Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using prepared mixtures of ToxCast chemicals to evaluate non-targeted analysis (NTA) method performance

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) methods are increasingly used to discover contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), but the extent to which these methods can support exposure and health studies remains to be determined. EPA’s Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT) was launched in 2016 to address this need. As part of ENTACT, 1269 unique substances from EPA’s ToxCast library were combined to make ten synthetic mixtures, with each mixture containing between 95 and 365 substances. As a participant in the trial, we first performed blinded NTA on each mixture using liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). We then performed an unblinded evaluation to identify limitations of our NTA method. Overall, at least 60% of spiked substances could be observed using selected methods. Discounting spiked isomers, true positive rates from the blinded and unblinded analyses reached a maximum of 46% and 65%, respectively. An overall reproducibility rate of 75% was observed for substances spiked into more than one mixture and observed at least once. Considerable discordance in substance identification was observed when comparing a subset of our results derived from two separate reversed-phase chromatography methods. We conclude that a single NTA method, even when optimized, can likely characterize only a subset of ToxCast substances (and, by extension, other CECs). Rigorous quality control and self-evaluation practices should be required of labs generating NTA data to support exposure and health studies. Accurate and transparent communication of performance results will best enable meaningful interpretations and defensible use of NTA data.

ᅟ

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04781.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Biryol D, Nicolas CI, Wambaugh J, Phillips K, Isaacs K. High-throughput dietary exposure predictions for chemical migrants from food contact substances for use in chemical prioritization. Environ Int. 2017;108:185–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.08.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.033.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alygizakis NA, Samanipour S, Hollender J, Ibanez M, Kaserzon S, Kokkali V, et al. Exploring the potential of a global emerging contaminant early warning network through the use of retrospective suspect screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00365.

  6. Gerona RR, Schwartz JM, Pan J, Friesen MM, Lin T, Woodruff TJ. Suspect screening of maternal serum to identify new environmental chemical biomonitoring targets using liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018;28(2):101–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2017.28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Colby JM, Thoren KL, Lynch KL. Suspect screening using LC-QqTOF is a useful tool for detecting drugs in biological samples. J Anal Toxicol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkx107.

  8. Moritz F, Janicka M, Zygler A, Forcisi S, Kot-Wasik A, Kot J, et al. The compositional space of exhaled breath condensate and its link to the human breath volatilome. J Breath Res. 2015;9(2):027105. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7155/9/2/027105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Andra SS, Austin C, Wright RO, Arora M. Reconstructing pre-natal and early childhood exposure to multi-class organic chemicals using teeth: towards a retrospective temporal exposome. Environ Int. 2015;83:137–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.05.010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Rubert J, Leon N, Saez C, Martins CP, Godula M, Yusa V, et al. Evaluation of mycotoxins and their metabolites in human breast milk using liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta. 2014;820:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2014.02.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rappaport SM, Smith MT. Epidemiology. Environment and disease risks. Science. 2010;330(6003):460–1. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-015-8681-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-017-0012-y.

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ulrich EM, Sobus JR, Grulke CM, Richard AM, Newton SR, Strynar MJ, Mansouri K, Williams AJ. EPA’s Non-Targeted Analysis Collaborative Trial (ENTACT): genesis, design, and initial findings. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1435-6.

  18. 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 Cheminform. 2017;9(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-017-0247-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Grulke CM, Schymanski EL, Ruttkies C, Williams AJ. “MS-Ready” structures for non-targeted high resolution mass spectrometry screening studies. J Cheminform. 2018;10(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-018-0299-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-0139-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sobus JR, DeWoskin RS, Tan YM, Pleil JD, Phillips MB, George BJ, et al. Uses of NHANES biomarker data for chemical risk assessment: trends, challenges, and opportunities. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123(10):919–27. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. McEachran AD, Mansouri K, Newton SR, Beverly BEJ, Sobus JR, Williams AJ. A comparison of three liquid chromatography (LC) retention time prediction models. Talanta. 2018;182:371–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.022.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ruttkies C, Schymanski EL, Wolf S, Hollender J, Neumann S. MetFrag relaunched: incorporating strategies beyond in silico fragmentation. J Cheminform. 2016;8:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-016-0115-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Allen F, Pon A, Wilson M, Greiner R, Wishart D. CFM-ID: a web server for annotation, spectrum prediction and metabolite identification from tandem mass spectra. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Web Server issue):W94–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku436.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Allen F, Pon A, Greiner R, Wishart D. Computational prediction of electron ionization mass spectra to assist in GC/MS compound identification. Anal Chem. 2016;88(15):7689–97. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b01622.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1021/es5002105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Straub RF, Voyksner RD. Negative ion formation in electrospray mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 1993;4(7):578–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/1044-0305(93)85019-T.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Annette Guiseppi-Elie, Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, and Russell Thomas for supporting ENTACT; Katherine Coutros for her assistance in acquiring ToxCast substances, Kamel Mansouri for his role in developing and implementing MS-Ready processing algorithms; Risa Sayre for her assistance in comparing spiked substances against compounds in Agilent reference libraries; and Sarah Laughlin, Aurelie Marcotte, Dawn Mills, James McCord, Mark Strynar, and Carol Ball (Agilent Technologies) for their contributions to the methods used for sample analysis and data processing. The authors further thank James McCord and Mark Strynar for their thoughtful reviews of this manuscript.

Funding

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), funded and managed the research described here. Partial support for this work was provided by an award from ORD’s Pathfinder Innovation Program. The work has been subjected to Agency administrative review and approved for publication. Randolph Singh and Andrew McEachran were supported by an appointment to the Internship/Research Participation Program at the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jarod N. Grossman

    Present address: Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, 95051, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Jon R. Sobus, Seth R. Newton & Elin M. Ulrich

  2. Student Contractor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Jarod N. Grossman & Alex Chao

  3. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Participant, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Randolph Singh & Andrew D. McEachran

  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Computational Toxicology, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    Antony J. Williams, Christopher M. Grulke & Ann M. Richard

Authors
  1. Jon R. Sobus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jarod N. Grossman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alex Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Randolph Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Antony J. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher M. Grulke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ann M. Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Seth R. Newton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Andrew D. McEachran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Elin M. Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon R. Sobus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. EPA.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 1947 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 11865 kb)

ESM 3

(SDF 1717 kb)

ESM 4

(SDF 890 kb)

ESM 5

(SDF 269 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobus, J.R., Grossman, J.N., Chao, A. et al. Using prepared mixtures of ToxCast chemicals to evaluate non-targeted analysis (NTA) method performance. Anal Bioanal Chem 411, 835–851 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1526-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-018-1526-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation