SpringerLink
Log in

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) for High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) Non-target Screening Methods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry

Abstract

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) methods applying suspect screening and non-target analysis (NTA) approaches are becoming more commonly applied for the characterization of chemicals of emerging concern in a wide range of environmental and human matrices. They are particularly useful in extending our understanding of relevant contaminants by significantly expanding the range of chemicals we can assess beyond the limited target analysis and increasing representativeness of chemical exposure assessments. However, standardized methods for the application of HRMS-NTA approaches are not yet commonplace and large variability can exist between researchers and methods used. The typically extensive and information-rich datasets generated from these methods necessitate often elaborate strategies for processing and interpretation. Because of the complex datasets, challenges arise with ensuring reproducibility of results, especially if only considering quality control and assurance practices currently applied to target analytical methods. NTA requires a careful consideration of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and implementations across the analytical workflow (i.e., from sample collection and preparation through analysis and data acquisition to data processing and reporting). This chapter concerns the application of QA/QC strategies in NTA experiments and analysis and provides an overview of the fundamentals to be considered when considering NTA approaches. Rather than repeating some in-depth strategies that have already been highlighted in other works, this chapter summarizes the QA/QC steps to consider across the NTA workflow. A series of recommendations are highlighted, aiming at improving the standardization of quality assurance in NTA workflows.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Andra SS, Austin C, Patel D, Dolios G, Awawda M, Arora M (2017) Trends in the application of high-resolution mass spectrometry for human biomonitoring: an analytical primer to studying the environmental chemical space of the human exposome. Environ Int 100:32–61

    Google Scholar 

  2. Diamond ML, de Wit CA, Molander S, Scheringer M, Backhaus T, Lohmann R et al (2015) Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environ Int 78:8–15

    Google Scholar 

  3. Llanos EJ, Leal W, Luu DH, Jost J, Stadler PF, Restrepo G (2019) Exploration of the chemical space and its three historical regimes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(26):12660

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sauvé S, Desrosiers M (2014) A review of what is an emerging contaminant. Chem Cent J 8(1):15

    Google Scholar 

  5. Escher BI, Fenner K (2011) Recent advances in environmental risk assessment of transformation products. Environ Sci Technol 45(9):3835–3847

    Google Scholar 

  6. Li Z, Kaserzon SL, Plassmann MM, Sobek A, Gómez Ramos MJ, Radke M (2017) A strategic screening approach to identify transformation products of organic micropollutants formed in natural waters. Environ Sci: Processes Impacts 19(4):488–498

    Google Scholar 

  7. Reemtsma T, Berger U, Arp HPH, Gallard H, Knepper TP, Neumann M et al (2016) Mind the gap: persistent and Mobile organic compounds – water contaminants that slip through. Environ Sci Technol 50(19):10308–10315

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hollender J, Schymanski EL, Ahrens L, Alygizakis N, Béen F, Bijlsma L et al (2023) NORMAN guidance on suspect and non-target screening in environmental monitoring. Environ Sci Eur 35(1):75

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hernández F, Sancho JV, Ibáñez M, Abad E, Portolés T, Mattioli L (2012) Current use of high-resolution mass spectrometry in the environmental sciences. Anal Bioanal Chem 403(5):1251–1264

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kind T, Tsugawa H, Cajka T, Ma Y, Lai Z, Mehta SS et al (2018) Identification of small molecules using accurate mass MS/MS search. Mass Spectrom Rev 37(4):513–532

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Slobodnik J, Ipolyi IM, Oswald P, Krauss M et al (2015) Non-target screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry: critical review using a collaborative trial on water analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 407(21):6237–6255

    Google Scholar 

  12. Werner E, Heilier J-F, Ducruix C, Ezan E, Junot C, Tabet J-C (2008) Mass spectrometry for the identification of the discriminating signals from metabolomics: current status and future trends. J Chromatogr B 871(2):143–163

