Liquid chromatography and supercritical fluid chromatography as alternative techniques to gas chromatography for the rapid screening of anabolic agents in urine
Language English Country Netherlands Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
27185056
DOI
10.1016/j.chroma.2016.05.004
PII: S0021-9673(16)30559-3
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Anabolic steroids, Doping control, GC–MS/MS, Supported liquid extraction, UHPLC–MS/MS, UHPSFC–MS/MS,
- MeSH
- Anabolic Agents urine MeSH
- Chromatography, Gas MeSH
- Doping in Sports prevention & control MeSH
- Liquid-Liquid Extraction MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Substance Abuse Detection methods MeSH
- Steroids urine MeSH
- Chromatography, Supercritical Fluid methods MeSH
- Tandem Mass Spectrometry methods MeSH
- Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Anabolic Agents MeSH
- Steroids MeSH
This work describes the development of two methods involving supported liquid extraction (SLE) sample treatment followed by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography or ultra-high performance supercritical fluid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS and UHPSFC-MS/MS) for the screening of 43 anabolic agents in human urine. After evaluating different stationary phases, a polar-embedded C18 and a diol columns were selected for UHPLC-MS/MS and UHPSFC-MS/MS, respectively. Sample preparation, mobile phases and MS conditions were also finely tuned to achieve highest selectivity, chromatographic resolution and sensitivity. Then, the performance of these two methods was compared to the reference routine procedure for steroid analyses in anti-doping laboratories, which combines liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) followed by gas chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS). For this purpose, urine samples spiked with the compounds of interest at five different concentrations were analyzed using the three analytical platforms. The retention and selectivity of the three techniques were very different, ensuring a good complementarity. However, the two new methods displayed numerous advantages. The overall procedure was much faster thanks to high throughput SLE sample treatment using 48-well plates and faster chromatographic analysis. Moreover, the highest sensitivity was attained using UHPLC-MS/MS with 98% of the doping agents detected at the lowest concentration level (0.1ng/mL), against 76% for UHPSFC-MS/MS and only 14% for GC-MS/MS. Finally, the weakest matrix effects were obtained with UHPSFC-MS/MS with 76% of the analytes displaying relative matrix effect between -20 and 20%, while the GC-MS/MS reference method displayed very strong matrix effects (over 100%) for all of the anabolic agents.
References provided by Crossref.org