In this article, a dataset from a collaborative non-target screening trial organized by the NORMAN Association is used to review the state-of-the-art and discuss future perspectives of non-target screening using high resolution mass spectrometry in water analysis. A total of 18 institutes from 12 European countries analysed an extract of the same water sample collected from the River Danube with either one or both of liquid and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometric detection. This article focuses mainly on the use of high resolution screening techniques with target, suspect and non-target workflows to identify substances in environmental samples. Specific examples are given to highlight major challenges such as isobaric and co-eluting substances, dependence on target and suspect lists, formula assignment, the use of retention information and the confidence of identification. Approaches and methods applicable to unit resolution data are also discussed. While most substances were identified using high resolution data with target and suspect screening approaches, some participants proposed tentative non-target identifications. This comprehensive dataset revealed that non-target analytical techniques are already considerably harmonized between the participants, but the data processing remains time-consuming. Although the dream of a "fully-automated identification workflow" remains elusive in the short-term, important steps in this direction have been taken, exemplified in the growing popularity of suspect screening approaches. Major recommendations to improve non-target screening include better integration and connection of desired features into software packages, the exchange of target and suspect lists and the contribution of more spectra from standard substances into (openly accessible) databases.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Surface water can contain countless organic micropollutants, and targeted chemical analysis alone may only detect a small fraction of the chemicals present. Consequently, bioanalytical tools can be applied complementary to chemical analysis to detect the effects of complex chemical mixtures. In this study, bioassays indicative of activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), activation of the pregnane X receptor (PXR), activation of the estrogen receptor (ER), adaptive stress responses to oxidative stress (Nrf2), genotoxicity (p53) and inflammation (NF-κB) and the fish embryo toxicity test were applied along with chemical analysis to water extracts from the Danube River. Mixture-toxicity modeling was applied to determine the contribution of detected chemicals to the biological effect. Effect concentrations for between 0 to 13 detected chemicals could be found in the literature for the different bioassays. Detected chemicals explained less than 0.2% of the biological effect in the PXR activation, adaptive stress response, and fish embryo toxicity assays, while five chemicals explained up to 80% of ER activation, and three chemicals explained up to 71% of AhR activation. This study highlights the importance of fingerprinting the effects of detected chemicals.