Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 3, 2026

Large Scale Non-targeted Metabolomic Profiling of Serum by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry UPLC-MS
Published on: March 14, 2013
Two stage algorithm vs commonly used approaches for the suspect screening of complex environmental samples analyzed
Saer Samanipour1, Jose A Baz-Lomba1, Nikiforos A Alygizakis2
1Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Gaustadalléen 21, 0349 Oslo, Norway.
Abstract:
LC-HR-QTOF-MS recently has become a commonly used approach for the analysis of complex samples. However, identification of small organic molecules in complex samples with the highest level of confidence is a challenging task. Here we report on the implementation of a two stage algorithm for LC-HR-QTOF-MS datasets. We compared the performances of the two stage algorithm, implemented via NIVA_MZ_Analyzer™, with two commonly used approaches (i.e. feature detection and XIC peak picking, implemented via UNIFI by Waters and TASQ by Bruker, respectively) for the suspect analysis of four influent wastewater samples. We first evaluated the cross platform compatibility of LC-HR-QTOF-MS datasets generated via instruments from two different manufacturers (i.e. Waters and Bruker). Our data showed that with an appropriate spectral weighting function the spectra recorded by the two tested instruments are comparable for our analytes. As a consequence, we were able to perform full spectral comparison between the data generated via the two studied instruments. Four extracts of wastewater influent were analyzed for 89 analytes, thus 356 detection cases. The analytes were divided into 158 detection cases of artificial suspect analytes (i.e. verified by target analysis) and 198 true suspects. The two stage algorithm resulted in a zero rate of false positive detection, based on the artificial suspect analytes while producing a rate of false negative detection of 0.12. For the conventional approaches, the rates of false positive detection varied between 0.06 for UNIFI and 0.15 for TASQ. The rates of false negative detection for these methods ranged between 0.07 for TASQ and 0.09 for UNIFI. The effect of background signal complexity on the two stage algorithm was evaluated through the generation of a synthetic signal. We further discuss the boundaries of applicability of the two stage algorithm. The importance of background knowledge and experience in evaluating the reliability of results during the suspect screening was evaluated.
More Related Videos
09:04Identifying Per- and Polyfluorinated Chemical Species with a Combined Targeted and Non-Targeted-Screening High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Workflow
Published on: April 18, 2019
10:17High-throughput and Comprehensive Drug Surveillance Using Multisegment Injection-Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry
Published on: April 23, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Mass Spectrometry: Complex Analysis
GC–MS is a powerful hyphenated method commonly used in forensics and environmental...
Tandem Mass Spectrometry
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Types of Detectors
Peptide Identification Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry
This technique helps gather information regarding the protein from which the peptide was obtained and to study the peptides’ amino acid sequence. Identifying peptides from a complex mixture is an important component of the growing field of...
Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS)
A gas chromatograph consists of a long, narrow capillary column with a polysiloxane coating on the inner wall....
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS)