Dennis J Orton1, Jessica M Boyd1, Darlene Affleck2, Donna Duce2, Warren Walsh3, Isolde Seiden-Long4. 1. Calgary Laboratory Services, Room C-156, 1st Floor Diagnostic and Scientific Research Centre, #9 3535 Research Rd. NW, Calgary, AB T2L 2K8, Canada. 2. Calgary Laboratory Services, Room 616, 6th Floor, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 Street NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada. 3. The Hospital for Sick Children, 3rd Floor Atrium, Room 3642, 170 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Calgary Laboratory Services, Room 616, 6th Floor, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 Street NW, Calgary, AB T2N 2T9, Canada. Electronic address: Isolde.SeidenLong@cls.ab.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical analysis of volatile alcohols (i.e. methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, and metabolite acetone) and ethylene glycol (EG) generally employs separate gas chromatography (GC) methods for analysis. Here, a method for combined analysis of volatile alcohols and EG is described. DESIGN AND METHODS: Volatile alcohols and EG were extracted with 2:1 (v:v) acetonitrile containing internal standards (IS) 1,2 butanediol (for EG) and n-propanol (for alcohols). Samples were analyzed on an Agilent 6890 GC FID. The method was evaluated for precision, accuracy, reproducibility, linearity, selectivity and limit of quantitation (LOQ), followed by correlation to existing GC methods using patient samples, Bio-Rad QC, and in-house prepared QC material. RESULTS: Inter-day precision was from 6.5-11.3% CV, and linearity was verified from down to 0.6mmol/L up to 150mmol/L for each analyte. The method showed good recovery (~100%) and the LOQ was calculated to be between 0.25 and 0.44mmol/L. Patient correlation against current GC methods showed good agreement (slopes from 1.03-1.12, and y-intercepts from 0 to 0.85mmol/L; R(2)>0.98; N=35). Carryover was negligible for volatile alcohols in the measuring range, and of the potential interferences tested, only toluene and 1,3 propanediol interfered. The method was able to resolve 2,3 butanediol, diethylene glycol, and propylene glycol in addition to the peaks quantified. CONCLUSIONS: Here we describe a simple procedure for simultaneous analysis of EG and volatile alcohols that comes at low cost and with a simple liquid-liquid extraction requiring no derivitization to obtain adequate sensitivity for clinical specimens.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical analysis of volatile alcohols (i.e. methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, and metabolite acetone) and ethylene glycol (EG) generally employs separate gas chromatography (GC) methods for analysis. Here, a method for combined analysis of volatile alcohols and EG is described. DESIGN AND METHODS: Volatile alcohols and EG were extracted with 2:1 (v:v) acetonitrile containing internal standards (IS) 1,2 butanediol (for EG) and n-propanol (for alcohols). Samples were analyzed on an Agilent 6890 GC FID. The method was evaluated for precision, accuracy, reproducibility, linearity, selectivity and limit of quantitation (LOQ), followed by correlation to existing GC methods using patient samples, Bio-Rad QC, and in-house prepared QC material. RESULTS: Inter-day precision was from 6.5-11.3% CV, and linearity was verified from down to 0.6mmol/L up to 150mmol/L for each analyte. The method showed good recovery (~100%) and the LOQ was calculated to be between 0.25 and 0.44mmol/L. Patient correlation against current GC methods showed good agreement (slopes from 1.03-1.12, and y-intercepts from 0 to 0.85mmol/L; R(2)>0.98; N=35). Carryover was negligible for volatile alcohols in the measuring range, and of the potential interferences tested, only toluene and 1,3 propanediol interfered. The method was able to resolve 2,3 butanediol, diethylene glycol, and propylene glycol in addition to the peaks quantified. CONCLUSIONS: Here we describe a simple procedure for simultaneous analysis of EG and volatile alcohols that comes at low cost and with a simple liquid-liquid extraction requiring no derivitization to obtain adequate sensitivity for clinical specimens.
Authors: Martin Chaumont; Philippe van de Borne; Alfred Bernard; Alain Van Muylem; Guillaume Deprez; Julien Ullmo; Eliza Starczewska; Rachid Briki; Quentin de Hemptinne; Wael Zaher; Nadia Debbas Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Martin Chaumont; Vanessa Tagliatti; El Mehdi Channan; Jean-Marie Colet; Alfred Bernard; Sofia Morra; Guillaume Deprez; Alain Van Muylem; Nadia Debbas; Thomas Schaefer; Vitalie Faoro; Philippe van de Borne Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 5.464