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schulze B, Jeon Y, Kaserzon S, Heffernan AL, Dewapriya P, O'Brien J et al (2020) An assessment of quality assurance/quality control efforts in high resolution mass spectrometry non-target workflows for analysis of environmental samples. Trends Anal Chem 133:116063

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher CM, Peter KT, Newton SR, Schaub AJ, Sobus JR (2022) Approaches for assessing performance of high-resolution mass spectrometry–based non-targeted analysis methods. Anal Bioanal Chem 414(22):6455–6471

    Google Scholar 

  15. Paszkiewicz M, Godlewska K, Lis H, Caban M, Białk-Bielińska A, Stepnowski P (2022) Advances in suspect screening and non-target analysis of polar emerging contaminants in the environmental monitoring. Trends Anal Chem 154:116671

    Google Scholar 

  16. González-Gaya B, Lopez-Herguedas N, Bilbao D, Mijangos L, Iker AM, Etxebarria N et al (2021) Suspect and non-target screening: the last frontier in environmental analysis. Anal Methods

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yang Y, Yang L, Zheng M, Cao D, Liu G (2023) Data acquisition methods for non-targeted screening in environmental analysis. Trends Anal Chem 160:116966

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gromski PS, Henson AB, Granda JM, Cronin L (2019) How to explore chemical space using algorithms and automation. Nat Rev Chem 3(2):119–128

    Google Scholar 

  19. Young RB, Pica NE, Sharifan H, Chen H, Roth HK, Blakney GT et al (2022) PFAS analysis with ultrahigh resolution 21T FT-ICR MS: suspect and nontargeted screening with unrivaled mass resolving power and accuracy. Environ Sci Technol 56(4):2455–2465

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gonda N, Choyke S, Schaefer C, Higgins CP, Voelker B (2023) Hydroxyl radical transformations of perfluoroalkyl acid (PFAA) precursors in aqueous film forming foams (AFFFs). Environ Sci Technol 57(21):8053–8064

    Google Scholar 

  21. McCord J, Strynar M (2019) Identification of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the cape fear river by high resolution mass spectrometry and nontargeted screening. Environ Sci Technol 53(9):4717–4727

    Google Scholar 

  22. McDonough CA, Choyke S, Ferguson PL, DeWitt JC, Higgins CP (2020) Bioaccumulation of novel per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in mice dosed with an aqueous film-forming foam. Environ Sci Technol 54(9):5700–5709

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hu J, Lyu Y, Chen H, Cai L, Li J, Cao X et al (2023) Integration of target, suspect, and nontarget screening with risk modeling for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances prioritization in surface waters. Water Res 233

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao T, Carroll K, Craven CB, Wawryk NJP, **ng S, Guo J et al (2024) HDPairFinder: a data processing platform for hydrogen/deuterium isotopic labeling-based nontargeted analysis of trace-level amino-containing chemicals in environmental water. J Environ Sci (China) 136:583–593

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zweigle J, Bugsel B, Röhler K, Haluska AA, Zwiener C (2023) PFAS-contaminated soil site in Germany: nontarget screening before and after direct TOP assay by Kendrick mass defect and FindPFΔS. Environ Sci Technol 57(16):6647–6655

    Google Scholar 

  26. Charbonnet JA, Rodowa AE, Joseph NT, Guelfo JL, Field JA, Jones GD et al (2021) Environmental source tracking of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances within a forensic context: current and future techniques. Environ Sci Technol 55(11):7237–7245

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schollée JE, Schymanski EL, Avak SE, Loos M, Hollender J (2015) Prioritizing unknown transformation products from biologically-treated wastewater using high-resolution mass spectrometry, multivariate statistics, and metabolic logic. Anal Chem 87(24):12121–12129

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bader T, Schulz W, Kümmerer K, Winzenbacher R (2017) LC-HRMS data processing strategy for reliable sample comparison exemplified by the assessment of water treatment processes. Anal Chem 89(24):13219–13226

