Improving the Quantification of Cyanotoxins Using a Mass Balance-Based Effective Concentration-Equivalent Concentration Approach.

Two commonly used methods for cyanotoxin analysis are enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and discrepancies are commonly observed between the two methods due to various factors including the ELISA antibody cross-reacting to different cyanotoxin congeners. However, reliable cyanotoxin monitoring methods and accurate interpretation of results are needed for water utilities to guide recreational water planning and drinking water treatment operations. In this study, we explored an innovative "effective concentration-equivalent concentration" (EC-EQ) approach to improve the interpretation of ELISA results and the comparison to LC-MS/MS results. The precision of ELISA results was first improved by reporting the sample ECs and EQs derived from their ELISA dose curves. Concentrations of each cyanotoxin as measured by LC-MS/MS were then combined with their respective ELISA cross-reactivities to calculate their theoretical ELISA responses. Finally, instead of comparing the results from the two methods directly, the equivalent concentration based on one single reference cyanotoxin was used for reporting and comparison. This integrated mass balance-based approach provides a more reliable interpretation of results by considering the reactivity differences between toxins as well as their mixture effects. This approach has been successfully applied to microcystin (one main group of cyanotoxins) standard mixtures and cyanobacterial bloom samples to interpret and compare their ELISA and LC-MS/MS detection results. The study provides guidance to utilities on how to obtain more accurate cyanotoxin monitoring results and better understand the discrepancy between the two methods.

Results of an interlaboratory comparison of analytical methods for contaminants of emerging concern in water.

An evaluation of existing analytical methods used to measure contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) was performed through an interlaboratory comparison involving 25 research and commercial laboratories. In total, 52 methods were used in the single-blind study to determine method accuracy and comparability for 22 target compounds, including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and steroid hormones, all at ng/L levels in surface and drinking water. Method biases ranged from <10% to well over 100% in both matrixes, suggesting that while some methods are accurate, others can be considerably inaccurate. In addition, the number and degree of outliers identified suggest a high degree of variability may be present between methods currently in use. Three compounds, ciprofloxacin, 4-nonylphenol (NP), and 4-tert-octylphenol (OP), were especially difficult to measure accurately. While most compounds had overall false positive rates of ≤5%, bisphenol A, caffeine, NP, OP, and triclosan had false positive rates >15%. In addition, some methods reported false positives for 17ß-estradiol and 17α-ethynylestradiol in unspiked drinking water and deionized water, respectively, at levels higher than published predicted no-effect concentrations for these compounds in the environment. False negative rates were also generally <5%; however, rates were higher for the steroid hormones and some of the more challenging compounds, such as ciprofloxacin. The elevated false positive/negative rates of some analytes emphasize the susceptibility of many current methods to blank contamination, misinterpretation of background interferences, and/or inappropriate setting of detection/quantification levels for analysis at low ng/L levels. The results of both comparisons were collectively assessed to identify parameters that resulted in the best overall method performance. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry coupled with the calibration technique of isotope dilution were able to accurately quantify most compounds with an average bias of <10% for both matrixes. These findings suggest that this method of analysis is suitable at environmentally relevant levels for most of the compounds studied. This work underscores the need for robust, standardized analytical methods for CECs to improve data quality, increase comparability between studies, and help reduce false positive and false negative rates.