Studies of Labware Contamination during Lipid Extraction in Mass Spectrometry-Based Lipidome Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In lipidomic analysis, plasticware is increasingly being used for lipid extraction and other sample processing procedures over glassware. However, a systematic investigation of the consequences of plasticware use on mass spectrometry (MS)-based lipidome analysis is lacking. In this work, we present an analytical approach for detecting and comparing solvent and labware contaminants encountered in lipidomic workflows. It is shown that the contaminant profiles varied widely between microcentrifuge tubes from different manufacturers. The most suitable polypropylene tubes tested introduced 847 labware-originating contaminant m / z ’s when three different manufacturing batches were tested for Folch lipid extractions. Of particular concern is that 21 primary amide and fatty acid surfactants were introduced that were identical to biological endogenous lipids, 16 of which had not been previously reported as leachables from polypropylene materials. Alternatively, the use of borosilicate glassware and PTFE-lined screw caps introduced 98 different contaminant m / z ’s across three manufacturing batches tested for Folch extractions. Despite the overwhelming number of labware contaminants introduced, current databases and literature only facilitated the identification of 32 contaminants. To address the dearth of publicly available contaminant information, we provide a comprehensive labware contamination repository containing high-resolution m / z values, adductation information, retention times, and MS/MS spectra. This resource should prove to be valuable for researchers in detecting and distinguishing contaminants from analytes of interest. A companion paper presents a detailed study of how labware contamination can lead to ion-suppression effects on coeluting lipids and interference in the analysis of endogenous lipids, such as those from human sera.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".