Sample Preparation for the Analysis of Catecholamines and their Metabolites in Human Urine

Determination of nicotine and cotinine in tobacco harvesters’ urine by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography

A solid-phase extraction method using Drug Test-1 column containing chemically modified silica as a solid support for sample clean up and reversed phase ion-paired high-pressure liquid chromatography method have been developed for the simultaneous determination of nicotine and its metabolite cotinine from the urine samples. Mobile phase was consisted of acetate buffer (containing 0.03 M sodium acetate and 0.1 M acetic acid) pH 3.1 and acetonitrile (78:22% (v/v)) containing 0.02 M sodium octanosulfonate as an ion pair agent. pH of the mobile phase was adjusted to 3.6 with triethylamine for better resolution and to prevent peak tailing. The linearity was obtained in the range of 0.5-10 microg/ml concentrations of nicotine and cotinine standards. The correlation coefficients were 0.998 for cotinine and 0.999 for nicotine. The recoveries were obtained in the range of 79-97% with average value of 85% for nicotine and in the range of 82-98% with average value of 88% for cotinine. The limit of detection was 2 ng/ml for cotinine and 5 ng/ml for nicotine with 2 ml urine for extraction, calculated by taking signal to noise ratio 10:3. The intra-day co-efficient of variation (CV) were <4 and 7% and inter-day CV were <9 and 7% for nicotine and cotinine, respectively. The method was applied to the urine samples of tobacco harvesters, who suffer from green tobacco sickness (GTS) to check the absorption of nicotine through dermal route during the various processes of tobacco cultivation due to its good reproducibility and sensitivity.

Rapid Analysis of Metanephrine and Normetanephrine in Urine by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

Background: Widely used HPLC methods for quantification of metanephrine and normetanephrine in urine often have long analysis times and are frequently plagued by drug interferences. We describe a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method designed to overcome these limitations.

Methods: Metanephrine and normetanephrine conjugates were converted to unconjugated metanephrine and normetanephrine by acid hydrolysis. To avoid the rapid decomposition of the deuterated internal standards (metanephrine-d3 and normetanephrine-d3) under hydrolysis conditions, the internal standards were added after hydrolysis. Solid-phase extraction was used to isolate the hydrolyzed metanephrines from urine. Samples were concentrated by evaporation, then derivatized simultaneously with N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide and N-methyl-bis-heptafluoro-butryamide at room temperature.

Results: The assay was linear from 25 to 7000 μg/L. The intraassay CVs were &lt;5% and the interassay CVs &lt;12%. Comparison with a routine HPLC method (n = 192) by Deming regression yielded a slope of 1.00 ± 0.02 μg/L, an intercept of −5.8 ± 7.8 μg/L, and Sy|x = 50.6 μg/L for metanephrine and a slope of 0.94 ± 0.03, intercept of 19 ± 11 μg/L, and Sy|x = 60 μg/L for normetanephrine. The correlation coefficients (r) were calculated after log transformation of the data and gave r = 0.97 for metanephrine and r = 0.97 for normetanephrine. Interference from common medications or drug metabolites was seen in &lt;1% of samples. The time between sequential injections was &lt;7 min.

Conclusions: This new gas chromatography-mass spectrometry assay for total fractionated metanephrines is rapid, compares well with a standard HPLC assay, and avoids most drug interferences that commonly affect HPLC assays for urine metanephrines.