| Literature DB >> 30754718 |
Mohammad H Semreen1,2, Abdallah Shanableh3, Lucy Semerjian4, Hasan Alniss5,6, Mouath Mousa7, Xuelian Bai8, Kumud Acharya9.
Abstract
The present work describes the optimization and validation of a highly selective and sensitive analytical method using solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (SPE LC-MS/MS) for the determination of some frequently prescribed pharmaceuticals in urban wastewater received and treated by Sharjah sewage treatment plant (STP). The extraction efficiency of different SPE cartridges was tested and the simultaneous extraction of pharmaceuticals was successfully accomplished using hydrophilic-lipophilic-balanced reversed phase Waters® Oasis HLB cartridge (200 mg/ 6 mL) at pH 3. The analytes were separated on an Aquity BEH C18 column (1.7 µm, 2.1 mm × 150 mm) using gradient elution and mass spectrometric analysis were performed in multiple reactions monitoring (MRM) selecting two precursor ions to produce ion transition for each pharmaceutical using positive electrospray ionization (+ESI) mode. The correlation coefficient values in the linear calibration plot for each target compound exceeded 0.99 and the recovery percentages of the investigated pharmaceuticals were more than 84%. Limit of detection (LOD) varied between 0.1⁻1.5 ng/L and limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.3⁻5 ng/L for all analytes. The precision of the method was calculated as the relative standard deviation (RSD%) of replicate measurements and was found to be in the ranges of 2.2% to 7.7% and 2.2% to 8.6% for inter and intra-day analysis, respectively. All of the obtained validation parameters satisfied the requirements and guidelines of analytical method validation.Entities:
Keywords: liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; pharmaceuticals; solid phase extraction; wastewater analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30754718 PMCID: PMC6385045 DOI: 10.3390/molecules24030633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Physicochemical properties and chemical structures of the pharmaceuticals under investigation.
| Compound | Therapeutic Class | Chemical Structure | pKa | log P | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetaminophen | Analgesic/antipyretic |
| 9.38 | 0.46 | [ |
| Sulfapyridine | Antibacterial agent |
| 8.43 | 0.35 | [ |
| Sulfadiazine | Antibacterial agent |
| 6.36 | −0.09 | [ |
| Sulfamethoxazole | Antibacterial agent |
| 6.16 | 0.89 | [ |
| Metoprolol | Beta blocker |
| 9.4 | 1.88 | [ |
| Sulfamethazine | Antibacterial agent |
| 7.59 | 0.89 | [ |
| Ciprofloxacin | Antibacterial agent |
| 6.09 | 0.28 | [ |
| Ofloxacin | Antibacterial agent |
| 5.97 | −0.39 | [ |
| Risperidone | Antipsychotic |
| 8.76 | 3.27 | [ |
| Erythromycin | Antibacterial agent |
| 8.88 | 3.06 | [ |
Figure 1Graph bars showing the effect of pH on the % recoveries of the selected pharmaceuticals at (A) pH 3 using Oasis HLB, ENVI-C18 and Oasis MAX cartridges. (B) pH 7 using Oasis HLB, ENVI-C18 and Oasis MAX cartridges (C) comparison of the recoveries at pH 3 and 7 using HLB oasis cartridge using Oasis HLB, ENVI-C18 and Oasis MAX at two pH values (n = 3).
Recoveries of the selected pharmaceuticals using Oasis HLB, ENVI-C18 and Oasis MAX at two pH values (concentration 15 ng/L, n = 3).
