Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33768366›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2022

Target, suspect and non-target screening analysis from wastewater treatment plant effluents to drinking water using collision cross section values as additional identification criterion.

Vanessa Hinnenkamp, Peter Balsaa, Torsten C Schmidt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
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.

Vanessa HinnenkampIWW Water Centre, Moritzstraße 26, 45476, Muelheim an der Ruhr, Germany.
Peter BalsaaIWW Water Centre, Moritzstraße 26, 45476, Muelheim an der Ruhr, Germany.
Torsten C SchmidtIWW Water Centre, Moritzstraße 26, 45476, Muelheim an der Ruhr, Germany. torsten.schmidt@uni-due.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anthropogenic entry of organic micropollutants into the aquatic environment leads to a potential risk for drinking water resources and the drinking water itself. Therefore, sensitive screening analysis methods are needed to monitor the raw and drinking water quality continuously. Non-target screening analysis has been shown to allow for a more comprehensive investigation of drinking water processes compared to target analysis alone. However, non-target screening is challenging due to the many features that can be detected. Thus, data processing techniques to reduce the high number of features are necessary, and prioritization techniques are important to find the features of interest for identification, as identification of unknown substances is challenging as well. In this study, a drinking water production process, where drinking water is supplied by a water reservoir, was investigated. Since the water reservoir provides surface water, which is anthropogenically influenced by wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents, substances originating from WWTP effluents and reaching the drinking water were investigated, because this indicates that they cannot be removed by the drinking water production process. For this purpose, ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with an ion-mobility high-resolution mass spectrometer (UPLC-IM-HRMS) was used in a combined approach including target, suspect and non-target screening analysis to identify known and unknown substances. Additionally, the role of ion-mobility-derived collision cross sections (CCS) in identification is discussed. To that end, six samples (two WWTP effluent samples, a surface water sample that received the effluents, a raw water sample from a downstream water reservoir, a process sample and the drinking water) were analyzed. Positive findings for a total of 60 substances in at least one sample were obtained through quantitative screening. Sixty-five percent (15 out of 23) of the identified substances in the drinking water sample were pharmaceuticals and transformation products of pharmaceuticals. Using suspect screening, further 33 substances were tentatively identified in one or more samples, where for 19 of these substances, CCS values could be compared with CCS values from the literature, which supported the tentative identification. Eight substances were identified by reference standards. In the non-target screening, a total of ten features detected in all six samples were prioritized, whereby metoprolol acid/atenolol acid (a transformation product of the two β-blockers metoprolol and atenolol) and 1,3-benzothiazol-2-sulfonic acid (a transformation product of the vulcanization accelerator 2-mercaptobenzothiazole) were identified with reference standards. Overall, this study demonstrates the added value of a comprehensive water monitoring approach based on UPLC-IM-HRMS analysis.

Indexed as

Drinking WaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater PurificationChromatography, LiquidMass SpectrometryWastewaterDrinking WaterWastewaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalCCS valueDrinking waterLC-IM-HRMSMicropollutantsNon-target screening

Identifiers

PMID33768366
PMCPMC8748347

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.