| Literature DB >> 29963208 |
Michal P Dybowski1, Andrzej L Dawidowicz1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Analysis of drugs and their metabolites in biofluids usually demands the application of sample preparation methods that allow for full isolation of analyzed substances from the matrix. The purpose of this study was to develop a method using the QuEChERS procedure for analysis of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-COOH-THC).Entities:
Keywords: 11-COOH-THC; 11-OH-THC; GC–MS/MS; QuEChERS; THC; Whole blood analysis
Year: 2018 PMID: 29963208 PMCID: PMC6002432 DOI: 10.1007/s11419-018-0419-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Forensic Toxicol ISSN: 1860-8965 Impact factor: 4.096
Fig. 1Chemical structures and probable fragmentation pathways of the trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives of a Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), THC-d3, b 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC), 11-OH-THC-d3, c 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-COOH-THC), and 11-COOH-THC-d3
MRM transitions and collision voltages of THC, THC-d3, 11-OH-THC, 11-OH-THC-d3, 11-COOH-THC and 11-COOH-THC-d3 for gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (GC–MS/MS)
| Compound | Retention time (min) | Qualitative MRM transition (mass > product mass) | Quantitative MRM transition (mass > product mass) | Collision voltage (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THC | 26.62 | 371 > 289 | 386 > 289 | 12 |
| 386 > 289 | ||||
| 386 > 303 | ||||
| THC- | 27.12 | 389 > 306 | 389 > 292 | 12 |
| 389 > 292 | ||||
| 389 > 330 | ||||
| 11-OH-THC | 29.31 | 371 > 289 | 371 > 265 | 10 |
| 371 > 265 | ||||
| 371 > 305 | ||||
| 11-OH-THC- | 29.62 | 374 > 266 | 374 > 292 | 10 |
| 374 > 292 | ||||
| 374 > 308 | ||||
| 11-COOH-THC | 31.98 | 473 > 355 | 473 > 355 | 15 |
| 371 > 289 | ||||
| 488 > 371 | ||||
| 11-COOH-THC- | 32.28 | 374 > 358 | 374 > 358 | 15 |
| 476 > 358 | ||||
| 491 > 374 |
MRM multiple reaction monitoring, THC Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-OH-THC 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, 11-COOH-THC 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Fig. 2Multiple reaction monitoring chromatograms showing peaks of a THC, b THC-d3, c 11-OH-THC, d 11-OH-THC-d3, e 11-COOH-THC, f 11-COOH-THC-d3, for a QuEChERS extract of an example of actual blood specimens
Fig. 3Effects of QuEChERS variables on the recovery rates of THC, 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC. a NaCl, b MgSO4, c acetonitrile, d C-18 sorbent, and e whole blood amounts
Results of validation for the present method
| Tested parameter | THC | 11-OH-THC | 11-COOH-THC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linearity ( | 0.9986 | 0.9963 | 0.9971 |
| Intraday precision (% RSD) | 3.76 | 6.26 | 5.99 |
| Interday precision (% RSD) | 4.21 | 6.79 | 5.64 |
| Intraday accuracy (%) | 98.9 | 94.2 | 97.5 |
| Interday accuracy (%) | 97.2 | 102 | 96.7 |
