TY - JOUR A1 - Dürig, Wiebke A1 - Lindblad, Sofia A1 - Golovko, Oksana A1 - Gkotsis, Georgios A1 - Aalizadeh, Reza A1 - Nika, Maria-Christina A1 - Thomaidis, Nikolaos A1 - Alygizakis, Nikiforos A. A1 - Plassmann, Merle A1 - Haglund, Peter A1 - Fu, Qiuguo A1 - Hollender, Juliane A1 - Chaker, Jade A1 - David, Arthur A1 - Kunkel, Uwe A1 - Macherius, André A1 - Belova, Lidia A1 - Poma, Giulia A1 - Preud'Homme, Hugues A1 - Munschy, Catherine A1 - Aminot, Yann A1 - Jaeger, Carsten A1 - Lisec, Jan A1 - Hansen, Martin A1 - Vorkamp, Katrin A1 - Zhu, Linyan A1 - Cappelli, Francesca A1 - Roscioli, Claudio A1 - Valsecchi, Sara A1 - Bagnati, Renzo A1 - González, Belén A1 - Prieto, Ailette A1 - Zuloaga, Olatz A1 - Gil-Solsona, Ruben A1 - Gago-Ferrero, Pablo A1 - Rodriguez-Mozaz, Sara A1 - Budzinski, Hélène A1 - Devier, Marie-Helene A1 - Dierkes, Georg A1 - Boulard, Lise A1 - Jacobs, Griet A1 - Voorspoels, Stefan A1 - Rüdel, Heinz A1 - Ahrens, Lutz T1 - What is in the fish? Collaborative trial in suspect and non-target screening of organic micropollutants using LC- and GC-HRMS N2 - A collaborative trial involving 16 participants from nine European countries was conducted within the NORMAN network in efforts to harmonise suspect and non-target screening of environmental contaminants in whole fish samples of bream (Abramis brama). Participants were provided with freeze-dried, homogenised fish samples from a contaminated and a reference site, extracts (spiked and non-spiked) and reference sample preparation protocols for liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). Participants extracted fish samples using their in-house sample preparation method and/or the protocol provided. Participants correctly identified 9-69% of spiked compounds using LC-HRMS and 20-60% of spiked compounds using GC-HRMS. From the contaminated site, suspect screening with participants’ own suspect lists led to putative identification of on average ~145 and ~20 unique features per participant using LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS, respectively, while non-target screening identified on average ~42 and ~56 unique features per participant using LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS, respectively. Within the same sub-group of sample preparation method, only a few features were identified by at least two participants in suspect screening (16 features using LC-HRMS, 0 features using GC-HRMS) and non-target screening (0 features using LC-HRMS, 2 features using GC-HRMS). The compounds identified had log octanol/water partition coefficient (KOW) values ranging from -9.9 to 16 and mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of 68 to 761 (LC-HRMS and GC-HRMS). A significant linear trend was found between log KOW and m/z for the GC-HRMS data. Overall, these findings indicate that differences in screening results are mainly due to the data analysis workflows used by different participants. Further work is needed to harmonise the results obtained when applying suspect and non-target screening approaches to environmental biota samples. KW - General Environmental Science KW - Suspect and non-target analysis KW - Biota KW - Expobome KW - Collaborative trial PY - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.108288 VL - 181 SP - 1 EP - 24 PB - Elsevier B.V. AN - OPUS4-58681 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -