4.7 Article

Prediction of Collision Cross Section Values: Application to Non-Intentionally Added Substance Identification in Food Contact Materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 70, 期 4, 页码 1272-1281

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c06989

关键词

ion mobility; collision cross section; NIAS; food contact materials; machine learning

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [201806780031]
  2. Ministry of Science and Innovation [RTI2018-097805-B-100]
  3. Gobierno de Aragon
  4. Fondo Social Europeo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimentally derived the traveling wave collision cross section in nitrogen values of over 400 chemicals in food contact materials and developed a prediction model for collision cross section (CCS) based on these values and molecular descriptors. The model improved the identification confidence of oligomers and discussed the challenges and opportunities of current machine-learning models on CCS prediction.
The synthetic chemicals in food contact materials can migrate into food and endanger human health. In this study, the traveling wave collision cross section in nitrogen values of more than 400 chemicals in food contact materials were experimentally derived by traveling wave ion mobility spectrometry. A support vector machine-based collision cross section (CCS) prediction model was developed based on CCS values of food contact chemicals and a series of molecular descriptors. More than 92% of protonated and 81% of sodiated adducts showed a relative deviation below 5%. Median relative errors for protonated and sodiated molecules were 1.50 and 1.82%, respectively. The model was then applied to the structural annotation of oligomers migrating from polyamide adhesives. The identification confidence of 11 oligomers was improved by the direct comparison of the experimental data with the predicted CCS values. Finally, the challenges and opportunities of current machine-learning models on CCS prediction were also discussed.

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