| Compound | % recovery at pH 3 (RSD %) | % recovery at pH 7 (RSD %) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oasis HLB | ENVI-C18 | Oasis MAX | Oasis HLB | ENVI-C18 | Oasis MAX | |
| Acetaminophen | 97.2 (5.7) | 62.4 (3.4) | 80.4 (1.3) | 82.1 (2.2) | 61.4 (4.4) | 78.1 (3.9) |
| Sulfapyridine | 87.3 (6.2) | 58.5 (2.3) | 64.8 (5.6) | 78.3 (3.2) | 51.1 (6.1) | 57.3 (2.7) |
| Sulfamethazine | 92.7 (7.3) | 60.1 (1.2) | 67.7 (3.2) | 84.6 (4.1) | 53.9 (4.5) | 61.4 (3.3) |
| Sulfadiazine | 90.8 (3.5) | 57.2 (3.3) | 63.4 (4.2) | 82.2 (5.3) | 51.8 (5.3) | 57.3 (3.6) |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 88.4 (5.4) | 54.6 (4.3) | 78.1 (4.1) | 78.7 (3.4) | 58.7 (2.1) | 72.1 (4.5) |
| Ciprofloxacin | 86.9 (4.2) | 61.7 (5.1) | 81.2 (4.5) | 80.8 (4.3) | 77.4 (1.8) | 74.7 (3.6) |
| Ofloxacin | 91.5 (7.4) | 55.5 (1.6) | 76.4 (4.3) | 84.4 (4.2) | 64.5 (2.6) | 72.9 (2.1) |
| Erythromycin | 93.3 (4.6) | 52.3 (3.2) | 73.2 (4.2) | 85.3 (2.4) | 50.3 (3.7) | 68.3 (3.3) |
| Metoprolol | 86.1 (1.8) | 53.2 (2.4) | 69.8 (2.4) | 73.6 (2.2) | 68.2 (2.8) | 65.4 (4.7) |
| Risperidone | 84.7 (5.6) | 58.3 (4.3) | 72.2 (3.2) | 73.1 (3.5) | 52.1 (3.8) | 63.5 (4.8) |
Figure 2Chromatogram showing the separation of the selected pharmaceuticals using the optimized chromatographic conditions. (a) Acetaminophen, (b) Sulfadiazine, (c) Sulfapyridine, (d) Sulfamethazine, (e) Ofloxacin, (f) (Sulfamethoxazole and ciprofloxacin), (g) Metoprolol, (h) Resperidone, and (i) Erythromycin.
Figure 3MRM LC-MS/MS chromatograms of the target compounds analyzed by positive ionization mode.
Percentage recoveries (n = 3) and matrix effect of spiked LC-MS water, influent and effluent wastewater samples at two different concentration levels (15 and 750 ng/L).
| Pharmaceuticals | Spiked conc. ng/L | LC/MS Water %recovery ± RSD | Influent % recovery ± RSD | ME% | Effluent % recovery ± RSD | ME% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetaminophen | 15 | 97.2 ± 5.7 | 98.0±4.5 | 5 | 95.0±5.5 | 3 |
| 750 | 94.4± 2.4 | 97.3±3.9 | 92.3±4.7 | |||
| Sulfapyridine | 15 | 87.3 ± 6.2 | 85.4±6.5 | 7 | 95.4±7.5 | 1 |
| 750 | 92.1± 3.2 | 89.4±4.5 | 91.4±3.6 | |||
| Sulfamethazine | 15 | 92.7 ± 7.3 | 86.3 ± 6.1 | 8 | 97.7 ± 6.4 | −3 |
| 750 | 89.9± 4.5 | 93.6± 3.5 | 104.3± 9.1 | |||
| Sulfadiazine | 15 | 90.8 ± 3.5 | 97.6 ± 6.1 | 4 | 96.1± 9.3 | 5 |
| 750 | 87.5± 3.1 | 79.2± 6.2 | 84.3± 6.6 | |||
| Sulfamethoxazole | 15 | 88.4 ± 5.4 | 97.6 ± 6.9 | −1 | 90.1 ± 6.4 | 7 |
| 750 | 85.2± 3.5 | 93.6± 3.5 | 89.6± 3.6 | |||
| Ciprofloxacin | 15 | 86.9 ± 4.2 | 99.1 ± 7.2 | 3 | 81.6 ± 9.4 | 2 |
| 750 | 88.6±2.8 | 85.3±4.9 | 90.8±5.9 | |||
| Ofloxacin | 15 | 91.5 ± 7.4 | 100.5 ± 5.3 | 6 | 87.4 ± 8.2 | −3 |
| 750 | 86.3±4.7 | 93.6±9.4 | 92.9±6.3 | |||
| Erythromycin | 15 | 93.3 ± 4.6 | 101.9 ± 6.2 | 9 | 84.3 ± 6.9 | 9 |
| 750 | 91.1±2.7 | 88.3±3.8 | 96.3±6.3 | |||
| Metoprolol | 15 | 86.1 ± 1.8 | 80.9 ± 3.3 | 8 | 91.6 ± 6.2 | 8 |
| 750 | 88.4±3.3 | 95.3±5.6 | 80.4±8.1 | |||
| Risperidone | 15 | 84.7 ± 5.6 | 91.3 ± 3.9 | 10 | 79.5 ± 6.1 | 3 |
| 750 | 86.2±2.6 | 94.2±4.2 | 82.8±4.1 |
Linearity ranges, LOQs, LODs and % recoveries of the selected compounds.
| Analyte | Linearity Range (ng/L) | Correlation Coefficient (r2) | LOD (ng/L) | LOQ (ng/L) | Recovery ± RSD% (n = 5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 ng/L | 750 ng/L | |||||
| Acetaminophen | 5-2500 | 0.9976 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 97.2 ± 5.7 | 94.4 ± 2.4 |
| Sulfapyridine | 5-1000 | 0.9968 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 87.3 ± 6.2 | 92.1 ± 3.2 |
| Sulfamethazine | 5-1000 | 0.9975 | 0.9 | 2.9 | 92.7 ± 7.3 | 89.9 ± 4.5 |
| Sulfadiazine | 5-1000 | 0.9943 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 90.8 ± 3.5 | 87.5 ± 3.1 |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 5-1000 | 0.9923 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 88.4 ± 5.4 | 85.2 ± 3.5 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 5-1000 | 0.9993 | 1.5 | 4 | 86.9 ± 4.2 | 88.6 ± 2.8 |
| Ofloxacin | 5-1000 | 0.9996 | 1.1 | 3.6 | 91.5 ± 7.4 | 86.3 ± 4.7 |
| Erythromycin | 5-1000 | 0.9989 | 1.5 | 5.0 | 93.3 ± 4.6 | 91.1 ± 2.7 |
| Metoprolol | 5-1000 | 0.9969 | 1.0 | 3.2 | 86.1 ± 1.8 | 88.4 ± 3.3 |
| Risperidone | 5-2500 | 0.9984 | 1.2 | 3.6 | 84.7 ± 5.6 | 86.2 ± 2.6 |
The intra- and inter-day precision of the optimized method.
| Analyte | Intra-day RSD % (n = 5) | Intra-day RSD % (n = 15) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 ng/L | 750 ng/L | 15 ng/L | 750 ng/L | |
| Acetaminophen | 4.2 | 4.4 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
| Sulfapyridine | 3.2 | 4.3 | 4.7 | 5.3 |
| Sulfamethazine | 4.3 | 2.6 | 8.6 | 6.4 |
| Sulfadiazine | 2.2 | 4.2 | 6.8 | 4.7 |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 3.8 | 3.5 | 7.5 | 4.2 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 5.1 | 3.7 | 7.7 | 5.4 |
| Ofloxacin | 3.6 | 2.2 | 6.2 | 2.6 |
| Erythromycin | 2.4 | 4.2 | 3.2 | 4.9 |
| Metoprolol | 3.9 | 2.4 | 5.3 | 3.2 |
| Risperidone | 4.5 | 3.9 | 5.5 | 4.6 |
Concentrations of target contaminants in influent and effluent wastewaters of Sharjah STP and their removal efficiencies.
| Analyte | Mean Concentration (ng/L) (n = 5) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Influent | Effluent | Removal | |
| Acetaminophen | 145250 | 5235 | 96 |
| Sulfapyridine | 252 | 99.9 | 60 |
| Sulfamethazine | 24.0 | 11.0 | 53 |
| Sulfadiazine | 720 | 433 | 40 |
| Sulfamethoxazole | 161 | 75.0 | 54 |
| Ciprofloxacin | 863 | 543 | 37 |
| Ofloxacin | 846 | 511 | 40 |
| Erythromycin | 785 | 541 | 31 |
| Metoprolol | 92 | 62.0 | 32 |
| Risperidone | 245 | 13.0 | 95 |
MRM and MS parameters for all analyzed compounds.
| Pharmaceuticals | Classification | Precursor Ion ( | Products Ions ( | Retention Time (min) | CE (V) | CV (V) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acetaminophen | Analgesic | 152.0 | 110.0 | 6.47 | 22 | 42 |
| 65.0 | 26 | |||||
| Sulfapyridine | Antibacterial | 250.0 | 156.0 | 8.13 | 16 | 27 |
| 108.0 | 25 | |||||
| Sulfadiazine | Antibacterial | 251.0 | 92.0 | 6.90 | 27 | 23 |
| 156.0 | 15 | |||||
| Sulfamethoxazole | Antibacterial | 254.0 | 92.0 | 11.31 | 26 | 27 |
| 156.0 | 16 | |||||
| Metoprolol | β-blockers | 268.2 | 116.0 | 13.06 | 18 | 30 |
| 133.0 | 24 | |||||
| Sulfamethazine | Antibacterial | 279.1 | 186.0 | 9.98 | 16 | 30 |
| 92.0 | 28 | |||||
| Ciprofloxacin | Antibacterial | 332.1 | 314.1 | 11.33 | 22 | 30 |
| 288.1 | 18 | |||||
| Ofloxacin | Antibacterial | 362.1 | 318.1 | 10.66 | 26 | 30 |
| 261.1 | 20 | |||||
| Risperidone | Anti-depressant | 411.2 | 191.0 | 14.98 | 30 | 40 |
| 110.0 | 50 | |||||
| Erythromycin | Antibiotic | 734.4 | 158.1 | 17.39 | 32 | 25 |
| 576.3 | 40 |