↓ Skip to main content

Development of sample extraction and clean-up strategies for target and non-target analysis of environmental contaminants in biological matrices

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Chromatography A, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of sample extraction and clean-up strategies for target and non-target analysis of environmental contaminants in biological matrices
Published in
Journal of Chromatography A, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.11.040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Baduel, Jochen F. Mueller, Henghang Tsai, Maria Jose Gomez Ramos

Abstract

Recently, there has been an increasing trend towards multi-targeted analysis and non-target screening methods as a means to increase the number of monitored analytes. Previous studies have developed biomonitoring methods which specifically focus on only a small number of analytes with similar physico-chemical properties. In this paper, we present a simple and rapid multi-residue method for simultaneous extraction of polar and non-polar organic chemicals from biological matrices, containing up to 5% lipid content. Our method combines targeted multi-residue analysis using gas chromatography triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC-QqQ-MS/MS) and a multi-targeted analysis complemented with non-target screening using liquid chromatography coupled to a quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS/MS). The optimization of the chemical extraction procedure and the effectiveness of different clean-up methods were evaluated for two biological matrices: fish muscle (lipid content ∼2%) and breast milk (∼4%). To extract a wide range of chemicals, the partition/extraction procedure used for the QuEChERS (Quick, Easy, Cheap, Effective, Rugged and Safe) approach was tested as the initial step for the extraction of 77 target compounds covering a broad compound domain. All the target analytes have different physico-chemical properties (log Kow ranges from -0.3 to 10) and cover a broad activity spectrum; from polar pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PPCPs) to highly lipophilic chemicals such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and organochloride pesticides (OCPs). A number of options were explored for the clean-up of lipids, proteins and other impurities present in the matrix. Zirconium dioxide-based sorbents as dispersive solid-phase extraction (d-SPE) and protein-lipid removal filter cartridges (Captiva ND Lipids) provided the best results for GC-MS and LC-MS analysis respectively. The method was fully validated for samples of fish muscle and breast milk through the evaluation of recoveries, matrix effects, limit of quantification, linearity and precision (inter-day and intra-day). Mean recoveries (n=5) were between 70 and 120% with relative standard deviations (RSD) less than 20% in most of the cases. GC-MS/MS LOQs ranged from 0.08 to 3μg/kg and LC-QTOF-MS/MS LOQs ranged from 0.2 to 9μg/kg. The developed strategy was successfully applied for analysis of real samples; 22 target analytes were found in the breast milk samples and 10 in the fish samples. Non-target analysis allowed the detection and identification of an additional 14 contaminants and metabolites in the samples.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Ecuador 1 1%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 16 18%
Unspecified 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 24 27%
Environmental Science 21 23%
Unspecified 18 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 7%
Other 15 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 January 2016.
All research outputs
#9,811,322
of 12,283,003 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Chromatography A
#7,563
of 9,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,349
of 338,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Chromatography A
#40
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,283,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,161 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 338,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.