Non-targeted screening of trace organic contaminants in surface waters by a multi-tool approach based on combinatorial analysis of tandem mass spectra and open access databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-targeted screening (NTS) in mass spectrometry (MS) helps alleviate the shortcoming of targeted analysis such as missing the presence of concerning compounds that are not monitored and its lack of retrospective analysis to subsequently look for new contaminants. Most NTS workflows include high resolution tandem mass spectrometry (HRMS2) and structure annotation with libraries which are still limited. However, in silico combinatorial fragmentation tools that simulate MS2 spectra are available to help close the gap of missing compounds in empirical libraries. Three NTS tools were combined and used to detect and identify unknown contaminants at ultra-trace levels in surface waters in real samples in this qualitative study. Two of them were based on combinatorial fragmentation databases, MetFrag and the Similar Partition Searching algorithm (SPS), and the third, the Global Natural Products Social Networking (GNPS), was an ensemble of empirical databases. The three NTS tools were applied to the analysis of real samples from a local river. A total of 253 contaminants were identified by combining all three tools: 209 were assigned a probable structure and 44 were confirmed using reference standards. The two major classes of contaminants observed were pharmaceuticals and consumer product additives. Among the confirmed compounds, octylphenol ethoxylates, denatonium, irbesartan and telmisartan are reported for the first time in surface waters in Canada. The workflow presented in this work uses three highly complementary NTS tools and it is a powerful approach to help identify and strategically select contaminants and their transformation products for subsequent targeted analysis and uncover new trends in surface water contamination.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".