Determination of 21 drugs in oral fluid using fully automated supported liquid extraction and UHPLC‐MS/MS

Valen, Anja; Øiestad, Åse Marit Leere; Strand, Dag Helge; Skari, Ragnhild; Berg, Thomas

doi:10.1002/dta.2045

Cited by 49 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HPLC is a suitable tool to analyze the native composition of the cannabis plant, but the total run time of one analysis on HPLC including the time of separation and column re-equilibration is usually more than 25 min. In recent years, UHPLC and UHSFC have been introduced to improve the separation of cannabinoids and reduce the run time of the analysis [18][19][20].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Determination of Δ9-THC, CBG, CBD, Their Acid Precursors and Five Other Neutral Cannabinoids by UHPLC-UV-MS

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabinoids are a group of terpenophenolic compounds in the medicinal plant (Cannabaceae family). Cannabigerolic acid, Δ-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A, cannabidiolic acid, Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabigerol, cannabidiol, cannabichromene, and tetrahydrocannabivarin are major metabolites in the classification of different strains of . Degradation or artifact cannabinoids cannabinol, cannabicyclol, and Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol are formed under the influence of heat and light during processing and storage of the plant sample. An ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatographic method coupled with photodiode array and single quadruple mass spectrometry detectors was developed and validated for quantitative determination of 11 cannabinoids in different samples. Compounds 1: - 11: were baseline separated with an acetonitrile (with 0.05% formic acid) and water (with 0.05% formic acid) gradient at a flow rate of 0.25 mL/min on a Waters Cortec UPLC C18 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm I. D., 1.6 µm). The limits of detection and limits of quantitation of the 11 cannabinoids were below 0.2 and 0.5 µg/mL, respectively. The relative standard deviation for the precision test was below 2.4%. A mixture of acetonitrile and methanol (80 : 20,/) was proven to be the best solvent system for the sample preparation. The recovery of all analytes was in the range of 97 - 105%. A total of 32 samples including hashish, leaves, and flower buds were analyzed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Determination of Δ9-THC, CBG, CBD, Their Acid Precursors and Five Other Neutral Cannabinoids by UHPLC-UV-MS

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A clean‐up step is necessary prior to analysis, particularly because OF has high viscosity due to the presence of mucines and possible food residues . Several pretreatment methods for OF exist, such as solid‐phase extraction (SPE), solid‐phase microextraction (SPME), polymer monolith microextraction (PMME), liquid‐liquid extraction (LLE), microextraction by packed sorbent (MEPS), and automatic supported liquid extraction (SLE), and a dilute‐and‐shoot approach was also proposed …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,15 A clean-up step is necessary prior to analysis, particularly because OF has high viscosity due to the presence of mucines and possible food residues. 16 Several pretreatment methods for OF exist, such as solid-phase extraction (SPE), [17][18][19] solid-phase microextraction (SPME), 20,21 polymer monolith microextraction (PMME), 22 liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), 23 microextraction by packed sorbent (MEPS), 24,25 and automatic supported liquid extraction (SLE), 26 and a dilute-and-shoot approach was also proposed. 27 Different analytical techniques are used to determine drugs in biological fluids; the choice is based on the type of analyte, its concentration, the amount of available sample, and its stability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of new psychoactive substances in oral fluids by means of microextraction by packed sorbent followed by ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

Rocchi

Simeoni

Montesano

et al. 2017

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, new drugs, commonly known as new psychoactive substances (NPS), appeared on the market, which include, among others, synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones, and tryptamine analogs of psilocin. The aim of this work was to develop and validate a new method for simultaneous screening and quantification of 31 NPS in oral fluid by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). The chosen target analytes represented different chemical and toxicological NPS classes, such as synthetic cathinones, piperazines, phenethylamines, synthetic cannabinoids, and their metabolites. The procedure involved a rapid sample preparation based on protein precipitation followed by clean-up utilizing microextraction by packed sorbent (MEPS); the quantitative analysis was performed by UHPLC-MS/MS. The MEPS clean-up, regardless of non-quantitative recoveries for some analytes, provided an effective removal of interfering compounds, as demonstrated by reduced matrix effects found at different concentrations for all the analytes. The validation protocol, based on SWGTOX guidelines, demonstrated the suitability of the proposed method for quantitative analysis: linearity range ranged over 3 or 4 orders of magnitude; precision and accuracy tests gave RSD% values below 25%, and accuracy ranged from 85.9% to 107%, accomplishing SWGTOX requirements. Limits of detection (LODs) ranged between 0.005 ng/mL and 0.850 ng/mL and limits of quantification (LOQs) from 0.015 to 2.600 ng/mL.

show abstract

“…The technique shows most promise using full‐scan high‐resolution instruments such as QTOF, as all isotopologue data is acquired as a matter of course with no modification required to the data acquisition method and no compromise to the cycle time – it requires only a post‐acquisition data processing change. The technique has since has been applied by a small number of authors in the field of forensic toxicology to decrease detector saturation for the purposes of qualitative and quantitative analysis, as well as by a small number of authors in other fields …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The technique shows most promise using full-scan highresolution instruments such as QTOF, as all isotopologue data is acquired as a matter of course with no modification required to the data acquisition method and no compromise to the cycle time it requires only a post-acquisition data processing change. The technique has since has been applied by a small number of authors in the field of forensic toxicology to decrease detector saturation for the purposes of qualitative [12,13] and quantitative [14,15] analysis, as well as by a small number of authors in other fields. [16,17] A potential limitation of this approach when used for quantitative analysis is that if the analyte in the sample is from a different source to the reference standard used for calibration (as is usually the case in a forensic toxicology setting), it may not contain the same ratio of isotopologues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing the linear dynamic range in LC–MS: is it valid to use a less abundant isotopologue?

Trobbiani

Stockham

Scott

2017

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has quickly become the analytical method of choice in forensic toxicology laboratories due to its ability to detect a very wide range of compounds in a single analysis. One of the major limitations of LC-MS however, is a relatively limited linear dynamic range for quantitation. A new approach to combating this problem is to use the [ M + H] isotope mass peak for quantitation, thereby reducing saturation at the detector and extending the linear range. This is particularly useful in full-scan applications, such as quadrupole-time-of-flight (QTOF) mass spectrometry, where the isotopic mass peaks are acquired as a matter of course. Due to the variation in abundance of naturally occurring isotopes for common elements, especially C, this technique has the potential to lead to additional quantitative error. Through a review of published isotope ratio mass spectrometry data, we have assessed this potential for error and found that it is likely to be less than 2% and unlikely to be more than 4%, although this may not apply to compounds containing high numbers of nitrogen or sulphur atoms. This additional potential error must be considered before using this technique as it may not be appropriate for all applications. We have deemed it fit for purpose for our application and demonstrate the applicability of this technique to a quantitative LC-TOF method. © 2017 Commonwealth of Australia. Drug Testing and Analysis © 2017 John Wiley& Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Determination of 21 drugs in oral fluid using fully automated supported liquid extraction and UHPLC‐MS/MS

Cited by 49 publications

References 40 publications

Quantitative Determination of Δ9-THC, CBG, CBD, Their Acid Precursors and Five Other Neutral Cannabinoids by UHPLC-UV-MS

Quantitative Determination of Δ9-THC, CBG, CBD, Their Acid Precursors and Five Other Neutral Cannabinoids by UHPLC-UV-MS

Analysis of new psychoactive substances in oral fluids by means of microextraction by packed sorbent followed by ultra‐high‐performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

Increasing the linear dynamic range in LC–MS: is it valid to use a less abundant isotopologue?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About