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hollender J, Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Ferguson PL (2017) Nontarget screening with high resolution mass spectrometry in the environment: ready to go? Environ Sci Technol 51(20):11505–11512

    Google Scholar 

  30. Place BJ, Ulrich EM, Challis JK, Chao A, Du B, Favela K et al (2021) An introduction to the benchmarking and publications for non-targeted analysis working group. Anal Chem 93(49):16289–16296

    Google Scholar 

  31. Knolhoff AM, Premo JH, Fisher CM (2020) A proposed quality control standard mixture and its uses for evaluating nontargeted and suspect screening LC/HR-MS method performance. Anal Chem 93(3):1596–1603

    Google Scholar 

  32. McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Newton SR, Beverly BEJ, Sobus JR, Williams AJ (2018) A comparison of three liquid chromatography (LC) retention time prediction models. Talanta 182:371–379

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bade R, Bijlsma L, Sancho JV, Hernández F (2015) Critical evaluation of a simple retention time predictor based on LogKow as a complementary tool in the identification of emerging contaminants in water. Talanta 139:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kruve A (2019) Semi-quantitative non-target analysis of water with liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry: how far are we? Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 33(S3):54–63

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kruve A (2020) Strategies for drawing quantitative conclusions from nontargeted liquid chromatography – high-resolution mass spectrometry analysis. Anal Chem 92(7):4691–4699

    Google Scholar 

  36. Liigand J, Wang T, Kellogg J, Smedsgaard J, Cech N, Kruve A (2020) Quantification for non-targeted LC/MS screening without standard substances. Sci Rep 10(1):5808

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kaserzon SL, Kennedy K, Hawker DW, Thompson J, Carter S, Roach AC et al (2012) Development and calibration of a passive sampler for perfluorinated alkyl carboxylates and sulfonates in water. Environ Sci Technol 46(9):4985–4993

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carpinteiro I, Schopfer A, Estoppey N, Fong C, Grandjean D, de Alencastro LF (2016) Evaluation of performance reference compounds (PRCs) to monitor emerging polar contaminants by polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) in rivers. Anal Bioanal Chem 408(4):1067–1078

    Google Scholar 

  39. Berho C, Claude B, Coisy E, Togola A, Bayoudh S, Morin P et al (2017) Laboratory calibration of a POCIS-like sampler based on molecularly imprinted polymers for glyphosate and AMPA sampling in water. Anal Bioanal Chem 409(8):2029–2035

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schulze B, Heffernan AL, Thomas KV, Kaserzon SL (2023) Influence of sample stability on non-target analysis during long batch acquisitions. ACS ES&T Water

    Google Scholar 

  41. Black G, Lowe C, Anumol T, Bade J, Favela K, Feng Y-L et al (2023) Exploring chemical space in non-targeted analysis: a proposed ChemSpace tool. Anal Bioanal Chem 415(1):35–44

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ort C, Lawrence MG, Rieckermann J, Joss A (2010) Sampling for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and illicit drugs in wastewater systems: are your conclusions valid? A critical review. Environ Sci Technol 44(16):6024–6035

    Google Scholar 

  43. Keller BO, Sui J, Young AB, Whittal RM (2008) Interferences and contaminants encountered in modern mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 627(1):71–81

    Google Scholar 

  44. Roemmelt AT, Steuer AE, Poetzsch M, Kraemer T (2014) Liquid chromatography, in combination with a quadrupole time-of-flight instrument (LC QTOF), with sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment-ion spectra (SWATH) acquisition: systematic studies on its use for screenings in clinical and forensic toxicology and comparison with information-dependent acquisition (IDA). Anal Chem 86(23):11742–11749

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schulze B, van Herwerden D, Allan I, Bijlsma L, Etxebarria N, Hansen M et al (2021) Inter-laboratory mass spectrometry dataset based on passive sampling of drinking water for non-target analysis. Sci Data 8(1):223

