Cargando…
A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine
Targeted 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 sensitivit...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37432442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-023-04791-8 |
_version_ | 1785081784377016320 |
---|---|
author | Lazofsky, Abigail Brinker, Anita Rivera-Núñez, Zorimar Buckley, Brian |
author_facet | Lazofsky, Abigail Brinker, Anita Rivera-Núñez, Zorimar Buckley, Brian |
author_sort | Lazofsky, Abigail |
collection | PubMed |
description | Targeted 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00216-023-04791-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10386926 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103869262023-07-31 A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine Lazofsky, Abigail Brinker, Anita Rivera-Núñez, Zorimar Buckley, Brian Anal Bioanal Chem Research Paper Targeted 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00216-023-04791-8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-07-11 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10386926/ /pubmed/37432442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-023-04791-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Lazofsky, Abigail Brinker, Anita Rivera-Núñez, Zorimar Buckley, Brian A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title | A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title_full | A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title_fullStr | A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title_short | A comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
title_sort | comparison of four liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry platforms for the analysis of zeranols in urine |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10386926/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37432442 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-023-04791-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lazofskyabigail acomparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT brinkeranita acomparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT riveranunezzorimar acomparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT buckleybrian acomparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT lazofskyabigail comparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT brinkeranita comparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT riveranunezzorimar comparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine AT buckleybrian comparisonoffourliquidchromatographymassspectrometryplatformsfortheanalysisofzeranolsinurine |