ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2021
Isotope pattern deconvolution as a successful alternative to calibration curve for application in wastewater-based epidemiology.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An isotope pattern deconvolution (IPD) quantification method has been applied for the determination of five substances (amphetamine, benzoylecgonine, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA) in wastewater for the application in wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE). A previously validated method that used a calibration curve for quantification was modified to apply IPD. The two approaches were compared in terms of analytical uncertainty in recovery studies of quality control samples, i.e. six wastewater samples from different geographical origins spiked at two concentration levels. Both methods were reliable as they passed (z-score < 2) in an interlaboratory exercise. After 60 individual determinations, IPD provided 11 results outside recovery limits (70-120%) while the previous method produced 31 adverse results. All mean values for IPD were accurate whereas 6 out of 10 results showed RSD values higher than 30% or recoveries outside limits when using the former method. Moreover, the calculated method bias for the latter doubles that of IPD, which, in turn, makes the combined uncertainty (u(c)) much higher. Consequently, a simple change of data treatment-IPD quantification methodology-resulted in a lower uncertainty of the estimated illicit drug concentration, one of the main steps contributing to the final uncertainty in the normalized daily drug consumption through WBE. The current study demonstrated that the employment of IPD can also be very interesting for future applications of WBE, especially when matrix effects are high, complicating accurate quantification. In addition, when a high number of samples and/or compounds need to be analysed, IPD is faster than calibration and, eventually, cost-effective when isotopically labelled internal standard is highly expensive.
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.