    Google Scholar 

  46. Renner G, Reuschenbach M, Schmidt TC (2023) Parameter-free extracted ion chromatogram builder for non-target screening. SETAC Europe, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  47. Feraud M, O’Brien JW, Samanipour S, Dewapriya P, van Herwerden D, Kaserzon S et al (2023) InSpectra – a platform for identifying emerging chemical threats. J Hazard Mater 455:131486

    Google Scholar 

  48. Samanipour S, O’Brien JW, Reid MJ, Thomas KV (2019) Self adjusting algorithm for the nontargeted feature detection of high resolution mass spectrometry coupled with liquid chromatography profile data. Anal Chem 91(16):10800–10807

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bader T, Schulz W, Lucke T, Seitz W, Winzenbacher R (2016) Application of non-target analysis with LC-HRMS for the monitoring of raw and potable water: strategy and results. Assessing transformation products of chemicals by non-target and suspect screening – strategies and workflows volume 2. ACS symposium series, vol 1242, American Chemical Society, pp 49–70

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schollée JE, Schymanski EL, Hollender J (2016) Statistical approaches for LC-HRMS data to characterize, prioritize, and identify transformation products from water treatment processes. Assessing transformation products of chemicals by non-target and suspect screening − strategies and workflows volume 1. ACS symposium series, vol 1241, American Chemical Society, pp 45–65

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nürenberg G, Schulz M, Kunkel U, Ternes TA (2015) Development and validation of a generic nontarget method based on liquid chromatography – high resolution mass spectrometry analysis for the evaluation of different wastewater treatment options. J Chromatogr A 1426:77–90

    Google Scholar 

  52. Codrean S, Kruit B, Meekel N, Vughs D, Béen F (2023) Predicting the diagnostic information of tandem mass spectra of environmentally relevant compounds using machine learning. Anal Chem 95(42):15810–15817

    Google Scholar 

  53. Oberacher H, Sasse M, Antignac J-P, Guitton Y, Debrauwer L, Jamin EL et al (2020) A European proposal for quality control and quality assurance of tandem mass spectral libraries. Environ Sci Eur 32(1):43

    Google Scholar 

  54. Samanipour S, Reid MJ, Bæk K, Thomas KV (2018) Combining a deconvolution and a universal library search algorithm for the nontarget analysis of data-independent acquisition mode liquid chromatography−high-resolution mass spectrometry results. Environ Sci Technol 52(8):4694–4701

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ccanccapa-Cartagena A, Pico Y, Ortiz X, Reiner EJ (2019) Suspect, non-target and target screening of emerging pollutants using data independent acquisition: assessment of a Mediterranean River basin. Sci Total Environ 687:355–368

    Google Scholar 

  56. Baz-Lomba JA, Reid MJ, Thomas KV (2016) Target and suspect screening of psychoactive substances in sewage-based samples by UHPLC-QTOF. Anal Chim Acta 914:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  57. Koelmel JP, Stelben P, McDonough CA, Dukes DA, Aristizabal-Henao JJ, Nason SL et al (2022) FluoroMatch 2.0 – making automated and comprehensive non-targeted PFAS annotation a reality. Anal Bioanal Chem 414(3):1201–1215

    Google Scholar 

  58. Léon A, Cariou R, Hutinet S, Hurel J, Guitton Y, Tixier C et al (2019) HaloSeeker 1.0: a user-friendly software to highlight halogenated chemicals in nontargeted high-resolution mass spectrometry data sets. Anal Chem 91(5):3500–3507

    Google Scholar 

  59. Xu H, Lin J, Zhang D, Mo F (2023) Retention time prediction for chromatographic enantioseparation by quantile geometry-enhanced graph neural network. Nat Commun 14(1):3095

    Google Scholar 

  60. Williams ML, Olomukoro AA, Emmons RV, Godage NH, Gionfriddo E (2023) Matrix effects demystified: strategies for resolving challenges in analytical separations of complex samples. J Sep Sci 46(23):2300571

    Google Scholar 

  61. Oss M, Tshepelevitsh S, Kruve A, Liigand P, Liigand J, Rebane R et al (2021) Quantitative electrospray ionization efficiency scale: 10 years after. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 35(21):e9178

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP et al (2014) Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol 48(4):2097–2098

    Google Scholar 

  63. Letzel T, Bayer A, Schulz W, Heermann A, Lucke T, Greco G et al (2015) LC–MS screening techniques for wastewater analysis and analytical data handling strategies: Sartans and their transformation products as an example. Chemosphere 137:198–206

    Google Scholar 

  64. Charbonnet JA, McDonough CA, **ao F, Schwichtenberg T, Cao D, Kaserzon S et al (2022) Communicating confidence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance identification via high-resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol Lett 9(6):473–481

    Google Scholar 

  65. Alygizakis N, Lestremau F, Gago-Ferrero P, Gil-Solsona R, Arturi K, Hollender J et al (2023) Towards a harmonized identification scoring system in LC-HRMS/MS based non-target screening (NTS) of emerging contaminants. Trends Anal Chem 159:116944

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lowe CN, Isaacs KK, McEachran A, Grulke CM, Sobus JR, Ulrich EM et al (2021) Predicting compound amenability with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to improve non-targeted analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 413(30):7495–7508

    Google Scholar 

  67. Peter KT, Phillips AL, Knolhoff AM, Gardinali PR, Manzano CA, Miller KE et al (2021) Nontargeted analysis study reporting tool: a framework to improve research transparency and reproducibility. Anal Chem 93(41):13870–13879

    Google Scholar 

  68. Alygizakis NA, Samanipour S, Hollender J, Ibáñez M, Kaserzon S, Kokkali V et al (2018) Exploring the potential of a global emerging contaminant early warning network through the use of retrospective suspect screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 52(9):5135–5144

    Google Scholar 

  69. Alygizakis NA, Oswald P, Thomaidis NS, Schymanski EL, Aalizadeh R, Schulze T et al (2019) NORMAN digital sample freezing platform: a European virtual platform to exchange liquid chromatography high resolution-mass spectrometry data and screen suspects in “digitally frozen” environmental samples. Trends Anal Chem 115:129–137

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mohammed Taha H, Aalizadeh R, Alygizakis N, Antignac J-P, Arp HPH, Bade R et al (2022) The NORMAN suspect list exchange (NORMAN-SLE): facilitating European and worldwide collaboration on suspect screening in high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Eur 34(1):104

    Google Scholar 

  71. Boeckhout M, Zielhuis GA, Bredenoord AL (2018) The FAIR guiding principles for data stewardship: fair enough? Eur J Hum Genet 26(7):931–936

    Google Scholar 

  72. ISO 21253-1:2019(en), Water quality – multi-compound class methods – part 1: criteria for the identification of target compounds by gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:21253:-1:ed-1:v1:en

  73. ISO 21253-2:2019(en), Water quality – multi-compound class methods – part 2: criteria for the quantitative determination of organic substances using a multi-compound class analytical method. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/en/#iso:std:iso:21253:-2:ed-1:v1:en

  74. European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (2021) Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticide residues and analysis in food and feed, SANTE/11312/2021

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant (LP180101128). The Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences, The University of Queensland, gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Queensland Health, Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland Alliance for Environmental Health Sciences (QAEHS), The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia

    Bastian Schulze & Sarit L. Kaserzon

Authors
  1. Bastian Schulze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarit L. Kaserzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarit L. Kaserzon .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schulze, B., Kaserzon, S.L. (2024). Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) for High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) Non-target Screening Methods. In: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2024_1090

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2024_1090

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation