S'abonner

Comparison of electrospray and UniSpray™ ion sources with post-column hydrochloric acid infusion for 119 abuse relevant substances - 15/08/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.toxac.2022.06.220 
Stefan Lierheimer , Maximilian Wolf, Michael Böttcher
 Toxicology, Mvz medizinische labore Dessau Kassel gmbh, Dessau-Rosslau, Germany 

Corresponding author.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Résumé

Aim

Comparing the sensitivity of the Waters UniSpray™ ion source (USI) with the Waters electrospray ion source (ESI) on a Waters Xevo TQ-XS mass spectrometer with and without additional post-column infusion of low concentrated hydrochloric acid (HCl). To reduce sample volumes or increase analytical sensitivity for drugs of abuse detection in human body fluids, technological advances in mass spectrometry often target an increase in ionization efficiency. One example for this development is the USI, which claims higher ion yields and therefore higher sensitivity due to a unique geometry. Another possibility to increase sensitivity through increased ion yield is the post-column infusion of low concentrated HCl.

Method

For sensitivity comparison, we choose the, in our opinion, 119 most relevant medications and drugs of abuse. These were prepared in eleven acetonitrile solutions containing 10 analytes each and one with 9 analytes at a concentration of 1μg/mL for each substance. For analysis, every solution was diluted 1:1000 in mobile phase A/ethylene glycol (70:30 v/v) to a concentration of 1.0ng/mL. Solutions were analysed in triplicate on the same day interrupted by the ion source change, to decrease inter-day variations in sensitivity. Chromatographic separation was performed on a Waters 2.1×150mm, 1.8μm BEH Phenyl column kept at 60°C on an Acquity UPLC connected to a Xevo TQ-XS detector (Waters). The standard ESI ion source or the USI ion source was mounted on the detector. Mobile phase A consisted of 20mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid (pH 3) and mobile phase B was 0.1% formic acid in methanol. Gradient elution was conducted within 6.0min at a flow rate of 0.5mL/min with 85% A and 15% B at the beginning and 100% B at the end. Data were acquired with the ion sources operating in the positive ionization MRM mode. Two transitions for each analyte were monitored at a constant dwell time of 10ms over the full chromatographic run time. In an additional experiment, both ion sources were compared with additional post-column infusion of 0.0037% HCl at a flow rate of 5.0μL/min. Injection volume was 2.0μL in all experiments.

Results

USI provided a general gain in signal intensity (peak area): 12% (n=14) of the analytes showed a peak area increase up to 2-fold, 85% (n=101) increased between 2- and 4-fold and 3% (n=4) increased above 4-fold in peak area. Post-column HCl infusion with the ESI source mounted, resulted in an analyte dependent additional gain in signal intensity for 15% (n=18) of the analytes ranging from 2- to 21-fold. 78% (n=93) ranged from 0.8-fold to 2-fold. In contrast 7% (n=8) showed a signal decrease between 0.4-fold and 0.8-fold. The combination of USI and post-column HCl infusion resulted in an increase in peak area from 2-fold up to 62-fold compared to ESI without infusion for 91% (n=108) of the analytes. 8% (n=9) where between 0.8-fold and 2-fold and 1% (n=2) ranged from 0.4-fold to 0.8-fold.

Conclusion

With USI, a general improvement in analytical sensitivity under identical conditions could be achieved for all of our 119 “favorite analytes” separated in one chromatographic run. Additional post-column infusion of HCl increased sensitivity for many substances. This approach can be used very selectively when applied to certain retention time windows only. Further experiments are needed to understand how different adjustments of ESI and USI and different matrices will affect ionization. USI, especially in combination with post-column HCl infusion, is a promising tool to increase sensitivity in toxicological multi-target LC-MS/MS analysis.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2022  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 34 - N° 3S

P. S133 - septembre 2022 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Usefulness of toxicology screening by high resolution mass spectrometry in methamphetamine and amphetamine users attended in emergency departments
  • Lendoiro Elena, Gomila Isabel, De Castro Ana, Elorza Miguel Angel, Barceló Bernardino
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Form and content of Jamaican cannabis edibles
  • Carole Carole Lindsay

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2025 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.