↓ Skip to main content

Non-targeted analysis of unexpected food contaminants using LC-HRMS

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Non-targeted analysis of unexpected food contaminants using LC-HRMS
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1028-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Kunzelmann, Martin Winter, Magnus Åberg, Karl-Erik Hellenäs, Johan Rosén

Abstract

A non-target analysis method for unexpected contaminants in food is described. Many current methods referred to as "non-target" are capable of detecting hundreds or even thousands of contaminants. However, they will typically still miss all other possible contaminants. Instead, a metabolomics approach might be used to obtain "true non-target" analysis. In the present work, such a method was optimized for improved detection capability at low concentrations. The method was evaluated using 19 chemically diverse model compounds spiked into milk samples to mimic unknown contamination. Other milk samples were used as reference samples. All samples were analyzed with UHPLC-TOF-MS (ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry), using reversed-phase chromatography and electrospray ionization in positive mode. Data evaluation was performed by the software TracMass 2. No target lists of specific compounds were used to search for the contaminants. Instead, the software was used to sort out all features only occurring in the spiked sample data, i.e., the workflow resembled a metabolomics approach. Procedures for chemical identification of peaks were outside the scope of the study. Method, study design, and settings in the software were optimized to minimize manual evaluation and faulty or irrelevant hits and to maximize hit rate of the spiked compounds. A practical detection limit was established at 25 μg/kg. At this concentration, most compounds (17 out of 19) were detected as intact precursor ions, as fragments or as adducts. Only 2 irrelevant hits, probably natural compounds, were obtained. Limitations and possible practical use of the approach are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 37 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 29 27%
Environmental Science 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 45 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,757,283
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#1,524
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,398
of 344,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#27
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.