Abstract
Non-targeted analysis (NTA) is an increasingly popular technique for characterizing undefined chemical analytes. Generating quantitative NTA (qNTA) concentration estimates requires the use of training data from calibration "surrogates," which can yield diminished predictive performance relative to targeted analysis. To evaluate performance differences between targeted and qNTA approaches, we defined new metrics that convey predictive accuracy, uncertainty (using 95% inverse confidence intervals), and reliability (the extent to which confidence intervals contain true values). We calculated and examined these newly defined metrics across five quantitative approaches applied to a mixture of 29 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The quantitative approaches spanned a traditional targeted design using chemical-specific calibration curves to a generalizable qNTA design using bootstrap-sampled calibration values from "global" chemical surrogates. As expected, the targeted approaches performed best, with major benefits realized from matched calibration curves and internal standard correction. In comparison to the benchmark targeted approach, the most generalizable qNTA approach (using "global" surrogates) showed a decrease in accuracy by a factor of ~4, an increase in uncertainty by a factor of ~1000, and a decrease in reliability by ~5%, on average. Using "expert-selected" surrogates (n = 3) instead of "global" surrogates (n = 25) for qNTA yielded improvements in predictive accuracy (by ~1.5×) and uncertainty (by ~70×) but at the cost of further-reduced reliability (by ~5%). Overall, our results illustrate the utility of qNTA approaches for a subclass of emerging contaminants and present a framework on which to develop new approaches for more complex use cases.