Abstract
AbstractTargeted biomonitoring studies quantifying the concentration of zeranols in biological matrices have focused on liquid chromatography interfaced to mass spectrometry (LC–MS). The MS platform for measurement, quadrupole, time-of-flight (ToF), ion trap, etc., is often chosen based on either sensitivity or selectivity. An instrument performance comparison of the benefits and limitations using matrix-matched standards containing 6 zeranols on 4 MS instruments, 2 low-resolution (linear ion traps), and 2 high-resolution (Orbitrap and ToF) was undertaken to identify the best measurement platform for multiple biomonitoring projects characterizing the endocrine disruptive properties of zeranols. Analytical figures of merit were calculated for each analyte to compare instrument performance across platforms. The calibration curves had correlation coefficients r = 0.989 ± 0.012 for all analytes and LODs and LOQs were ranked for sensitivity: Orbitrap > LTQ > LTQXL > G1 (V mode) > G1 (W mode). The Orbitrap had the smallest measured variation (lowest %CV), while the G1 had the highest. Instrumental selectivity was calculated using full width at half maximum (FWHM) and as expected, the low-resolution instruments had the broadest spectrometric peaks, concealing coeluting peaks under the same mass window as the analyte. Multiple peaks from concomitant ions, unresolved at low resolution (within a unit mass window), were present but did not match the exact mass predicted for the analyte. For example, the high-resolution platforms were able to differentiate between a concomitant peak at 319.1915 from the analyte at 319.1551, included in low-resolution quantitative analyses demonstrating the need to consider coeluting interfering ions in biomonitoring studies. Finally, a validated method using the Orbitrap was applied to human urine samples from a pilot cohort study.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Biochemistry,Analytical Chemistry
Reference62 articles.
1. Zinedine A, Soriano JM, Molto JC, Manes J. Review on the toxicity, occurrence, metabolism, detoxification, regulations and intake of zearalenone: an oestrogenic mycotoxin. Food Chem Toxicol. 2007;45(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2006.07.030.
2. Haschek WM, Rousseaux CG, Wallig MA, Bolon B, Ochoa R. Haschek and Rousseaux’s handbook of toxicologic pathology. Cambridge: Academic Press. 2013.
3. Gromadzka K, Waśkiewicz A, Świetlik J, Bocianowski J, Goliński P. Possible way of zearalenone migration in the agricultural environment. Plant Soil Environ. 2015;61(8):358–63. https://doi.org/10.17221/115/2015-Pse.
4. Kolok AS, Sellin MK. The environmental impact of growth-promoting compounds employed by the United States beef cattle industry: history, current knowledge, and future directions. In: Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology. 2008. New York: Springer; 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77030-7_1.
5. Zhongming Z, Linong L, Xiaona Y, and Wei L. UNEP Frontiers: 2016 report: Emerging issues of environmental concern. 2016.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献