Journal of Chromatography B, 879 (2011) 26422652

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Chromatography B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chromb

Online extraction LCMS/MS method for the simultaneous quantitative

conrmation of urine drugs of abuse and metabolites: Amphetamines, opiates,
cocaine, cannabis, benzodiazepines and methadone
Andrew D. de Jager , Neville L. Bailey
Drugs of Abuse Laboratory, Clinical Chemistry, Level 6, Mater Adults Hospital, Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 23 May 2011
Accepted 24 July 2011
Available online 30 July 2011
Keywords:
LCMS/MS
Drugs of abuse
Online extraction

a b s t r a c t
A rapid LCMS/MS method for conrmatory testing of ve major categories of drugs of abuse
(amphetamine-type substances, opiates, cocaine, cannabis metabolites and benzodiazepines) in urine has
been developed. All drugs of abuse mandated by the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4308:2008
are quantied in a single chromatographic run. Urine samples are diluted with a mixture of isotope
labelled internal standards. An on-line trap-and-ush approach, followed by LCESI-MS/MS has been
successfully used to process samples in a functioning drugs of abuse laboratory. Following injection of
diluted urine samples, compounds retained on the trap cartridge are ushed onto a reverse-phase C18
HPLC column (5-m particle size) with embedded hydrophylic functionality. A total chromatographic
run-time of 15 min is required for adequate resolution. Automated quantitation software algorithms have
been developed in-house using XML scripting to partially automate the identication of positive samples, taking into account ion ratio (IR) and retention times (Rt). The sensitivity of the assay was found to
be adequate for the quantitation of drugs in urine at and below the conrmation cut-off concentrations
prescribed by AS/NZS 4308:2008.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Increasingly, drug of abuse screening is becoming routine in
the workplace. Testing has enjoyed the greatest acceptance in
industries where employees are involved in activities that involve
safety risks, such as mining and civil aviation. Rapid generation of
analytical results is critical to a successful workplace screening programme, as delays in providing a requesting authority with results
has adverse economic implications. This is mainly owing to the fact
that individuals are not permitted to return to the workplace until
their samples are declared free of illegal substances.
In Australia and New Zealand, screening and conrmation of
drugs in the ve major urine drug categories is regulated by
the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4308:2008 [1]. Initial drug screening procedures are most commonly performed by
immunoassay (IA), and while the limitations of IA with respect to
specicity have been well documented, the generation of results is
rapid relative to conrmation assays.
Traditionally, conrmation assays performed on samples that
have returned a positive screening result have been done using

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3163 8500; fax: +61 7 3163 7821.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]
(A.D. de Jager).
1570-0232/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jchromb.2011.07.029

GCMS. While GCMS has proven to be a robust and reliable

technique for several decades, fairly rigorous sample preparation
requirements, often involving derivatization of certain compounds
and relatively long chromatographic runs make this a fairly
time intensive approach. More recently, LCMS/MS has been
increasingly used for conrmation of drugs of abuse in various matrices. There are a number of inherent advantages when
using LCMS/MS as opposed to GCMS. Most notably, derivatization is not required prior to instrumental analysis, which
coupled with shorter chromatographic run times puts LCMS/MS
at an advantage with respect to rapid sample analysis. However, these advantages may be offset by the relative cost of an
LCMS/MS system, which is considerably more than for a GCMS
system. Regrettably, some of the time saving advantages of using
LCMS/MS are often lost because sample preparation protocols
are often compartmentalised into drug groups. For example, laboratories develop a benzodiazepine assay, an opiate assay, etc.,
each with an associated set of chromatographic and instrumental
conditions.
A second categorisation observed centres around the chemistry of the abused drugs, with laboratories developing an
assay for acidic, basic and neutral compounds. While this is
a fundamentally sound approach, the net effect is that total
analysis times are not signicantly different for GCMS and
LCMS/MS conrmations. It was for this reason that we aimed

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

to develop an assay method that rstly involved the same sample preparation procedure for all drug classes, and secondly
involved a single LCMS/MS chromatographic run. In doing so,
we hoped to overcome some of the factors that impede harnessing the advantages of using LCMS/MS for drugs of abuse
conrmation.
Combining multiple classes of drugs of abuse in a single
assay is relatively commonplace. De Leenheer et al. [2] use a
single solid phase extraction (SPE) procedure to determine opiates, amphetamines and cocaine related substances in oral uid,
followed by time-of-ight mass spectrometry. More recently,
Thrngren et al. [3] reported a muticomponent screening method
for 130 drugs, following a simple dilution of urine with a selection of isotope labelled internal standards. Simple dilution of
urine prior to analysis is becoming increasingly prevalent in
analytical literature, particularly as the sensitivity and robustness of LCMS/MS instrumentation continues to improve. Beck
et al. [4] validated a quantitative LCMS/MS assay for opiates, following a simple dilution of urine. Importantly they
avoid the need for hydrolysis by incorporating all the major
metabolites of a particular opiate in the assay. For example,
in the assay, morphine, morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) and
morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) are quantitatively combined to
produce a total morphine concentration. There may be an inherent advantage in this approach as Ilett et al. [5] report that
inter-laboratory variation in reported codeine and morphine levels can often be attributed to differences in the efciency of
the hydrolysis process. Similarly, Beck et al. [6] point out that
an incorrect determination of the proportion of total morphine
and codeine in urine may result if hydrolysis is incorrectly performed.
Beck et al. report good agreement between this approach, and a
reference GCMS method involving hydrolysis of conjugated opiates. Owing to the absence of any rigorous sample clean-up, Beck
et al. report that to varying degrees, compounds are affected by
matrix effects, and that this is most acute for compounds that elute
early from the analytical column.
While the most common approach to sample clean-up of urine
samples prior to drugs of abuse conrmation analysis is SPE,
on-line SPE (trap-and-ush) is a variation of the traditional SPE
approach which is well worth considering. On-line extraction procedures have appeared in the literature and have demonstrated
their suitability for routine analysis [7,8]. Weinmann et al. [9]
used an on-line extraction method to determine a range of basic
drugs of abuse in human serum following precipitation of proteins.
They use a system of two alternating trap columns, allowing for
adequate cleaning and equilibration of the trap column between
injections.
In this paper, we describe an online extraction (trap and ush)
LCMS/MS method for the quantitation of 29 drugs of abuse in
urine, following dilution with a mixture of isotope labelled internal
standards. The online SPE methodology allowed for sufcient sample clean-up, bringing matrix effects to within acceptable limits.
This method has proved itself suitable for a routine drugs of abuse
laboratory.

2. Material and methods

2643

stadt, Germany). Deionised water (18.1 M) was obtained from a

Millipore-Q water system (Bedford, MA, USA).
2.2. Instrumentation
The HPLC system used was a Shimadzu Prominence UFLC system (Kyoto, Japan). Two binary high pressure pumps (LC-20AB),
each tted with a 100 L high pressure mixer were used for solvent delivery. The autosampler was a SIL-20AHT. The column oven
was a CTO-20A, which incorporated a 6-port switching valve. An inline degasser (DGU-20A3 ) was placed prior to the solvent delivery
system.
An additional Rheodyne 10-port switching valve (Rheodyne,
CA, USA) was purchased and was operated by contact closure.
The LCMS/MS system used was an ABSciex 5500QTRAP, with a
TurboIonSpray source (ABSciex, Concord, Ont., Canada). All data
were collected using ABSciex Analyst software (version 1.5). Quantitation was performed using MultiQuant ver. 2 software (ABSciex).
2.3. Preparation of calibration standard solutions
Owing to the fact that 11-nor-9 -tetrahydrocannibinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH) and 11-nor-9 -tetrahydrocannibinol-9carboxylic acid glucuronide (THC-COOH-GLU) degrade and adsorb
to surfaces more readily than compounds in the remaining drug
groups, it was decided to separate calibration solutions into
cannabinoid calibrators and the remaining drug groups. This was
done to minimise the impact of analyte losses, as it was deemed
inefcient to re-prepare an entire calibration series for the sake of
two compounds.
2.3.1. Non-THC calibration standard solutions
Five primary stock solutions (opiates, benzodiazepines, cocaine
related substances, amphetamine-like substances and methadone)
were prepared from certied reference material solutions in drug
groups. Dilutions were made in methanol:water (1:1, v/v). 1 mL of
each of these ve stock solutions was placed in a 10 mL volumetric
ask, which was made up to the mark with methanol:water (1:1,
v/v). This tenfold dilution resulted in the calibration standard solution (S1). This calibration standard (S1) was then serially diluted
(gravimetrically) producing four further calibration standard solutions S2, S3, S4 and SLLOQ (Table 1).
2.3.2. THC related calibration standard solutions
Similarly, a single primary stock solution containing THCCOOH and THC-COOH-GLU was prepared (each at 250 ng/mL) in
methanol:water, 1:1 (v/v). This stock solution was then serially
diluted (gravimetrically) to produce ve calibration standard solutions (Table 2).
2.4. Preparation of urine quality controls
All urine used in the preparation of quality controls was obtained
from staff volunteers within the hospital facility, and was screened
prior to preparation of quality controls to ensure that it was drug
free, using the assay procedure.

2.1. Materials and reagents

All certied drug and isotope labelled internal standard solutions were purchased from Cerilliant (Round Rock, Texas, USA).
Ammonium Acetate (Sigma Ultra grade) and methanol (Fluka,
purity >99.9%) were purchased from SigmaAldrich (St. Louis,
USA). Methanol (purity >99.9%) was purchased from Merck (Darm-

2.4.1. Non-THC urine quality controls

Five primary stock solutions were prepared from certied reference material solutions (in drug groups) in the same manner
described in Section 2.3.1. In a 10 mL volumetric ask, spikes of
the individual primary stocks were made according to the gure
below using positive displacement pipettes.

2644

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

Table 1
Calibration standard solution concentrations of non-THC solutions (ng/mL).

S1 was prepared by combining group primary stock solutions (see table below) as follows using a positive
displacement pipette and a 10 mL volumetric flask. Subsequent gravimetric dilutions were performed on
a top-loading balance
Gp. 2
Gp. 1
Gp. 3
Gp. 4
Gp. 5
(1 mL)
(1 mL)
(1 mL)
(1 mL)
(1 mL)

S1

10 mL volumetric flask, make up to the mark using solvent*

4g S1

6g solvent*

5g S2

5g solvent*

S2
5g S3

Mix

+ 5g solvent*

S3
Mix

5g solvent*

5g S3

S4
Mix

SLLOQ
Compound name

Conc. in Cerilliant
stock (ng/mL)

Group

Conc. in primary
stock (ng/mL)

Calibration standard solution (ng/mL)

S1
Codeine
Codeine-6--d-glucuronide
Morphine
Morphine-3--d-glucuronide
Morphine-6--d-glucuronide
6-Acetylmorphine

100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000

() Amphetamine
() Methylamphetamine
() MDMA
() MDA
Benzylpiperazine
Phentermine
Pseudoephedrine
Methadone
EDDP
Diazepam
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
Temazepam
-Hydroxyalprazolam
7-Aminoclonazepam
7-Aminounitrazepam
7-Aminonitrazepam
Benzoylecgonine
Ecgonine methyl ester

100,000
100,000
1000,000
1000,000
1000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
100,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000

Gp. 3

Gp. 4

Gp. 5

S3

S4

SLLOQ

500
500
500
500
500
100

200
200
200
200
200
40

100
100
100
100
100
20

50
50
50
50
50
10

25
25
25
25
25
5

3000
3000
3000
3000
10,000
10,000
10,000
3000
3000
5000
5000
5000
5000
2000
2000
2000
2000
3000
3000

300
300
300
300
1000
1000
1000
300
300
500
500
500
500
200
200
200
200
300
300

120
120
120
120
400
400
400
120
120
200
200
200
200
80
80
80
80
120
120

60
60
60
60
200
200
200
60
60
100
100
100
100
40
40
40
40
60
60

30
30
30
30
100
100
100
30
30
50
50
50
50
20
20
20
20
30
30

15
15
15
15
50
50
50
15
15
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
15
15

Gp. 1

Gp. 2

S2

5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
1000

* Solvent = methanol:water (1:1, v/v).

