James Byrd, Marta Kozak 28 Apr 2011

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Instrumental Analysis
Advertisements

LC-ESI-MS/MS analysis of nine basic pharmaceuticals in influent, effluent and surface water Jet C. Van De Steene and Willy E. Lambert Laboratory of Toxicology,
Analyte desorption and its resulting impact on sensitivity is better when centrifugation is adopted in comparison to soak for one hour for both basic and.
C.Bi 1, Y.Yamaguchi 1, S.Bamba 1, H.Kumada 2, K.Nakai 3 and T.Morimoto 1 1 Research and Development Office, Japan Chemical Analysis Center 2 Proton Medical.
Result validation. Exercise 1 You’ve done an analysis to the best of your ability using the correct procedure. Is your answer correct? possibly, hopefully.
P. 1 FAQs- before analyzing your sample. p. 2  Temperature (thermal degradable?)  Split or splitless  Split ratio  Injection volume FAQs- injection.
© 2009 Perkin Elmer As Speciation in Apple Juice Charles Schneider, Presenter Kenneth Neubauer, Co-Author PerkinElmer.
World Health Organization
Development of an Automated, Pyridine Free Method for Aerosol Cyanide Compounds and Hydrogen Cyanide. An Alternative to NIOSH LeRoy Dobson, Chemist.
Comparative Analysis of Arbutin and Tranexamic Acid in Skin Whitening Products Chuxin Chen
Detecting Melamine in the Food Supply Michael Parks CHEM 4101, Fall /04/09.
11 Determination of the Levels of Fungicides on Citrus Fruits By Miseung Borgers Chem 4101, Fall 2008.
Tandem Mass Spectrometry Newborn Screening Quality Assurance and Control Instrument and Method Validation Gary Hoffman Wisconsin Newborn Screening Laboratory.
Validation of Analytical Method
Determination of Iron in Water
Zlata D. Clarka, M. Laura Parnasb and Elizabeth L. Frankb
©2012 Waters Corporation MKT12XXX ©2012 Waters Corporation MESURMENT OF ACCUMULATION OF HYDROXYLATED POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL (OH-PCBs) IN HUMAN URINE.
* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Use of High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) to Solve Severe Issues Due to Isotopic Distribution in Regulated Bioanalysis Richard.
CH 223 LECTURE # 15 SAMPLE QUESTIONS. The lesson is for not only accuracy, but speed. You will always be under some time constraint. You can work in pairs.
DEVELOPMENT OF A RP-HPLC METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF METFORMIN IN HUMAN PLASMA.
In Figure 3, and using the same reasoning for THC, the LOQs for cocaine (coc), MDMA, methamphetamine (meth), and amphetamine (amp) are estimated to be.
Chem. 231 – 2/18 Lecture. Announcements Set 2 Homework – Due Wednesday Quiz 2 – Next Monday Set 1 Labs –should be switching instruments today (or after.
Quality Assurance How do you know your results are correct? How confident are you?
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers by HRGC/HRMS Coreen Hamilton Brian Fowler Louis Haviland Axys Analytical Services, Ltd.
Validation Defination Establishing documentary evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that specification process will consistently produce.
Lab Skills Recap Biotech II. Metrology Vocabulary Unit of measurement Accuracy Precision Standards Calibration Verification Traceability Tolerance Errors.
LECTURE 13 QUALITY ASSURANCE METHOD VALIDATION
Selling Restek LC Solutions for Analytical Scale Laboratories Rick Lake Product Line Manager Liquid Chromatography x 2379
Lecture 10 ANALYTICAL METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION IN HPLC AND GC. Lecture 10 – Chromatography, Dr. Rasha Hanafi 1© Dr. Rasha Hanafi, GUC.
Presentation overview
THC in Oral Fluid by LC-MS/MS Kristine Van Natta 24 Sep 2010.
Validation of the AOAC method for pesticides residues analysis in oranges and mandarins in LATU Marina Torres (1) 1, Lucía Alcarraz 1 (2) 1 Laboratorio.
Determination of metformin in urine (by Liquid Chromatography LC)
Toxicological Screening of 80 Drugs in Urine Using the High Resolution Exactive LC/MS Orbitrap Mass Spectrometer Coupled to Online Extraction and Turbulent.
The world leader in serving science For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures Quantitative Analysis of 4 Immunosuppressant Drugs in Whole.
EQUIPMENT and METHOD VALIDATION
Forensic Toxicology Use Only Analysis of ETG, ETS using the Thermo Scientific Exactive Mass Spectrometer Kent Johnson Fortes lab, Portland Oregon.
이 장 우. 1. Introduction  HPLC-MS/MS methodology achieved its preferred status -Highly selective and effectively eliminated interference -Without.
Art PowerPoints Harris: Quantitative Chemical Analysis, Eight Edition CHAPTER 05: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CALIBRATION METHODS.
H M Arif Ullah, Hye Jin Chung*
Plasma Free Metanephrines Analysis using LC-MS/MS with Porous Graphitic Carbon Column Xiang He (Kevin) and Marta Kozak Thermo Fisher Scientific.
For Clinical Research and Forensic Toxicology Use Only
Large Volume Parental (LVP) Application Biopharmaceutical Application
Multi-Analyte LC-MS/MS Methods – Best Practice.
Bioanalytical Laboratories
Introduction Results Aim of the study Methods Conclusion References
QuEChERS LRC Cartridge
Determination of Algae Compounds in Drinking Water
For Forensic Toxicology use Only
LC-MS/MS Analysis of Tetracycline antibiotics in Honey using Advance UHPLC-EVOQ™ SIMA LAB PVT LTD.
A sensitive and repeatable method for characterization of sulfonamides and trimethoprim in honey using QuEChERS extracts with Liquid-Chromatography-Tandem.
Determination of Vismodegib by
EPA Method Equivalency
For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures
Clinical Research Use Only Not For Diagnostic Purposes
Solid Phase Extraction Optimization Experiment
Added Monrovia and South Bend to the slide.
524.3 Purge Flow Study Anne Jurek – Sr. Applications Chemist
Presentation Title Jet Steam Proteomics with Automated Sample Prep for High-Throughput Peptide Quantitation in Clinical Research 11/16/2018 Confidentiality.
EPA method 521 by direct-inject LC-MS/MS
Brahm Prakash Tairo Ogura and William Lipps
Yahdiana Harahap, Agus Imam Bahaudin, Harmita
Improve Your Ability to Detect and Analyze Polar Pesticides using IC-MS/MS Richard Jack and John Madden.
ANALYTICAL METHOD VALIDATION
DETERMINATION OF GLUCOSE IN BLOOD STREAM
Simultaneous determination of creatinine, iohexol and p-aminohippuric acid in animal plasma by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass.
HPLC-ESI-QqTOF MS analysis of SAM and SAH extracted from PC-3 cells
Liquid Chromatography - Method Development and Validation
Darrell Clinton and H. Dorota Inerowicz Purdue University
Damiana Gentili Qualified Person/QU Director 09/05/2019
Presentation transcript:

James Byrd, Marta Kozak 28 Apr 2011 LC-MS analysis of six opiates in urine with Quantum Ultra triple quadrupole mass spectrometer James Byrd, Marta Kozak 28 Apr 2011

Purpose Develop LC-MS method to analyze six opiates in urine Method specification: Analysis time: max 6 min LOQ of 40 ng/mL (20 ng/mL even better) to support cut off value of 50 ng/mL Sample preparation: glucuronide enzymatic hydrolysis followed by urine dilution

Conclusion 6 minutes method to analyzed six opiates in urine was developed Method meets laboratory standards for linearity, accuracy and precision Linearity: 10-500 ng/mL Precision: QC1 (16.7 ng/mL): <15.7% QC2 (167 ng/ml); <5.2 Accuracy: QC1 (16.7 ng/ml): 97.7-132% QC2 (167ng/ml): 91.0-108% Method was tested for matrix effects-no significant matrix effects were observed

List of analytes and internal standards Analayte Internal Standard Morphine Morphine-D3 Hydromorphone Hydromorphone-D6 Oxymorphone Oxymorphone-D3 Codeine Codeine-d3 Hydrocodone Hydrocodone-D3 Oxycodone Oxycodone-D3 Two pairs of analytes - Morphine-Hydromorphone and Codeine-Hydrocodone - are isobaric (have the same SRM transitions) and these compounds have to be chromatographically separated.

Method validation and acceptance criteria Linearity range Calibration standards acceptance criteria: 20% accuracy for the lowest calibrator and 15% accuracy for higher calibrators Precision %RSD equal to 20% or better for the low QC sample and equal to 15% or better for high QC sample analyzed in five replicates Spike recovery %Recovery within 30% for the low spiked concentration (10ng/mL) and within 20% for the high concentration (125 ng/mL)

Instrumentation Quantum Ultra triple quadruple mass spectrometer with HESI source TLX-1

Calibration standards Calibration standards spiking solutions were prepared in MeOH by diluting 1 mg/mL solutions purchased from Cerillant Calibration standards were prepared in urine by mixing 10 uL of standard spiking solution with 990 uL of blank urine

QC samples and spiked urine samples Two QC samples with concentrations of 16.7 ng/mL and 167 ng/mL were prepared in urine Six urines from different subjects were spiked with mix of analytes to final concentrations of 10 ng/mL and 125 ng/mL

Sample Processing Method Aliquot 0.2 mL urine into microcentrifuge tube Add 10 µL IS (4000 ng/mL of each deuterated analyte in MeOH) Add 0.1 mL ß-glucuronidase (Sigma G-8132: dissolve at 10,000 U/mL in 1M acetate buffer adjusted to pH 5 w/glacial acetic acid,) Incubate at 60°C for 60 min Cool samples to room temperature Add 200 µL MeOH Vortex Centrifuge at 12 000 rpm for 5 minutes Mix 0.05 mL supernatant + 0.95 mL water in HPLC vial Inject 20 - 50 µL into LC-MS system

LC method Analytical Column: 50 x 4.3 mm, 1.9 um Hypersil GOLD aQ (part number 25302-054630) Column temperature: 25 deg C Mobile Phase A: 10 mM NH4FA, 0.1%FA in DI water B: 10 mM NH4FA, 0.1%FA in MeOH C: ACN/IPA/Acetone=20/20/10/v/v/v Gradient: total time = 5.67 min

Mass Spec source parameters HESI source Spray Voltage: 3500 mV Heater temp: 350 deg C Capillary temp: 370 deg C Sheet gas: 45 units Aux gas: 25 units Probe position: C/D

Mass Spec acquisition method Timed SRM transitions-two SRM transitions for each analyte Cycle time 0.4 sec Resolution: 0.7 FWHM Collision gas pressure: 1.4 mTorr Divert valve in 3 positions: 1.5-4.5 minutes to mass spectrometer

Mass Spec acquisition method: List of SRM transitions and acquisition time windows

Mass Spec acquisition method-software screen capture

Mass spec acquisition method-divert valve positions

Processing method Each analyte and internal standard were identified with ion ratio. Ion ratio accuracy window was set to 30%(relative) for Morphine and Oxymorphone and to 20% (relative) for rest of analytes and internal standards 30%(relative) ion ratio accuracy windows for Morphine and Oxymorphone was needed to allow LOQ of 5 ng/mL for Morphine and 10 ng/mL for Oxymorphone. If LOQ of 5-10 ng/mL is not required then ion ratio accuracy window can be set to 20% (relative)

Processing method: Morphine-D3 and Morphine

Results

Results: 10 ng/mL calibration standard in urine Morphine Morphine-D3 Hydromorphone Hydromorphone-D6 Oxymorphone Oxymorphone-D3 Codeine Codeine-D3 Hydrocodone Hydrocodone-D3 Oxycodone-D3 Oxycodone

Results Summary – Calibration curves: injection volume =20 uL Morphine R2=0.9870 Hydromorphone R2=0.9874 Oxymorphone R2=0.9868 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL -5.99 25 ng/mL 11.3 50 ng/mL 8.34 150 ng/mL 6.00 250 ng/mL -10.9 500 ng/mL -8.76 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL -4.73 25 ng/mL 11.1 50 ng/mL 3.62 150 ng/mL 1.71 250 ng/mL -16.4 500 ng/mL 4.64 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL -1.05 25 ng/mL -4.44 50 ng/mL 15.8 150 ng/mL 3.36 250 ng/mL -13.8 500 ng/mL 0.19 Codeine R2=0.9967 Hydrocodone R2=0.9961 Oxycodone R2=0.9923 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL 2.24 25 ng/mL -7.13 50 ng/mL 1.37 150 ng/mL 7.04 250 ng/mL -2.84 500 ng/mL -0.68 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL -0.97 25 ng/mL -0.24 50 ng/mL 7.53 150 ng/mL -3.72 250 ng/mL -7.00 500 ng/mL 4.40 Cal Std % Diff 10 ng/mL -1.65 25 ng/mL -1.12 50 ng/mL 11.6 150 ng/mL 3.83 250 ng/mL -10.8 500 ng/mL -1.88

