Phospholipid removal combined with a semi-automated 96-well SPE application for determination of budesonide in human plasma with LC–MS/MS

Nilsson, Karin; Andersson, Maria; Beck, Olof

doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2014.08.035

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In quantification of buprenorphine, methadone, and metabolites , 2015). In previously published budosenide assays, the presence of PLs contributed significant matrix effects, which were ameliorated with the integration of Ostro® pre-treatment (Nilsson et al, 2014). Finally, in an LC-MS assay of amoxipine, the Phree® pretreatment for plasma samples showed reduced ionization suppression compared with acetonitrile precipitation (Kushon and Pike, 2012).…”

Section: Methods Of Pl Removal Prior To Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SPE can remove other solid plasma components in addition to PL, achieving additional lessening of matrix effects and other interference in analysis (Nilsson et al, 2014). In a comparison of PPT, LLE and SPE techniques, Neville et al (2012 demonstrated~100% combined PL removal using products specific to this task (Ostro®, Captiva®) as well as Hybrid SPE-PPT technology.…”

Section: Methods Of Pl Removal Prior To Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of phospholipids and phospholipid removal on bioanalytical method performance

Carmical

Brown

2016

Biomedical Chromatography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phospholipids (PLs) are a component of cellmembranes, biological fluids and tissues. These compounds are problematic for the bioanalytical chemist, especially when PLs are not the analytes of interest. PL interference with bioanalysis highly impacts reverse-phase chromatographic methods coupled with mass spectrometric detection. Phospholipids are strongly retained on hydrophobic columns, and can cause significant ionization suppression in the mass spectrometer, as they outcompete analyte molecules for ionization. Strategies for improving analyte detection in the presence of PLs are reviewed, including in-analysis modifications and sample preparation strategies. Removal of interfering PLs prior to analysis seems to be most effective atmoderating thematrix effects fromthese endogenous cellular components, and has the potential to simplify chromatography and improve column lifetime. Products targeted at PL removal for sample pre-treatment, as well as products that combine multiplemodes of sample preparation (i.e. Hybrid SPE), show significant promise inmediating the effect on PL interference in bioanalysis.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Pl Removal Prior To Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods Of Pl Removal Prior To Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of phospholipids and phospholipid removal on bioanalytical method performance

Carmical

Brown

2016

Biomedical Chromatography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several analytical methods available for the separate determination of BUD and SULF. BUD was determined in a variety of matrices using high-performance liquid chromatographic [5,6] and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS or LC-MS/MS) [2,3,[7][8][9]. Similarly, SULF…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determination of Budesonide and Sulfasalazine in Water and Wastewater Samples Using DLLME-SFO-HPLC-UV Method

Hryniewicka

Starczewska

Gołębiewska

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction based on solidification of floating organic droplet (DLLME-SFO) was applied to isolate budesonide (BUD) and sulfasalazine (SULF) from aqueous samples. The effects of different parameters on the efficiency on the extraction such as type of extrahent and dispersive solvent, ionic strength, pH of sample, and centrifugation time were investigated. Moreover, the influence of foreign substances on a studied process was tested. The calibration curves were recorded. The linearity ranges for BUD and SULF were 0.022-8.611 µg mL −1 and 0.020-7.968 µg mL −1 with the limit of detection (LOD) 0.011 µg mL −1 and 0.012 µg mL −1 , respectively. The enrichment factors (EF) for two analytes were high: for BUD it was 145.7 and for SULF, 119.5. The elaborated procedure was applied for HPLC-UV determination of these analytes in water and wastewater samples.was quantitated in a range of different matrices using high-performance liquid chromatography with diode array detection or ultraviolet detection (HPLC-DAD and HPLC-UV) [10][11][12], thin-layer chromatography densitometry [13], nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) [14], spectroflourimetry [15] and liquid chromatography/positive-ion electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC-ESI(+)-MS/MS [16]. None of the above methods attempted the simultaneous analysis of BUD and SULF in the same sample.The literature review shows that budesonide assays were made in biological samples [7-9], environmental samples [17,18], pharmaceutical formulations, and cosmetic products [19]. SULF was determined in pharmaceutical preparations [13][14][15], human plasma [10,16], water, and wastewater samples [20,21]. SULF was determined in river samples at the concentration of 15-76 ng L −1 and in wastewater samples at 65 ng L −1 (influent) and 266 ng L −1 (effluent) [20].Traditionally, the sample treatment techniques used to isolate pharmaceuticals from water samples have been the liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and the solid-phase extraction (SPE) [21]. LLE technique needs large volumes of toxic solvent, and the creation of emulsions is a common problem. However, SPE technique requires column conditioning and a process that is sometimes complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, the development of environmentally friendly pretreatment methods is necessary to overcome such disadvantages. Currently, microextraction techniques are often used to separate biologically active substances from aqueous solutions.A novel dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction based on the solidification of floating organic drop (DLLME-SFO) was introduced by Leong et al. [22]. It involves the use of extraction solvent with a density lower than the density of water and freezing point near to the room temperature. The mixture of the dispersing and extracting solvent is injected into the water sample to form a turbid solution. After centrifugation, the tube is placed in an ice bath to solidify the extractant. The solidified drop is then collected and placed in a conical tube and allowed to melt. The li...

show abstract

“…Because of phospholipid interference, Ostro 96-well plate (Waters, Manchester, UK) was used to extract polar metabolites, precipitate proteins, and eliminate phospholipids [22]. The hydrophobic interaction between phospholipids and silicabased C18 sorbent is the major retention mechanism for the removal of phospholipids in The samples were eluted and separated using an HSS (High Strength Silica) T3 column (100 × 2.1 mm) with a 1.7 µm particle size (Waters) for 15 min.…”

Section: Serum Metabolite Profiling Using Uplc/q-tof Msmentioning

confidence: 99%

LC/MS-based polar metabolite profiling reveals gender differences in serum from patients with myocardial infarction

Lee

Jung

Park

et al. 2015

Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phospholipid removal combined with a semi-automated 96-well SPE application for determination of budesonide in human plasma with LC–MS/MS

Cited by 21 publications

References 25 publications

The impact of phospholipids and phospholipid removal on bioanalytical method performance

The impact of phospholipids and phospholipid removal on bioanalytical method performance

Determination of Budesonide and Sulfasalazine in Water and Wastewater Samples Using DLLME-SFO-HPLC-UV Method

LC/MS-based polar metabolite profiling reveals gender differences in serum from patients with myocardial infarction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About