| Literature DB >> 33809736 |
Lucia Mainero Rocca1, Nunziata L'Episcopo1, Andrea Gordiani1, Matteo Vitali2, Alessandro Staderini1.
Abstract
Drugs able to affect the auditory and nervous systems and consumed by workers to treatdifferent pathologies can represent a possible source of risk in the work environment. All the target compounds involved in the presented project show ototoxic and/or narcoleptic side effects and, for these reasons, occupational safety organizations have recognized them as potential causes of work injuries. A multiclass method for the analysis of 15 drugs among the most widespread worldwide (belonging to nine different classes including antihistamines, beta-blockers, antidepressants, Z-drugs and opioids), was developed and validated. This study describes a rapid, sensitive and effective method to analyse these substances in whole blood using tailored pre-cut dried blood spots. Detection was achieved with a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer after an easy and simple 'dilute and shoot' solubilisation followed by an UPLC separation. All the issues linked to the use of the dried blood spots and whole blood, such as haematocrit variability, volumetric evaluation and sample carrier choice were carefully studied and managed during method development. From the validation study results it emerged that this approach can be deemed successful thanks to its few pg µL-1 LOQs, good linear intervals, absolute recoveries of no less than 75%, an almost negligible matrix effect and accuracy and precision in line with the European and American guidelines for validation. All the obtained goals have been specifically pursued in order to encourage method diffusion as a primary prevention intervention, even in small private workplaces.Entities:
Keywords: UPLC-MS/MS; dilute and shoot; ototoxic drugs; pre-cut dried blood spots; sleep inducers; whole blood analysis; work safety
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33809736 PMCID: PMC8002310 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18063068
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Three pictures that summarize the whole blood sampling procedure. Blood was taken with a lancing device (Panel (a)) and 2 µL were collected with a pipette (Panel (b)); finally, it was loaded on the paper support (Panel (c)). One of the authors has volunteered to carry out the sampling on herself in order to show how easy it is to carry out the procedure alone if necessary.
Figure 2DBS homemade support; the wooden clothespin allows the blood deposited on the paper to dry uniformly and avoid any contact with the bench. Samples can be cut and placed in Eppendorf vials simply by using the clips as a handle.
Names, structures, adverse effects on the ear and on the nervous system, retention times, optimized MRM transitions (Quantifier and Qualifier), and final MS/MS parameters of the target analytes.
| Name | Structure | Ear | Nervous System Disorders | tr
| MRM | Declustering Potential | Collision Energy | Internal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atenolol |
| Sleep disturbances, lightheadedness, lethargy, drowsiness, dizziness, vertigo | 0.83 | 267.1/116.1 | 92 | 28 | Atenolol d7 | |
| 267.1/73.9 | 33 | |||||||
| Tramadol |
| Drowsiness, dizziness, blurred vision | 2.23 | 264.0/58.1 | 43 | 43 | Tramadol d6 | |
| 264.0/246.1 | 17 | |||||||
| Venlafaxine |
| Tinnitus, hyperacusis, otitis media, labyrinthitis | Somnolence, dizziness, tremor, | 2.80 | 278.1/58.0 | 53 | 43 | |
| 278.1/260.2 | 18 | |||||||
| Zolpidem |
| Vertigo, tinnitus, | Somnolence, attention disorder, | 3.03 | 308.0/235.2 | 82 | 49 | |
| 308.0/236.1 | 39 | |||||||
| Triprolidine |
| Dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision | 3.28 | 279.1/208.1 | 40 | 22 | Diphenhydramine d3 | |
| 279.1/192.2 | 63 | |||||||
| Bromazepam |
| Drowsiness, ataxia, dizziness | 3.30 | 315.9/182.1 | 82 | 47 | ||
| 315.9/209.1 | 37 | |||||||
| Trazodone |
| Hypoacusis, tinnitus, vertigo | Dizziness, light-headedness, drowsiness, balance disorder, tremors | 3.43 | 372.1/176.1 | 82 | 35 | |
| 372.1/78.0 | 88 | |||||||
| Fentanyl |
| Somnolence, dizziness, confusion, lethargy, tremor, hallucination, insomnia | 3.79 | 337.2/188.1 | 48 | 33 | ||
| 337.2/105.0 | 55 | |||||||
| Diphenhydramine |
| Tinnitus, acute labyrinthitis | Sedation, somnolence, sleepiness, | 3.84 | 256.1/167.1 | 35 | 18 | |
| 256.1/165.1 | 55 | |||||||
| Escitalopram |
| Tinnitus, otitis externa | Somnolence, insomnia, dizziness, | 3.93 | 325.2/262.1 | 66 | 29 | |
| 325.2/234.1 | 39 | |||||||
| Cetirizine |
| Deafness earache, tinnitus | Somnolence, dizziness, tremor, confusion, leg cramps, paralysis, syncope, vertigo | 4.58 | 389.1/166.1 | 48 | 59 | Cetirizine d8 |
| 389.1/165.1 | 90 | |||||||
| Cyproheptadine |
| Tinnitus, acute labyrinthitis | Drowsiness, sedation, coordination disorder, loss of coordination, vertigo | 4.64 | 288.0/96.1 | 94 | 36 | Cyproheptadine d3 |
| 288.0/215.1 | 72 | |||||||
| Alprazolam |
| Tinnitus | Ataxia, cognitive dysfunction, blurred vision, attention disorder, confusion, tremor, drowsiness, dizziness | 4.67 | 308.9/205.1 | 85 | 55 | |
| 308.9/274.0 | 36 | |||||||
| Delorazepam |
| Somnolence, insomnia, dizziness | 4.73 | 305.1/140.0 | 92 | 43 | ||
| 305.1/242.1 | 39 | |||||||
| Ebastine |
| Somnolence, insomnia, dizziness, weakness | 6.29 | 470.1/167.1 | 65 | 41 | Ebastine d5 | |
| 470.1/152.1 | 94 |
* For each analyte the first line reported the most intense MRM transition, the quantifier, the second line is for the second most intense, the qualifier.
Figure 3A 2 µL blood drop deposed on a PTFE filter; the drop remained spherical even after drying.
Figure 4Comparison of the different behaviors of the same volume of whole blood (2 µL) on different surfaces. Substrate (a,b) are acetate film and wax paper, respectively; (c,d) are cellulose mixed ester and bench paper respectively.
Absolute recoveries, method precision (intra and inter-day precision) expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD) and method accuracy expressed as trueness. For each validation level a number of 6 (n = 6) replicates were processed.
| Analytes | Absolute Recoveries | Intra-Day Precision | Inter-Day Precision | Trueness | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | Low | Medium | High | |
| Atenolol | 81 | 85 | 84 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 9.1 | 14.2 | 13.5 | 14.9 | 103 | 91 | 94 |
| Tramadol | 95 | 91 | 97 | 9.8 | 5.7 | 10.6 | 9.8 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 93 | 92 | 103 |
| Venlafaxine | 75 | 76 | 73 | 8.3 | 10.0 | 8.8 | 10.1 | 9.6 | 13.6 | 78 | 90 | 98 |
| Zolpidem | 93 | 89 | 91 | 9.1 | 9.0 | 7.9 | 14.4 | 13.0 | 13.0 | 84 | 98 | 101 |
| Triprolidine | 107 | 101 | 100 | 9.0 | 10.2 | 6.2 | 10.9 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 102 | 93 | 100 |
| Bromazepam | 76 | 71 | 77 | 9.1 | 8.6 | 7.3 | 14.4 | 14.0 | 14.2 | 86 | 105 | 102 |
| Trazodone | 93 | 91 | 94 | 4.6 | 7.6 | 9.3 | 8.5 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 103 | 96 | 103 |
| Fentanyl | 89 | 95 | 90 | 8.1 | 9.9 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 98 | 101 | 101 |
| Diphenhydramine | 91 | 91 | 87 | 6.8 | 8.5 | 10.1 | 14.7 | 13.2 | 13.2 | 103 | 88 | 98 |
| Escitalopram | 90 | 84 | 88 | 7.7 | 10.1 | 9.6 | 14.6 | 14.8 | 13.8 | 105 | 97 | 98 |
| Cetirizine | 75 | 82 | 76 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 4.3 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 5.2 | 99 | 101 | 102 |
| Cyproheptadine | 85 | 88 | 89 | 6.0 | 6.7 | 8.3 | 9.5 | 8.8 | 7.8 | 105 | 105 | 103 |
| Alprazolam | 94 | 99 | 97 | 9.7 | 5.3 | 9.3 | 7.3 | 6.7 | 6.7 | 93 | 100 | 102 |
| Delorazepam | 99 | 103 | 106 | 7.6 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 8.1 | 6.5 | 7.2 | 92 | 90 | 101 |
| Ebastine | 99 | 105 | 100 | 7.7 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 101 | 102 | 98 |
Limits of Detection and Quantitation (calculated on the less intense MRM transitions) and matrix effect expressed as decrement of the calibration curve slope. Values of LODs and LOQs were evaluated in whole blood samples as a result of 6 replicates to confirm the value.
| Analytes | LODs | LOQs | Matrix Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atenolol | 0.8 | 2.4 | 14 |
| Tramadol | 0.1 | 0.3 | 13 |
| Venlafaxine | 0.7 | 2.1 | 9 |
| Zolpidem | 0.1 | 0.3 | 3 |
| Triprolidine | 0.4 | 1.2 | 13 |
| Bromazepam | 4.9 | 15 | 16 |
| Trazodone | 0.1 | 0.3 | 8 |
| Fentanyl | 0.5 | 1.5 | 20 |
| Diphenhydramine | 0.2 | 0.6 | 19 |
| Escitalopram | 0.9 | 2.7 | 23 |
| Cetirizine | 0.2 | 0.6 | 13 |
| Cyproheptadine | 0.1 | 0.3 | 29 |
| Alprazolam | 0.5 | 1.5 | 8 |
| Delorazepam | 0.6 | 1.8 | 8 |
| Ebastine | 1.4 | 4.2 | 16 |
Figure 5Chromatographic comparison of some of the C18s tested for the analytes separation (2 ng injected). Panel (a): Acquity UPLC® HSS T3; Panel (b): CSH™ C18; Panel (c):Kinetex® EVO C18; Panel (d): Kinetex® C18. For a simpler visualization, the peaks have been indicated with numbers to which the following analytes correspond: 1 atenolol, 2 tramadol, 3 venlafaxine, 4 zolpidem, 5 triprolidine, 6 bromazepam, 7 trazodone, 8 fentanyl, 9 diphenhydramine, 10 escitalopram, 11 cetirizine, 12 cyproheptadine, 13 alprazolam, 14 delorazepam, 15 ebastine.
Figure 6Chromatogram (10 pg injected) obtained with the final conditions (see paragraph ‘Liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry’) the scheme showed the strong solvent (CH3CN) percentage trend during the run. Peaks names: 1 atenolol, 2 tramadol, 3 venlafaxine, 4 zolpidem, 5 triprolidine, 6 bromazepam, 7 trazodone, 8 fentanyl, 9 diphenhydramine, 10 escitalopram, 11 cetirizine, 12 cyproheptadine, 13 alprazolam, 14 delorazepam, 15 ebastine.
Figure 7Triprolidine concentration trend over a period of 90 days chosen for stability control (LOQ level). On the y-axis is reported the analyte area vs IS area ratios.