Spectroscopy Focus


Part of the problem is a lack of instrumentation software for data mining and part is a lack of standardised libraries for the new, high-end spectrometers. Advanced, new mass spectrometric techniques do not necessarily need large and complex instrumentation. Small benchtop quadrupoles, with chemometric approach, can be useful in new and emerging fields such as environmental odour pollution. Ultra small MS are emerging in the field of environmental monitoring, as distributed instrumentation, to continuously monitor different areas simultaneously.


Examples in more detail and postulated solutions were shown throughout the thought provoking and extremely interesting lecture.


Following the Plenary lecture, highly topical areas of interest were discussed in oral presentations some of which were preceded by Keynote lectures.


Session I concentrated upon ‘Environmental Analysis’ and was chaired by Graham Bonwick from the University of Chester.


The Keynote speaker was David Wood, Scientific Analysis Laboratories, Manchester who talked on the subject of ‘MS Techniques for environmental analysis: a view from a commercial analytical laboratory’.


This was then followed by three presentations on various aspects of harnessing the increasing power of Mass Spectrometry to solving some extremely pertinent analyses of major concern to environmentalists


Firstly we heard from Laure Wiest, Service Central d'Analyse, (S.C.A) du CNRS, Solaize, France who spoke on the topic of ‘Multi-residue routine analysis of 57 pesticides by Gas Chromatography coupled with Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry in Honeybee’s pollens’.


This was followed by Gareth Roberts, ALMSCO International, Llantrisant who talked about ‘Detection and identification of trace target analytes using advanced automated software with a new GC-TOF mass spectrometer’.


Finally Dr Stephen Lock, AB SCIEX presented on ‘Quantitation and Confirmation of Pesticides, Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products in Environmental Water Samples’.


The Keynote speaker who started Session II on the topic of Food & Nutrition was Dr Bert Poppin, Eurofins, UK who spoke about ‘Allergen detection, quantitation and confirmation in Nuts, Cereals, Milk by LC/MS/MS’.


Allergens have moved into the focus of consumers, food authorities and industry alike. Current analytical methods have several shortcomings. Analysis of allergens by LC-MS/MS offers a number of advantages but still have to overcome several hurdles. Dr Poppins presentation gave a summary of activities and progress in this field.


The legal requirement for the quantification of allergens for food packaging is not consistent across North America and Europe. The USA legislators demand that eight groups be identified where as Canada is demanding ten in total yet in Europe this increases to 14 in total. In order to further muddy the waters the actual constituents of the allergen groups varies from geographic area to area.


While the regulatory framework in different countries is already complex enough and makes the choice for the allergic consumer already difficult, the analytical side has no less challenges. To determine allergens currently two main techniques are being used: one is ELISA which is an acronym for enzyme linked immuno sorbent assay, and PCR, the acronym or polymerase chain reaction. PCR is based on the detection of DNA. The technique is for this kind of analysis typically not qualitative but only qualitative. In addition detection levels in the low ppm range can only be achieved with allergens containing higher levels of DNA. That typically applies to plant- based allergens like nuts, soya and sesame but not to some animal-based products like egg or milk. In addition the presence of DNA may not necessarily indicate the presence of offending allergenic structures, meaning that the protein that triggers the allergic reaction may not be present while the DNA still is. However for regulatory purposes this is irrelevant as any detection of a component deriving from an allergenic product triggers labelling.


It can be said that none of the available techniques tackles all problems of allergen analyses.


Most recently, a new approach has been considered: the analysis of allergens using mass spectrometry methods. Some groups including Eurofins have already shown proof of principle, i.e. that the technique works to detect allergens. Initial studies in our laboratory involved the identification of appropriate precursor masses and transitions. Other groups have looked at heat stability of target peptides for LC-MS/MS analysis and identified several.


In addition, the European 6th Framework Project MoniQA has established a laboratory subgroup, which guides and drives the developments in this field. At a recent meeting in Ivrea, Italy, requirements for appropriate MS targets were discussed. Dr Poppins presentation gave a summary of the different activities ongoing and highlighted recent progress in this area.


A series of presentations around the same Food and Nutrition theme then followed.


‘LC-UV-MS-TOF profiling of glucosinolates’. Don Clarke, FERA, Sand Hutton, York


‘High throughput screening for over 1000 pesticides in fruit and vegetable using a hybrid triple quadrupole – linear Ion trap LC/MS/MS system’, Dr Pamela Stoddart, AB SCIEX.


‘Results of FAPAS pesticide residue proficiency testing - is mass spectrometry capturing everything?’ Mark Sykes, FERA, Sand Hutton, York.


Session III then opened with a Keynote Lecture from Dr Alan Herod, Imperial College, London on ‘Limitations of mass spectrometry for determining the mass range of polydisperse samples (such as coal liquids and petroleum asphaltenes)’ Followed by an interactive discussion forum, which allowed Delegates to pose questions to presenters (oral and poster) to open up topics for discussion. Some interesting and thought provoking topics were raised.


All in all the meeting gave an opportunity for some in-depth discussions amongst practitioners of the art of running Mass Spectrometers to those whose need is more focussed on the application of the data produced and its relevance to the environment and dietary habits of the general public.


The meeting was organised by the Chester Centre for Science Communication and the University of Chester in conjunction with the Environmental Mass Spectrometry special interests group (EMSSIG) and formed part of the BMSS promoted meetings series. The local organising committee consisted of Dr Peter Baugh, Professor Graham Bonwick, Professor Chris Smith and Dr Simon Herd.


Following the meeting it was decided that there should be another meeting in 2012 although the exact format was yet to be decided but would incorporate feedback from the 2010 attendees.


More details can be obtained at www.analyticalmethodologycentre.co.uk where several of the speaker’s slides may be downloaded under the EMS2010 tab.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220