Multidimensional-constrained Suspect Screening of Hydrophobic Chemicals Using Gas Chromatography-Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization-Ion Mobility-Mass Spectrometry

25 October 2024, Version 1
This content is a preprint and has not undergone peer review at the time of posting.

Abstract

Suspect screening strives to rapidly monitor a large number of substances in a sample using mass spectral libraries. For hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs), these libraries are primarily based on electron ionization mass spectra. To improve the efficacy of suspect screening, new libraries and workflows are required, leveraging the highly specific analytical data acquired by state-of-the-art mass spectrometers. In this study, we established a new library for 1,590 suspect contaminants, including exact mass and a combination of measured and model-predicted values for retention time (RT) and collision cross section (CCS). The accuracy of in silico predictions was assessed using standards for 102 environmental contaminants. Thereafter, using gas chromatography-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-ion mobility-mass spectrometry, a suspect screening workflow constrained by exact mass, RT, CCS, and product ion data, together with a continuous scoring system, was established to reduce false positives and improve identification confidence. Application of the method to fortified and standard reference sediment samples demonstrated true positive rates of 79% and 64%, respectively, with all false positives attributed to suspect isomers, indicating high specificity of our method. This study offers a new workflow for improved suspect screening of HOCs using multidimensional information, and highlights the need to enrich CCS databases and extend the applicable chemical space of current in silico tools to non-polar substances.

Keywords

Ion mobility
Collision cross section
Hydrophobic chemicals
Sediment
Suspect screening

Supplementary materials

Title
Description
Actions
Title
Supporting Information
Description
Instrumental method (Section A); software parameters (Section B); conversion between RTs and RIs (Section C); regressions among RTs and RIs (Table S1); RTs and RIs of fatty acid methyl esters (Table S2); measured RTs of alkanes (Table S3); suspect list of GC-amenable chemicals with experimentally-derived CCS values (Table S4); suspect list of chemicals of concern (Table S5); qualitative information of reference standards (Table S6); true positive rates using different weights (Figure S1); sample preparation (Section D); highest-scoring candidates in sediment samples (Table S7)
Actions
Title
MS2 library
Description
MS2 library
Actions

Supplementary weblinks

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.