Mass Spectrometry Letters

Korean Society for Mass Spectrometry (한국질량분석학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Establishment and Evaluation of GC/MS Methods for Urinalysis of Multiple Phenethylamines

  • Po-Han Shih (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Tsung-Hsien Lin (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Shih-Ting Zeng (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Shu-Yu Fan (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Chi-Zong Zang (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Ya-Chun Ko (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Ya-Hui Hsu (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Shou-Chieh Huang (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Mei-Chih Lin (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare) ;
  • Su-Hsiang Tseng (Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare)
  • Received : 2024.04.19
  • Accepted : 2024.05.28
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Over the past few decades, new psychoactive substances (NPS) have become prevailing. With the widespread emergence of NPS, phenethylamines (PEAs) have become one of the groups abused most which PEAs, along with other stimulants, make up the majority of stimulants. When determining the NPS, the methods for screening and confirmation are crucial which assesses the reliability of testimony. In this study, a set of GC/MS methods employing two derivatizing agents for determining 76 target PEAs in urine was established and further applied for authentic sample analysis. Five PEAs (N,N-DMA, PMMA, 4-CA, amphetamine, and methamphetamine) with contents over their LLOQs were detected in thirteen of the twenty tested samples. In order to compare the result from the GC/MS methods with the previously established LC-MS/MS method, Cohen's kappa coefficient and McNemar's test were applied for statistical analysis. Perfect agreement between GC/MS and LC-MS/MS techniques for determining target PEAs is demonstrated by the Kappa coefficient for each of the five detected targets.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C.

References

  1. Lum, G.; Mushlin, B. Lab. Med., 2004, 35, 368, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1309/QHJCKA4235EGPEGF 
  2. Akhgari, M.; Bahmanabadi, L.; Iravani, F. S. S.; Jokar, F. Toxicol. Anal. et Clin. 2021, 33, 109, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxac.2020.10.089 
  3. Graziano, S.; Anzillotti, L.; Mannocchi, G.; Pichini, S.; Busardo, F. P. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2019, 163, 170, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2018.10.011 
  4. Favretto, D.; Pascali, J. P.; Tagliaro, F. J. Chromatogr. A 2013, 1287, 84, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2012.12.049 
  5. Staack, R. F.; Fritschi, G.; Maurer, H. H. J. Chromatogr. B 2002, 773, 35, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-0232(01)00619-5 
  6. Kraemer, T.; Wennig, R.; Maurer, H. H. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2001, 25, 333, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/25.5.333. 
  7. Hawks, R. L.; Chiang, C. N. Urine testing for drugs of abuse. Research monograph series 73. National Institute on Drug Abuse. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1986. https://archives.nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/monograph73.pdf 
  8. Casati, S.; Angeli, I.; Ravelli, A.; Del Fabbro, M.; Minoli, M.; Orioli, M. Forensic Sci. Int. 2019, 304, 109951, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109951 
  9. Warrens, M. J. J. Psychol. Psychother. 2015, 5, 1000197, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0487.1000197 
  10. Feuerman, M.; Miller, A. R.; J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2008, 14, 930, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00984.x 
  11. Pembury Smith, M. Q. R.; Ruxton, G. D. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2020, 74, 133, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02916-y 
  12. ElMehy, A.; Wood, D.; El Madah, E.; Hassan, N.; Saad, K.; Dargan, P. Asia Pac. J. Med. Toxicol. 2022, 11, 4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.22038/apjmt.2022.19912 
  13. Landis, J. R.; Koch, G. G. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 
  14. Ti, L.; Tobias, S.; Lysyshyn, M.;, Laing, R.; Nosova, E.; Choi, J. C.; Arredondo, J.; McCrae, K.; Tupper, K.; Wood, E. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 212, 108006, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108006 
  15. Nwala, G. C.; Ibeneme, C. A.; Ojinnaka, N. C. Int. j. sci. res. 2021, 10, 930, DOI: https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR21311103801  103801
  16. Gjerde, H.; Gjersing, L.; Furuhaugen, H.; BrettevilleJensen, A. L. Subst. Use Misuse 2019, 1337, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1580295 
  17. UNODC Early Warning Advisory on NPS - Summary Dashboard, assessed May 2024. Available at:? https://www.unodc.org/LSS/Page/NPS/DataVisualisations 
  18. Mercolini, L. Chapter 20 - New Psychoactive Substances: An Overview, In A. Dasgupta (2nd Ed.), Critical Issues in Alcohol and Drugs of Abuse Testing, Academic Press, 2019, 247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815607-0.00020-4 
  19. Fan, S. Y.; Zang, C. Z.; Shih, P. H.; Ko, Y. C.; Hsu, Y. H.; Lin, M. C. Tseng, S. H.; Wang, D. Y. Forensic Sci. Int. 2021, 325, 110884, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110884 
  20. Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2013, 37, 452, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkt054 
  21. Laboratory and Scientific Section of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Guidance for the Validation of Analytical Methodology and Calibration of Equipment used for Testing of Illicit Drugs in Seized Materials and Biological Specimens, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2009. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/validation_E.pdf 
  22. Giannini, E. H.; Design, measurement, and analysis of clinical investigations. In Textbook of Pediatric Rheumatology 2005, 142, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4160-0246-8.50012-7 
  23. Omnicalculator online https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/mcnemars-test 
  24. He, Y. Liquid-based microextraction techniques for environmental analysis. In Comprehensive Sampling and Sample Preparation 2012, 835, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381373-2.00116-2 
  25. Wagmann, L.; Maurer, H. H. Exp. Pharmacol. 2018, 252, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/164_2017_83 
  26. Simao, A. Y.; Antunes, M.; Marques, H.; Rosado, T.; Soares, S.; Goncalves, J.; Mario, B.; Maristela, A.; Gallardo, E. Bioanalysis 2020, 12, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2020-0148 
  27. Di Trana, A.; Mannocchi, G.; Pirani, F.; La Maida, N.; Gottardi, M.; Pichini, S.; Busardo, F. P. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2020, 44, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkaa103