ArticleAnalytical chemistry2025
Evaluation of Three Sample Preparation Methods for LC-HRMS Suspect Screening of Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Effluent Wastewater.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identification of Emerging Organic Pollutants in Aquatic Environments Under the Omics-Based Framework: A Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suspect screening is a valuable tool for studying the pollution footprint of environmental samples, but the sample preparation (SP) method significantly affects the results. In this study, three SP methods─lyophilization, direct injection, and online solid-phase extraction (SPE)─were evaluated for suspect screening of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in effluent wastewater using liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). LC-HRMS was performed with a Q-ToF mass analyzer in both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes, and pollutants were identified using the NORMAN SusDat database. A total of 119 CECs were identified with high confidence (all above level 2a). Of these, 115 were detected using lyophilization, 37 with direct injection, and 49 with online SPE. Principal component analysis revealed distinct patterns for each SP method. In all cases, the pollution profile was dominated by pharmaceuticals, followed by industrial chemicals. Articaine, a local anesthetic previously unreported in the aquatic environment, was the most abundant compound found. Industrial chemicals included phthalates, flame retardants, benzotriazoles, and perfluoroalkyl substances, among others. The remaining identified CECs were personal care products, pesticides, and drugs of abuse. Compound prioritization, based on abundance, persistence, mobility, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity, identified the antibiotics clindamycin and tiamulin, the analgesic flufenamic acid, the musk fragrance metabolite galaxolidone, and the antidepressant venlafaxine metabolite, O-desmethyl venlafaxine, as top priority. These results highlight the importance of applying an appropriate SP method to obtain a comprehensive CEC footprint in suspect screening analysis and demonstrate the suitability of lyophilization for wastewater characterization.
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.