Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 407, Issue 21, pp 6289–6299 | Cite as

Advances in liquid chromatography–high-resolution mass spectrometry for quantitative and qualitative environmental analysis

  • Jaume Aceña
  • Serena Stampachiacchiere
  • Sandra PérezEmail author
  • Damià Barceló
Review
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry in Food and Environmental Analysis

Abstract

This review summarizes the advances in environmental analysis by liquid chromatography–high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC–HRMS) during the last decade and discusses different aspects of their application. LC–HRMS has become a powerful tool for simultaneous quantitative and qualitative analysis of organic pollutants, enabling their quantitation and the search for metabolites and transformation products or the detection of unknown compounds. LC–HRMS provides more information than low-resolution (LR) MS for each sample because it can accurately determine the mass of the molecular ion and its fragment ions if it can be used for MS–MS. Another advantage is that the data can be processed using either target analysis, suspect screening, retrospective analysis, or non-target screening. With the growing popularity and acceptance of HRMS analysis, current guidelines for compound confirmation need to be revised for quantitative and qualitative purposes. Furthermore, new commercial software and user-built libraries are required to mine data in an efficient and comprehensive way. The scope of this critical review is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the many studies performed with LC–HRMS in the field of environmental analysis, but to reveal its advantages and limitations using different workflows.

Keywords

High-resolution mass spectrometry Liquid chromatography Transformation products 

Notes

Acknowledgments

S. Pérez acknowledges the contract from the Ramon y Cajal Program of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. This work has been financially supported by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Consolidated Research Groups “2014 SGR 418 - Water and Soil Quality Unit”, 2014 SGR 291.

References

  1. 1.
    Eichhorn P, Pérez S, Barceló D (2012) Time-of-flight mass spectrometry versus orbitrap-based mass spectrometry for the screening and identification of drugs and metabolites: is there a winner? Compr Anal Chem 58:217–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Aceña, D. Rivas, B. Zonja, S. Péreza, D. Barcelóa, Liquid Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry: Quantification and Confirmation AspectsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaufmann A, Butcher P, Maden K, Walker S, Widmer M (2011) Quantitative and confirmative performance of liquid chromatography coupled to high‐resolution mass spectrometry compared to tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 25:979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernández F, Sancho J, Ibáñez M, Abad E, Portolés T, Mattioli L (2012) Current use of high-resolution mass spectrometry in the environmental sciences. Anal Bioanal Chem 403:1251–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krauss M, Singer H, Hollender J (2010) LC–high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns. Anal Bioanal Chem 397:943–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hernández F, Ibáñez M, Bade R, Bijlsma L, Sancho J (2014) Investigation of pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs in waters by liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 63:140–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Agüera A, Martínez Bueno M, Fernández-Alba A (2013) New trends in the analytical determination of emerging contaminants and their transformation products in environmental waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:3496–3515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaufmann A, Butcher P, Maden K, Walker S, Widmer M (2010) Comprehensive comparison of liquid chromatography selectivity as provided by two types of liquid chromatography detectors (high resolution mass spectrometry and tandem mass spectrometry):“Where is the crossover point?”. Anal Chim Acta 673:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrer I, Thurman EM (2012) Analysis of 100 pharmaceuticals and their degradates in water samples by liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1259:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shrivastava A, Gupta VB (2011) Methods for the determination of limit of detection and limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Chronicles of Young Sci 2:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farré M, Picó Y, Barceló D (2014) Application of ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography linear ion-trap orbitrap to qualitative and quantitative assessment of pesticide residues. J Chromatogr A 1328:66–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wille K, Claessens M, Rappé K, Monteyne E, Janssen CR, De Brabander HF, Vanhaecke L (2011) Rapid quantification of pharmaceuticals and pesticides in passive samplers using ultra high performance liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1218:9162–9173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padilla-Sánchez JA, Plaza-Bolaños P, Romero-González R, Grande-Martínez Á, Thurman EM, Garrido-Frenich A (2012) Innovative determination of polar organophosphonate pesticides based on high‐resolution Orbitrap mass spectrometry. J Mass Spectrom 47:1458–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vergeynst L, Haeck A, De Wispelaere P, Van Langenhove H, Demeestere K (2015) Multi-residue analysis of pharmaceuticals in wastewater by liquid chromatography–magnetic sector mass spectrometry: Method quality assessment and application in a Belgian case study. Chemosphere 119:S2–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Commission E (2002) Commission Decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. Off J Eur Comm L 221:8–36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nurmi J, Pellinen J (2011) Multiresidue method for the analysis of emerging contaminants in wastewater by ultra performance liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1218:6712–6719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wille K, Bussche JV, Noppe H, De Wulf E, Van Caeter P, Janssen C, De Brabander H, Vanhaecke L (2010) A validated analytical method for the determination of perfluorinated compounds in surface-, sea-and sewagewater using liquid chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1217:6616–6622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lara-Martín PA, González-Mazo E, Brownawell BJ (2011) Multi-residue method for the analysis of synthetic surfactants and their degradation metabolites in aquatic systems by liquid chromatography–time-of-flight-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1218:4799–4807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farré M, Gros M, Hernandez B, Petrovic M, Hancock P, Barceló D (2008) Analysis of biologically active compounds in water by ultra‐performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 22:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nielen M, Van Engelen M, Zuiderent R, Ramaker R (2007) Screening and confirmation criteria for hormone residue analysis using liquid chromatography accurate mass time-of-flight, Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance and orbitrap mass spectrometry techniques. Anal Chim Acta 586:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Makarov A, Scigelova M (2010) Coupling liquid chromatography to Orbitrap mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1217:3938–3945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Comstock, Y (2011) Huang, Multiple fragmentation methods for small molecule characterization on a dual pressure linear ion trap Orbitrap hybrid mass spectrometer, Application Note, 540Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Coscollà C, León N, Pastor A, Yusà V (2014) Combined target and post-run target strategy for a comprehensive analysis of pesticides in ambient air using liquid chromatography-Orbitrap high resolution mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1368:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cahill MG, Dineen BA, Stack MA, James KJ (2012) A critical evaluation of liquid chromatography with hybrid linear ion trap—Orbitrap mass spectrometry for the determination of acidic contaminants in wastewater effluents. J Chromatogr A 1270:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Negreira N, López de Alda M, Barceló D (2015) Degradation of the cytostatic etoposide in chlorinated water by liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometry: Identification and quantification of by-products in real water samples. Sci Total Environ 506–507:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chalcraft KR, Lee R, Mills C, Britz-McKibbin P (2009) Virtual Quantification of Metabolites by Capillary Electrophoresis-Electrospray Ionization-Mass Spectrometry: Predicting Ionization Efficiency Without Chemical Standards. Anal Chem 81:2506–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kruve A, Kaupmees K, Liigand J, Leito I (2014) Negative electrospray ionization via deprotonation: predicting the ionization efficiency. Anal Chem 86:4822–4830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oss M, Kruve A, Herodes K, Leito I (2010) Electrospray ionization efficiency scale of organic compounds. Anal Chem 82:2865–2872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Zonja, J. Aceña, S. Pérez, D. Barceló (2013) Chapter 16 - Methods for Elucidation of Transformation Pathways: Identification of Intermediate Products, Chiral, and Isotope-Ratio Mass Spectrometry Analysis, in: D.B. Mira Petrovic, P. Sandra (Eds.) Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Elsevier, pp. 593–610Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eichhorn P, Ferguson PL, Pérez S, Aga DS (2005) Application of Ion Trap-MS with H/D Exchange and QqTOF-MS in the Identification of Microbial Degradates of Trimethoprim in Nitrifying Activated Sludge. Anal Chem 77:4176–4184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pérez S, Eichhorn P, Celiz MD, Aga DS (2006) Structural Characterization of Metabolites of the X-ray Contrast Agent Iopromide in Activated Sludge Using Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry. Anal Chem 78:1866–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pérez S, Barceló D (2008) First Evidence for Occurrence of Hydroxylated Human Metabolites of Diclofenac and Aceclofenac in Wastewater Using QqLIT-MS and QqTOF-MS. Anal Chem 80:8135–8145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aceña J, Pérez S, Gardinali P, Abad JL, Eichhorn P, Heuett N, Barceló D (2014) Structure elucidation of phototransformation products of unapproved analogs of the erectile dysfunction drug sildenafil in artificial freshwater with UPLC-Q Exactive-MS. J Mass Spectrom 49:1279–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zonja B, Gonçalves C, Pérez S, Delgado A, Petrovic M, Alpendurada MF, Barceló D (2014) Evaluation of the phototransformation of the antiviral zanamivir in surface waters through identification of transformation products. J Hazard Mater 265:296–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rousu T, Herttuainen J, Tolonen A (2010) Comparison of triple quadrupole, hybrid linear ion trap triple quadrupole, time-of-flight and LTQ-Orbitrap mass spectrometers in drug discovery phase metabolite screening and identification in vitro – amitriptyline and verapamil as model compounds. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 24:939–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moschet C, Piazzoli A, Singer H, Hollender J (2013) Alleviating the reference standard dilemma using a systematic exact mass suspect screening approach with liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 85:10312–10320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hug C, Ulrich N, Schulze T, Brack W, Krauss M (2014) Identification of novel micropollutants in wastewater by a combination of suspect and nontarget screening. Environ Pollut 184:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, Hollender J (2014) Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol 48:2097–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wode F, van Baar P, Dünnbier U, Hecht F, Taute T, Jekel M, Reemtsma T (2015) Search for over 2000 current and legacy micropollutants on a wastewater infiltration site with a UPLC-high resolution MS target screening method. Water Res 69:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bushee JL, Argikar UA (2011) An experimental approach to enhance precursor ion fragmentation for metabolite identification studies: application of dual collision cells in an orbital trap. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 25:1356–1362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zonja B, Delgado A, Pérez S, Barceló D (2015) LC-HRMS Suspect Screening for Detection-Based Prioritization of Iodinated Contrast Media Photodegradates in Surface Waters. Environ Sci Technol 49:3464–3472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kern S, Fenner K, Singer HP, Schwarzenbach RP, Hollender J (2009) Identification of transformation products of organic contaminants in natural waters by computer-aided prediction and high-resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 43:7039–7046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kern S, Baumgartner R, Helbling DE, Hollender J, Singer H, Loos MJ, Schwarzenbach RP, Fenner K (2010) A tiered procedure for assessing the formation of biotransformation products of pharmaceuticals and biocides during activated sludge treatment. J Environ Monit 12:2100–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang J, Gardinali PR (2014) Identification of phase II pharmaceutical metabolites in reclaimed water using high resolution benchtop Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 107:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    A.A. Bletsou, J. Jeon, J. Hollender, E. Archontaki, N.S. Thomaidis (2015) Targeted and non-targeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric workflows for identification of transformation products of emerging pollutants in the aquatic environment, TrAC Trends Anal ChemGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jeon J, Kurth D, Hollender J (2013) Biotransformation Pathways of Biocides and Pharmaceuticals in Freshwater Crustaceans Based on Structure Elucidation of Metabolites Using High Resolution Mass Spectrometry. Chem Res Toxicol 26:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gómez-Ramos MM, Pérez-Parada A, García-Reyes JF, Fernández-Alba AR, Agüera A (2011) Use of an accurate-mass database for the systematic identification of transformation products of organic contaminants in wastewater effluents. J Chromatogr A 1218:8002–8012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zedda M, Zwiener C (2012) Is nontarget screening of emerging contaminants by LC-HRMS successful? A plea for compound libraries and computer tools. Anal Bioanal Chem 403:2493–2502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kind T, Fiehn O (2007) Seven Golden Rules for heuristic filtering of molecular formulas obtained by accurate mass spectrometry. BMC Bioinforma 8:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chiaia-Hernandez AC, Schymanski EL, Kumar P, Singer HP, Hollender J (2014) Suspect and nontarget screening approaches to identify organic contaminant records in lake sediments. Anal Bioanal Chem 406:7323–7335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hogenboom A, Van Leerdam J, de Voogt P (2009) Accurate mass screening and identification of emerging contaminants in environmental samples by liquid chromatography–hybrid linear ion trap Orbitrap mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1216:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Longrée P, Loos M, Ruff M, Stravs MA, Ripollés Vidal C, Hollender J (2014) Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 48:1811–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weiss J, Simon E, Stroomberg G, de Boer R, de Boer J, van der Linden S, Leonards PG, Lamoree M (2011) Identification strategy for unknown pollutants using high-resolution mass spectrometry: Androgen-disrupting compounds identified through effect-directed analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 400:3141–3149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vergeynst L, Van Langenhove H, Joos P, Demeestere K (2014) Suspect screening and target quantification of multi-class pharmaceuticals in surface water based on large-volume injection liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 406:2533–2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Martínez Bueno MJ, Ulaszewska MM, Gomez MJ, Hernando MD, Fernández-Alba AR (2012) Simultaneous measurement in mass and mass/mass mode for accurate qualitative and quantitative screening analysis of pharmaceuticals in river water. J Chromatogr A 1256:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hernández F, Ibáñez M, Portolés T, Cervera MI, Sancho JV, López FJ (2015) Advancing towards universal screening for organic pollutants in waters. J Hazard Mater 282:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaume Aceña
    • 1
  • Serena Stampachiacchiere
    • 2
  • Sandra Pérez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Damià Barceló
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Water and Soil Quality Research GroupIDAEA-CSICBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of ChemistrySapienza Università di RomaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Catalan Institute of Water Research - ICRAC/Emili Grahit, 101, Edifici H2O, Parc Científic i Tecnològic de la Universitat de GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations