Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
Technical Note
Analysis of Cannabinoids and Their Metabolites in Human Urine Binnian Wei, Lanqing Wang, and Ben C Blount Anal. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 27 Sep 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 4, 2015
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Analytical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
1
Analysis of Cannabinoids and Their Metabolites in Human Urine
2
Binnian Wei1, Lanqing Wang1, Benjamin C. Blount1
3
1
Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health,
4
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
5 6
Send Correspondence to: Dr. B. Wei. E-mail:
[email protected]; Telephone: +1 770-488-4564.
7
Division of Laboratory Sciences, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
8
4770 Buford Hwy, NE Rd, Mail stop: F44. Atlanta, GA, US, 30041.
9
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing financial interest.
10 11 12 13 14 15
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 2 of 20
16
Abstract:
17
Biologically monitoring marijuana exposure from active and passive use requires
18
both a wide linear range and sensitive detection.
19
validated
20
chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC–MS/MS) for
21
analysis of urinary ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol and cannabinol,
22
and two major metabolites of THC, 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC and 11-hydroxy-THC,
23
in active users and particularly in people exposed to secondhand marijuana
24
smoke (SHMS). The method used positive electrospray ionization (ESI) mode to
25
reach the sensitivity needed to detect trace SHMS exposure with limits of
26
detection (LOD) ranging from 0.002 to 0.008 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL),
27
and 0.005 to 0.017 ng/mL for “free” (unconjugated forms) and “total”
28
(unconjugated plus conjugated forms) measurements, respectively. These LODs
29
were approximately 10–100 times more sensitive than those reported in the
30
literature. To reduce or avoid time-consuming repetitive sample preparation and
31
analysis, the method simultaneously monitored multiple reaction monitoring
32
transitions in negative ESI mode to quantify high analyte levels typically found in
33
the urine of active marijuana users (linear dynamic range of 12.5 – 800 ng/mL).
34
The validation results indicated this method was accurate (average inter-/intra-
35
day bias: < 10%), precise (inter-/intra-day imprecision: < 10%) and fast (6
36
minutes run time). In addition, sample preparation throughput was greatly
37
improved using an automation liquid-handling system, meeting the needs for
38
potential large-scale population studies.
a
multifunctional
method
using
We have developed and
ultra-high
39
2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
performance
liquid
Page 3 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
Main Text
40
41
1. Introduction
42
Increasing use of marijuana both medicinally and recreationally1, 2 may lead to
43
increased health risks resulting from exposure to both cannabinoids and the
44
toxic chemicals found in marijuana smoke.3-5 Traditionally, cannabinoids and
45
their metabolites, i.e. ∆9–tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and
46
cannabinol (CBN), and two major metabolites of THC, 11–nor–9–carboxy–THC
47
(COOH-THC) and 11–hydroxy–THC (OH-THC) (Figure S-1), are measured in the
48
urine of people to assess their exposure to marijuana products and smoke.
49
In the last decades, a number of analytical methods have been applied to
50
analyze THC, OH-THC, COOH-THC, CBD and CBN in urine samples, including
51
methods employing liquid or gas chromatography (LC or GC) coupled with either
52
a single quadrupole mass spectrometry (MS) or tandem mass spectrometry
53
(MS/MS).6-10 Reported limits of detection (LOD) for these analytes ranged from
54
0.2 to 5.0 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Given the relatively high exposure
55
levels resulted from active marijuana smoking, these LODs meet the needs
56
accordingly for desired detection rates. Nevertheless, persons smoking
57
marijuana could also cause passive exposure of other people through inhalation
58
of secondhand marijuana smoke (SHMS), which are often characterized by low
59
biomarker
60
environmental circumstances, smoker density and exposure duration. While most
61
studies have focused on active use of marijuana, information on SHMS, including
62
exposure characteristics and adverse health consequences, is still limited in the
levels
although
collectively
depending
3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
on
factors
including
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
63
open literature. A sensitive analytical method to quantify trace biomarker levels is
64
therefore indispensable for effectively monitoring and assessing SHMS exposure.
65
The objective of this study was to develop and analytically validate a
66
sensitive ultra-high pressure LC (UHPLC) – electrospray ionization (ESI)
67
combined with MS/MS method for quantifying THC, COOH-THC, OH-THC, CBD
68
and CBN in urine from people exposed to marijuana smoke, particularly to SHMS.
69
To the best of our knowledge, the analyte-specific LODs achieved in this method
70
for urine samples were approximately 10 – 100 times more sensitive than
71
previous studies. In addition, time-consuming repetitive preparation and analysis
72
of unknown urine samples often become necessary when analyte levels fall out
73
of a method’s linear dynamic ranges. We simultaneously monitored multiple
74
reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions of those five analytes under both positive
75
and detuned negative ESI modes for low-concentration (LODs – 50 ng/mL) and
76
high-concentration (up to 800 ng/mL) samples, respectively. This combined
77
analysis greatly increased the applicable quantitation ranges and facilitated the
78
data acquisition by reducing or avoiding potential repetitive sample preparation
79
and analysis. Finally, we increased sample preparation throughput using an
80
automation liquid-handling system to meet the needs for potential large–scale
81
population studies.
82
2. Experimental Section
83
Details on chemicals and materials are provided in the Supporting Information.
84
Standard Solution Preparation 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 20
Page 5 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
85
Blank urine pools, used as matrix for calibration standard (calibrators) and quality
86
control (QC), were prepared using human urine anonymously collected in
87
compliance with Institutional Review Board protocol. The CDC Human Subjects
88
Review Board determined this activity was not human subject research. Blank
89
urine samples were combined to form a matrix urine pool, which was kept at 4 oC
90
and stirred overnight to ensure thorough mixing. This urine pool was
91
subsequently spiked with target analytes to form calibrators and QCs.
92
We prepared working solutions for calibrators and QCs from serial
93
dilutions of primary stock solutions with methanol and water (v/v: 60:40), and
94
stored them in Teflon–capped amber glass vials at –24 °C. 50 µL of each
95
working solution was automatically added to 500 µL of blank urine (see Sample
96
preparation section), creating calibrators at 0.001 to 800 ng/mL, and QC samples
97
at 0.05, 25 and 500 ng/mL. The internal standard spiking solution had
98
concentrations of 0.06 ng/µL for CBD-d3, CBN-d3 and 0.1 ng/µL for OH-THC-d3,
99
COOH-THC-d3 and THC-d3. Details regarding the standard solution preparation
100
are given in the supporting information.
101
Sample preparation
102
We prepared calibrators, QCs, blanks and unknown urine samples following
103
same procedures, as depicted in Figure 1. Briefly, urine samples stored at
104
temperatures ≤ –65 °C were thawed and vortex-mixed for 10 minutes at room
105
temperature. To measure “total” concentrations (unconjugated and conjugated
106
forms), 500 µL of each urine sample (blank and unknown) was transferred to
107
each well in the 96-well plate, followed by adding 50 µL of calibrator and QC 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
108
working solutions to each blank urine sample. Working solutions were replaced
109
with water for unknown samples. Then, 50 µL of internal standard solution and
110
50 µL of enzyme solution (Escherichia coli, type IX-A, 20 units/µL, 0.5 M
111
ammonium acetate, pH 6.8) were added into all samples. After gentle mixing
112
(“Pre-Mix”), the 96-well plate was incubated at 37 °C for 2 h. Then, 50 µL of 10N
113
NaOH was added to each well, and incubated at 70 °C for 20 minutes. After
114
cooling the plate to room temperature, 400 µL of formic acid, water and methanol
115
(v/v/v: 12.5:12.5:75) was added to each well. To measure “free” unconjugated
116
concentrations, enzyme and NaOH solutions were replaced with 450 µL of formic
117
acid, water and methanol (v/v/v: 5.5:27.8:66.7), and no incubation was performed.
118
After mixing for 5 minutes, the plate was centrifuged for 30 minutes at –5 °C, and
119
then 0.96 mL mixtures from each well was transferred onto the 96-well SPE plate,
120
pre-equilibrated with 1.0 mL of methanol and 1.0 mL of buffer (5mM ammonium
121
formate, 0.05% formic acid). After soaking for 10 minutes, the mixtures were
122
pushed through the SPE under approximately 1.0 psi positive pressure. Then,
123
the samples were washed with 1.0 mL of water and 1.0 mL of methanol and
124
water (v/v: 60:40). After drying for 15 minutes with nitrogen (25 psi), the samples
125
were collected in a second 96-well plate by elution with 1.0 mL of methanol, and
126
then evaporated to dryness using a TurboVap evaporator (Biotage, Charlotte, NC,
127
USA) at room temperature. The residuals were reconstituted with 50 µL of
128
method and water (v/v: 50:50). After 5 minutes of vortex, 10 µL of each sample
129
was injected into the LC system.
130
Instrumentation and Operation 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
131
The “Pre-Mix” procedure (Figure 1), also the critical one impacting the accuracy
132
and precision of analytical results, was performed on a Hamilton automated
133
liquid–handling system – Microlab Star (Reno, NV, USA), aimed at improving
134
data reproducibility and sample preparation throughput. On an as-needed basis
135
in future, the throughput can be further expanded using a fully automated system
136
illustrated in our previous study.11 Additional information can be obtained upon
137
request.
138
Chromatographic separation was achieved using a Kinetex reversed
139
phase column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, particle size 2.6 µm, C18) (Phenomenex,
140
Torrance, CA, USA) on a Shimadzu UHPLC system (Columbia, MD, USA) at a
141
flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. Column temperature was maintained at 40 °C during the
142
entire analysis. The gradient program contained 5.0 mM of ammonium formate
143
with 0.05% formic acid (solvent A), and acetonitrile (solvent B). After injection, LC
144
flow during the first 2.5 minutes and the last 1.5 minutes was directed to a waste
145
container by the switching valve. Only the flow occurring between 2.5 and 4.5
146
minutes was directed to the MS. Detailed gradient conditions are provided in
147
Table – S1. Figures–2 (a, c, e, g, i) and –2 (b, d, f, h, j) depict representative
148
chromatograms for urine samples processed with the “free” and “total” methods,
149
respectively.
150
MS/MS analysis was performed on a Sciex triple quadrupole 6500 with a
151
TurboIonSpray source (Foster City, CA, USA). ESI+ and ESI- modes were used
152
to acquire scheduled MRM transition data. Optimum MS source parameters were
153
as follows: source temperature: 600 °C; ionspray voltage (ESI+/ESI-): 5500/-4500
7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
154
V; ion source gas-1: 80 psi and gas-2: 90 psi; curtain gas: 35 psi; target scan
155
time (ESI+/ESI-): 0.18/0.041 seconds. Two MRM precursor/product transitions for
156
each native analyte and one transition for the isotope labeled internal standard
157
were monitored. The collision offset energy (CE) under ESI- mode were “de-
158
tuned” to higher value so as to yield a lower response of the corresponding MRM
159
transition to avoid detector saturation when analzying high concentrations
160
typically found in active smokers’ urine. Detailed MRM transitions and voltage
161
settings are given in Table S–2, and the instrument method for data acquisition is
162
also described in the Supporting Information.
163
3. Results and Discussion
164
We first evaluated different 96-well plates containing various materials, including
165
C18, mixed-mode cation/anion-exchange polymer, strongly hydrophilic water
166
wettable polymer, and inert diatomaceous earth. Overall, C18 SPE provided the
167
highest sample extraction recoveries. The high lipophilicity of these analytes
168
enabled us to apply high percentages of methanol in washing solvent (50–70%)
169
to purify the urine samples on C18 SPE plates. We found washing solvent with
170
methanol and water (60:40) had a balanced performance between extraction
171
recoveries and matrix effects.
