Non-target screening of sediment samples fromthe Canadian Arctic: comparing two different gas chromatography – high resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS) techniques

Since the late 18th century, chemicals have been industrially produced, and used by consumers. Today, the number of registered chemicals are over 150 000 in North America and Europe alone, and the number is predicted to increase. Industrial or anthropogenic chemicals can, directly or indirectly, be released into the ecosystem during their lifetime, where they can cause harm to human health and the environment. Depending on their properties, chemicals can travel far away from its source, causing global contamination. Through this, the Arctic region becomes a sink for many different types of contaminants. Because of the danger certain chemicals pose, techniques to detect and identify them in environmental samples have evolved during recent years. In these cases, non-targeted screening methods are commonly used to characterise contaminants in samples.In this study, surface sediment samples were collected on three locations in the Hudson Bay (Canada). The samples were analysed using two different instruments: a comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatograph coupled to a high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometer (GC×GC-HR-ToF-MS) and a gas chromatograph coupled with a Orbitrap mass spectrometer (GC-Orbitrap-MS). After data acquisition and processing, certain components were identified in both datasets, and their semi-quantitative concentrations were calculated.Overall, 32 compounds were detected and identified in the Orbitrap dataset, and 17 of these were also detected in the GC×GC dataset. The concentration was determined semi-quantitively for the identified compounds and ranged from 0.005–333 ng/g dry weight (d.w.) for the Orbitrap dataset, and 0.013–278 ng/g d.w. for the GC×GC dataset, which was below, or in the lower half, of concentration ranges from previous studies. Overall, the data processing for Orbitrap data seems to be more advanced and evolved than for GC×GC data, causing differences between the results from the two instruments