Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37380877›Full record

ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2023

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) and suspect screening analysis (SSA): a review of examining the chemical exposome.

Katherine E Manz, Anna Feerick, Joseph M Braun, Yong-Lai Feng, Amber Hall, Jeremy Koelmel, Carlos Manzano, Seth R Newton, Kurt D Pennell, Benjamin J Place and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
24.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 155 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Katherine E ManzSchool of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. katherine_manz@brown.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8225-9168
Anna FeerickAgricultural & Environmental Chemistry Graduate Group, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, 95616, USA.
Joseph M BraunDepartment of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Yong-Lai FengExposure and Biomonitoring Division, Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Amber HallDepartment of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Jeremy KoelmelDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
Carlos ManzanoDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Chile, Santiago, RM, Chile.
Seth R NewtonOffice of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Kurt D PennellSchool of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Benjamin J PlaceNational Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Dr, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA.
Krystal J Godri PollittDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA.
Carsten PrasseDepartment of Environmental Health & Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Joshua A YoungDivision of Biology, Chemistry and Materials Science, Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Brown University · USYale University · USCenter for Devices and Radiological Health · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · USHealth Canada · CAJohns Hopkins University · USNational Institute of Standards and Technology · USSan Diego State University · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) and suspect screening analysis (SSA) are powerful techniques that rely on high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) and computational tools to detect and identify unknown or suspected chemicals in the exposome. Fully understanding the chemical exposome requires characterization of both environmental media and human specimens. As such, we conducted a review to examine the use of different NTA and SSA methods in various exposure media and human samples, including the results and chemicals detected. The literature review was conducted by searching literature databases, such as PubMed and Web of Science, for keywords, such as "non-targeted analysis", "suspect screening analysis" and the exposure media. Sources of human exposure to environmental chemicals discussed in this review include water, air, soil/sediment, dust, and food and consumer products. The use of NTA for exposure discovery in human biospecimen is also reviewed. The chemical space that has been captured using NTA varies by media analyzed and analytical platform. In each media the chemicals that were frequently detected using NTA were: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and pharmaceuticals in water, pesticides and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil and sediment, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds in air, flame retardants in dust, plasticizers in consumer products, and plasticizers, pesticides, and halogenated compounds in human samples. Some studies reviewed herein used both liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) HRMS to increase the detected chemical space (16%); however, the majority (51%) only used LC-HRMS and fewer used GC-HRMS (32%). Finally, we identify knowledge and technology gaps that must be overcome to fully assess potential chemical exposures using NTA. Understanding the chemical space is essential to identifying and prioritizing gaps in our understanding of exposure sources and prior exposures. IMPACT STATEMENT: This review examines the results and chemicals detected by analyzing exposure media and human samples using high-resolution mass spectrometry based non-targeted analysis (NTA) and suspect screening analysis (SSA).

Indexed as

Environmental PollutantsExposomeDustHumansPlasticizersSoilWaterDustEnvironmental PollutantsPlasticizersSoilWaterChemical spaceEnvironmental mediaExposomeHigh-resolution mass spectrometryNon-targeted analysisSuspect screening analysis

Identifiers

PMID37380877
PMCPMC10403360
OpenAlexW4382401487

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.