Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. / Skaalvik, Tonje Gottenberg; Øiestad, Elisabeth Leere; Pedersen-Bjergaard, Stig; Hegstad, Solfrid.

In: Drug Testing and Analysis, Vol. 15, No. 8, 2023, p. 909-918.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Skaalvik, TG, Øiestad, EL, Pedersen-Bjergaard, S & Hegstad, S 2023, 'Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry', Drug Testing and Analysis, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 909-918. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3487

APA

Skaalvik, T. G., Øiestad, E. L., Pedersen-Bjergaard, S., & Hegstad, S. (2023). Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Drug Testing and Analysis, 15(8), 909-918. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3487

Vancouver

Skaalvik TG, Øiestad EL, Pedersen-Bjergaard S, Hegstad S. Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Drug Testing and Analysis. 2023;15(8):909-918. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3487

Author

Skaalvik, Tonje Gottenberg ; Øiestad, Elisabeth Leere ; Pedersen-Bjergaard, Stig ; Hegstad, Solfrid. / Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. In: Drug Testing and Analysis. 2023 ; Vol. 15, No. 8. pp. 909-918.

Bibtex

@article{cac06b5decd54d7fa26adb5e8e157292,
title = "Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry",
abstract = "Separation and quantification of amphetamine enantiomers are commonly used to distinguish between consumption of prescription amphetamine (mostly S-amphetamine) and illicit forms of the drug (racemate). In this study, electromembrane extraction with prototype conductive vials was combined with ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography (UHPSFC-MS/MS) to quantify R- and S-amphetamine in urine. Amphetamine was extracted from 100 μL urine, diluted with 25 μL internal standard solution and 175 μL 130 mM formic acid, across a supported liquid membrane (SLM) consisting of 9 μL of a 1:1(w/w) mixture of 2-nitrophenyloctyl ether (NPOE) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phosphite (DEHPi) into an acceptor phase containing 300 μL 130 mM formic acid. The extraction was facilitated by the application of 30 V for 15 min. Enantiomeric separation was achieved using UHPSFC-MS/MS with a chiral stationary phase. The calibration range was 50–10,000 ng/mL for each enantiomer. The between-assay CV was ≤5%, within-assay CV ≤ 1.5%, and bias within ±2%. Recoveries were 83%–90% (CV ≤ 6%), and internal standard corrected matrix effects were 99–105 (CV ≤ 2%). The matrix effects ranged from 96% to 98% (CV ≤ 8%) when not corrected by the internal standard. The EME method was compared with a chiral routine method that employed liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) for sample preparation. Assay results were in agreement with the routine method, and the mean deviation between methods was 3%, ranging from −21% to 31%. Finally, sample preparation greenness was assessed using the AGREEprep tool, which resulted in a greenness score of 0.54 for conductive vial EME, opposed to 0.47 for semi-automated 96-well LLE.",
keywords = "amphetamine, chiral chromatography, electromembrane extraction, sample preparation, supercritical fluid chromatography",
author = "Skaalvik, {Tonje Gottenberg} and {\O}iestad, {Elisabeth Leere} and Stig Pedersen-Bjergaard and Solfrid Hegstad",
note = "Funding Information: This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway (NRF 310086). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1002/dta.3487",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "909--918",
journal = "Drug Testing and Analysis",
issn = "1942-7603",
publisher = "JohnWiley & Sons Ltd",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Determination of amphetamine enantiomers in urine by conductive vial electromembrane extraction and ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry

AU - Skaalvik, Tonje Gottenberg

AU - Øiestad, Elisabeth Leere

AU - Pedersen-Bjergaard, Stig

AU - Hegstad, Solfrid

N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway (NRF 310086). Publisher Copyright: © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - Separation and quantification of amphetamine enantiomers are commonly used to distinguish between consumption of prescription amphetamine (mostly S-amphetamine) and illicit forms of the drug (racemate). In this study, electromembrane extraction with prototype conductive vials was combined with ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography (UHPSFC-MS/MS) to quantify R- and S-amphetamine in urine. Amphetamine was extracted from 100 μL urine, diluted with 25 μL internal standard solution and 175 μL 130 mM formic acid, across a supported liquid membrane (SLM) consisting of 9 μL of a 1:1(w/w) mixture of 2-nitrophenyloctyl ether (NPOE) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phosphite (DEHPi) into an acceptor phase containing 300 μL 130 mM formic acid. The extraction was facilitated by the application of 30 V for 15 min. Enantiomeric separation was achieved using UHPSFC-MS/MS with a chiral stationary phase. The calibration range was 50–10,000 ng/mL for each enantiomer. The between-assay CV was ≤5%, within-assay CV ≤ 1.5%, and bias within ±2%. Recoveries were 83%–90% (CV ≤ 6%), and internal standard corrected matrix effects were 99–105 (CV ≤ 2%). The matrix effects ranged from 96% to 98% (CV ≤ 8%) when not corrected by the internal standard. The EME method was compared with a chiral routine method that employed liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) for sample preparation. Assay results were in agreement with the routine method, and the mean deviation between methods was 3%, ranging from −21% to 31%. Finally, sample preparation greenness was assessed using the AGREEprep tool, which resulted in a greenness score of 0.54 for conductive vial EME, opposed to 0.47 for semi-automated 96-well LLE.

AB - Separation and quantification of amphetamine enantiomers are commonly used to distinguish between consumption of prescription amphetamine (mostly S-amphetamine) and illicit forms of the drug (racemate). In this study, electromembrane extraction with prototype conductive vials was combined with ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography (UHPSFC-MS/MS) to quantify R- and S-amphetamine in urine. Amphetamine was extracted from 100 μL urine, diluted with 25 μL internal standard solution and 175 μL 130 mM formic acid, across a supported liquid membrane (SLM) consisting of 9 μL of a 1:1(w/w) mixture of 2-nitrophenyloctyl ether (NPOE) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phosphite (DEHPi) into an acceptor phase containing 300 μL 130 mM formic acid. The extraction was facilitated by the application of 30 V for 15 min. Enantiomeric separation was achieved using UHPSFC-MS/MS with a chiral stationary phase. The calibration range was 50–10,000 ng/mL for each enantiomer. The between-assay CV was ≤5%, within-assay CV ≤ 1.5%, and bias within ±2%. Recoveries were 83%–90% (CV ≤ 6%), and internal standard corrected matrix effects were 99–105 (CV ≤ 2%). The matrix effects ranged from 96% to 98% (CV ≤ 8%) when not corrected by the internal standard. The EME method was compared with a chiral routine method that employed liquid–liquid extraction (LLE) for sample preparation. Assay results were in agreement with the routine method, and the mean deviation between methods was 3%, ranging from −21% to 31%. Finally, sample preparation greenness was assessed using the AGREEprep tool, which resulted in a greenness score of 0.54 for conductive vial EME, opposed to 0.47 for semi-automated 96-well LLE.

KW - amphetamine

KW - chiral chromatography

KW - electromembrane extraction

KW - sample preparation

KW - supercritical fluid chromatography

U2 - 10.1002/dta.3487

DO - 10.1002/dta.3487

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 37114617

AN - SCOPUS:85158925263

VL - 15

SP - 909

EP - 918

JO - Drug Testing and Analysis

JF - Drug Testing and Analysis

SN - 1942-7603

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 357273981