4.7 Article Data Paper

Inter-laboratory mass spectrometry dataset based on passive sampling of drinking water for non-target analysis

期刊

SCIENTIFIC DATA
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41597-021-01002-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. NORMAN network
  2. Danish Environmental Protection Agency [MST-667-00207]
  3. Aarhus University Research Foundation [AUFF-T-2017-FLS-7-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-target analysis using high-resolution mass spectrometry is commonly used to detect emerging chemicals in complex environmental samples. Inter-laboratory studies help evaluate different workflows and establish standardized quality control procedures. The data generated from this study serves as a valuable resource for future development of algorithms and workflows in NTA experiments.
Non-target analysis (NTA) employing high-resolution mass spectrometry is a commonly applied approach for the detection of novel chemicals of emerging concern in complex environmental samples. NTA typically results in large and information-rich datasets that require computer aided (ideally automated) strategies for their processing and interpretation. Such strategies do however raise the challenge of reproducibility between and within different processing workflows. An effective strategy to mitigate such problems is the implementation of inter-laboratory studies (ILS) with the aim to evaluate different workflows and agree on harmonized/standardized quality control procedures. Here we present the data generated during such an ILS. This study was organized through the Norman Network and included 21 participants from 11 countries. A set of samples based on the passive sampling of drinking water pre and post treatment was shipped to all the participating laboratories for analysis, using one pre-defined method and one locally (i.e. in-house) developed method. The data generated represents a valuable resource (i.e. benchmark) for future developments of algorithms and workflows for NTA experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据