Evaluation of Matrix Effects in Quantifying Microbial Secondary Metabolites in Indoor Dust Using Ultraperformance Liquid ChromatographeTandem Mass Spectrometer
10.1016/j.shaw.2018.12.004
- Author:
Mukhtar JADERSON
1
;
Ju Hyeong PARK
Author Information
1. Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dust sample;
Mass spectrometry;
Matrix effect;
Microbial;
Secondary metabolite
- MeSH:
2,5-Dimethoxy-4-Methylamphetamine;
Calibration;
Dust;
Mass Spectrometry;
Methods
- From:Safety and Health at Work
2019;10(2):196-204
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Liquid chromatographyetandem mass spectrometry (LC-MSMS) for simultaneous analysis of multiple microbial secondary metabolites (MSMs) is potentially subject to interference by matrix components. METHODS: We examined potential matrix effects (MEs) in analyses of 31 MSMs using ultraperformance LC-MSMS. Twenty-one dust aliquots from three buildings (seven aliquots/building) were spiked with seven concentrations of each of the MSMs (6.2 pg/µl–900 pg/µl) and then extracted. Another set of 21 aliquots were first extracted and then, the extract was spiked with the same concentrations. We added deepoxy-deoxynivalenol (DOM) to all aliquots as a universal internal standard. Ten microliters of the extract was injected into the ultraperformance LC-MSMS. ME was calculated by subtracting the percentage of the response of analyte in spiked extract to that in neat standard from 100. Spiked extract results were used to create a matrix-matched calibration (MMC) curve for estimating MSM concentration in dust spiked before extraction. RESULTS: Analysis of variance was used to examine effects of compound (MSM), building and concentration on response. MEs (range: 63.4%–99.97%) significantly differed by MSM (p < 0.01) and building (p < 0.05). Mean percent recoveries adjusted with DOM and the MMC method were 246.3% (SD = 226.0) and 86.3% (SD = 70.7), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found that dust MEs resulted in substantial underestimation in quantifying MSMs and that DOM was not an optimal universal internal standard for the adjustment but that the MMC method resulted in more accurate and precise recovery compared with DOM. More research on adjustment methods for dust MEs in the simultaneous analyses of multiple MSMs using LC-MSMS is warranted.
