Advertisement

Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 407, Issue 29, pp 8773–8785 | Cite as

A data-independent acquisition workflow for qualitative screening of new psychoactive substances in biological samples

  • Juliet Kinyua
  • Noelia Negreira
  • María Ibáñez
  • Lubertus Bijlsma
  • Félix Hernández
  • Adrian CovaciEmail author
  • Alexander L. N. van Nuijs
Research Paper

Abstract

Identification of new psychoactive substances (NPS) is challenging. Developing targeted methods for their analysis can be difficult and costly due to their impermanence on the drug scene. Accurate-mass mass spectrometry (AMMS) using a quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) analyzer can be useful for wide-scope screening since it provides sensitive, full-spectrum MS data. Our article presents a qualitative screening workflow based on data-independent acquisition mode (all-ions MS/MS) on liquid chromatography (LC) coupled to QTOFMS for the detection and identification of NPS in biological matrices. The workflow combines and structures fundamentals of target and suspect screening data processing techniques in a structured algorithm. This allows the detection and tentative identification of NPS and their metabolites. We have applied the workflow to two actual case studies involving drug intoxications where we detected and confirmed the parent compounds ketamine, 25B-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, and several predicted phase I and II metabolites not previously reported in urine and serum samples. The screening workflow demonstrates the added value for the detection and identification of NPS in biological matrices.

Keywords

Designer drugs All-ions MS/MS LC-QTOFMS 25B-NBOMe Suspect screening Qualitative screening 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the staff at Toxicological Center (UA), Philanthropic Educational Organization (PEO), and American Association of University Women (AAUW) for their support. We would like to thank Dr. Kristof Maudens for providing the samples used in the application of the workflow. Financial support: EU International Training Network SEWPROF (Marie Curie—grant number 317205). Dr. Alexander van Nuijs and Dr. Noelia Negreira acknowledge the Flanders Foundation for Research (FWO) and University of Antwerp for their post-doctoral fellowships. The University Jaume I acknowledge the financial support from Generalitat Valenciana (Group of Excellence Prometeo II 2014/023); ISIC 2012/16 and from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project Ref CTQ2012-36189).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