Note: Masses of stock solution and solvent were added drop-wise using glass Pasteur pipettes, and were added to the nearest 0.01 g.

Table 2
Calibration standard solution concentrations of THC solutions (ng/mL).
Compound name

THC-COOH
THC-COOH-GLU

Conc. in primary stock (ng/mL)

250

Calibration standard solution (ng/mL)

S1(THC)

S2(THC)

100
100

50
50

S3(THC)
20
20

S4(THC)
10
10

SLLOQ(THC)
5
5

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

2645

Table 3
Preparation of quality controls for non-THC compounds.

Preparation of QA1

Preparation of QB1

Spiking of group stock solutions*

Spiking of group stock solutions*

Gp 1

Gp 2

Gp 3

Gp 4

Gp 5

Gp 1

680 L

580 L

380 L

460 L

580 L

460 L

Gp 4
580 L

Evaporate to near dryness (N2)

Evaporate to near dryness (N2)

Make up to mark with drug free urine

Make up to mark with drug free urine

Preparation of QA2

Preparation of QB2

Gravimetric dilution of QA1

Gravimetric dilution of QB1

5g QA1 + 1.8g drug free urine = QA2

5g QB1 + 1.8g drug free urine = QB2

Compound

Reporting level

Nominal concentration of compounds in quality controls

300
Codeine
300
Codeine-6--glucuronide
300
Morphine
300
Morphine-3--glucuronide
300
Morphine-3--glucuronide
10
6-Acetylmorphine
() Amphetamine
150
150
() Methamphetamine
150
() MDMA
150
() MDA
500
Phentermine
Pseudoephedrine
500
Methadone
100
100
EDDP
200
Diazepam
200
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
200
200
Temazepam
100
-Hydroxyalprazolam
7-Aminoclonazepam
100
100
7-Aminounitrazepam
100
7-Aminonitrazepam
150
Benzoylecgonine
150
Ecgonine methyl ester

QA1

QA2

340
340
340
340
340

250
250
250
250
250

174
174
174
174
580
580
114
114
230
230
230
230

128
128
128
128
427
427
83.8
83.8
169
169
169
169

QB1

11.5

116
116
116
116
174
174

QB2

8.5

85.3
85.3
85.3
85.3

128
128

* Group stock solutions prepared in the same manner described in Table 1 for calibration standards.

2.4.2. THC urine quality controls

When preparing urine THC quality controls (containing THCCOOH and THC-COOH-GLU), it was not possible to use the approach
described in Section 2.4.1. Specically, it was not possible to prepare quality controls at calculated nominal concentrations. Instead,
it was necessary to prepare controls in urine, and then backcalculate these from a calibration curve in order to assign a mean
measured concentration. The mean measured concentrations were
then used throughout the validation studies. The reason for this is
that both THC-COOH and THC-COOH-GLU were found to adsorb
to surfaces (both glass and plastic) in aqueous medium, and in all

cases, mean measured concentrations were found to be lower than

expected concentrations.
A stock solution containing THC-COOH and THC-COOH-GLU was
prepared in methanol:water (1:1, v/v) at 1 g/mL for both compounds.
2.4.3. Aliquots of urine quality controls
Once quality controls were prepared, 100 L (the assay volume)
was transferred to a 1.8 mL snap-cap tube (the tube used for the
assay dilution) and then kept at 20 C. When preparing sample
batches, tubes containing quality controls were thawed and used

Table 4
Preparation of quality controls THC related compounds.
Compound

Spike vol (L)

Urine mass (g)

QC HIGH
QC LOW

210
140

10
10

THC-COOH (mean measured conc., ng/mL)

17.5
11.6

THC-COOH-GLU (mean measured conc., ng/mL)

17.9
11.7

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

Table 5
Mass spectrometer parameters.

(A) TRAP MODE

Parameter

Value

Polarity
Ionisation voltage (IS)
Nebulising gas (GS1)
Desolvation gas (GS2)
Source temperature (TEM)
Collision gas (CAD)
Q1 resolution
Q3 resolution

Positive
5200 V
60
60
550 C
Medium
Unit
Unit

directly in the original tube, with no re-aliquotting done. While this

facilitated speedy batch preparation, the more fundamental reason
for this was to ensure that urine quality controls (particularly urine
THC quality controls) were not exposed to additional plastic surfaces prior to dilution. A study of adsorptive losses of THC-COOH
and THC-COOH-GLU is described in Section 3.7, illustrating why
this was important.

Pump 2

Autosampler

Pos 0

Trap

2646

Pos 2
GC

AC
W
Pump 1
To LC-MS/MS via diverter valve

(B) ELUTE MODE

2.5. Sample preparation
2.5.1. Preparation of daily urine calibration standards
100 L of each of the two calibration standard solutions
(described in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2) was placed in a 1.8 mL eppendorf snap cap tube. 100 L blank urine, 20 L internal standard
solution and 400 L dilution solvent (methanol:water, 40:60 (v/v)
containing 10 mM ammonium acetate) were added. Tubes were
briey vortexed and the diluted sample placed in autosampler vials.

