A comparison of the validity of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis of urine samples II: Amphetamine, methamphetamine,(±)-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine,(±)-3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine,(±)-3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, phencyclidine, and (±)-11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Journal of Analytical Toxicology

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 430-443

  Stout, Peter R ^a   Bynum, Nichole D ^a   Lewallen, Cynthia M ^a   Mitchell, John M ^a   Baylor, Michael R ^a   Ropero Miller, Jeri D ^a  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYAMPHETAMINE; 3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYETHYLAMPHETAMINE; 3,4 METHYLENEDIOXYMETHAMPHETAMINE; AMPHETAMINE; AMPHETAMINE DERIVATIVE; EPHEDRINE; METHAMPHETAMINE; PHENCYCLIDINE; PHENTERMINE; PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE; PSEUDOEPHEDRINE; TETRAHYDROCANNABINOLIC ACID; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CALIBRATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY TEST; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; MASS FRAGMENTOGRAPHY; REPLICATION STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY; URINALYSIS; VALIDITY;

EID: 79954611541     PISSN: 01464760     EISSN: 01464760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jat/34.8.430     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. 73 CFR 71858. November 25, 2008. Mandatory guidelines for FederalWorkplace Drug Testing Programs. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-26726.htm (accessed April 2009).
2. M.R. Moeller and T. Kraemer. Drug abuse monitoring in blood for control of driving under the influence of drugs. Ther. Drug Monit. 24(2): 210-221 (2002).
3. S.P. Vorce and D.J. Kuntz. Confirmation: traditional and newer analytical techniques. In Handbook of Workplace Drug Testing, 2nd ed., J.D. Ropero-Miller and B.A. Goldberger, Eds. AACC Press, Washington D.C., 2009, pp 61-98.
4. P.R. Stout, N.D. Bynum, J.M. Mitchell, M.R. Baylor, and J.D. Ropero-Miller. A comparison of the validity of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid chromatographytandem mass spectrometry analysis of urine samples for morphine, codeine, 6-acetylmorphine, and benzoylecgonine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 33: 398-408 (2009).
5. X. Xu, M.M. Iba, and C.P. Weisel. Simultaneous and sensitive measurement of anabasine, nicotine and nicotine metabolites in human urine by LC-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin. Chem. 50: 2323-2330 (2004).
6. S.S. Johansen and H.M. Bhatia. Quantitative analysis of cocaine and its metabolites in whole blood and urine by high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 852: 338-344 (2007).
7. S.V. Kala, S.E. Harris, T.D. Freijo, and S. Gerlich. Validation of analysis of amphetamines, opiates, PCP, cocaine and benzoylecgonine in oral fluid by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Toxicol. 32: 605-611 (2008).
8. M.Wood, M. Laloup, F.M.M. Ramirez, K.M. Jenkins, M.S. Young, J.G. Ramaekers, G. DeBoeck, and N. Samyn Quantitative analysis of multiple illicit drugs in preserved oral fluid by solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Forensic Sci. Int. 150: 227-238 (2005).
9. C.J. Briscoe, M.R. Stiles, and D.S. Hage. System suitability in bioanalytical LC/MS/MS. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 44: 484-491 (2007).
10. S. Ma and M. Zhu. Recent advances in applications of liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry to the analysis of reactive drug metabolites. Chem. Biol. Interact. 179: 25-37 (2009).
11. M. Careri and A. Mangia. Validation and qualification: the fitness for purpose of mass spectrometry-based analytical methods and analytical systems. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 386: 38-45(2006).
12. E.J. Fox, S. Twigger, and K.R. Allen. Criteria for opiate identification using liquid chromatography linked to tandem mass spectrometry: problems in routine practice. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 46: 50-57 (2009).
13. B. Maralikova and W.Weinmann. Confirmatory analysis for drugs of abuse in plasma and urine by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with respect to criteria for compound identification. J.Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 811: 21-30 (2004).
14. M. Jemal, Z. Ouyang, and M.L. Powell. A strategy for a post method validation use of incurred biological samples for establishing the acceptability of a liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric method for quantitation of drugs in biological samples. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 16: 1538-1547 (2002).
15. P.J. Taylor. Matrix effects: the Achilles heel of quantitative high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin. Biochem. 38: 328-334 (2005).
16. A. Van Eeckhaut, K. Lanckmans, S. Sarre, I. Smolders, and Y. Michotte. Validation of bioanalytical LC-MS/MS assays: evaluation of matrix effects. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol.Biomed. Life Sci. 877(23): 2198-2207 (2009).
17. E. Chambers, D.M. Wagrowski-Diehl, Z. Lu, and J.R. Mazzeo. Systematic and comprehensive strategy for reducing matrix effects in LC/MS/MS analyses. J. Chromatogr. B 852: 22-34 (2007).
18. B.K. Matuszewski, M.L. Constanzer, and C.M. Chavez-Eng. Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 75: 3019- 3030 (2003).
19. National Laboratory Certification Program, Manual for Urine Laboratories. Effective date: 1 January 2009. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.