172
Because ESI+ analysis yielded higher sensitivity for all analytes, we
173
monitored their MRM transitions using ESI+ for low-concentration samples (LOD
174
– 50 ng/mL). To avoid variation caused by MS detector saturation using ESI+
175
analysis, we simultaneously monitored those five analytes under ESI- mode to
8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 8 of 20
Page 9 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
176
quantify any unknown samples whose concentrations were in the range of 12.5 –
177
800 ng/mL. Under both ionization modes, we observed excellent calibration
178
linearity with average determination coefficients (R2) ≥ 0.995. We also assessed
179
data consistency between two ionization analyses by comparing fortified samples
180
whose concentrations fell into the overlapping linear dynamic ranges of two
181
modes, and we observed excellent agreement in analytical results (Tables 2 and
182
S4). Expectedly, this combined analysis would greatly facilitate data acquisition
183
by increasing the applicable dynamic ranges and reducing the repeating rates of
184
sample preparation and analysis.
185
One of the challenges in measuring urinary cannabinoids and their
186
metabolites is that the high lipophilicity of these compounds can result in
187
substantial adsorption to materials used for sample preparation, i.e. tips and 96-
188
well plates. To minimize chemical loss during sample preparation, we added 0.3
189
mL methanol into all samples before SPE clean-up. After injection, the analytes
190
could also absorb to other instrumental surfaces, i.e. tubing, column, LC injection
191
loop, needle and port etc. Over time, amounts accumulated on LC parts can
192
potentially cause carry-over contamination. To avoid this issue, we added the
193
following LC autosampler washing program: before each injection, the auto-
194
sampler measuring line was washed with 600 µL of acetonitrile and water (v/v:
195
55/45), and both internal and external surfaces of the sampling needle were
196
rinsed with 300 µL of acetonitrile, 2-propanol and water (v/v/v: 45/45/10). We
197
evaluated the effectiveness of this washing program by measuring the carry-over
198
concentrations in the subsequent blank urine samples following the highest 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 10 of 20
199
calibrator (800 ng/mL). The results indicated that no targeted peaks at the
200
retention times of all analytes were detected.
201
Thermal instability of these analytes in urine was another issue that
202
requires extra caution in the entire processes of sample collection, transport,
203
storage and analysis. Our stability tests with fortified urine at room temperature
204
(~25 oC) indicated >80% of total CBD, CBN and THC were lost after 24 hours
205
(Figure – 3: b, d and f). The losses of total OHTHC and COOH-THC at 25 oC
206
were approximately 5 and 12% after 24 h, respectively. At 4 oC, approximately
207
10 – 30% of total CBD, THC and CBN decomposed after 3 days, and no obvious
208
losses of total OHTHC and COOH-THC were observed (Figure – 3: a, c and e).
209
We did not observe significant decrease in total analyte concentrations≤ –20 oC
210
during the same study period. These results are consistent with those reported in
211
a recent study by Desrosiers, et al.
212
temperatures ≤ –20 oC and the stability to indoor light are in progress. Available
213
evidences indicated that urine samples should always be kept frozen during
214
storing and shipping. For analysis, samples need to be prepared in a timely
215
manner and analyzed within one day. The high-throughput liquid-handling
216
automation
217
plates/instrument/day) presented in this study would better meet such needs so
218
as to maintain the quality of analytical results.
system
and
fast
12
Studies regarding long-term stability at
UHPLC-MS/MS
analysis
(~two
96-well
219
One of the main advantages of this method, aside from the broad
220
applicable quantitation ranges, high-throughput preparation and fast analysis, is
221
the marked sensitivity that is essential for effectively monitoring and assessing 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
222
SHMS exposure. We determined the LODs and limits of quantitation (LOQ) by
223
preparing and analyzing four low-concentration urine pools (0.005, 0.010, 0.025
224
and 0.050 ng/mL) over 3-month period. We first determined the standard
225
deviation (SD) of each pool’s concentration quantified using first MRM transition
226
with confirmation by the second transition (Table S-2) (More details regarding
227
analytical specificity is described in the supporting information), and then we
228
plotted the SD of each pool against the concentration, and finally obtained the S0
229
given as the Y-intercepts
230
and 10S0, respectively. We observed the method for unconjugated form had
231
more sensitive LODs (0.002 – 0.008 ng/mL, or equivalently 0.064 – 0.242 fmol
232
on-column) than those for “total” form (0.005 – 0.017 ng/mL, or equivalently
233
0.159 – 0.514 fmol on-column) (Table S-3). This was most likely the result of the
234
tandem-hydrolysis procedure (enzymatic-alkaline hydrolysis). During hydrolysis
235
incubation at higher temperature, analytes can partially degrade due to their
236
thermal instability; meanwhile, they can also partially bind to added enzyme (E.
237
Coli.) because of the high lipophilicity and then precipitate by centrifugation.
238
Despite the mass loss during sample preparation, the detection sensitivity
239
achieved in this method for urine samples were 10–100 times the values (0.2 –
240
5.0 ng/mL) reported in the literature.6-9
13-15
. LODs and LOQs (Table 1) were calculated as 3S0
241
We used three sets of samples at low, medium and high concentrations
242
(0.025, 25 and 500 ng/mL, respectively) to determine the optimized extraction
243
recoveries and matrix effects (details in supporting materials).11 Average
244
extraction recoveries for all analytes ranged from 54 to 93% and 18 to 75% for
11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
245
“free” and “total” measurements, respectively (Table 1). Ion suppression due to
246
matrix effect varied from – 9 to 32, and – 41 to 32 for “free” and “total”
247
measurements, respectively.
248
Calibrators and QCs were always freshly produced using the liquid-
249
handling automation system, and then prepared in the same manner along with
250
unknown samples, and laboratory blanks. We observed excellent inter-day and
251
intra-day accuracy (90–110%), and imprecision was less than 10% (Table 2 and
252
Table S–4) based on replicate analyses of a serial of fortified urine samples
253
prepared by spiking known amounts of analytes over a 3 consecutive months.
254
Acknowledgement
255
We thank Ernest McGahee and Jason Terranova for maintaining the
256
performance of the automated liquid-handling system. The manuscript has
257
certainly benefited from those constructive suggestions from the reviewers.
258
Supporting Information
259
The supporting information consists of experimental details, LC gradient program,
260
MRM ion transitions, LODs in terms of fmol on-column, accuracy and precision
261
for “total” method, molecular structures of five analytes, as mentioned in the text.
262
A complete instrument method file for data acquisition was also uploaded
263
separately.
