4.7 Article

Suspect screening and target quantification of human pharmaceutical residues in the surface water of Wuhan, China, using UHPLC-Q-Orbitrap HRMS

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 635, 期 -, 页码 828-837

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.179

关键词

Human pharmaceuticals; Suspect screening; High resolution mass spectrometry; Q-Exactive; Surface water; Wuhan

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21775141, 41521001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study we developed a systematic method for suspect screening and target quantification of the human pharmaceutical residues in water, via solid phase extraction (SPE) followed by liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). We then proceeded to study the occurrences and distribution of the pharmaceuticals in the surface waters of Wuhan, China, by analyzing water samples from lakes, rivers and municipal sewage. Initially, 33 human pharmaceuticals were identified from East Lake without using purchasing standards. Of these, 29 were later confirmed by using standards, and quantified using the aforementioned SPE pretreatment method and LC-HRMS analysis in full MS scan mode. The 29 compounds included 8 antibiotics, 9 metabolites, and 12 miscellaneous pharmaceuticals. The highest proportions of pharmaceutical residues were detected downstream of the Yangtze River and in the lakes close to the central city. Metformin, cotinine, and trans-3-hydroxy cotinine, were frequently encountered in all the surface water samples. High concentrations (>120 ng/l) of caffeine, metformin, theobromine, and valsartan were detected in the surface water samples; the removal rates of these compounds in the municipal sewage treatment plant were also high. In contrast, although the concentrations of 4-AAA and metoprolol acid in the surface water were high, the removal rates of these residues in the sewage treatment plant were low. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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