2.5.3. Samples requiring enzymatic cleavage (benzodiazepines)

100 L urine, 20 L internal standard solution and 50 L glucuronidase solution (from E. coli K12, diluted 10-fold with water)
were placed in a 1.8 mL eppendorf snap cap tube. The tubes were
sealed and placed in a water bath (40 C) for 3 h. Following this,
tubes were cooled using tap water, and to each tube was added
100 L methanol:water (1:1, v/v), and 400 L dilution solvent
(described in Section 2.5.1). The sample was mixed by vortexing
and 500 L was passed through a Millipore Micron centrifugal lter (10 Da) in order to remove the -glucuronidase. The ltrate was
placed in autosampler vials.

Pos 1

Trap

Pos 2
GC

AC
W
Pump 1
To LC-MS/MS via diverter valve

(C) PRECOLUMN FLUSH MODE

Pos 0

Pos 1
GC

2.6. Chromatographic conditions

AC
W

The online trap column used was a Thermo AQUASIL C18

5 m 10 mm 2 mm drop-in guard cartridge, and the analytical
column was a Thermo AQUASIL C18, 100 mm 2.1 mm, 5 m particle size (San Jose, CA, USA). The analytical column was tted
with a guard cartridge (the same cartridge used for trapping). The
aqueous mobile phase (phase A) consisted of 10 mM ammonium
acetate in water, while the organic mobile phase (phase B) consisted of 10 mM ammonium acetate in methanol:acetonitrile (1:1,
v/v).
Three chromatographic modes (Fig. 1) were programmed using
the switching valves, namely (A) trap mode, (B) elute mode
and (C) precolumn ush mode. In all instances, both pump 1
and pump 2 delivered solvent at a constant 270 L/min, except
for during the precolumn ush mode, where pump 2 deliv-

Pump 2

Autosampler

Trap

2.5.2. Samples and quality controls (samples not requiring

enzymatic cleavage)
100 L urine, 200 L methanol:water (1:1, v/v), 20 L internal
standard solution and 400 L dilution solvent (described in Section
2.5.1) were placed in a 1.8 mL eppendorf snap cap tube. Tubes were
briey vortexed and the diluted sample placed in autosampler vials.

Pump 2

Autosampler

Pump 1
To LC-MS/MS via diverter valve

Fig. 1. HPLC trap/ush

AC = analytical column).

conguration

(W = waste,

GC = guard

cartridge,

ered solvent at 400 L/min to improve the cleaning of the

precolumn.
2.6.1. Trap mode
In trap mode, pump 1 delivered aqueous phase (99% phase A) to
the trap column, while pump 2 kept the analytical column equilibrated at (99% phase A). Diluted urine samples were injected
directly onto the trap cartridge (15 L).

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

2647

Table 6
Compound parameters, showing transitions for reporter and qualier ions.
Compound

Q1 (m/z)

Q3 (m/z)

6-Monoacetylmorphine

328.0
328.0
286.0
286.0
284.0
284.0
251.9
251.9
136.0
136.0
324.9
324.9
290.0
290.0
462.0
462.0
462.1
462.1
177.0
177.0
476.0
476.0
300.0
300.0
284.9
284.9
200.0
200.0
166.0
166.0
180.0
180.0
194.0
194.0
150.0
150.0
286.0
286.0
270.9
270.9
286.9
286.9
150.0
150.0
300.9
300.9
310.1
310.1
279.1
279.1
344.9
344.9
344.9
344.9

165.1
210.9
121.1
222.0
135.0
226.9
121.0
94.0
90.9
118.9
297.0
215.9
167.9
104.9
286.0
151.9
286.0
151.9
91.0
64.9
300.0
152.0
152.0
165.0
193.0
154.0
182.0
82.0
90.9
115.0
104.9
134.9
162.8
105.0
91.0
64.9
151.9
165.0
139.9
208.0
240.9
104.0
90.9
133.1
255.0
177.1
265.0
105.1
235.2
250.1
299.2
193.0
299.2
193.1

7-Aminoclonazepam
7-Aminunitrazepam
7-Aminonitrazepam
Amphetamine
-Hydroxyalprazolam
Benzoylecgonine
Morphine-3-d-glucuronide
Morphine-6-d-glucuronide
Benzylpiperazine
Codeine-6-d-glucuronide
Codeine
Diazepam
Ecgonine methylester
Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine
MDA
MDMA
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
Phentermine
Temazepam
Methadone
EDDP
THC-COOH
THC-COOH-GLU

R time (min)

2.6.2. Elute mode

In elute mode, the analytical column was placed in line using the
6-port switching valve. Pump 2 delivered a gradient (see Fig. 2) and
with increasing organic content, ushed the retained compounds
from the trap column into the analytical column, which were then
separated on the analytical column (Fig. 3).

2.6.3. Precolumn ush mode

By switching the 10-port switching valve, the precolumn was
isolated and ushed in the reverse direction with 60% phase B, to
waste, while pump 1 equilibrated the analytical column for the
next injection. This greatly lengthened the lifetime of the analytical
column.

8.5
8.5
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.9
8.6
8.6
7.2
7.2
4.7
4.7
5.3
5.3
9.6
9.6
6.2
6.2
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.2
6.3
6.3
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.8
8.4
8.3
8.5
8.5
7.7
7.7
8.9
8.9
8.5
8.5
8.3
8.3
8.8
8.8
10.9
10.9
10.3
10.3
9.4
9.4
8.5
8.5

DP (V)

EP (V)

CE (eV)

CXP (V)

150
150
116
116
166
166
61
61
46
46
81
81
86
86
151
151
151
151
76
76
106
106
151
151
101
101
61
61
41
41
41
41
36
36
51
51
91
91
81
81
81
81
46
46
76
76
111
111
181
181
151
151
200
200

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
27
27

51
35
39
35
37
35
35
57
25
13
37
55
27
41
41
129
41
129
23
57
43
127
87
59
41
37
23
33
45
35
31
25
17
33
27
53
77
57
39
39
31
45
31
13
31
53
21
35
43
33
29
37
29
37

14
18
12
12
14
18
12
10
10
12
16
18
22
18
22
14
22
14
12
10
22
12
14
14
18
12
16
14
14
16
10
12
16
12
10
12
16
16
14
18
20
14
14
12
16
10
22
10
12
12
16
18
16
18

2.7. Mass spectrometer conditions

The mass spectrometer used was an ABSciex 5500QTRAP (Concord, Ontario) tted with an ESI (TurboIonSprayTM ) source. Using
the diverter valve integrated on the mass spectrometer, the rst
4 min of chromatographic eluent was diverted to waste. All analytes were ionised in positive mode. Scheduled multiple reaction
monitoring (sMRM) was used in order to optimise the instrument
cycle time.
It is worth noting that for THC-COOH and THC-COOH-GLU,
the same Q1 to Q3 transitions were used. However, for the THCCOOH-GLU, higher source voltages (DP and EP) were used, which
effectively reverted a large fraction of the glucuronidated species
back to THC-COOH in the mass spectrometer source. This was

PC FLUSH
V1=0, V2=2

V1=0, V2=1

V1=0, V2=2

ELUTE MODE

V1=1, V2=2

(6.5 min;
80%)

(11.5 min;
80%)
(12.2 min;
60%)

(5.5 min;
55%)

%B

TRAP (EQUIL
FOR NEXT INJ)

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

TRAP

2648

(12.98 min
60%)

(2 min;
10%)
(0.6 min; 3%)

1%
0.6

6.5

11.5

12.19

12.99

14

(min)

12.0

4.0
Divert to waste

Divert to waste

Divert to LC-MS/MS

Mobile phase A : 10 mM ammonium acetate in water (18.1 M)

Mobile phase B : 10 mM ammonium acetate in methanol : acetonitrile (1:1; v/v)
Fig. 2. Gradient elution prole for pump 2.

possible owing to the fact that the two compounds were fully
resolved from one another chromatographically (see Fig. 3).

reporting concentration, displaying the correct ion ratio and having an acceptable retention time (within 2% of the retention time
of the calibration standards).

2.8. Data collection and quantitation

3. Results and discussion
All data were collected using Analyst version 1.5 software
(ABSciex, Concord, Ontaria, Canada). Quantitation of data was done
using MultiQuant version 2.0 (ABSciex). Following integration, XML
scripting (integral to MultiQuant) was used to interrogate data, and
automatically produce a list of samples that satised the requirements of AS/NZS 4308:2008 [1] with respect to being above the

3.1. Linearity
The linearity of the assay was established between the highest
and the lowest calibration standard as shown in Tables 1 and 2
for all analytes, which reects not only the concentration of the

1e6

Methadone

EDDP

Codeine

MDA

2e6

6-acetylmorphine

10.0
Morphine-3-D-glucuronide

9.0

Morphine-6-D-glucuronide

8.0

3e6

Ecgonine methylester

THC-COOH

THC-COOH-GLU

Peak Area

1e4

4e6

7-Aminoflinatazepam
Ephedrine

2e4

5e6

Benzylpiperazine

6e6

10

11

12

13

Time, min
Fig. 3. Chromatogram resulting from second highest calibration standard (with selected peaks labelled) showing the relative intensities. As expected, hydrophylic compounds
(such as morphine and heroin metabolites) elute early during the highly aqueous part of the gradient, while hydrophobic compounds (such as THC-COOH and methadone)
elute in the latter part of the chromatogram. The inset shows THC-COOH and THC-COOH-GLU (not observable in the full scale chromatogram), which are the two compounds
for which the sensitivity is poorest in +ESI mode.

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

PAR (normalised)

100%

2649

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Conc. (ng/mL)
Overlay of calibration curves for all analytes (5 non-zero calibration points for each curve), run in a single
batch. Calibration curves are normalised to 100% based on the peak area ratio (analyte/ISTD) for each
analyte.
A = THC-COOH and THC-COOH-GLU, 6-monoacetylmorphine
B = -OH alprazolam, 7-aminoclonazepam, 7-aminonitrazepam, 7-aminoflunitrazepam
C = methadone, EDDP, amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, MDA, benzoylecgonine, ecgonine
methylester
D = codeine, codeine-6-D-glucuronide, morphine, morphine-3-D-glucuronide, morphine-6-Dglucuronide, diazepam, nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam
E = benzylpiperazine, phentermine, pseudoephedrine
Fig. 4. Overlay of calibration curves (n = 27 analytes) from a sample batch, based on peak area ratio (PAR). Overlay of calibration curves for all analytes (5 non-zero calibration points for each curve), run in a single batch. Calibration curves are normalised to 100% based on the peak area ratio (analyte/ISTD) for each analyte. A = THC-COOH
and THC-COOH-GLU, 6-monoacetylmorphine. B = -OH alprazolam, 7-aminoclonazepam, 7-aminonitrazepam, 7-aminounitrazepam. C = methadone, EDDP, amphetamine,
methamphetamine, MDMA, MDA, benzoylecgonine, ecgonine methylester. D = codeine, codeine-6-d-glucuronide, morphine, morphine-3-d-glucuronide, morphine-6d-glucuronide, diazepam, nordiazepam, oxazepam, temazepam. E = benzylpiperazine, phentermine, pseudoephedrine.

compounds in solution, but also the effective urine concentration.

The regression line of best t for each analyte was assessed by
comparing the summed absolute percentage of the relative error
(%RE) for each calibration curve [10,11]. The data showed that

Table 7
Between run accuracy and precision (n = 6 runs).
Compound

6-Monoacetylmorphine
7-Aminoclonazepam
7-Aminounitrazepam
7-Aminonitrazepam
Amphetamine
-Hydroxyalprazolam
Benzoylecgonine
Benzylpiperazine
Codeine
Codeine-6-d-glucuronide
Diazepam
Ecgonine methylester
EDDP
Pseudoephedrine
MDA
MDMA
Methadone
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Morphine-3-d-glucuronide
Morphine-6-d-glucuronide
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
Phentermine
Temazpam
THC-COOH
THC-COOH-GLU

a quadratic curve t (no weighting) was the simplest and most

rugged t for all compounds. Any samples above the calibration
range were diluted to within the calibration range using drug free
urine. Fig. 4 shows all calibration curves (constructed from a total of
just 5 injections, one for each calibration level) overlaid on a single
system of axes. The peak area ratio (analyte peak area/ISTD peak
area) has been normalised on the y-axes.

25% QC

+25% QC
CV%

%dev

CV%

%dev

4.58
9.71
5.62
7.72
7.12
5.01
7.42
5.82
7.13
4.28
2.59
2.86
3.17
3.01
3.87
6.10
3.43
3.20
6.89
6.28
5.45
5.63
4.27
2.32
4.37
2.29
4.30

1.7
9.7
7.2
3.2
3.9
4.2
0.5
2.0
0.8
1.2
2.8
6.1
1.5
4.7
2.5
2.9
4.7
0.7
3.9
2.6
2.6
1.2
3.7
3.6
2.8
3.4
1.6

4.62
5.85
6.13
5.96
6.45
6.67
3.80
2.88
4.34
2.80
5.33
4.47
5.09
2.60
5.93
2.60
4.67
4.84
4.16
4.19
3.17
6.19
3.83
3.91
4.38
5.59
3.89

1.3
7.1
6.6
0.7
2.0
4.7
0.1
1.1
2.3
1.3
1.0
6.3
1.0
2.3
1.8
1.4
2.9
2.5
5.3
0.2
2.1
0.4
1.5
3.2
1.6
4.7
3.8

3.2. Between-run accuracy and precision

Between run accuracy and precision was calculated using a single replicate of each of the urine quality controls levels prepared
over six occasions (each run on a different day). For each analyte,
two quality controls were used, the rst no more than 25% above the
reporting concentration, and the second no more than 25% below
the reporting concentration for the particular analyte (see Fig. 5).
The data are shown in Table 7. Precision is expressed as CV%, and
accuracy is expressed as mean % deviation from the nominal concentration of the QC (nominal concentrations of QCs are shown in
Tables 3 and 4).

3.3. Within-run accuracy and precision

Similarly, within-run accuracy and precision was calculated
using urine quality controls (n = 5) from a single assay occasion. For
each analyte, the same quality controls described above were used
(Tables 57). The data are shown in Table 8. Precision is expressed
as CV%, and accuracy is expressed as mean % deviation from the
nominal concentration of the QC (nominal concentrations of QCs
are shown in Tables 3 and 4).

2650

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

25% limit

100%

+25% limit

50

100

150

200

250

300

HIGH QC

LOW QC

= QC

REPORTING

LEVEL

= STANDARD

350

400

450

Conc. (ng/mL)
For the example curve shown above (morphine-3-D-glucuronide, one of 27 analytes), the nominal concentration of
the low and high QCs were 250 and 340 ng/mL respectively, which were within the limits prescribed by AS/NZS
4308:2008. The accuracy of these two QCs (expressed as a %deviation from nominal concentration) was -3.2% and 0.7% respectively. The figure above shows the appropriate placement of QCs as prescribed by the standard (AS/NZS
4308:2008) and this was done for all analytes. For certain analytes (notably THC-COOH, THC-COOH-GLU and 6monoacetylmorphine) the cut-off concentrations are nearer the low end of the respective calibration curve, and
placement of the low and high QCs was adjusted appropriately.

Fig. 5. Example calibration curve (morphine-3-d-glucuronide) from a sample batch For the example curve shown above (morphine-3-d-glucuronide, one of 27 analytes),
the nominal concentration of the low and high QCs were 250 and 340 ng/mL respectively, which were within the limits prescribed by AS/NZS 4308:2008. The accuracy of
these two QCs (expressed as a %deviation from nominal concentration) was 3.2% and 0.7% respectively. The gure above shows the appropriate placement of QCs as
prescribed by the standard (AS/NZS 4308:2008) and this was done for all analytes. For certain analytes (notably THC-COOH, THC-COOH-GLU and 6-monoacetylmorphine)
the cut-off concentrations are nearer the low end of the respective calibration curve, and placement of the low and high QCs was adjusted appropriately.

3.4. Carry-over

3.5. Matrix effects

Carry-over was assessed by injecting the highest calibration standard repeatedly, followed immediately by a blank urine
sample. The blank sample was then examined, and carry-over calculated and expressed as a percentage (based on peak area) of the
lowest calibration standard. For all analytes, the area of any peaks
detected in the blank was less than 7.8% of the LLOQ peak, except
for benzypipierazine, which had a peak representing 18.2% of the
LLOQ peak. This study showed that the maximum carry-over effect
did not affect the assay at the reporting level of any analyte.

A study was done in various sources of urine (not pooled) in

order to assess whether or not normal variations in human urine
affected the quantitative integrity of the assay. The study was done
by preparing calibration standards at high (ST2), medium (ST3)
and low (ST4) concentration. These calibrators encompassed the
reporting concentration for all analytes (see Tables 1 and 2). The
study was done by preparing the said three calibrators in each of
the ve discrete sources of drug free human urine (a total of 15
samples). In analytical literature, a high degree of variation in intermatrix analyte peak area is accepted as an indicator of the presence
of matrix effects [12]. In order to assess imprecision, the CV% was
calculated for each of the three calibration levels, and across the
ve sources of human urine, based on the peak area ratio (analyte peak area/ISTD peak area). The data for this study are shown
(Table 9). From the data it is apparent that there are, to varying
degrees, matrix effects that affect production of ions in the electrospray source (the point at which matrix effects manifest), and
6-acetylmorphine is the analyte most affected by this phenomenon.
However, from the peak area ratio (PAR) data, it is clear that the use
of isotope labelled internal standards compensates acceptably for
these effects, and in particular at the reporting concentration for
each analyte.

Table 8
Within run accuracy and precision.
Compound

6-Monoacetylmorphine
7-Aminoclonazepam
7-Aminounitrazepam
7-Aminonitrazepam
Amphetamine
-Hydroxyalprazolam
Benzoylecgonine
Benzylpiperazine
Codeine
Codeine-6-d-glucuronide
Diazepam
Ecgonine methylester
EDDP
Pseudoephedrine
MDA
MDMA
Methadone
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Morphine-3-d-glucuronide
Morphine-6-d-glucuronide
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
Phentermine
Temazpam
THC-COOH
THC-COOH-GLU

25% QC

+25% QC
CV%

% Dev

CV%

% Dev

6.41
6.70
5.44
4.40
4.49
1.76
5.80
6.25
3.80
2.81
4.57
3.76
5.24
4.79
3.63
3.95
5.40
3.41
4.17
6.60
3.65
7.91
5.73
4.67
5.88
4.40
2.87

2.6
6.0
2.8
5.0
1.4
5.9
1.6
0.7
1.9
2.4
3.0
6.7
0.7
3.5
2.5
2.2
1.6
4.9
2.2
4.3
4.3
3.0
0.9
5.0
2.0
7.3
3.9

3.78
6.53
6.21
5.84
5.47
3.62
0.84
1.49
0.82
2.56
1.91
0.93
0.51
1.60
4.35
1.70
0.42
2.28
4.93
5.62
0.95
3.00
0.75
1.88
1.76
4.84
6.21

1.4
4.4
2.9
5.2
0.3
3.6
2.2
2.6
1.0
2.2
2.0
4.4
2.7
4.1
1.3
0.2
2.0
1.3
0.2
5.6
1.0
6.9
3.4
0.2
1.9
1.8
4.0

3.6. Calculation of concentrations for unknown samples

In order to revert phase II metabolites (predominantly glucuronides and sulphates) back to unconjugated species prior to
measurement, laboratories generally subject opiate and cannabis
samples to either enzymatic cleavage, or acid/base hydrolysis prior
to preparation. Owing to the fact that it was possible to obtain certied reference materials for all the signicant metabolites of these
compounds, urinary levels are calculated as follows:
Total morphine = morphine + morphine-3-d-glucuronide + mor
phine-6-d-glucuronide
Total codeine = codeine + codeine-6-d-glucuronide
Total THC = THC-COOH + THC-COOH-GLU

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

2651

Fig. 6. Accuracy of UTAK external quality controls measured in-house.

Table 9
Summary of matrix effects (CV%), based on peak area ratio (analyte/ISTD).

3.7. Study on adsorptive losses of cannabis related compounds

Compound

ST2

ST3

ST4

6-Monoacetylmorphine
7-Aminoclonazepam
7-Aminounitrazepam
7-Aminonitrazepam
amphetamine
-Hydroxyalprazolam
Benzoylecgonine
Benzylpiperazine
Codeine
Codeine-6-d-glucuronide
Diazepam
Ecgonine methylester
EDDP
Pseudoephedrine
MDA
MDMA
Methadone
Methamphetamine
Morphine
Morphine-3-d-glucuronide
Morphine-6-d-glucuronide
Nordiazepam
Oxazepam
Phentermine
Temazpam
THC-COOH
THC-COOH-GLU

20.8
8.4
4.0
7.3
6.6
5.2
6.3
1.9
1.8
8.9
3.2
1.4
1.3
2.1
3.0
3.0
5.8
6.5
2.7
4.5
3.1
5.8
2.2
5.0
1.9
2.2
3.0

10.5
6.4
2.5
5.2
5.8
11.7
5.4
4.0
4.5
11.8
2.5
2.6
2.3
6.0
6.3
3.3
2.7
2.6
4.1
5.1
2.1
2.4
3.0
4.7
3.7
1.2
3.1

12.7
2.8
3.2
5.2
3.7
7.7
5.1
2.0
1.6
3.9
3.7
1.9
1.4
5.1
5.9
5.1
1.6
1.6
3.5
4.7
5.6
4.0
4.4
2.0
2.9
1.3
3.1

For benzodiazepines that contain a hydroxyl moiety (oxazepam,

temazepam and -hydroxyalprazolam), a similar approach is
appropriate owing to the fact that these compounds exist to
a considerable degree as conjugated species in urine. However,
it is currently difcult to source certied reference materials for oxazepam glucuronide, temazepam glucuronide and
-hydroxyalprazolam. For this reason, these samples are currently
still subjected to enzymatic cleavage prior to preparation (see Section 2.5.3).

As described in Section 2.4.3, aliquots (100 L) of urine quality controls (prepared in-house) were placed in 1.8 mL snap-cap
tubes upon preparation, and these tubes were used in situ during
the assay (no sub-aliquot taken, but tube used directly). During the
development phase of the assay, a study was done which compared
this approach to the traditional approach of taking a sub-aliquot
of a thawed quality control on the day (n = 3). Importantly, this
experiment was done on a single batch of prepared QCs. Following preparation, three additional aliquots were prepared in which
1 mL urine was placed in the 1.8 mL snap-cap tube, and a 100 L
sub-aliquot was taken on the day of assay and placed in a fresh
sample tube. Results for the two approaches were compared and
results are shown in Table 10.
The data show that exposing aqueous quality controls to a single
additional surface resulted in adsorptive losses for both analytes.
While THC-COOH-GLU losses are signicant, they are somewhat
less than for THC-COOH, and this seems appropriate, as GLU conjugation increases hydrophilicity, and thus a smaller fraction lost
on the adsorptive surface. When a signicant fraction of methanol
is added directly to the QC tube (as described in the dilution procedure, Section 2.5.2), the compounds appear to desorb from the
plastic surface of the tube. It is for this reason that the diluents
are added directly to the QC tube. This way any THC-COOH and
THC-COOH-GLU that has adsorbed from the 100 L aliquot onto the
surface of the QC tube over time is re-dissolved. The nal diluted
sample described in Section 2.5 contains around 38% methanol.
Losses of THC related compounds to soft plastic materials has been
previously described in the literature. The data above show the
effect of exposure to a single additional surface only. While it is
not possible to extrapolate this to different tube types, the data
illustrates the complexities of measuring THC related compounds
in aqueous medium. The implication on measurement of samples
should be considered, as collection devices used in the eld may
vary by size and material type. Moreover, dividing of a sample into
primary and a referee samples at the site of collection may result

Table 10
Study on adsorptive losses of THC-related compounds in urine.
Compound

Level

Mean (n = 3) of in situ aliquot (100 L)

Mean (n = 3) of Sub-aliquot (100 L taken from 1 mL)

Adsorptive loss (%)

THC-COOH

High
Low

16.6
11.4

10.7
6.8

38
40

THC-COOH-GLU

High
Low

18.2
11.7

13.0
8.8

29
25

2652

A.D. de Jager, N.L. Bailey / J. Chromatogr. B 879 (2011) 26422652

in losses based on variable surface exposure in each of the two

containers. Adding methanol directly to containers to circumvent
adsorption (as is done for QCs) is not feasible for samples for myriad
reasons. Sub-aliquots of samples taken in a laboratory for assay are
necessarily taken from an entirely aqueous sample, where adsorptive losses are most acute. It is thus reasonable to suggest that levels
of THC-related compounds in urine are generally underestimated
due to adsorptive losses, but owing to the number of variables, it is
not possible to make a meaningful estimation of the losses.
3.8. Cross-validation of methodology
Following the development and validation of the methodology, it was deemed prudent to compare the newly developed
method with an external reference. For this reason, a set of two
commercially prepared controls were purchased (UTAK, Valencia,
CA), containing most of the target compounds near the reporting
levels of AS/NZS 4308:2008. These external quality controls were
re-suspended as per the manufacturer instructions, and assayed.
The UTAK level 1 and level 2 quality control back-calculated results
were then compared with the nominal concentrations supplied by
the manufacturer. Accuracy was expressed as a percentage of the
expected nominal concentration, and the results are summarised
in Fig. 6. The data show that the methodology produces results
consistent with the expected concentrations in the external quality controls. While it should be stated that certain key compounds
are not present in the UTAK quality controls (notably the 7-amino
benzodiazepines, and selected opiate metabolites), the compounds
that are included make these external quality controls a useful
external reference check.
4. Comments/conclusions
The objective of the authors was to develop a robust and rapid
assay procedure for the quantitation of all drugs appropriate to the
AS/NZS 4308:2008, and this was achieved. While the trap and ush
approach used is not entirely novel to drugs of abuse, this is, to

the authors knowledge, the rst paper dealing with all the drugs
pertaining to the standard in a single assay and run. The approach
described has enabled rapid response to client needs.
The trap and ush approach employed results in considerable
ongoing cost benet to the laboratory. While adding switching
valves to the HPLC system did add some initial cost, a single trap
cartridge (capable or processing at least 100 samples) was more
cost effective than using the conventional single use SPE cartridge.
It should be said that key to the success of the assay is the availability of isotope-labelled internal standards for all but a few of the
compounds.
Acknowledgements
We thank Wendy Ferguson for the generation of immunoassay
data during method development, as well as Michael Henman for
help with accuracy and proofreading. We also express our thanks
to the Mater Adults Hospital for the resources and funding made
available for this project.
References
[1] AS/NZS 4308:2008, Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW, Austalia,
www.standards.org.au.
[2] K.A. Mortier, K.E. Maudens, W.E. Lambert, K.M. Clauwaert, J.F. Van Bocxlaer, D.L.
Deforce, C.H. Van Peteghem, A.P. de Leenheer, J. Chromatogr. B 779 (2) (2002)
321.
[3] J.O. Thrngren, F. stervall, M. Garle, J. Mass Spectrom. 43 (2008) 980.
[4] E. Gustavsson, M. Andersson, N. Stephanson, O. Beck, J. Mass Spectrom. 42
(2007) 881.
[5] L.P. Hackett, L.J. Dusci, K.F. Ilett, G.M. Chiswell, Ther. Drug Monit. 24 (2002) 652.
[6] P. Lafolie, O. Beck, Z. Lin, F. Albertioni, L. Borus, J. Anal. Toxicol. 20 (1996) 541.
[7] Y. Alnouti, K. Srinivasan, D. Waddell, H.G. Bi, O. Kavetskaia, A.I. Gusev, J. Chromatogr. A 1080 (2005) 99.
[8] G.L. Herrin, H.H. McCurdy, W.H. Wall, J. Anal. Toxicol. 29 (2005) 599.
[9] N.F. Bouzas, S. Dresen, B. Munz, W. Weinmann, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 395 (2009)
2499.
[10] A.M. Almeida, M.M. Castel-Branco, A.C. Falco, J. Chromatogr. B 774 (2002) 215.
[11] M.M. Kiser, J.W. Dolan, LCGC Europe 17 (3) (2004) 138.
[12] B.T. Matuszewski, M.L. Constanzer, C.M. Chavez-Eng, Anal. Chem. 75 (2003)
3019.