Evaluation of Matrix Effects in Quantifying Microbial Secondary Metabolites in Indoor Dust Using Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatograph-Tandem Mass Spectrometer.

Mukhtar Jaderson, Ju-Hyeong Park
Author Information
  1. Mukhtar Jaderson: Health Effects Laboratory Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.
  2. Ju-Hyeong Park: Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Liquid chromatography-tandem 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 ( < 0.01) and building ( < 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Jun;107 Suppl 3:473-80 [PMID: 10423390]
  2. J Chromatogr A. 2002 Oct 11;973(1-2):13-26 [PMID: 12437160]
  3. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2003;17(6):589-97 [PMID: 12621622]
  4. Anal Chem. 2003 Jul 1;75(13):3019-30 [PMID: 12964746]
  5. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2005;19(3):401-7 [PMID: 15645520]
  6. Clin Biochem. 2005 Apr;38(4):328-34 [PMID: 15766734]
  7. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2005 Oct 25;825(2):134-43 [PMID: 16002352]
  8. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20(5):771-6 [PMID: 16470672]
  9. Indoor Air. 2006 Jun;16(3):192-203 [PMID: 16683938]
  10. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2006;20(18):2649-59 [PMID: 16912987]
  11. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2007 Jun 1;852(1-2):22-34 [PMID: 17236825]
  12. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2007;21(24):4065-72 [PMID: 18008388]
  13. Int J Food Microbiol. 2008 Apr 30;123(3):184-90 [PMID: 18295923]
  14. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2008 May;19(5):713-8 [PMID: 18343682]
  15. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2009 Feb 1;877(4):421-32 [PMID: 19144579]
  16. J Sep Sci. 2009 Apr;32(7):939-48 [PMID: 19224629]
  17. J Chromatogr A. 2009 Jun 5;1216(23):4798-808 [PMID: 19406413]
  18. J Environ Monit. 2009 Aug;11(8):1513-7 [PMID: 19657536]
  19. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009 Nov;395(5):1355-72 [PMID: 19669641]
  20. J Environ Monit. 2009 Oct;11(10):1849-58 [PMID: 19809708]
  21. Anal Chim Acta. 2010 Sep 16;677(2):140-8 [PMID: 20837180]
  22. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2011 Jan 01;3:757-71 [PMID: 21196349]
  23. Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jun;119(6):748-56 [PMID: 21269928]
  24. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011 May;22(3):290-7 [PMID: 21457336]
  25. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Jun;77(12):4180-8 [PMID: 21531835]
  26. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;23(4):409-15 [PMID: 22968350]
  27. Anal Sci. 2012;28(11):1081-7 [PMID: 23149609]
  28. J Agric Food Chem. 2013 Jul 3;61(26):6259-64 [PMID: 23782015]
  29. Food Chem. 2014 Mar 1;146:242-9 [PMID: 24176338]
  30. Anal Chem. 2014 Sep 16;86(18):8959-66 [PMID: 25157966]
  31. Indoor Air. 2016 Jun;26(3):448-56 [PMID: 25913237]
  32. Indoor Air. 2017 Jan;27(1):24-33 [PMID: 26717439]
  33. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 01;11(2):e0147996 [PMID: 26829324]
  34. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016;13(6):442-50 [PMID: 26853932]
  35. Mycotoxin Res. 2017 Feb;33(1):25-37 [PMID: 27817099]
  36. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1988 Sep-Oct;71(5):953-6 [PMID: 3148613]
  37. Am J Ind Med. 1994 Jan;25(1):41-2 [PMID: 8116649]
  38. J Chromatogr A. 1998 Jul 31;815(1):3-20 [PMID: 9718702]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0MSMsMEsdustspikedextractDOMLC-MSMSaliquotsstandardMMCMSMLiquidspectrometrysimultaneousmultiplematrixeffectsanalysesusingsevenextracteduniversalinternalresponseusedconcentration< 0method3%resultedMatrixMicrobialSecondaryDustMassBACKGROUND:chromatography-tandemmassanalysismicrobialsecondarymetabolitespotentiallysubjectinterferencecomponentsMETHODS:examinedpotential31ultraperformance LC-MSMSTwenty-onethreebuildingsaliquots/buildingconcentrations62pg/μl-900pg/μlAnotherset21firstsame concentrations Weaddeddeepoxy-deoxynivalenolTenmicrolitersinjectedultraperformanceMEcalculatedsubtractingpercentageanalyteneat100Spikedresultscreatematrix-matchedcalibrationcurveestimatingextractionRESULTS:Analysisvarianceexaminecompoundbuilding andrange:634%-9997%significantlydiffered01building05Meanpercentrecoveriesadjusted246SD = 226086SD = 707respectivelyCONCLUSION:foundsubstantialunderestimationquantifyingoptimaladjustment butaccuratepreciserecoverycomparedresearchadjustmentmethodswarrantedEvaluationEffectsQuantifyingMetabolitesIndoorUsingUltraperformanceChromatograph-TandemSpectrometersampleeffectmetabolite

Similar Articles

Cited By