ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2025
Unraveling non-target screening variability for LC-HRMS data: a chemometric comparative analysis of river water samples impacted by treated wastewater.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of Emerging Organic Pollutants in Aquatic Environments Under the Omics-Based Framework: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Exploring non-target screening variability in unsupervised multivariate time trend analysis of LC-HRMS data.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Paper-Based Electroanalysis for Emerging Pollutant Detection.ACS electrochemistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-target screening (NTS) using liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) is crucial for identifying organic compounds and patterns in complex environmental samples. However, discrepancies in data processing between peak-picking algorithms ("feature profile" approaches) remain a critical challenge in achieving consistent and reproducible results. An alternative approach employs multi-way chemometric methods to directly produce "component profiles," allowing efficient decomposition and evaluation of LC-HRMS datasets, often after data compression. This study compares two distinct NTS workflows-MZmine3 and regions of interest multivariate curve resolution-alternating least squares (ROIMCR)-using surface water samples from a large-scale mesocosm experiment receiving wastewater effluent over a 10-day exposure period. Samples were analyzed in both positive and negative ionization modes to assess workflow influence on subsequent multivariate analyses. ANOVA simultaneous component analysis (ASCA) quantified treatment and temporal effects, identified dynamic patterns, and prioritized relevant features, while partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) discriminated effect-based classes and highlighted significant chemical components and features. Results demonstrated that both workflows significantly differentiated treatment and temporal effects but exhibited different characteristics. Temporal variation dominated through implementing ROIMCR (35.5-70.6% variance), whereas MZmine3 showed comparable contributions from time (20.5-31.8%) and sample type (11.6-22.8%). MZmine3 showed an increased sensitivity to treatment effects but increased susceptibility to false positives. ROIMCR provided superior consistency, reproducibility, and temporal clarity but lower treatment sensitivity. Additionally, workflow agreement diminished with more specialized analytical objectives and prioritized features through implementing multivariate chemometric approaches, highlighting the non-holistic capabilities of individual NTS workflows and the potential benefits of their complementary use.
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.