Candace Price (Presenter)
Merck KGaA
Bio: Candace Price is the Product Manager for Bioanalytical Sample Preparation products offered through Merck KGaA.
Authorship: Candace Price, Craig Aurand, Anders Fridstrom, Sara Smith, Emily Barrey
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
| Short Abstract The field of illicit drug testing has recently become a constantly changing environment with the rapid development of unregulated designer and synthetic compounds. This study demonstrates the benefits of Biocompatible Solid Phase Microextraction (BioSPME) over traditional “dilute and shoot” and protein precipitation methods for the enrichment of illicit drugs and drugs of abuse directly from biological matrices. BioSPME methods are shown to produce cleaner extracts and enable lower detection limits from biological samples compared to both protein precipitation and dilution methods. |
Long Abstract
Introduction: The field of illicit drug testing has recently become a constantly changing environment with the rapid development of unregulated designer and synthetic compounds. These compounds are reported to generate stimulating affects similar to that of methamphetamine, heroin and MDMA. The difficulty for the forensic testing facilities is the fact these compounds are not detected under normal ELISA testing methods; additional more specific LC/MS methods are necessary. This study demonstrates the benefits of Biocompatible Solid Phase Micro Extraction (Bio-SPME) over “dilute and shoot” methods for the enrichment of illicit drugs directly from biological matrices in an effort to explore the utility and unique selectivity of these sampling devices.
Methods: In this study, a model set of drugs were utilized to compare the BioSPME sampling technique with “dilute and shoot” methods. Samples are aliquotted into 96 well plates and extracted by immersion in the BioSPME fibers. The BioSPME fibers are then directly desorbed into solvent followed by direct LC/MS/MS quantitation. Samples were also analyzed by direct dilution of the spiked matrix sample into appropriate solvents and analyzed by LC/MS/MS.
Results: The BioSPME method enabled lower detection limits compared to the “dilute and shoot” preparation due to the ability to concentrate the analytes onto the fiber and desorb in minimal amounts of solvent. In addition, significant reduction of the total MS background was observed for the BioSPME samples. Matrix effects were significantly reduced for samples prepared with the BioSPME technique. Loss of MS response was not observed for repeated analysis of the BioSPME extracts which caused less instrument cleaning and maintenance. The combination of all of these benefits lead to a more rugged analytical method without sacrificing much in preparation time.
Conclusion: BioSPME methods produced cleaner extracts and lower detection limits from biological samples compared to both protein precipitation and dilution sample preparation methods.
References & Acknowledgements:
| Description | Y/N | Source |
| Grants | no | |
| Salary | yes | Merck KGaA |
| Board Member | no | |
| Stock | no | |
| Expenses | no |
IP Royalty: no
| Planning to mention or discuss specific products or technology of the company(ies) listed above: | yes |