Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 411, Issue 4, pp 853–866 | Cite as

EPA’s non-targeted analysis collaborative trial (ENTACT): genesis, design, and initial findings

  • Elin M. UlrichEmail author
  • Jon R. Sobus
  • Christopher M. Grulke
  • Ann M. Richard
  • Seth R. Newton
  • Mark J. Strynar
  • Kamel Mansouri
  • Antony J. Williams
Research Paper


In August 2015, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a workshop entitled “Advancing non-targeted analyses of xenobiotic chemicals in environmental and biological media.” The purpose of the workshop was to bring together the foremost experts in non-targeted analysis (NTA) to discuss the state-of-the-science for generating, interpreting, and exchanging NTA measurement data. During the workshop, participants discussed potential designs for a collaborative project that would use EPA resources, including the ToxCast library of chemical substances, the DSSTox database, and the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, to evaluate cutting-edge NTA methods. That discussion was the genesis of EPA’s Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT). Nearly 30 laboratories have enrolled in ENTACT and used a variety of chromatography, mass spectrometry, and data processing approaches to characterize ten synthetic chemical mixtures, three standardized media (human serum, house dust, and silicone band) extracts, and thousands of individual substances. Initial results show that nearly all participants have detected and reported more compounds in the mixtures than were intentionally added, with large inter-lab variability in the number of reported compounds. A comparison of gas and liquid chromatography results shows that the majority (45.3%) of correctly identified compounds were detected by only one method and 15.4% of compounds were not identified. Finally, a limited set of true positive identifications indicates substantial differences in observable chemical space when employing disparate separation and ionization techniques as part of NTA workflows. This article describes the genesis of ENTACT, all study methods and materials, and an analysis of results submitted to date.

Graphical abstract


ToxCast Ring-trial Exposome High-resolution mass spectrometry CompTox chemicals dashboard 



The authors wish to thank ICF staff (EPA Contract # EP-C-14-001, work assignment 1-63) for their management of the logistics for the first workshop and completion of the workshop report; Evotec staff (EPA Contract #EP-D-12-034) for their management of the ToxCast chemical library and creation of ENTACT resources; and Oregon State University staff (EPA Contract # EP-16-W-000115) for creating silicone band reference materials. We also thank Annette Guiseppi-Elie, Tina Bahadori, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta and EPA managers for their support and for understanding the vision for the work. We recognize the Chemical Safety for Sustainability team and John Wambaugh and Kristin Isaacs for their scientific leadership for the Rapid Exposure and Dosimetry project, and all team members for their thoughtful conversations. We greatly appreciate the support of Cameron Clark and Monica Linnenbrink on the EPA FTP site, Andrew McEachran and the Dashboard development team for their efforts to expand mass spectrometry functionality to the Dashboard, and Kathy Coutros for support with the Evotec chemical management contract. Portions of this work were supported by EPA Stage 1-3 Pathfinder Innovation Project “Building a Network to Measure the Totality of Chemical Exposures.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Human serum was used in this study. Consent was obtained at the time of original collection. However, its use in the current project is considered exempt human subjects research under 40 CRF 26.101(b)(4) because the source is “publicly available” (purchased from vendor) and the subjects cannot be identified (samples were both pooled and coded). In accordance with federal regulations, IRB approval for this secondary use was not required by either EPA or NIST.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the US Government or the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.

