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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Chemosphere (Oxford) 2009-05, Vol.75 (8), p.1042-1048
Hauptverfasser: Asher, Brian J., D’Agostino, Lisa A., Way, Jenilee D., Wong, Charles S., Harynuk, James J.
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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21491175$$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