4.8 Article

Risk-based prioritization of suspects detected in riverine water using complementary chromatographic techniques

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 204, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2021.117612

关键词

Organic micropollutants; Chemical water quality; Non-target screening; HRMS; Data science; Surface water; Ionization efficiency; Chromatography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a risk-based approach combining suspect and non-target screening to help extend the coverage of current monitoring schemes for drinking water sources. Results suggest that this method has the potential to enhance monitoring of drinking water sources.
Surface waters are widely used as drinking water sources and hence their quality needs to be continuously monitored. However, current routine monitoring programs are not comprehensive as they generally cover only a limited number of known pollutants and emerging contaminants. This study presents a risk-based approach combining suspect and non-target screening (NTS) to help extend the coverage of current monitoring schemes. In particular, the coverage of NTS was widened by combining three complementary separations modes: Reverse phase (RP), Hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) and Mixed-mode chromatography (MMC). Suspect lists used were compiled from databases of relevant substances of very high concern (e.g., SVHCs) and the concentration of detected suspects was evaluated based on ionization efficiency prediction. Results show that suspect candidates can be prioritized based on their potential risk (i.e., hazard and exposure) by combining ionization efficiency-based concentration estimation, in vitro toxicity data or, if not available, structural alerts and QSAR.based toxicity predictions. The acquired information shows that NTS analyses have the potential to complement target analyses, allowing to update and adapt current monitoring programs, ultimately leading to improved monitoring of drinking water sources.

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

4.8
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