Departments of Chemistry and Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada.
Institute of Chemistry, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City 04510, Mexico.
J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 2021 Jun 2;32(6):1508-1518. doi: 10.1021/jasms.1c00078. Epub 2021 May 13.
Organic pollutants can be identified by comparing their electron ionization (EI) mass spectra with those in libraries or obtained from authentic standards. Nevertheless, libraries are incomplete; standards may be unavailable or too costly, or their synthesis may be too time-consuming. This study evaluates the performance of quantum chemical electron ionization mass spectrometry (QCEIMS) vis-à-vis competitive fragmentation modeling (CFM) for suspect screening and unknown identification. EI mass spectra of 35 compounds, including halogenated organics, organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs), and disinfection byproducts were computed. Computational results were compared with EI mass spectra compiled in the NIST Library as well as collision-induced dissociation (CID) mass spectra obtained from radical cations M generated by charge-exchange atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI). The results indicate that QCEIMS performs equivalently or better than CFM. Average match factors between computed and experimental (NIST) EI mass spectra were 656 vs 503 for the halogenated organics, and on average, QCEIMS predicted 55% of the products generated by CID vs 17% predicted by CFM. QCEIMS predicted 37% of the OPFR CID products whereas CFM predicted 29%. QCEIMS performed comparably to a commercial combinatorial fragmentation method for suspect screening of a dust sample, identifying 19/20 targets. Examples of unknown pollutants, whose reference spectra were unavailable at the time of discovery, are also presented. The computational results suggest that QCEIMS can help guide the analyst in obtaining authentic standards and raise the possibility that, with advances in computing, an unknown may eventually be confirmed in hours as opposed to the days or months required to obtain authentic standards.
有机污染物可以通过将其电子电离(EI)质谱与库中的质谱或从真实标准中获得的质谱进行比较来识别。然而,库并不完整;标准可能不可用或太贵,或者它们的合成可能太耗时。本研究评估了量子化学电子电离质谱(QCEIMS)相对于竞争断裂建模(CFM)在可疑筛选和未知鉴定方面的性能。计算了 35 种化合物的 EI 质谱,包括卤代有机物、有机磷阻燃剂(OPFR)和消毒副产物。计算结果与 NIST 库中汇编的 EI 质谱以及通过电荷交换大气压化学电离(APCI)生成的正离子 M 的碰撞诱导解离(CID)质谱进行了比较。结果表明,QCEIMS 的性能与 CFM 相当或更好。计算和实验(NIST)EI 质谱之间的平均匹配因子对于卤代有机物分别为 656 与 503,平均而言,QCEIMS 预测了 CID 产生的 55%的产物,而 CFM 仅预测了 17%。QCEIMS 预测了 37%的 OPFR CID 产物,而 CFM 预测了 29%。QCEIMS 与商业组合断裂方法一样,可用于灰尘样品的可疑筛选,鉴定出 19/20 个目标。还提供了参考光谱在发现时不可用的未知污染物的示例。计算结果表明,QCEIMS 可以帮助分析人员获得真实标准,并有可能随着计算的进步,最终可以在数小时内确认未知物,而不是获得真实标准所需的数天或数月。