264
References
12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 12 of 20
Page 13 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305
Analytical Chemistry
1. Murray, R. M.; Morrison, P. D.; Henquet, C.; Di Forti, M., Cannabis, the mind and society: the hash realities. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2007, 8, (11), 885-895. 2. UNODC, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World Drug Report. 2014. 3. Hall, W.; Degenhardt, L., Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. The Lancet 2009, 374, (9698), 1383-1391. 4. Moir, D.; Rickert, W. S.; Levasseur, G.; Larose, Y.; Maertens, R.; White, P.; Desjardins, S., A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol 2008, 21, (2), 494-502. 5. Volkow, N. D.; Baler, R. D.; Compton, W. M.; Weiss, S. R., Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New Engl J Med 2014, 370, (23), 2219-2227. 6. Kemp, P. M.; Abukhalaf, I. K.; Manno, J. E.; Manno, B. R.; Alford, D. D.; Abusada, G. A., Cannabinoids in humans. I. Analysis of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and six metabolites in plasma and urine using GC-MS. J Anal Toxicol 1995, 19, (5), 285-291. 7. Grauwiler, S. B.; Scholer, A.; Drewe, J., Development of a LC/MS/MS method for the analysis of cannabinoids in human EDTA-plasma and urine after small doses of Cannabis sativa extracts. Journal of Chromatography B 2007, 850, (1), 515-522. 8. Fernández, M. d. M. R.; Wille, S. M.; Samyn, N.; Wood, M.; López-Rivadulla, M.; De Boeck, G., On-line solid-phase extraction combined with liquid chromatography– tandem mass spectrometry for high throughput analysis of 11-nor-Δ 9tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid in urine. Journal of Chromatography B 2009, 877, (22), 2153-2157. 9. Scheidweiler, K. B.; Desrosiers, N. A.; Huestis, M. A., Simultaneous quantification of free and glucuronidated cannabinoids in human urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chim Acta 2012, 413, (23), 1839-1847. 10. Skopp, G.; Pötsch, L., Stability of 11-nor-Δ9-carboxy-tetrahydrocannabinol glucuronide in plasma and urine assessed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2002, 48, (2), 301-306. 11. Wei, B.; Feng, J.; Rehmani, I. J.; Miller, S.; McGuffey, J. E.; Blount, B. C.; Wang, L., A high-throughput robotic sample preparation system and HPLC-MS/MS for measuring urinary anatabine, anabasine, nicotine and major nicotine metabolites. Clin Chim Acta 2014, 436, 290-297. 12. Desrosiers, N. A.; Lee, D.; Scheidweiler, K. B.; Concheiro-Guisan, M.; Gorelick, D. A.; Huestis, M. A., In vitro stability of free and glucuronidated cannabinoids in urine following controlled smoked cannabis. Anal Bioanal Chem 2014, 406, (3), 785-792. 13. DNR. Analytical Detection Limit Guidance & Laboratory Guide for Determining Method Detection Limits. http://dnr.wi.gov/regulations/labcert/documents/guidance/LODguide.pdf [Accessed date: Jan. 22, 2014] 14. ICH, ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology. 1994. 15. Taylor, J. K., Quality assurance of chemical measurements. CRC Press: 1987.
306
13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
307 308
Page 14 of 20
Table 1 – Limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantitation (LOQ), average extraction efficiency of sample preparation and average matrix effect.
309
310 311
Extraction efficiency (“free”/”total”), %
Matrix effect (“free”/”total”), %
LOD, ng/mL
LOQ, ng/mL
Analyte
“free”/“total” 1
“free”/“total”
Low2
Mid
High
Low
Mid
High
OHTHC
0.008/0.017
0.028/0.048
93/69
81/67
82/75
1.0/13
-5/1
-9/-32
COOH-THC
0.005/0.015
0.018/0.045
83/58
81/60
83/59
5/9
-4/-6
-2/-41
CBD
0.004/0.009
0.012/0.030
88/22
70/26
71/28
8/23
-9/-4
-5/-9
CBN
0.002/0.007
0.008/0.023
76/20
64/18
71/21
2/-6
-8/-16
-4/-12
THC 0.002/0.005 0.008/0.015 74/18 59/19 54/22 6/32 -7/-5 -7/-12 “Free” and “total” refer to unconjugated and the sum of conjugated and unconjugated forms, respectively. 2 Low, mid and high levels refer to 0.025, 25 and 500 ng/mL, respectively.
1
312
14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
313 314
Analytical Chemistry
Table 2 – Accuracy and precision of replicate analysis of five compounds in fortified urine samples by “free” method (without enzymatic-alkaline hydrolysis). Within-day
315
Between-day
ESI Target, Error RSD Error RSD measured measured mode ng/mL % % % % OHTHC + 0.025 0.0244 -2.3 9.2 0.0245 -1.9 5.7 0.100 0.103 3.0 5.0 0.105 5.5 3.5 1.25 1.24 -0.8 2.2 1.28 2.7 3.0 25.0 26.3 5.1 5.3 26.9 7.6 2.1 – 25.0 26.4 5.4 8.1 24.6 -1.6 7.6 100 107 7.0 4.9 107 7.0 1.0 500 480 -4.1 2.2 475 -5.1 2.9 COOH-THC + 0.025 0.0245 -2.2 6.5 0.0247 -1.2 6.6 0.100 0.105 5.4 5.7 0.104 4.0 4.2 1.25 1.19 -4.7 9.9 1.26 1.1 0.5 25.0 26.5 6.0 3.6 26.8 7.3 1.8 – 25.0 26.3 5.2 4.6 26.5 5.8 2.4 100 105 4.9 8.3 107 7.3 4.6 500 473 -5.4 3.3 457 -8.6 1.8 CBD + 0.025 0.0246 -1.5 6.6 0.0244 -2.6 6.5 0.100 0.099 -0.6 4.4 0.110 9.6 8.3 1.25 1.15 -8.4 1.5 1.26 1.1 9.8 25.0 25.9 3.4 2.9 25.7 2.6 2.4 – 25.0 27.2 8.8 2.0 24.8 -1.0 4.8 100 107 6.7 4.9 105 4.8 8.2 500 453 -9.5 1.4 453 -9.4 3.3 CBN + 0.025 0.0264 5.6 9.0 0.0253 1.3 5.7 0.100 0.109 8.7 5.6 0.108 7.6 4.7 1.25 1.23 -1.3 3.9 1.23 -1.9 4.0 25.0 25.8 3.1 6.1 26.8 7.0 3.8 – 25.0 25.4 1.6 9.7 25.7 2.9 3.4 100 98.3 -1.7 7.5 104 3.7 3.2 500 469 -6.2 3.0 464 -7.3 3.1 THC + 0.025 0.0249 -0.5 9.9 0.0274 9.7 3.1 0.100 0.108 8.0 5.1 0.106 5.5 7.4 1.25 1.18 -5.9 4.4 1.23 -1.3 5.1 25.0 26.7 6.7 7.7 27.3 9.1 2.7 – 25.0 25.3 1.3 7.8 25.8 3.2 5.2 100 107 7.2 4.7 106 6.0 3.6 500 476 -4.8 2.6 473 -5.4 4.7 Abbreviation: ESI = electrospray ionization; RSD = relative standard deviation
316
15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
317
Figure Legends
318
(All figures are in single-column format)
319
Figure 1 – Sampling preparation scheme. Abbreviations: ISTD – internal standard spiking solution; Conc. – concentration. “Pre-Mix” included adding ISTD and enzymatic solution (if mearing “total” concentration) to urine samples followed by gentle mixing. “Hydrolysis” included enzymatic and alkaline procedures in order, and was omitted to measure “free” (“unconjugated”) concentrations. “SPE Extraction” included SPE pre-equilibrium, sample clean-up and elution. “Condensation” included sample evaporation and residual reconstitution.
320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333
Figure 2 – Chromatograms of fortified urine samples analyzed on the Sciex triple quadrupole 6500. Chromatograms illustrated in left column (0.010 ng/mL) and right column (0.025 ng/mL) were for “free” (“unconjugated”) and “total” (“conjugated” + “unconjugated”) concentrations, respectively. Figure 3– Thermal stability of OHTHC, COOH-THC, CBD, CBN and THC in fortified urine pools. Figures (a), (c) and (e) show the results for samples stored at 4 ⁰C and (b), (d) and (f) display the results for samples stored at 25 ⁰C.
334
16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 16 of 20
Page 17 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
335
Analytical Chemistry
Figure – 1
336
17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
337
Figure – 2
338 339
18 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
340
Analytical Chemistry
Figure –3:
341 342 343
19 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
344
“For TOC only”
345 346
347
20 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 20 of 20