216_2015_9036_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (860 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 859 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Roman M, Ström L, Tell H, Josefsson M (2013) Liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis of postmortem blood samples for targeted toxicological screening. Anal Bioanal Chem 405(12):4107–4125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hernández F, Bijlsma L, Sancho JV, Díaz R, Ibáñez M (2011) Rapid wide-scope screening of drugs of abuse, prescription drugs with potential for abuse and their metabolites in influent and effluent urban wastewater by ultrahigh pressure liquid chromatography–quadrupole-time-of-flight-mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 684(1–2):96–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krauss M, Singer H, Hollender J (2010) LC–high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns. Anal Bioanal Chem 397(3):943–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gergov M, Boucher B, Ojanperä I, Vuori E (2001) Toxicological screening of urine for drugs by liquid chromatography/time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry with automated target library search based on elemental formulas. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 15(8):521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pelander A, Ojanperä I, Laks S, Rasanen I, Vuori E (2003) Toxicological screening with formula-based metabolite identification by liquid chromatography/time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 75(21):5710–5718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Georgakopoulos CG, Vonaparti A, Stamou M, Kiousi P, Lyris E, Angelis YS, Tsoupras G, Wuest B, Nielen MWF, Panderi I (2007) Preventive doping control analysis: liquid and gas chromatography time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry for detection of designer steroids. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 21(15):2439–2446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diaz R, Ibanez M, Sancho JV, Hernandez F (2012) Target and non-target screening strategies for organic contaminants, residues and illicit substances in food, environmental and human biological samples by UHPLC-QTOF-MS. Anal Methods 4(1):196–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roemmelt AT, Steuer AE, Poetzsch M, Kraemer T (2014) Liquid chromatography, in combination with a quadrupole time-of-flight instrument (LC QTOF), with sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment-ion spectra (SWATH) acquisition: systematic studies on its use for screenings in clinical and forensic toxicology and comparison with information-dependent acquisition (IDA). Anal Chem 86(23):11742–11749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bern M, Finney G, Hoopmann MR, Merrihew G, Toth MJ, MacCoss MJ (2009) Deconvolution of mixture spectra from ion-trap data-independent-acquisition tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 82(3):833–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wrona M, Mauriala T, Bateman KP, Mortishire-Smith RJ, O’Connor D (2005) ‘All-in-One’ analysis for metabolite identification using liquid chromatography/hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry with collision energy switching. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 19(18):2597–2602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geromanos SJ, Vissers JPC, Silva JC, Dorschel CA, Li G-Z, Gorenstein MV, Bateman RH, Langridge JI (2009) The detection, correlation, and comparison of peptide precursor and product ions from data independent LC-MS with data dependant LC-MS/MS. Proteomics 9(6):1683–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hernández F, Ibáñez M, Portolés T, Cervera MI, Sancho JV, López FJ (2015) Advancing towards universal screening for organic pollutants in waters. J Hazard Mater 282:86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibáñez M, Sancho JV, Bijlsma L, van Nuijs ALN, Covaci A, Hernández F (2014) Comprehensive analytical strategies based on high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry to identify new psychoactive substances. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 57:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bletsou AA, Jeon J, Hollender J, Archontaki E, Thomaidis NS (2015) Targeted and non-targeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric workflows for identification of transformation products of emerging pollutants in the aquatic environment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 66:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Longrée P, Loos M, Ruff M, Stravs MA, Ripollés Vidal C, Hollender J (2013) Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 48(3):1811–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, Hollender J (2014) Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol 48(4):2097–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walterscheid JP, Phillips GT, Lopez AE, Gonsoulin ML, Chen H-H, Sanchez LA (2014) Pathological findings in 2 cases of fatal 25I-NBOMe toxicity. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 35(1):20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EMCDDA (2015) New psychoactive substances in Europe. An update from the EU Early Warning System (March 2015). http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/2015/new-psychoactive-substances. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
  19. 19.
    Reid MJ, Baz-Lomba JA, Ryu Y, Thomas KV (2014) Using biomarkers in wastewater to monitor community drug use: a conceptual approach for dealing with new psychoactive substances. Sci Total Environ 487:651–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bijlsma L, Sancho JV, Hernández F, Niessen WMA (2011) Fragmentation pathways of drugs of abuse and their metabolites based on QTOF MS/MS and MSE accurate-mass spectra. J Mass Spectrom 46(9):865–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zuba D (2012) Identification of cathinones and other active components of ‘legal highs’ by mass spectrometric methods. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 32:15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fornal E (2014) Study of collision-induced dissociation of electrospray-generated protonated cathinones. Drug Test Anal 6(7–8):705–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EMCDDA (2002) Report on the risk assessment of ketamine in the framework of the joint action on new synthetic drugs. European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index33341EN.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
