Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 395, Issue 3, pp 819–828 | Cite as

Analysis of drugs of abuse in wastewater by hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

  • Alexander L. N. van Nuijs
  • Isabela Tarcomnicu
  • Lieven Bervoets
  • Ronny Blust
  • Philippe G. Jorens
  • Hugo Neels
  • Adrian Covaci
Original Paper

Abstract

The simultaneous analysis of nine drugs of abuse (DOAs) and their metabolites (amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methadone, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, ecgonine methyl ester and 6-monoacetylmorphine) in wastewater based on hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) was optimised and validated. For each analyte, the deuterated analogue was used for quantification. The separation by HILIC showed good performance for all compounds, especially for the hydrophilic compounds, which elute early (amphetamine-like stimulants) or show no retention (ecgonine methyl ester) in reversed-phase liquid chromatography. Sample preparation based on solid-phase extraction was optimised by comparing Oasis HLB and Oasis MCX sorbents for various parameters such as sample pH, amount of sorbent bed and washing solvent. The method was validated for each compound by assessing the following parameters (following International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines): specificity, limit of quantification (LOQ), linearity, accuracy, precision, recovery and matrix effects. LOQs were 2 ng/L for 6-monoacetylmorphine, ecgonine methyl ester and amphetamine and 1 ng/L for the rest of the compounds, corresponding with the lowest point in the calibration curve. Except for 6-monoacetylmorphine, all compounds were detected from 1 to 819 ng/L in influent wastewater samples (n = 12) collected from 11 different wastewater treatment plants across Belgium. The presence of ecgonine methyl ester in wastewater could be demonstrated for the first time. In the future, the new HILIC–MS/MS method will be applied to assess the use of DOAs in Belgium using the “sewage epidemiology” approach.

Keywords

Drugs of abuse Metabolites HILIC–MS/MS Wastewater SPE Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Alexander van Nuijs and Dr. Adrian Covaci acknowledge the Flanders Scientific Funds for Research (FWO) for their grants. Dr. Isabela Tarcomnicu is grateful to the University of Antwerp for financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). (2008) The state of the drug problem in the European Union and Norway. Annual Report 2008. Lisbon: EMCDDA, November 2008. Available at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2008
  2. 2.
    Daughton CG (2001) In: Daughton CG, Jones-Lepp TL (eds) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment, scientific and regulatory issues. American Chemical Society, Washington, pp 348–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zuccato E, Chiabrando C, Castiglioni S, Calamari D, Bagnati R, Schiarea S, Fanelli R (2005) Environ Health 4:14–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castiglioni S, Zuccato E, Crisci E, Chiabrando C, Fanelli R, Bagnati R (2006) Anal Chem 78:8421–8429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Nuijs ALN, Pecceu B, Theunis L, Dubois N, Charlier C, Jorens PG, Bervoets L, Blust R, Neels H, Covaci A (2009) Environ Pollut 157:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Nuijs ALN, Pecceu B, Theunis L, Dubois N, Charlier C, Jorens PG, Bervoets L, Blust R, Neels H, Covaci A (2009) Water Res 43:1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huerta-Fontela M, Galceran MT, Martin-Alonso J, Ventura F (2008) Sci Total Environ 397:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Postigo C, Lopez de Alda MJ, Barcelo D (2008) Trend Anal Chem 27:1053–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosa Boleda M, Galceran MT, Ventura F (2009) Water Res 43:1126–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zuccato E, Chiabrando C, Castiglioni S, Bagnati R, Fanelli R (2008) Environ Health Persp 116:1027–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bones J, Thomas KV, Paull B (2007) J Environ Monitor 9:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chiaia AC, Banta-Green C, Field J (2008) Environ Sci Technol 42:8841–8848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kasprzyk-Hordern B, Dinsdale RM, Guwy AJ (2009) Environ Pollut . doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.017 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Nuijs ALN, Pecceu B, Theunis L, Dubois N, Charlier C, Jorens PG, Bervoets L, Blust R, Meulemans H, Neels H, Covaci A (2009) Addiction 104:734–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Postigo C, Lopez de Alda MJ, Barcelo D (2008) Anal Chem 80:3123–3134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosa Boleda M, Galceran MT, Ventura F (2007) J Chromatogr A 117:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huerta-Fontela M, Galceran MT, Martin-Alonso J, Ventura F (2007) Anal Chem 79:3821–3829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasprzyk-Hordern B, Dinsdale RM, Guwy AJ (2008) Anal Bioanal Chem 391:1293–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bijlsma L, Sancho JV, Pitarch E, Ibanez M, Hernandez F (2009) J Chromatogr A 1216:3078–3089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gheorghe A, van Nuijs A, Pecceu B, Bervoets L, Jorens PG, Blust R, Neels H, Covaci A (2008) Anal Bioanal Chem 391:1309–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    WADA Technical Document TD2003IDCR: Identification Criteria for Qualitative Assyas. Available at http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/criteria_1_2.pdf
  22. 22.
    European Union Decision 2002/657/EC: The Performance of Analytical Methods and The Interpretation of Results. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:221:0008:0036:EN:PDF
  23. 23.
    International Conference on Harmonisation Tripartite Guideline. (2005) ICH Topic Q2, Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology, Geneva, 2005. Available at http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.html
  24. 24.
    Peters FT, Hartung M, Herbold M, Schmitt G, Daldrup T, Musshoff F. Anlage zu den Richtlinien der GTFCh zur Qualita¨tssicherung bei forensisch-toxikologischen Untersuchungen, Anhang B: Anforderungen an die Validierung von Analysenmethoden. Available at https://www.gtfch.org/cms/files/GTFCh_Richtlinie_Anhang_B_Validierung_Version_1.pdf
  25. 25.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (2001) Guidance for Industry: Bioanalytical Method Validation, Rockville, MD, 2001. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070107.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander L. N. van Nuijs
    • 1
  • Isabela Tarcomnicu
    • 1
  • Lieven Bervoets
    • 2
  • Ronny Blust
    • 2
  • Philippe G. Jorens
    • 3
  • Hugo Neels
    • 1
  • Adrian Covaci
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Toxicological CentreUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Laboratory for Ecophysiology, Biochemistry and ToxicologyUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Clinical Pharmacology/Clinical ToxicologyUniversity of Antwerp, Antwerp University HospitalAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations