors
Information Storage and Retrieval
Pesticides
Paraffin
Plastics
Atmospheric pressure

Keywords

  • Collaborative trial
  • Complementary analytical techniques
  • House dust
  • Mass spectrometry
  • Suspect and nontarget analysis

Cite this

Rostkowski, Pawel ; Haglund, Peter ; Aalizadeh, Reza ; Alygizakis, Nikiforos ; Thomaidis, Nikolaos ; Arandes, Joaquin Beltran ; Nizzetto, Pernilla Bohlin ; Booij, Petra ; Budzinski, Hélène ; Brunswick, Pamela ; Covaci, Adrian ; Gallampois, Christine ; Grosse, Sylvia ; Hindle, Ralph ; Ipolyi, Ildiko ; Jobst, Karl ; Kaserzon, Sarit L. ; Leonards, Pim ; Lestremau, Francois ; Letzel, Thomas ; Magnér, Jörgen ; Matsukami, Hidenori ; Moschet, Christoph ; Oswald, Peter ; Plassmann, Merle ; Slobodnik, Jaroslav ; Yang, Chun. / The strength in numbers : comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques. In: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 2019 ; pp. 1-21.
@article{a330aceed0044439a093ffdd3b4c0621,
title = "The strength in numbers: comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques",
abstract = "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. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].",
keywords = "Collaborative trial, Complementary analytical techniques, House dust, Mass spectrometry, Suspect and nontarget analysis",
author = "Pawel Rostkowski and Peter Haglund and Reza Aalizadeh and Nikiforos Alygizakis and Nikolaos Thomaidis and Arandes, {Joaquin Beltran} and Nizzetto, {Pernilla Bohlin} and Petra Booij and H{\'e}l{\`e}ne Budzinski and Pamela Brunswick and Adrian Covaci and Christine Gallampois and Sylvia Grosse and Ralph Hindle and Ildiko Ipolyi and Karl Jobst and Kaserzon, {Sarit L.} and Pim Leonards and Francois Lestremau and Thomas Letzel and J{\"o}rgen Magn{\'e}r and Hidenori Matsukami and Christoph Moschet and Peter Oswald and Merle Plassmann and Jaroslav Slobodnik and Chun Yang",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6",
language = "English",
pages = "1--21",
journal = "Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry",
issn = "1618-2642",
publisher = "Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry",

}

Rostkowski, P, Haglund, P, Aalizadeh, R, Alygizakis, N, Thomaidis, N, Arandes, JB, Nizzetto, PB, Booij, P, Budzinski, H, Brunswick, P, Covaci, A, Gallampois, C, Grosse, S, Hindle, R, Ipolyi, I, Jobst, K, Kaserzon, SL, Leonards, P, Lestremau, F, Letzel, T, Magnér, J, Matsukami, H, Moschet, C, Oswald, P, Plassmann, M, Slobodnik, J & Yang, C 2019, 'The strength in numbers: comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques' Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6

The strength in numbers : comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques. / Rostkowski, Pawel; Haglund, Peter; Aalizadeh, Reza; Alygizakis, Nikiforos; Thomaidis, Nikolaos; Arandes, Joaquin Beltran; Nizzetto, Pernilla Bohlin; Booij, Petra; Budzinski, Hélène; Brunswick, Pamela; Covaci, Adrian; Gallampois, Christine; Grosse, Sylvia; Hindle, Ralph; Ipolyi, Ildiko; Jobst, Karl; Kaserzon, Sarit L.; Leonards, Pim; Lestremau, Francois; Letzel, Thomas; Magnér, Jörgen; Matsukami, Hidenori; Moschet, Christoph; Oswald, Peter; Plassmann, Merle; Slobodnik, Jaroslav; Yang, Chun.

In: Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 04.03.2019, p. 1-21.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The strength in numbers

T2 - comprehensive characterization of house dust using complementary mass spectrometric techniques

AU - Rostkowski, Pawel

AU - Haglund, Peter

AU - Aalizadeh, Reza

AU - Alygizakis, Nikiforos

AU - Thomaidis, Nikolaos

AU - Arandes, Joaquin Beltran

AU - Nizzetto, Pernilla Bohlin

AU - Booij, Petra

AU - Budzinski, Hélène

AU - Brunswick, Pamela

AU - Covaci, Adrian

AU - Gallampois, Christine

AU - Grosse, Sylvia

AU - Hindle, Ralph

AU - Ipolyi, Ildiko

AU - Jobst, Karl

AU - Kaserzon, Sarit L.

AU - Leonards, Pim

AU - Lestremau, Francois

AU - Letzel, Thomas

AU - Magnér, Jörgen

AU - Matsukami, Hidenori

AU - Moschet, Christoph

AU - Oswald, Peter

AU - Plassmann, Merle

AU - Slobodnik, Jaroslav

AU - Yang, Chun

PY - 2019/3/4

Y1 - 2019/3/4

N2 - 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. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

AB - 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. [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

KW - Collaborative trial

KW - Complementary analytical techniques

KW - House dust

KW - Mass spectrometry

KW - Suspect and nontarget analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062728989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062728989&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6

DO - 10.1007/s00216-019-01615-6

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 21

JO - Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

JF - Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

SN - 1618-2642

ER -