Internal standard signal precision in sequence of 19 samples %RSD n=29 Morphine-D3 10.4 Hydromorphone-D6 10.5 Oxymorphone Codeine 6.9 Hydrocodone 8.7 Oxycodone 5.3

Results Summary – QC1 samples: injection volume =20 uL Spiked concentration = 16.7 ng/mL Morphine %RSD=11.9 Hydromorphone %RSD=11.8 Oxymorphone %RSD=7.85 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 15.5 -7.27 QC1-2 19.7 17.7 QC1-3 16.4 -1.56 QC1-4 20.7 23.8* QC1-5 18.3 9.72 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 18.3 9.78 QC1-2 21.6 29.2* QC1-3 16.2 -3.0 QC1-4 20.0 19.7 QC1-5 17.0 1.78 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 17.5 4.91 QC1-2 20.3 21.4* QC1-3 17.3 3.60 QC1-4 20.4 21.9* QC1-5 19.6 17.4 Codeine %RSD=11.4 Hydrocodone %RSD=15.7 Oxycodone %RSD=11.5 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 17.8 6.78 QC1-2 20.0 20.1* QC1-3 15.9 -4.81 QC1-4 19.6 17.4 QC1-5 15.7 -6.14 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 17.5 4.89 QC1-2 22.1 32.4* QC1-3 15.4 -7.91 QC1-4 19.2 15.0 QC1-5 15.5 -7.33 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC1-1 15.8 -5.66 QC1-2 19.4 15.9 QC1-3 15.3 -8.25 QC1-4 17.8 6.79 QC1-5 14.8 -11.0 *) results which did not meet accuracy criteria of 20% if calculated against intended concentration of 16.7 ng/mL All samples (except one) meet accuracy criteria if calculated against mean value

Results Summary – QC2 samples: injection volume =20 uL Spiked concentration = 167 ng/mL Morphine %RSD=5.06 Hydromorphone %RSD=5.16 Oxymorphone %RSD=4.06 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 162 -3.13 QC2-2 165 -0.97 QC2-3 175 4.60 QC2-4 180 8.08 QC2-5 181 8.36 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 154 -7.86 QC2-2 158 -5.42 QC2-3 168 0.34 QC2-4 174 4.09 QC2-5 170 2.12 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 180 7.83 QC2-2 167 0.02 QC2-3 185 11.0 QC2-4 178 6.74 QC2-5 184 10.2 Codeine %RSD=1.75 Hydrocodone %RSD=4.10 Oxycodone %RSD=3.57 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 171 2.32 QC2-2 170 1.65 QC2-3 174 4.18 QC2-4 168 0.92 QC2-5 176 5.29 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 154 -7.48 QC2-2 -9.02 QC2-3 159 -4.66 QC2-4 166 -0.73 QC2-5 168 -0.74 Sample # Conc (ng/mL) % Diff QC2-1 166 -0.75 QC2-2 155 -7.23 QC2-3 154 -7.52 QC2-4 160 -4.26 QC2-5 -0.31

Results Summary – Spiked urine Level 1: injection volume =20 uL Spiked concentration = 10 ng/mL Morphine %RSD=13.7 Recovery 79.5-123% Hydromorphone %RSD= 19.7 Recovery = 73.5-146% Oxymorphone %RSD=7.0 Recovery=102-120% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 12.9 29.4 Urine#2 10.5 5.35 Urine#3 8.07 -19.3 Urine#4 7.35 Urine#5 24.3 Urine#6 46.4 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 8.76 -12.3 Urine#2 11.2 11.9 Urine#3 9.20 -7.95 Urine#4 11.1 10.6 Urine#5 12.0 20.5 Urine#6 12.3 23.5 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.2 2.18 Urine#2 11.9 18.8 Urine#3 11.0 9.72 Urine#4 10.3 2.64 Urine#5 12.0 19.5 Urine#6 10.7 6.89 Codeine %RSD=14.0 Recovery=76.5-114% Hydrocodone %RSD=9.7 Recovery 98.9-127% Oxycodone %RSD=13.2 Recovery=89-124% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.4 3.88 Urine#2 7.65 -23.5 Urine#3 8.69 -13.1 Urine#4 8.98 -10.2 Urine#5 9.66 -3.39 Urine#6 11.4 14.2 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 12.7 26.7 Urine#2 11.5 15.0 Urine#3 9.89 -1.07 Urine#4 11.1 Urine#5 10.3 3.30 Urine#6 12.4 23.7 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.2 2.56 Urine#2 8.90 -11.0 Urine#3 9.44 -5.57 Urine#4 9.62 -3.76 Urine#5 11.7 17.0 Urine#6 12.4 23.9

Results Summary – Spiked urine Level 1: injection volume =20 uL Spiked concentration = 10 ng/mL Morphine %RSD=13.7 Recovery =79.5-123% Hydromorphone %RSD= 19.7 Recovery = 73.5-146% Oxymorphone %RSD=7.0 Recovery=102-120% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 12.9 29.4 Urine#2 10.5 5.35 Urine#3 8.07 -19.3 Urine#4 7.35 Urine#5 12.4 24.3 Urine#6 14.6 46.4 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 8.76 -12.3 Urine#2 11.2 11.9 Urine#3 9.20 -7.95 Urine#4 11.1 10.6 Urine#5 12.0 20.5 Urine#6 12.3 23.5 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.2 2.18 Urine#2 11.9 18.8 Urine#3 11.0 9.72 Urine#4 10.3 2.64 Urine#5 12.0 19.5 Urine#6 10.7 6.89 Codeine %RSD=14.0 Recovery=76.5-114% Hydrocodone %RSD=9.7 Recovery =98.9-127% Oxycodone %RSD=13.2 Recovery=89.0-124% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.4 3.88 Urine#2 7.65 -23.5 Urine#3 8.69 -13.1 Urine#4 8.98 -10.2 Urine#5 9.66 -3.39 Urine#6 11.4 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 12.7 26.7 Urine#2 11.5 15.0 Urine#3 9.89 -1.07 Urine#4 11.1 Urine#5 10.3 3.30 Urine#6 12.4 23.7 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 10.2 2.56 Urine#2 8.90 -11.0 Urine#3 9.44 -5.57 Urine#4 9.62 -3.76 Urine#5 11.7 17.0 Urine#6 12.4 23.9

Results Summary – Spiked urine Level 2: injection volume =20 uL Spiked concentration = 125 ng/mL Morphine %RSD=3.7 Recovery =95.0-105% Hydromorphone %RSD= 8.4 Recovery = 73.5-95.4% Oxymorphone %RSD=7.57 Recovery=96.9-120% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 120 -4.16 Urine#2 131 5.20 Urine#3 125 0.322 Urine#4 119 -4.94 Urine#5 124 -0.978 Urine#6 -0.300 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 110 -11.9 Urine#2 119 -4.55 Urine#3 94.1 -24.7 Urine#4 115 -7.97 Urine#5 118 -5.28 Urine#6 116 -6.61 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 128 2.13 Urine#2 140 11.8 Urine#3 142 13.2 Urine#4 121 -3.08 Urine#5 135 8.68 Urine#6 150 20.0 Codeine %RSD=6.8 Recovery=85.4-102% Hydrocodone %RSD=11.1 Recovery 77.6-104% Oxycodone %RSD=6.0 Recovery=85.6-101% Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 111 -11.2 Urine#2 125 -0.041 Urine#3 127 2.03 Urine#4 107 -14.6 Urine#5 119 -4.58 Urine#6 120 -4.04 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 97.0 -22.4 Urine#2 122 -2.61 Urine#3 109 -12.4 Urine#4 130 3.90 Urine#5 106 -14.8 Urine#6 102 -18.1 Cal Std Conc (ng/mL) % Diff Urine#1 112 -10.2 Urine#2 123 -1.88 Urine#3 126 0.954 Urine#4 107 -14.4 Urine#5 119 -4.64 Urine#6 115 -7.34