Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates semi-quantitative estimates of chemical exposure in wastewater, indicating improved coverage and accuracy.
Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) is increasingly used to assess population-level chemical exposure, yet its analytical scope is often limited by target-based methods and the availability of reference standards. In this study, we developed an integrated analytical workflow that expanded the coverage of environmental chemicals and enabled standard-free semi-quantitative analysis under a realistic post hoc WBE scenario. Influent wastewater samples from nine wastewater treatment plants in Taiwan were re-examined using a single additional liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) analysis in full-scan and data-dependent acquisition modes. A total of 189 environmental compound signals were structurally identified, representing 79 unique chemical structures. Semi-quantitative concentration estimation was achieved using a single-point calibration strategy based on isotope-labeled internal standards originally included for illicit drug analysis, combined with ionization efficiency (IE) prediction tools. Internal cross-validation yielded median prediction errors of 2.3-fold in positive ionization mode and 5.0-fold in negative ionization mode. Furthermore, cross-method validation against historical targeted datasets for six illicit drugs within the same sample cohort revealed a median underestimation of 6.7-fold. To evaluate accuracy under controlled conditions, an independent spiking experiment using authentic standards in groundwater demonstrated an overall median error of 4.3-fold, with 81.3 % of the quantified analytes falling within one order of magnitude of their nominal concentrations. Population-normalized mass load analysis revealed regional differences in chemical exposure profiles, with elevated mass loads of smoking-related biomarkers, including cotinine and nornicotine, observed in wastewater from southern Taiwan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: