Skip to main content
. 2014 Nov 25;87(1):641–648. doi: 10.1021/ac503803m

Table 1. Effectiveness of DNA Adduct Enrichment Techniques.

  performance (%)a of extraction with
adduct methanol 1-butanol C18 columns Oasis columns
1,N6-εdA 8.5 24.3 15.2 90.6
3,N4-εdCb        
M1dG 31.2 43.6 63.2 17.6
N2-FFM-dG 33.1 39.5 46.2 60.9
N6-FFM-dA 61.6 92.6 72.4 61.1
N2-MF-dG 21.9 39.3 41.5 55.2
N6-MF-dA 15.7 19.5 22.1 23.3
N2-MIE-dG 51.5 63.7 56.2 75.7
N6-MIE-dA 43.9 48.5 55.5 39.3
N2-1MIM-dG 43.8 37.4 30.2 70.3
N6-1MIM-dA 25.0 46.4 40.9 37.0
C8-PhIP-dG 88.7 38.5 2.0 14.0
C8-ABP-dG 32.6 31.8 29.7 46.2
N2-BPDE-dG 45.6 79.0 45.6 53.2
N2-MP-dG 51.1 54.6 34.5 54.8
N6-MP-dA 6.2 7.9 4.3 13.7
a

The performance PM,Ad is the residual peak area of the quantifier signal of a particular DNA adduct that remains after processing by one of the workup procedures. The performance PM,Ad (%) was calculated from PM,Ad = RM,Ad × ISM,Ad/100% with the recovery RM,Ad of one of the enrichment methods (Table S-3, Supporting Information) and the remaining signal reduced by ion suppression ISM,Ad (Table S-4, Supporting Information). Details are given in the Experimental Section.

b

The MRM analyses of herring sperm DNA digests showed a substantial background noise in the trace of 255.1 → 139 of the internal standard [15N3]3,N4-εdC that prohibited the evaluation.