  24. 24.
    UNODC (2014) Global synthetic drugs assessment. (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.14.XI.6). https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/2014_Global_Synthetic_Drugs_Assessment_web.pdf. Accessed 12 Apr 2015
  25. 25.
    Siegel RK (1978) Phencyclidine and ketamine intoxication: a study of four populations of recreational users. NIDA Res Monogr 21:119–147Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Morgan CJA, Curran HV, the Independent Scientific Committee on D (2012) Ketamine use: a review. Addiction 107(1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weiner AL, Vieira L, McKay CA Jr, Bayer MJ (2000) Ketamine abusers presenting to the emergency department: a case series. J Emerg Med 18(4):447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Turfus SC, Parkin MC, Cowan DA, Halket JM, Smith NW, Braithwaite RA, Elliot SP, Steventon GB, Kicman AT (2009) Use of human microsomes and deuterated substrates: an alternative approach for the identification of novel metabolites of ketamine by mass spectrometry. Drug Metab Dispos 37(8):1769–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adams JD, Baillie TA, Trevor AJ, Castagnoli N (1981) Studies on the biotransformation of ketamine 1-identification of metabolites produced in vitro from rat liver microsomal preparations. Biol Mass Spectrom 8(11):527–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papoutsis I, Nikolaou P, Stefanidou M, Spiliopoulou C, Athanaselis S (2015) 25B-NBOMe and its precursor 2C-B: modern trends and hidden dangers. Forensic Toxicol 33(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zuba D, Sekuła K, Buczek A (2013) 25C-NBOMe—new potent hallucinogenic substance identified on the drug market. Forensic Sci Int 227(1–3):7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stellpflug S, Kealey S, Hegarty C, Janis G (2014) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]ethanamine (25I-NBOMe): clinical case with unique confirmatory testing. J Med Toxicol 10(1):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poklis JL, Nanco CR, Troendle MM, Wolf CE, Poklis A (2014) Determination of 4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-[(2-methoxyphenyl)methyl]-benzeneethanamine (25B-NBOMe) in serum and urine by high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry in a case of severe intoxication. Drug Test Anal 6(7-8):764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tang MHY, Ching CK, Tsui MSH, Chu FKC, Mak TWL (2014) Two cases of severe intoxication associated with analytically confirmed use of the novel psychoactive substances 25B-NBOMe and 25C-NBOMe. Clin Toxicol 52(5):561–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grabenauer M, Krol WL, Wiley JL, Thomas BF (2012) Analysis of synthetic cannabinoids using high-resolution mass spectrometry and mass defect filtering: implications for nontargeted screening of designer drugs. Anal Chem 84(13):5574–5581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schymanski EL, Gerlich M, Ruttkies C, Neumann S (2014) Solving CASMI 2013 with MetFrag, MetFusion and MOLGEN-MS/MS. Mass Spectrom 3(2):S0036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Logan BK (2001) Amphetamines: an update on forensic issues. J Anal Toxicol 25(5):400–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Archer JRH, Dargan PI, Hudson S, Wood DM (2013) Analysis of anonymous pooled urine from portable urinals in central London confirms the significant use of novel psychoactive substances. QJM 106(2):147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Archer JRH, Dargan PI, Hudson S, Davies S, Puchnarewicz M, Kicman AT, Ramsey J, Measham F, Wood M, Johnston A, Wood DM (2013) Taking the Pissoir—a novel and reliable way of knowing what drugs are being used in nightclubs. J Subst Use 1–5Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Erratico C, Negreira N, Norouzizadeh H, Covaci A, Neels H, Maudens K, van Nuijs ALN (2015) In vitro and in vivo human metabolism of the synthetic cannabinoid AB-CHMINACA. Drug Test Anal. doi: 10.1002/dta.1796 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reid MJ, Derry L, Thomas KV (2014) Analysis of new classes of recreational drugs in sewage: synthetic cannabinoids and amphetamine-like substances. Drug Test Anal 6(1–2):72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    van Nuijs ALN, Gheorghe A, Jorens PG, Maudens K, Neels H, Covaci A (2014) Optimization, validation, and the application of liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the analysis of new drugs of abuse in wastewater. Drug Test Anal 6(7–8):861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kankaanpää A, Ariniemi K, Heinonen M, Kuoppasalmi K, Gunnar T (2014) Use of illicit stimulant drugs in Finland: a wastewater study in ten major cities. Sci Total Environ 487:696–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kinyua J, Covaci A, Maho W, McCall A-K, Neels H, van Nuijs A (2015) Sewage-based epidemiology in monitoring the use of new psychoactive substances: validation and application of an analytical method using LC-MS/MS. Drug Test Anal. doi: 10.1002/dta.1777 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliet Kinyua
    • 1
  • Noelia Negreira
    • 1
  • María Ibáñez
    • 2
  • Lubertus Bijlsma
    • 2
  • Félix Hernández
    • 2
  • Adrian Covaci
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alexander L. N. van Nuijs
    • 1
  1. 1.Toxicological Center, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Campus Drie EikenUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Research Institute for Pesticides and WaterUniversity Jaume ICastellón de la PlanaSpain

Personalised recommendations