Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples
Enantiomeric fractions (EFs) are used extensively in environmental pollutant research because of the insights on biochemical weathering available from quantifying enantiomeric composition. While this analysis is powerful, it can also be subject to significant error, depending on how chromatographic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Chemosphere (Oxford) 2009-05, Vol.75 (8), p.1042-1048 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1048 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 1042 |
container_title | Chemosphere (Oxford) |
container_volume | 75 |
creator | Asher, Brian J. D’Agostino, Lisa A. Way, Jenilee D. Wong, Charles S. Harynuk, James J. |
description | Enantiomeric fractions (EFs) are used extensively in environmental pollutant research because of the insights on biochemical weathering available from quantifying enantiomeric composition. While this analysis is powerful, it can also be subject to significant error, depending on how chromatographic peaks are integrated. Two methods of integration, the common valley drop method (VDM) and the deconvolution method (DM) were compared using both instrumental and simulated chromatograms to assess their performance when integrating pairs of enantiomers. The effect of peak parameters such as true EF, peak resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and asymmetry were also investigated. The VDM biased EFs by up to +6% to −4% (relative to the 0–1 EF scale) for symmetric peaks, and as low as −20% for asymmetric peaks. For both instrumental and simulated data, biases tended to increase with decreasing resolution and more extreme (nonracemic) EFs. In contrast, the DM produced biases that were less than 1% in most cases, including at very low resolutions. Estimates from previously published studies based on EF, such as biotransformation rate and source apportionment, could be dramatically affected by small errors in EF. Our results suggest that a deconvolution-based integration method is preferable for the handling of enantiomer compositions. Caution is also advised when comparing published studies on chiral environmental pollutants as most do not specify how chromatographic data is processed. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.041 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903615185</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0045653509000800</els_id><sourcerecordid>20560530</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-7503e7cc4e513df606fbfc49c74794871eb82b82139754a4481672bdcbd71f423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkVGP1CAUhYnRuLOrf8HUB_Vp6r0tlPJoJuqabOKLPhNKbx3GAhU6m_jvZZyJ-qQmJBDOd-DmHMaeI9QI2L0-1HZPPuZlT4nqBkDVgDVwfMA22Eu1xUb1D9kGgIttJ1pxxa5zPgAUs1CP2RWqBoXqYMPCLvrFJJdjqOJULWS-Vi6s9CWZ1ZU7T-s-jrmaYqrWPVUjrZS8C2e1OCiYUM6ekrPVlIz9KbhQhHuXYvAUVjNX2fhlpvyEPZrMnOnpZb9hn9-9_bS73d59fP9h9-Zua7lS61YKaElay0lgO04ddNMwFclKLhXvJdLQN2Vhq6TghvMeO9kMox1GiRNv2hv26vzukuK3I-VVe5ctzbMJFI9ZK2g7FNiLQr78K9lyXvJV_wYbEB2IFgqozqBNMedEk16S8yZ91wj61J8-6D_606f-NKAu_RXvs8snx8HT-Nt5KawALy6AydbMJfBgXf7FNcgVojxNuztzVFK-d5R0to6CpdElsqseo_uPcX4Aw0fAgQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>20560530</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Asher, Brian J. ; D’Agostino, Lisa A. ; Way, Jenilee D. ; Wong, Charles S. ; Harynuk, James J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Asher, Brian J. ; D’Agostino, Lisa A. ; Way, Jenilee D. ; Wong, Charles S. ; Harynuk, James J.</creatorcontrib><description>Enantiomeric fractions (EFs) are used extensively in environmental pollutant research because of the insights on biochemical weathering available from quantifying enantiomeric composition. While this analysis is powerful, it can also be subject to significant error, depending on how chromatographic peaks are integrated. Two methods of integration, the common valley drop method (VDM) and the deconvolution method (DM) were compared using both instrumental and simulated chromatograms to assess their performance when integrating pairs of enantiomers. The effect of peak parameters such as true EF, peak resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and asymmetry were also investigated. The VDM biased EFs by up to +6% to −4% (relative to the 0–1 EF scale) for symmetric peaks, and as low as −20% for asymmetric peaks. For both instrumental and simulated data, biases tended to increase with decreasing resolution and more extreme (nonracemic) EFs. In contrast, the DM produced biases that were less than 1% in most cases, including at very low resolutions. Estimates from previously published studies based on EF, such as biotransformation rate and source apportionment, could be dramatically affected by small errors in EF. Our results suggest that a deconvolution-based integration method is preferable for the handling of enantiomer compositions. Caution is also advised when comparing published studies on chiral environmental pollutants as most do not specify how chromatographic data is processed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0045-6535</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1298</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.041</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19215960</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CMSHAF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Biotransformation ; Chiral separations ; Chromatography - methods ; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid ; Deconvolution ; Enantiomeric fraction ; Environmental Pollutants - analysis ; Exact sciences and technology ; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry ; Global environmental pollution ; Integration ; Pollution ; Polychlorinated Biphenyls - analysis ; Stereoisomerism</subject><ispartof>Chemosphere (Oxford), 2009-05, Vol.75 (8), p.1042-1048</ispartof><rights>2009 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-7503e7cc4e513df606fbfc49c74794871eb82b82139754a4481672bdcbd71f423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-7503e7cc4e513df606fbfc49c74794871eb82b82139754a4481672bdcbd71f423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.041$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=21491175$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19215960$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Asher, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Agostino, Lisa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Way, Jenilee D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harynuk, James J.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples</title><title>Chemosphere (Oxford)</title><addtitle>Chemosphere</addtitle><description>Enantiomeric fractions (EFs) are used extensively in environmental pollutant research because of the insights on biochemical weathering available from quantifying enantiomeric composition. While this analysis is powerful, it can also be subject to significant error, depending on how chromatographic peaks are integrated. Two methods of integration, the common valley drop method (VDM) and the deconvolution method (DM) were compared using both instrumental and simulated chromatograms to assess their performance when integrating pairs of enantiomers. The effect of peak parameters such as true EF, peak resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and asymmetry were also investigated. The VDM biased EFs by up to +6% to −4% (relative to the 0–1 EF scale) for symmetric peaks, and as low as −20% for asymmetric peaks. For both instrumental and simulated data, biases tended to increase with decreasing resolution and more extreme (nonracemic) EFs. In contrast, the DM produced biases that were less than 1% in most cases, including at very low resolutions. Estimates from previously published studies based on EF, such as biotransformation rate and source apportionment, could be dramatically affected by small errors in EF. Our results suggest that a deconvolution-based integration method is preferable for the handling of enantiomer compositions. Caution is also advised when comparing published studies on chiral environmental pollutants as most do not specify how chromatographic data is processed.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Biotransformation</subject><subject>Chiral separations</subject><subject>Chromatography - methods</subject><subject>Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid</subject><subject>Deconvolution</subject><subject>Enantiomeric fraction</subject><subject>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry</subject><subject>Global environmental pollution</subject><subject>Integration</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Polychlorinated Biphenyls - analysis</subject><subject>Stereoisomerism</subject><issn>0045-6535</issn><issn>1879-1298</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkVGP1CAUhYnRuLOrf8HUB_Vp6r0tlPJoJuqabOKLPhNKbx3GAhU6m_jvZZyJ-qQmJBDOd-DmHMaeI9QI2L0-1HZPPuZlT4nqBkDVgDVwfMA22Eu1xUb1D9kGgIttJ1pxxa5zPgAUs1CP2RWqBoXqYMPCLvrFJJdjqOJULWS-Vi6s9CWZ1ZU7T-s-jrmaYqrWPVUjrZS8C2e1OCiYUM6ekrPVlIz9KbhQhHuXYvAUVjNX2fhlpvyEPZrMnOnpZb9hn9-9_bS73d59fP9h9-Zua7lS61YKaElay0lgO04ddNMwFclKLhXvJdLQN2Vhq6TghvMeO9kMox1GiRNv2hv26vzukuK3I-VVe5ctzbMJFI9ZK2g7FNiLQr78K9lyXvJV_wYbEB2IFgqozqBNMedEk16S8yZ91wj61J8-6D_606f-NKAu_RXvs8snx8HT-Nt5KawALy6AydbMJfBgXf7FNcgVojxNuztzVFK-d5R0to6CpdElsqseo_uPcX4Aw0fAgQ</recordid><startdate>20090501</startdate><enddate>20090501</enddate><creator>Asher, Brian J.</creator><creator>D’Agostino, Lisa A.</creator><creator>Way, Jenilee D.</creator><creator>Wong, Charles S.</creator><creator>Harynuk, James J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090501</creationdate><title>Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples</title><author>Asher, Brian J. ; D’Agostino, Lisa A. ; Way, Jenilee D. ; Wong, Charles S. ; Harynuk, James J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c499t-7503e7cc4e513df606fbfc49c74794871eb82b82139754a4481672bdcbd71f423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Biotransformation</topic><topic>Chiral separations</topic><topic>Chromatography - methods</topic><topic>Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid</topic><topic>Deconvolution</topic><topic>Enantiomeric fraction</topic><topic>Environmental Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry</topic><topic>Global environmental pollution</topic><topic>Integration</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Polychlorinated Biphenyls - analysis</topic><topic>Stereoisomerism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Asher, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Agostino, Lisa A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Way, Jenilee D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harynuk, James J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Chemosphere (Oxford)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Asher, Brian J.</au><au>D’Agostino, Lisa A.</au><au>Way, Jenilee D.</au><au>Wong, Charles S.</au><au>Harynuk, James J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples</atitle><jtitle>Chemosphere (Oxford)</jtitle><addtitle>Chemosphere</addtitle><date>2009-05-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1042</spage><epage>1048</epage><pages>1042-1048</pages><issn>0045-6535</issn><eissn>1879-1298</eissn><coden>CMSHAF</coden><abstract>Enantiomeric fractions (EFs) are used extensively in environmental pollutant research because of the insights on biochemical weathering available from quantifying enantiomeric composition. While this analysis is powerful, it can also be subject to significant error, depending on how chromatographic peaks are integrated. Two methods of integration, the common valley drop method (VDM) and the deconvolution method (DM) were compared using both instrumental and simulated chromatograms to assess their performance when integrating pairs of enantiomers. The effect of peak parameters such as true EF, peak resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and asymmetry were also investigated. The VDM biased EFs by up to +6% to −4% (relative to the 0–1 EF scale) for symmetric peaks, and as low as −20% for asymmetric peaks. For both instrumental and simulated data, biases tended to increase with decreasing resolution and more extreme (nonracemic) EFs. In contrast, the DM produced biases that were less than 1% in most cases, including at very low resolutions. Estimates from previously published studies based on EF, such as biotransformation rate and source apportionment, could be dramatically affected by small errors in EF. Our results suggest that a deconvolution-based integration method is preferable for the handling of enantiomer compositions. Caution is also advised when comparing published studies on chiral environmental pollutants as most do not specify how chromatographic data is processed.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>19215960</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.041</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0045-6535 |
ispartof | Chemosphere (Oxford), 2009-05, Vol.75 (8), p.1042-1048 |
issn | 0045-6535 1879-1298 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_903615185 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Applied sciences Biotransformation Chiral separations Chromatography - methods Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid Deconvolution Enantiomeric fraction Environmental Pollutants - analysis Exact sciences and technology Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Global environmental pollution Integration Pollution Polychlorinated Biphenyls - analysis Stereoisomerism |
title | Comparison of peak integration methods for the determination of enantiomeric fraction in environmental samples |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T16%3A32%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20peak%20integration%20methods%20for%20the%20determination%20of%20enantiomeric%20fraction%20in%20environmental%20samples&rft.jtitle=Chemosphere%20(Oxford)&rft.au=Asher,%20Brian%20J.&rft.date=2009-05-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1042&rft.epage=1048&rft.pages=1042-1048&rft.issn=0045-6535&rft.eissn=1879-1298&rft.coden=CMSHAF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.041&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E20560530%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=20560530&rft_id=info:pmid/19215960&rft_els_id=S0045653509000800&rfr_iscdi=true |