Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40525274›Full record

ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025

Overcoming Matrix Effects in Non-Target Screening: A Novel Strategy for Urban Runoff Analysis.

Thomas Molnár Karlsson, Jan H Christensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Thomas Molnár KarlssonAnalytical Chemistry Group, Department of Plant and Environmental Science Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0007-5205-3517
Jan H ChristensenAnalytical Chemistry Group, Department of Plant and Environmental Science Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Thorvaldsensvej 40, 1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-1414-1886

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Matrix effects (MEs) challenge the reliability of target and non-target screening (NTS) in urban runoff analysis, particularly due to sample heterogeneity, which makes pooled samples inadequate for method development, validation, and ME corrections. This study investigated MEs in 21 urban runoff samples from different catchment areas, showing high variability in signal suppression (0-67% median suppression at 50× relative enrichment factor, REF). Runoff collected after prolonged dry periods ("dirty" samples) required enrichment below REF 50 to avoid suppression exceeding 50%. In contrast, "clean" samples had suppression below 30% even at REF 100. To correct residual MEs, a novel Individual Sample-Matched Internal Standard (IS-MIS) strategy consistently outperformed established ME correction methods, achieving <20% RSD for 80% of features through analysis of samples at three REFs as part of the analytical sequence to match features and internal standards. In contrast, internal standard matching with a pooled sample resulted in only 70% of features meeting this threshold (<20% RSD). Although IS-MIS requires additional analysis time (59% more runs for the most cost-effective strategy), it significantly improves accuracy and reliability, making it a viable and cost-effective solution for large-scale urban runoff monitoring. Furthermore, IS-MIS generates valuable data on peak reliability through measurements of signal intensities across multiple REFs, which can be used to remove "false" peaks and improve data preprocessing and method development in NTS.

Identifiers

PMID40525274
PMCPMC12224152

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.