Increasing production and use of chemicals and awareness of their impact on ecosystems and humans has led to large interest for broadening the knowledge on the chemical status of the environment and human health by suspect and non-target screening (NTS). To facilitate effective implementation of NTS in scientific, commercial and governmental laboratories, as well as acceptance by managers, regulators and risk assessors, more harmonisation in NTS is required. To address this, NORMAN Association members involved in NTS activities have prepared this guidance document, based on the current state of knowledge. The document is intended to provide guidance on performing high quality NTS studies and data interpretation while increasing awareness of the promise but also pitfalls and challenges associated with these techniques. Guidance is provided for all steps; from sampling and sample preparation to analysis by chromatography (liquid and gas—LC and GC) coupled via various ionisation techniques to high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (HRMS/MS), through to data evaluation and reporting in the context of NTS. Although most experience within the NORMAN network still involves water analysis of polar compounds using LC–HRMS/MS, other matrices (sediment, soil, biota, dust, air) and instrumentation (GC, ion mobility) are covered, reflecting the rapid development and extension of the field. Due to the ongoing developments, the different questions addressed with NTS and manifold techniques in use, NORMAN members feel that no standard operation process can be provided at this stage. However, appropriate analytical methods, data processing techniques and databases commonly compiled in NTS workflows are introduced, their limitations are discussed and recommendations for different cases are provided. Proper quality assurance, quantification without reference standards and reporting results with clear confidence of identification assignment complete the guidance together with a glossary of definitions. The NORMAN community greatly supports the sharing of experiences and data via open science and hopes that this guideline supports this effort.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) are important environmental contaminants, yet relatively few analytical reference standards exist for this class. Nontarget analyses performed by means of high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) are increasingly common for the discovery and identification of PFASs in environmental and biological samples. The certainty of PFAS identifications made via HRMS must be communicated through a reliable and harmonized approach. Here, we present a confidence scale along with identification criteria specific to suspect or nontarget analysis of PFASs by means of nontarget HRMS. Confidence levels range from level 1a-"Confirmed by Reference Standard," and level 1b-"Indistinguishable from Reference Standard," to level 5-"Exact Masses of Interest," which are identified by suspect screening or data filtering, two common forms of feature prioritization. This confidence scale is consistent with general criteria for communicating confidence in the identification of small organic molecules by HRMS (e.g., through a match to analytical reference standards, library MS/MS, and/or retention times) but incorporates the specific conventions and tools used in PFAS classification and analysis (e.g., detection of homologous series and specific ranges of mass defects). Our scale clarifies the level of certainty in PFAS identification and, in doing so, facilitates more efficient identification.

Untargeted analysis of a composite house dust sample has been performed as part of a collaborative effort to evaluate the progress in the field of suspect and nontarget screening and build an extensive database of organic indoor environment contaminants. Twenty-one participants reported results that were curated by the organizers of the collaborative trial. In total, nearly 2350 compounds were identified (18%) or tentatively identified (25% at confidence level 2 and 58% at confidence level 3), making the collaborative trial a success. However, a relatively small share (37%) of all compounds were reported by more than one participant, which shows that there is plenty of room for improvement in the field of suspect and nontarget screening. An even a smaller share (5%) of the total number of compounds were detected using both liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Thus, the two MS techniques are highly complementary. Most of the compounds were detected using LC with electrospray ionization (ESI) MS and comprehensive 2D GC (GC×GC) with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI) and electron ionization (EI), respectively. Collectively, the three techniques accounted for more than 75% of the reported compounds. Glycols, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, and various biogenic compounds dominated among the compounds reported by LC-MS participants, while hydrocarbons, hydrocarbon derivatives, and chlorinated paraffins and chlorinated biphenyls were primarily reported by GC-MS participants. Plastics additives, flavor and fragrances, and personal care products were reported by both LC-MS and GC-MS participants. It was concluded that the use of multiple analytical techniques was required for a comprehensive characterization of house dust contaminants. Further, several recommendations are given for improved suspect and nontarget screening of house dust and other indoor environment samples, including the use of open-source data processing tools. One of the tools allowed provisional identification of almost 500 compounds that had not been reported by participants.