the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Synthesis of reference organosulfates and optimization of UPLC-ESI-MS/MS method for their quantification in environmental samples: Its application for determination of organosulfates in PM2.5
Abstract. We synthesized five organosulfates (OSs): ethyl-, 3-methylbenzyl-, cyclohexyl-, benzyl- and phenethyl sulfate, with four commercial authentic OSs: methyl-, phenyl-, octal-, and 4-nitrophenyl sulfate to use as reference standards for quantifying the OSs in environmental samples, using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS/MS). The target OSs were separated using HSS T3 column with gradient flow of mobile phase consisting of pure water (H2O) and methanol (CH3OH) with 0.1 % formic acid. Characteristic ion fragments: phenolate anion (m/z 93) for phenyl sulfate, sulfate radical anion (•SO4−, m/z 96) for methyl-, benzyl-, 3-methylbenzyl- and phenethyl-sulfate, and hydrogen sulfate anion (HSO4−, m/z 97) for ethyl-, cyclohexyl- and octyl-sulfate were identified. In addition, the sulfite radical (•SO3−, m/z 80) was observed for methyl-, ethyl-, phenyl-, cyclohexyl-, 3-methylbenzyl- and octyl-sulfate. The characteristic fragment ions utilized for quantification enhanced the identification of target compounds, and the limits of detection and quantification were 0.10 ng mL−1 and 0.10-0.50 ng ml−1. The optimized UPLC-ESI-MS/MS method was successfully applied for the determination of various OSs in PM2.5 collected from Tianjin, China. Benzyl sulfate (7.05 ± 5.43 ng m−3) found to be the most abundant species followed by phenyl sulfate (4.65 ± 6.82 ng m−3), octyl sulfate and methyl sulfate in Tianjin PM2.5.
- Preprint
(986 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1042 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-899', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Apr 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-899/egusphere-2025-899-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-899', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Apr 2025
This paper reported synthesis and quantification of organosulfate compounds in atmospheric aerosols. The method is useful, while the following comments need to be carefully addressed before publication:
General comments:
- There have been several published papers on synthesized and quantification of OS compounds. For example, Hettiyadura et al., AMT, 2015; Huang et al., AMT, 2018; Wang et al., ES&T, 2017; Wang et al., ES&T, 2021 etc. What’s the novelty of this work or the improvement of the method here?
- The HSS T3 column was used in this study. While previous studies (e.g., Hettiyadura et al., AMT, 2015; Huang et al., AMT, 2018 etc.) have suggested that HILIC column should be employed to quantify the low-molecular-weight and polar OS compounds. The performance of C18 column is not quite well for quantifying the water-soluble and polar OSs. The targeted OSs in this study include several low-molecular-weight compounds, and I notice the retention of MS and ES may not so well in T3 column based on the retention time in figure 2. The limitation of this method should be detailed. If possible, a comparison between the performance of T3 column and HILIC column to quantify the LMW OSs should be discussed.
- The universal of selected OS species should be introduced. Have they been observed in ambient aerosol samples? Why the authors choose these compounds to synthesize and quantify?
- In the figure 2, the EIC are the results obtained from OS standards or ambient aerosol samples? If it represents the standards, the OS ion spectrum of ambient aerosol samples should also be displayed and compared with those of OS standards. I also suggest to combine the extracted ion chromatogram in Figure 2 into one panel, to clearly show the separation of the target ions.
- Please describe how to determine the LOD and LOQ in more details. Why the LOD and LOQ of different OS compounds are the same, as shown in figure 2? I notice the statements on OS recoveries in lines 284-285 were different from the data in Table 2.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-899-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
85 | 16 | 5 | 106 | 12 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 85
- PDF: 16
- XML: 5
- Total: 106
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1