Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33506334›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021

Benchmarking of the quantification approaches for the non-targeted screening of micropollutants and their transformation products in groundwater.

Anneli Kruve, Karin Kiefer, Juliane Hollender

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anneli KruveDepartment of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden. anneli.kruve@su.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9725-3351
Karin KieferEawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Juliane HollenderEawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland.

Funding

Stockholms Universitet internal funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A wide range of micropollutants can be monitored with non-targeted screening; however, the quantification of the newly discovered compounds is challenging. Transformation products (TPs) are especially problematic because analytical standards are rarely available. Here, we compared three quantification approaches for non-target compounds that do not require the availability of analytical standards. The comparison is based on a unique set of concentration data for 341 compounds, mainly pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and their TPs in 31 groundwater samples from Switzerland. The best accuracy was observed with the predicted ionization efficiency-based quantification, the mean error of concentration prediction for the groundwater samples was a factor of 1.8, and all of the 74 micropollutants detected in the groundwater were quantified with an error less than a factor of 10. The quantification of TPs with the parent compounds had significantly lower accuracy (mean error of a factor of 3.8) and could only be applied to a fraction of the detected compounds, while the mean performance (mean error of a factor of 3.2) of the closest eluting standard approach was similar to the parent compound approach.

Indexed as

LC/HRMSNon-targetedQuantificationTransformation products

Identifiers

PMID33506334
PMCPMC7921029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.