Advertisement

Target Identification in Methods

  • Boris L. MilmanEmail author
Chapter
  • 908 Downloads

Abstract

Target identification is considered in detail. A qualitative analysis of this type is mostly performed according to validated methods which are screening and confirmatory. An identification result is the conclusion based on criteria. Those for screening identification are not very rigorous and not numerous. An example is the presence of a particular mass chromatographic peak in a rather wide range of the retention parameter. Most chromatographic techniques are suitable for screening. For confirmation of identity, more analytical data are required, e.g., three or four mass peaks and matching tolerance/range criteria for peak intensities. Any such value is named an identification point. An analyst should gather the required number of points. Chromatography and mass spectrometry and their combinations are the most appropriate techniques for the purpose. Different versions of the techniques, as well as other types of spectroscopy, are considered. The requirements and guidelines for setting up identification criteria presented in a number of laboratory guidances which have been issued by various organizations and agencies are outlined in detail. These are not the same in different documents; that is the reason for criticizing them. The system of identification points itself and the evident or suspected invalidity of tolerance criteria has also been criticized. The criticism is partly accepted, and some objections are also presented here. In general, the guidelines are regularly tested through a global analytical practice, and new improvements of identification criteria are reported.

Keywords

Pesticide Residue Identification Point Tolerance Range Relative Peak Intensity Retention Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Commission Decision 2002/657/EC, August 12, 2002, implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and interpretation of results (2002) Off J Eur Commun L 221:8-36. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:221:0008:0036:EN:PDF. Accessed 14 May 2010
  2. 2.
    Method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed (2009) Document No. SANCO/10684/2009. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/qualcontrol_en.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2010
  3. 3.
    FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Guidelines on the use of mass spectrometry (MS) for identification, confirmation and quantitative determination of residues (2005) CAC/GL 56-2005. http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.jsp. Accessed 16 May 2010
  4. 4.
    Nielsen KF, Smedsgaard J (2003) Fungal metabolite screening: database of 474 mycotoxins and fungal metabolites for dereplication by standardised liquid chromatography–UV–mass spectrometry methodology. J Chromatogr A 1002:111–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gentili A, Perret D, Marchese S (2005) Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for performing confirmatory analysis of veterinary drugs in animal-food products. Trends Anal Chem 24:704–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mueller CA, Weinmann W, Dresen S, Schreiber A, Gergov M (2005) Development of a multi-target screening analysis for 301 drugs using a QTrap liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry system and automated library searching. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 19:1332–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jiménez C, Ventura R, Segura J (2002) Validation of qualitative chromatographic methods: strategy in antidoping control laboratories. J Chromatogr B 767:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehotay SJ, Mastovska K, Amirav A, Fialkov AB, Martos PA, de Kok A, Fernández-Alba AR (2008) Identification and confirmation of chemical residues in food by chromatography-mass spectrometry and other techniques. Trends Anal Chem 27:1070–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    SOFT/AAFS Forensic Laboratory Guidelines (2006). http://www.soft-tox.org/docs/Guidelines%202006%20Final.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2010
  11. 11.
    EURACHEM Guide (1998) The fitness for purpose of analytical methods. http://www.eurachem.org/guides/valid.pdf. Accessed 28 Oct 2010
  12. 12.
    US EPA Method 524.2 (1995) Measurement of purgeable organic compounds in water by capillary column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Revision 4.1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    US EPA Method 525.2 (1995) Determination of organic compounds in drinking water by liquid–solid extraction and capillary column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Revision 2.0Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    US EPA Method 525.1 (1991) Determination of organic compounds in drinking water by liquid-solid extraction and capillary column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Revision 2.2Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    US EPA Method 548.1 (1992) Determination of endothall in drinking water by ion-exchange extraction, acidic methanol methylation and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Revision 1.0Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    US EPA Method 625. Base/neutrals and acids. http://www.http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/organics/625.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2010
  17. 17.
    US EPA Method 8270C (1996) Semivolatile organic compounds by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry(GC/MS). Revision 3Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    US EPA Method 8275A (1996) Semivolatile organic compounds (PAHs and PCBs) in soils/sludges and solid wastes using thermal extraction/gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (TE/GC/MS). Revision 1.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    US EPA Method 8260B (1996) Volatile organic compounds by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Revision 2Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    US EPA Method 1698 (2007) Steroids and hormones in water, soil, sediment, and biosolids by HRGC/HRMS. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/files/1698.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010
  21. 21.
    FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine Guidance for Industry (2003) Mass spectrometry for confirmation of the identity of animal drug residues. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Animal-Veterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM052658.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2010
  22. 22.
    AORC Guidelines for the minimum criteria for identification by chromatography and mass spectrometry (2003). http://cobra.vdl.iastate.edu/aorc-2/AORC%20MS%20Criteria.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2010
  23. 23.
    WADA Technical Document TD2003IDCR (2003) Identification criteria for qualitative assays incorporating chromatography and mass spectrometry. http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/criteria_1_2.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2010
  24. 24.
    ASTM D 4128 (2006) Standard guide for identification and quantitation of organic compounds in water by combined gas chromatography and electron impact mass spectrometryGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Penders J, Verstraete A (2006) Laboratory guidelines and standards in clinical and forensic toxicology. Accred Qual Assur 11: 284–290Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ISO Standard 22892 (2006) Soil quality – Guidelines for the identification of target compounds by gas chromatography and mass spectrometryGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valcárcel M, Cárdenas S, Barceló D, Buydens L, Heydorn K, Karlberg B, Klemm K, Lendl B, Milman B, Neidhart B, Ríos A, Stephany R, Townshend A, Zschunke A (2002) Metrology of qualitative chemical analysis. Report EUR 20605. EC, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ellison SLR (2000) Uncertainties in qualitative testing and analysis. Accred Qual Assur 5:346–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hardcastle WA (1998) Qualitative analysis: a guide to the best practice. LGC. http://www.rsc.org/ebooks/archive/free/BK9780854044627/BK9780854044627-00001.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2010
  30. 30.
    Giarrocco V, Quimby B, Klee M (2000) Retention time locking: concepts and applications. Agilent Application 5966-2469E. http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/applications/59662469.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010
  31. 31.
    Rohrback BG, Ramos LS (2003) Aligning Chromatograms. Gulf Coast Conference, 2003. http://www.infometrix.com/apps/GCC2003_Align_L.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010
  32. 32.
    US EPA Method 1694 (2007) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water, soil, sediment, and biosolids by HPLC/MS/MS. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/files/1694.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010
  33. 33.
    Andre F, De Wasch KKG, De Brabander HF, Impens SR, Stolker LAM, Van Ginkel L, Stephany RW, Schilt R, Courtheyn D, Bonnaire Y, Furst P, Gowik P, Kennedy G, Kuhn T, Moretain JP, Sauer M (2001) Trends in the identification of organic residues and contaminants: EC regulations under revision. Trends Anal Chem 20:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Waters ACQUITY UPLC Photodiode Array Detector 71500108703 / Revision A. http://www.waters.com/webassets/cms/support/docs/71500108703ra.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2010
  35. 35.
    De Ruig WG, Weseman JM (1990) A new approach to confirmation by infrared spectrometry. J Chemom 4:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellison SLR, Gregory SL (1998) Predicting chance infrared spectroscopic matching frequencies. Anal Chim Acta 370:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    PNA Test methods performed. http://www.process-nmr.com/test_methods_performed.htm. Accessed 18 May 2010
  38. 38.
    Standal IB, Axelson DE, Aursand M (2009) Differentiation of fish oils according to species by 13C-NMR regiospecific analyses of triacyglycerols. J Am Oil Chem Soc 86:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    De Zeeuw RA (2004) Substance identification: the weak link in analytical toxicology. J Chromatogr B 811:3–12Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bethem R, Boison J, Gale J, Heller D, Lehotay S, Loo J, Musser S, Price P, Stein S (2003) Establishing the fitness for purpose of mass spectrometric methods. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 14:528–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Boer WJ, Van der Voet H, De Ruig WG, Van Rhijn JA, Cooper KM, Kennedy DG, Patel RKP, Porter S, Reuvers T, Marcos V, Munoz P, Bosch J, Rodriguez P, Grases JM (1999) Optimizing the balance between false positive and false negative error probabilities of confirmatory methods for the detection of veterinary drug residues. Analyst 124:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Faber NM (2009) Regulations in the field of residue and doping analysis should ensure the risk of false positive declaration is well-defined. Accred Qual Assur 14:111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Soboleva E, Ahad K, Ambrus Á (2004) Applicability of some mass spectrometric criteria for the confirmation of pesticide residues. Analyst 129:1123–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Milman BL, Kovrizhnych MA (2000) Identification of chemical substances by testing and screening of hypotheses. II. Determination of impurities in n-hexane and naphthalene. Fresenius J Anal Chem 367:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schürmann A, Dvorak V, Crüzer C, Butcher P, Kaufmann A (2009) False-positive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric confirmation of sebuthylazine residues using the identification points system according to EU directive 2002/657/EC due to a biogenic insecticide in tarragon. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 23:1196–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nielen MWF, Van Engelen MC, Zuiderent R, Ramaker R (2007) Screening and confirmation criteria for hormone residue analysis using liquid chromatography accurate mass time-of-flight, Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance and orbitrap mass spectrometry techniques. Anal Chim Acta 586:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marshall AG, Hendrickson CL (2008) High-resolution mass spectrometers. Annu Rev Anal Chem 1:579–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.D.I. Mendeleyev Inst. for Metrology (VNIIM) and Cent. for Ecol. Saf. of Russ. Acad. of SciencesSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations