Loading…

Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour

Analysis of low-level organic contaminants in complex matrices is essential for monitoring global food safety. However, balancing sample throughput with complex experimental designs and/or sample clean-up to best reduce matrix effects is a constant challenge. Multiple strategies exist to mitigate th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry 2024-01, Vol.416 (2), p.487-496
Main Authors: Bates, Jennifer, Bahadoor, Adilah, Tittlemier, Sheryl A., Melanson, Jeremy E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3
container_end_page 496
container_issue 2
container_start_page 487
container_title Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry
container_volume 416
creator Bates, Jennifer
Bahadoor, Adilah
Tittlemier, Sheryl A.
Melanson, Jeremy E.
description Analysis of low-level organic contaminants in complex matrices is essential for monitoring global food safety. However, balancing sample throughput with complex experimental designs and/or sample clean-up to best reduce matrix effects is a constant challenge. Multiple strategies exist to mitigate these effects, with internal standard-based methods such as isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) being the most advantageous. Here, multiple internal calibration strategies were investigated for the quantification of ochratoxin A (OTA) in wheat samples by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Internal standard-based quantitation methods such as single (ID 1 MS), double (ID 2 MS), and quintuple (ID 5 MS) isotope dilution mass spectrometry, as well as external standard calibration, were explored and compared. A certified reference material (CRM) of OTA in flour, MYCO-1, was used to evaluate the accuracy of each method. External calibration generated results 18–38% lower than the certified value for MYCO-1, largely due to matrix suppression effects. Concurrently, consistently lower OTA mass fractions were obtained for the wheat samples upon quantitation by external calibration as opposed to ID 1 MS, ID 2 MS, and ID 5 MS. All isotope dilution methods produced results that fell within the expected range for MYCO-1 (3.17–4.93 µg/kg), validating their accuracy. However, an average 6% decrease in the OTA mass fraction was observed from results obtained by ID 1 MS compared to those by ID 2 MS and ID 5 MS. Upon scrutiny, these differences were attributed to an isotopic enrichment bias in the isotopically labelled internal standard [ 13 C 6 ]-OTA that was used for ID 1 MS, the OTAL-1 CRM. The advantages and limitations of each isotopic method are illustrated.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00216-023-05053-3
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10761375</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2897486135</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhSMEoqXwAiyQJTZsAmM7Thw2qLpqAakSG1hbjj25dZXEqe1U3GfgpXGacvlZsLA9Hn9zxqNTFC8pvKUAzbsIwGhdAuMlCBC85I-KU1pTWbJawONjXLGT4lmMNwBUSFo_LU64hKppeXNa_Nj5cdbBRT8R3xOjB9cFnVy-xpQD3DuMpPeBaGOWNUFuFz0llzaoO5Bcm_yMxLphuc-NOkYSZzQp-BFTOLwnOitHzJKLPax9vLnOWv67m8g5yVs_-CU8L570eoj44uE8K75dXnzdfSqvvnz8vDu_Kk3ViFRKawBEZ8EyVtGmwbaDdYkWWWUM6znWlbSAoJHaVnSmF0ChNrVgpu4sPys-bLrz0o1oDU550kHNwY06HJTXTv39Mrlrtfd3ikJTU96IrPDmQSH42wVjUqOLBodBT-iXqJhsm0pmdkVf_4Pe5FGnPJ9iLchWyKqlmWIbZYKPMWB__A0FtZqtNrNVNlvdm614Lnr15xzHkl_uZoBvQMxP0x7D797_kf0JW-q44A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2908958491</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Bates, Jennifer ; Bahadoor, Adilah ; Tittlemier, Sheryl A. ; Melanson, Jeremy E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bates, Jennifer ; Bahadoor, Adilah ; Tittlemier, Sheryl A. ; Melanson, Jeremy E.</creatorcontrib><description>Analysis of low-level organic contaminants in complex matrices is essential for monitoring global food safety. However, balancing sample throughput with complex experimental designs and/or sample clean-up to best reduce matrix effects is a constant challenge. Multiple strategies exist to mitigate these effects, with internal standard-based methods such as isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) being the most advantageous. Here, multiple internal calibration strategies were investigated for the quantification of ochratoxin A (OTA) in wheat samples by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Internal standard-based quantitation methods such as single (ID 1 MS), double (ID 2 MS), and quintuple (ID 5 MS) isotope dilution mass spectrometry, as well as external standard calibration, were explored and compared. A certified reference material (CRM) of OTA in flour, MYCO-1, was used to evaluate the accuracy of each method. External calibration generated results 18–38% lower than the certified value for MYCO-1, largely due to matrix suppression effects. Concurrently, consistently lower OTA mass fractions were obtained for the wheat samples upon quantitation by external calibration as opposed to ID 1 MS, ID 2 MS, and ID 5 MS. All isotope dilution methods produced results that fell within the expected range for MYCO-1 (3.17–4.93 µg/kg), validating their accuracy. However, an average 6% decrease in the OTA mass fraction was observed from results obtained by ID 1 MS compared to those by ID 2 MS and ID 5 MS. Upon scrutiny, these differences were attributed to an isotopic enrichment bias in the isotopically labelled internal standard [ 13 C 6 ]-OTA that was used for ID 1 MS, the OTAL-1 CRM. The advantages and limitations of each isotopic method are illustrated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1618-2642</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1618-2650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1618-2650</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00216-023-05053-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38047937</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analytical Chemistry ; Biochemistry ; Calibration ; Characterization and Evaluation of Materials ; Chemistry ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Contaminants ; Dilution ; Flour ; Food safety ; Food Science ; Isotopes ; Isotopic enrichment ; Laboratory Medicine ; Liquid chromatography ; Mass spectrometry ; Mass Spectrometry - methods ; Mass spectroscopy ; Monitoring/Environmental Analysis ; Ochratoxin A ; Organic contaminants ; Quantitation ; Research Paper ; Scientific imaging ; Wheat</subject><ispartof>Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024-01, Vol.416 (2), p.487-496</ispartof><rights>Crown 2023</rights><rights>2023. Crown.</rights><rights>Crown 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7650-2232 ; 0000-0002-8130-5070</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38047937$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bates, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahadoor, Adilah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tittlemier, Sheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melanson, Jeremy E.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour</title><title>Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry</title><addtitle>Anal Bioanal Chem</addtitle><addtitle>Anal Bioanal Chem</addtitle><description>Analysis of low-level organic contaminants in complex matrices is essential for monitoring global food safety. However, balancing sample throughput with complex experimental designs and/or sample clean-up to best reduce matrix effects is a constant challenge. Multiple strategies exist to mitigate these effects, with internal standard-based methods such as isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) being the most advantageous. Here, multiple internal calibration strategies were investigated for the quantification of ochratoxin A (OTA) in wheat samples by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Internal standard-based quantitation methods such as single (ID 1 MS), double (ID 2 MS), and quintuple (ID 5 MS) isotope dilution mass spectrometry, as well as external standard calibration, were explored and compared. A certified reference material (CRM) of OTA in flour, MYCO-1, was used to evaluate the accuracy of each method. External calibration generated results 18–38% lower than the certified value for MYCO-1, largely due to matrix suppression effects. Concurrently, consistently lower OTA mass fractions were obtained for the wheat samples upon quantitation by external calibration as opposed to ID 1 MS, ID 2 MS, and ID 5 MS. All isotope dilution methods produced results that fell within the expected range for MYCO-1 (3.17–4.93 µg/kg), validating their accuracy. However, an average 6% decrease in the OTA mass fraction was observed from results obtained by ID 1 MS compared to those by ID 2 MS and ID 5 MS. Upon scrutiny, these differences were attributed to an isotopic enrichment bias in the isotopically labelled internal standard [ 13 C 6 ]-OTA that was used for ID 1 MS, the OTAL-1 CRM. The advantages and limitations of each isotopic method are illustrated.</description><subject>Analytical Chemistry</subject><subject>Biochemistry</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Dilution</subject><subject>Flour</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Food Science</subject><subject>Isotopes</subject><subject>Isotopic enrichment</subject><subject>Laboratory Medicine</subject><subject>Liquid chromatography</subject><subject>Mass spectrometry</subject><subject>Mass Spectrometry - methods</subject><subject>Mass spectroscopy</subject><subject>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</subject><subject>Ochratoxin A</subject><subject>Organic contaminants</subject><subject>Quantitation</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><subject>Scientific imaging</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><issn>1618-2642</issn><issn>1618-2650</issn><issn>1618-2650</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc1u1TAQhSMEoqXwAiyQJTZsAmM7Thw2qLpqAakSG1hbjj25dZXEqe1U3GfgpXGacvlZsLA9Hn9zxqNTFC8pvKUAzbsIwGhdAuMlCBC85I-KU1pTWbJawONjXLGT4lmMNwBUSFo_LU64hKppeXNa_Nj5cdbBRT8R3xOjB9cFnVy-xpQD3DuMpPeBaGOWNUFuFz0llzaoO5Bcm_yMxLphuc-NOkYSZzQp-BFTOLwnOitHzJKLPax9vLnOWv67m8g5yVs_-CU8L570eoj44uE8K75dXnzdfSqvvnz8vDu_Kk3ViFRKawBEZ8EyVtGmwbaDdYkWWWUM6znWlbSAoJHaVnSmF0ChNrVgpu4sPys-bLrz0o1oDU550kHNwY06HJTXTv39Mrlrtfd3ikJTU96IrPDmQSH42wVjUqOLBodBT-iXqJhsm0pmdkVf_4Pe5FGnPJ9iLchWyKqlmWIbZYKPMWB__A0FtZqtNrNVNlvdm614Lnr15xzHkl_uZoBvQMxP0x7D797_kf0JW-q44A</recordid><startdate>20240101</startdate><enddate>20240101</enddate><creator>Bates, Jennifer</creator><creator>Bahadoor, Adilah</creator><creator>Tittlemier, Sheryl A.</creator><creator>Melanson, Jeremy E.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</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>3V.</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7650-2232</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8130-5070</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240101</creationdate><title>Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour</title><author>Bates, Jennifer ; Bahadoor, Adilah ; Tittlemier, Sheryl A. ; Melanson, Jeremy E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Analytical Chemistry</topic><topic>Biochemistry</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Dilution</topic><topic>Flour</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Food Science</topic><topic>Isotopes</topic><topic>Isotopic enrichment</topic><topic>Laboratory Medicine</topic><topic>Liquid chromatography</topic><topic>Mass spectrometry</topic><topic>Mass Spectrometry - methods</topic><topic>Mass spectroscopy</topic><topic>Monitoring/Environmental Analysis</topic><topic>Ochratoxin A</topic><topic>Organic contaminants</topic><topic>Quantitation</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><topic>Scientific imaging</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bates, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bahadoor, Adilah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tittlemier, Sheryl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melanson, Jeremy E.</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest_Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>https://resources.nclive.org/materials</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bates, Jennifer</au><au>Bahadoor, Adilah</au><au>Tittlemier, Sheryl A.</au><au>Melanson, Jeremy E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour</atitle><jtitle>Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry</jtitle><stitle>Anal Bioanal Chem</stitle><addtitle>Anal Bioanal Chem</addtitle><date>2024-01-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>416</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>487</spage><epage>496</epage><pages>487-496</pages><issn>1618-2642</issn><issn>1618-2650</issn><eissn>1618-2650</eissn><abstract>Analysis of low-level organic contaminants in complex matrices is essential for monitoring global food safety. However, balancing sample throughput with complex experimental designs and/or sample clean-up to best reduce matrix effects is a constant challenge. Multiple strategies exist to mitigate these effects, with internal standard-based methods such as isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) being the most advantageous. Here, multiple internal calibration strategies were investigated for the quantification of ochratoxin A (OTA) in wheat samples by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Internal standard-based quantitation methods such as single (ID 1 MS), double (ID 2 MS), and quintuple (ID 5 MS) isotope dilution mass spectrometry, as well as external standard calibration, were explored and compared. A certified reference material (CRM) of OTA in flour, MYCO-1, was used to evaluate the accuracy of each method. External calibration generated results 18–38% lower than the certified value for MYCO-1, largely due to matrix suppression effects. Concurrently, consistently lower OTA mass fractions were obtained for the wheat samples upon quantitation by external calibration as opposed to ID 1 MS, ID 2 MS, and ID 5 MS. All isotope dilution methods produced results that fell within the expected range for MYCO-1 (3.17–4.93 µg/kg), validating their accuracy. However, an average 6% decrease in the OTA mass fraction was observed from results obtained by ID 1 MS compared to those by ID 2 MS and ID 5 MS. Upon scrutiny, these differences were attributed to an isotopic enrichment bias in the isotopically labelled internal standard [ 13 C 6 ]-OTA that was used for ID 1 MS, the OTAL-1 CRM. The advantages and limitations of each isotopic method are illustrated.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>38047937</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00216-023-05053-3</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7650-2232</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8130-5070</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1618-2642
ispartof Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024-01, Vol.416 (2), p.487-496
issn 1618-2642
1618-2650
1618-2650
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10761375
source Springer Link
subjects Analytical Chemistry
Biochemistry
Calibration
Characterization and Evaluation of Materials
Chemistry
Chemistry and Materials Science
Contaminants
Dilution
Flour
Food safety
Food Science
Isotopes
Isotopic enrichment
Laboratory Medicine
Liquid chromatography
Mass spectrometry
Mass Spectrometry - methods
Mass spectroscopy
Monitoring/Environmental Analysis
Ochratoxin A
Organic contaminants
Quantitation
Research Paper
Scientific imaging
Wheat
title Comparison of calibration strategies for accurate quantitation by isotope dilution mass spectrometry: a case study of ochratoxin A in flour
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T13%3A36%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20calibration%20strategies%20for%20accurate%20quantitation%20by%20isotope%20dilution%20mass%20spectrometry:%20a%20case%20study%20of%20ochratoxin%20A%20in%20flour&rft.jtitle=Analytical%20and%20bioanalytical%20chemistry&rft.au=Bates,%20Jennifer&rft.date=2024-01-01&rft.volume=416&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=487&rft.epage=496&rft.pages=487-496&rft.issn=1618-2642&rft.eissn=1618-2650&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00216-023-05053-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2897486135%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c475t-8dc005bd0d224177e9b0e9b059e24cc2f3e648d0e0ae1d95bcf50106c652c6bd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2908958491&rft_id=info:pmid/38047937&rfr_iscdi=true