| LOD (ng/g) | 0.011 | 0.13 | 0.08 |
| LOQ (ng/g) | 0.033 | 0.43 | 0.27 |
| Recovery | Recovery percentages, estimated using optimal QuEChERS conditions, of the three analytes spiked into whole blood at 25 ng/g were more than 55%—see Fig. | ||
| Matrix effect | No significant differences were found between the slopes. The results led to the conclusion that the presented method was not subjected to any matrix effect | ||
| Selectivity | Absence of peaks of the examined analytes and/or their significant interference on chromatograms confirms the high selectivity of the described method | ||
R coefficient of determination, RSD relative standard deviation, LOD limit of detection, LOQ limit of quantification
Analytical results of THC; 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC concentrations in whole blood specimens collected from 30 drivers suspected of driving under the influence of drugs using QuEChERS and GC–MS/MS
| Case no. | Age (years) | Sex | Concentration of analyte (ng/g ± SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THC | 11-OH-THC | 11-COOH-THC | |||
| 1 | 31 | M | 2.67 ± 0.13 | 0.74 ± 0.06 | 16.2 ± 0.99 |
| 2 | 14 | M | 3.01 ± 0.14 | 1.11 ± 0.08 | 9.01 ± 0.55 |
| 3 | 27 | M | 1.57 ± 0.08 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 0.69 ± 0.04 |
| 4 | 28 | M | 0.69 ± 0.03 | < LOQ | 2.21 ± 0.14 |
| 5 | 23 | M | 0.07 ± 0.002 | < LOQ | 0.58 ± 0.04 |
| 6 | 24 | M | 1.49 ± 0.07 | 3.21 ± 0.24 | 10.4 ± 0.63 |
| 7 | 32 | M | 4.02 ± 0.20 | 5.16 ± 0.39 | 12.4 ± 0.76 |
| 8 | 23 | M | 3.16 ± 0.15 | 0.45 ± 0.03 | 1.10 ± 0.07 |
| 9 | 24 | M | 2.19 ± 0.11 | 1.16 ± 0.09 | 0.39 ± 0.02 |
| 10 | 28 | M | 2.23 ± 0.11 | 1.47 ± 0.11 | 7.94 ± 0.49 |
| 11 | 20 | M | 3.54 ± 0.18 | 6.61 ± 0.50 | 10.9 ± 0.67 |
| 12 | 21 | M | 11.4 ± 0.06 | 2.25 ± 0.17 | 6.48 ± 0.40 |
| 13 | NDA | NDA | 0.97 ± 0.04 | 0.58 ± 0.04 | 1.74 ± 0.11 |
| 14 | 21 | M | 0.64 ± 0.03 | < LOQ | 0.99 ± 0.06 |
| 15 | 24 | F | 0.13 ± 0.01 | < LOQ | 0.55 ± 0.03 |
| 16 | 23 | M | 1.94 ± 0.10 | 2.25 ± 0.17 | 3.67 ± 0.22 |
| 17 | 19 | M | 2.97 ± 0.16 | 1.28 ± 0.10 | 0.79 ± 0.05 |
| 18 | 24 | M | 1.58 ± 0.09 | 0.77 ± 0.06 | 1.99 ± 0.12 |
| 19 | 30 | F | 0.88 ± 0.03 | < LOQ | < LOQ |
| 20 | 24 | F | 2.71 ± 0.14 | 3.47 ± 0.26 | 7.94 ± 0.49 |
| 21 | 24 | M | 1.94 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.06 |
| 22 | 17 | F | 1.22 ± 0.06 | 2.99 ± 0.22 | 2.25 ± 0.14 |
| 23 | 22 | M | 3.41 ± 0.18 | 1.44 ± 0.11 | 6.87 ± 0.42 |
| 24 | NDA | M | 1.69 ± 0.08 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.97 ± 0.06 |
| 25 | 27 | M | 2.08 ± 0.10 | 3.47 ± 0.26 | 6.11 ± 0.37 |
| 26 | 27 | M | 2.51 ± 0.12 | 2.22 ± 0.17 | 4.77 ± 0.29 |
| 27 | 25 | M | 1.11 ± 0.06 | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 2.79 ± 0.17 |
| 28 | 22 | M | 1.97 ± 0.10 | 3.64 ± 0.27 | 2.89 ± 0.18 |
| 29 | 17 | M | 0.75 ± 0.03 | < LOQ | 1.47 ± 0.09 |
| 30 | 23 | M | 0.09 ± 0.004 | < LOQ | 0.97 s± 0.06 |
M male, F female, SD standard deviation, LOQ limit of quantification, NDA no data available