ArticleSafety and health at work2019
Evaluation of Matrix Effects in Quantifying Microbial Secondary Metabolites in Indoor Dust Using Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatograph-Tandem Mass Spectrometer.
Article in Safety and health at work, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Adjustment of Matrix Effects in Analysis of 36 Secondary Metabolites of Microbial and Plant Origin in Indoor Floor Dust Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.Buildings (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Development and Validation for Quantification of Cephapirin and Ceftiofur by Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatography with Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Detection of Mycotoxins in Highly Matrix-Loaded House-Dust Samples by QTOF-HRMS, IM-QTOF-HRMS, and TQMS: Advantages and Disadvantages.Analytical chemistry · 2022Article
- Quantitative analysis of seven plant hormones in Lotus japonicus using standard addition method.PloS one · 2021Article
- Effect of storage temperature and duration on concentrations of 27 fungal secondary metabolites spiked into floor dust from an office building.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MSMS) for simultaneous analysis of multiple microbial secondary metabolites (MSMs) is potentially subject to interference by matrix components.
methodsWe examined potential matrix effects (MEs) in analyses of 31 MSMs using ultraperformance LC-MSMS. Twenty-one dust aliquots from three buildings (seven aliquots/building) were spiked with seven concentrations of each of the MSMs (6.2 pg/μl-900 pg/μl) and then extracted. Another set of 21 aliquots were first extracted and then, the extract was spiked with the same concentrations. We added deepoxy-deoxynivalenol (DOM) to all aliquots as a universal internal standard. Ten microliters of the extract was injected into the ultraperformance LC-MSMS. ME was calculated by subtracting the percentage of the response of analyte in spiked extract to that in neat standard from 100. Spiked extract results were used to create a matrix-matched calibration (MMC) curve for estimating MSM concentration in dust spiked before extraction.
resultsAnalysis of variance was used to examine effects of compound (MSM), building and concentration on response. MEs (range: 63.4%-99.97%) significantly differed by MSM (
conclusionWe found that dust MEs resulted in substantial underestimation in quantifying MSMs and that DOM was not an optimal universal internal standard for the adjustment but that the MMC method resulted in more accurate and precise recovery compared with DOM. More research on adjustment methods for dust MEs in the simultaneous analyses of multiple MSMs using LC-MSMS is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.