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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lazofsky, Abigail, Brinker, Anita, Rivera-Núñez, Zorimar, Buckley, Brian
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