Supplementary material

216_2018_1435_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1246 kb)
216_2018_1435_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (1.5 mb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 1579 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wild CP. The exposome: from concept to utility. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(1):24–32. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wild CP, Scalbert A, Herceg Z. Measuring the exposome: a powerful basis for evaluating environmental exposures and cancer risk. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2013;54(7):480–99. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rappaport SM. Implications of the exposome for exposure science. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2010;21:5. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rappaport SM, Smith MT. Environment and disease risks. Science. 2010;330(6003):460–1. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andra SS, Austin C, Patel D, Dolios G, Awawda M, Arora M. 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. 2017;100:32–61. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geer Wallace MA, Pleil JD, Mentese S, Oliver KD, Whitaker DA, Fent KW. Calibration and performance of synchronous SIM/scan mode for simultaneous targeted and discovery (non-targeted) analysis of exhaled breath samples from firefighters. J Chromatogr A. 2017;1516:114–24. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naz S, Vallejo M, García A, Barbas C. Method validation strategies involved in non-targeted metabolomics. J Chromatogr A. 2014;1353:99–105. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollender J, Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Ferguson PL. Nontarget screening with high resolution mass spectrometry in the environment: ready to go? Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51(20):11505–12. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sobus JR, Wambaugh JF, Isaacs KK, Williams AJ, McEachran AD, Richard AM, et al. Integrating tools for non-targeted analysis research and chemical safety evaluations at the US EPA. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017.
  10. 10.
    Richard AM, Judson RS, Houck KA, Grulke CM, Volarath P, Thillainadarajah I, et al. ToxCast chemical landscape: paving the road to 21st century toxicology. Chem Res Toxicol. 2016;29(8):1225–51. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wild CP. Complementing the genome with an “Exposome”: the outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2005;14(8):1847–50. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Slobodnik J, Ipolyi IM, Oswald P, Krauss M, et al. Non-target screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry: critical review using a collaborative trial on water analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015;407(21):6237–55. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schymanski E, Neumann S. CASMI: and the winner is. Metabolites. 2013;3(2):412. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schymanski EL, Ruttkies C, Krauss M, Brouard C, Kind T, Dührkop K, et al. Critical assessment of small molecule identification 2016: automated methods. J Cheminf. 2017;9(1):22. Scholar
  15. 15.
    McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Grulke C, Schymanski EL, Ruttkies C, Williams AJ  “MS-ready” structures for non-targeted high resolution mass spectrometry screening studies. J Cheminf. 2018;10(1):45.
  16. 16.
    Rager JE, Strynar MJ, Liang S, McMahen RL, Richard AM, Grulke CM, et al. Linking high resolution mass spectrometry data with exposure and toxicity forecasts to advance high-throughput environmental monitoring. Environ Int. 2016;88:269–80. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gonzalez CA, Choquette SJ. Certificate of analysis: standard reference material 2585 organic contaminants in house dust. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 2018.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gonzalez CA, Choquette SJ. Certificate of analysis: Standard Reference Material 1957 Organic Contaminants in Non-Fortified Human Serum (Freeze-Dried). Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 2016.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson KA, Points GL III, Donald CE, Dixon HM, Scott RP, Wilson G, et al. Preparation and performance features of wristband samplers and considerations for chemical exposure assessment. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2017;27:551. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams AJ, Grulke CM, Edwards J, McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Baker NC, et al. The CompTox chemistry dashboard: a community data resource for environmental chemistry. J Cheminf. 2017;9(1):61. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newton SR, McMahen RL, Sobus JR, Mansouri K, Williams AJ, McEachran AD, et al. Suspect screening and non-targeted analysis of drinking water using point-of-use filters. Environ Pollut. 2018;234:297–306. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Phillips KA, Yau A, Favela KA, Isaacs KK, McEachran A, Grulke C, et al. Suspect screening analysis of chemicals in consumer products. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52(5):3125–35. Scholar
  23. 23.
    McEachran AD, Sobus JR, Williams AJ. Identifying known unknowns using the US EPA’s CompTox chemistry dashboard. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;409(7):1729–35. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sobus JR, Grossman JN, Chao A, Singh R, Williams AJ, Grulke CM, Richard AM, Newton SR, McEachran AD, Ulrich EM (2018) Using prepared mixtures of ToxCast chemicals to evaluate non-targeted analysis (NTA) method performance. Anal Bioanal Chem.
  25. 25.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2018) EPA’s CompTox chemistry dashboard advanced search how-to.
  26. 26.
    Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, et al. Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48(4):2097–8. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fell L, Richards T, Binkley J. Comprehensive, non-target characterisation of blinded environmental exposome standards using GCxGC and high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Chromatography Today. 2018;11(1):20–5.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mansouri K, Grulke CM, Judson RS, Williams AJ. OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints. J Cheminf. 2018;10(1):10. Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elin M. Ulrich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jon R. Sobus
    • 1
  • Christopher M. Grulke
    • 2
  • Ann M. Richard
    • 2
  • Seth R. Newton
    • 1
  • Mark J. Strynar
    • 1
  • Kamel Mansouri
    • 3
    • 4
  • Antony J. Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research & DevelopmentUS Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research & DevelopmentUS Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Post-Doctoral Participant, National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research & DevelopmentUS Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., Contractor to National Toxicology ProgramNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesMorrisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations