Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 409, Issue 4, pp 971–978 | Cite as

Selective quantification of DOSS in marine sediment and sediment-trap solids by LC-QTOF-MS

  • Matt J. Perkins
  • Samantha B. Joye
  • Jennifer A. Field
Research Paper


At the onset of the 2010 Gulf oil spill, analytical methods for the quantification of the surfactants in Corexit did not exist in the peer-reviewed literature. To date, only a single study reports the presence of bis-(2-ethylhexyl) sodium sulfosuccinate (DOSS) in deep-sea Gulf sediment collected in 2010 from a single location. There are no data on the occurrence of DOSS in association with settling solids (i.e., sediment-trap solids). To address this data gap, DOSS was initially quantified by liquid chromatography tandem quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in sediment and sediment-trap solids collected from multiple sites in the Gulf between 2010 and 2013. However, interferences confounded analyses using only a quadrupole (MS/MS) system; therefore, a LC-high mass accuracy quadruple time of flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS) method was developed. The LC-QTOF method was validated and applied to eight representative samples of sediment and of sediment-trap solids. The presented method quantifies DOSS in solids of marine origin at concentrations above the limit of quantification of 0.23 μg kg−1 with recoveries of 97 ± 20 % (mean ± 95 CI). Gulf sediment and sediment-trap solids gave DOSS concentrations of <LOQ–25 and 1.5–6.3 μg kg−1, respectively.

Graphical Abstract

Sediment core and sediment trap materials were collected in the Gulf and analyzed for DOSS by LCQTOF.


Corexit DOSS Dioctyl sulfosuccinate Sediment Sediment trap QTOF 



This research was made possible in part by a grant from The Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative supporting the ECOGIG (Ecosystem Impacts of Oil and Gas into the Gulf) consortium and in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32ES007060. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This is ECOGIG manuscript number 376. Data are publicly available through the Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative Information & Data Cooperative (GRIIDC) at (doi:  10.7266/N7B56GP8). The authors thank Uta Passow of the Marine Science Institute at the University of California Santa Barbara for providing access to the sediment-trap solids described in this manuscript. The study was conducted, in part, in the Oregon State University’s Mass Spectrometry Center. The procurement of the AB Sciex TripleTOF 5600 instrument was made possible by NIH grant S10RR027878.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

216_2016_10_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (517 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 516 kb)


  1. 1.
    National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The use of surface and subsea dispersants during the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Research Council. Dispersant oil spill efficacy and effects. 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kujawinski EB, Soule MCK, Valentine DL, Boysen AK, Longnecker K, Redmond MC. Fate of dispersants associated with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(4):1298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramirez CE, Batchu SR, Gardinali PR. High sensitivity liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometric methods for the analysis of dioctyl sulfosuccinate in different stages of an oil spill response monitoring effort. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013;405(12):4167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Place BJ, Perkins MJ, Sinclair E, Barsamian AL, Blakemore PR, Field JA. Trace analysis of surfactants in Corexit oil dispersant formulations and seawater. Deep Sea Res Part II: Top Stud Oceanogr. 2014.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Valentine DL, Fisher GB, Bagby SC, Nelson RK, Reddy CM, Sylva SP, et al. Fallout plume of submerged oil from Deepwater Horizon. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2014;111(45):15906–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ziervogel K, Joye SB, Arnosti C. Microbial enzymatic activity and secondary production in sediments affected by the sedimentation pulse following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Deep Sea Res Part II: Top Stud Oceanogr. 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathew J, Schroeder DL, Zintek LB, Schupp CR, Kosempa MG, Zachary AM, et al. Dioctyl sulfosuccinate analysis in near-shore Gulf of Mexico water by direct-injection liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2012;1231:46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray JL, Kanagy LK, Furlong ET, Kanagy CJ, McCoy JW, Mason A, et al. Presence of the Corexit component dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate in Gulf of Mexico waters after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 2014;95:124–30.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parker AM, Ferrer I, Thurman EM, Rosario-Ortiz FL, Linden KG. Determination of COREXIT components used in the Deepwater Horizon cleanup by liquid chromatography-ion trap mass spectrometry. Anal Methods-Uk. 2014;6(15):5498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perkins M, Place, B.J., Field, J. Analysis of DOSS and its degradates by LVI-LC/ESI-MS/MS. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill and Ecosystem Science Conference 2013;New Orleans:Jan 21–3.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    White HK, Lyons SL, Harrison SJ, Findley DM, Liu Y, Kujawinski EB. Long-term persistence of dispersants following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Environ Sci Technol Lett. 2014;1(7):295–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joye SB, Bowles MW, Samarkin VA, Hunter KS, Niemann H. Biogeochemical signatures and microbial activity of different cold-seep habitats along the Gulf of Mexico deep slope. Deep-Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr. 2010;57(21):1990–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan B, Passow, U, Chanton, J3, Nöthig, EM Asper, V, Sweet, J. Pitiranggon, M, Diercks, A, Pak, D. Sustained deposition of contaminants from the Deepwater Horizon spill. PNAS. 2015;In Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sancho JV, Pozo ÓJ, Ibáñez M, Hernández F. Potential of liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry for the determination of pesticides and transformation products in water. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2006;386(4):987–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burford MD, Hawthorne SB, Miller DJ. Extraction rates of spiked versus native PAHs from heterogeneous environmental samples using supercritical fluid extraction and sonication in methylene chloride. Anal Chem. 1993;65(11):1497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hatzinger PB, Alexander M. Effect of aging of chemicals in soil on their biodegradability and extractability. Environ Sci Technol. 1995;29(2):537–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Trufelli H, Palma P, Famiglini G, Cappiello A. An overview of matrix effects in liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Mass Spectrom Rev. 2011;30(3):491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gosetti F, Mazzucco E, Zampieri D, Gennaro MC. Signal suppression/enhancement in high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A. 2010;1217(25):3929–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Annesley TM. Ion suppression in mass spectrometry. Clin Chem. 2003;49(7):1041–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matt J. Perkins
    • 1
  • Samantha B. Joye
    • 2
  • Jennifer A. Field
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Molecular ToxicologyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Marine SciencesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations