Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

.2020 Sep 12;1(4):233-244.
doi: 10.1002/ansa.202000066. eCollection 2020 Dec.

Separating chiral isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine using chemical derivatization and differential mobility spectrometry

Affiliations

Separating chiral isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine using chemical derivatization and differential mobility spectrometry

J Larry Campbell et al. Anal Sci Adv..

Abstract

The separation and analysis of chiral compounds, especially enantiomers, presents a great challenge to modern analytical chemistry, particularly to mass spectrometry (MS). As a result, integrated orthogonal separations, such as chiral liquid chromatography (chiral LC), gas chromatography (GC), or capillary electrophoresis (CE), are often employed to separate enantiomers prior to MS analysis. Here, we combine chemical derivatization with differential mobility spectrometry (DMS) and MS to separate and quantitate the transformed enantiomeric pairs R- and S-amphetamine, as well as R- and S-methamphetamine. We also demonstrate separation of these drugs by using reverse-phase LC. However, while the LC method requires ∼5 min to provide separation, we have developed a flow-injection analysis (FIA) method using DMS as the exclusive mode of separation (FIA-DMS), requiring only ∼1.5 min with equivalent quantitative metrics (1-1000 ng/mL range) to the LC method. The DMS-based separation of each diastereomeric pair is driven by differences in binding energies between the analyte ions and the chemical modifier molecules (acetonitrile) added to the DMS environment.

Keywords: Chiral; differential mobility spectrometry; isomers; mass spectrometry; quantitation.

© 2020 The Authors. Analytical Science Advances published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors confirm that, at the time of writing this paper, J. Larry Campbell, Amol Kalfe, Chang Liu, and Yves LeBlanc were employed by SCIEX, a manufacturer and developer of differential mobility spectrometry and mass spectrometry technology featured in this manuscript.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The enantiomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
A, Schematic diagram of the DMS cell coupled to a hybrid triple quadrupole‐linear ion trap MS system employed in this study. B, Between the DMS electrodes, several ions’ trajectories are depicted as colored “zig zag” lines, which occurs as ions experience the electric fields established by the asymmetric RF waveform (separation voltage, SV) and dc voltage (compensation voltage, CV); only the red ions successfully transit the DMS cell
SCHEME 1
SCHEME 1
Reaction of amphetamine (AMP) with (L)‐N‐trifluoroacetyl prolyl chloride (S‐TPC)
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
A, Separation of TPC‐derivatized R‐ and S‐MeAMP by DMS (SV = 4000 V) in pure nitrogen using a DR = 10 psi. B, Analogous experiments where 1.5% (mole ratio) acetonitrile (SV = 4000 V) was used to separate the S‐TPC‐derivatized S‐isomers of AMP and MeAMP. C, Similar analyses of only the derivatized R‐isomers of AMP and MeAMP. The key analyte signals and their relevant CV values are labeled (S,S‐ isomers highlighted in blue; S,R‐isomers highlighted in green), including signal due to the presence of a cluster of S‐TPC‐R/S‐MeAMP that transmits through the DMS at CV ∼ –11 to –9.5 V (highlighted in pink). These data were acquired during low‐flow (∼15 μL/min) infusion experiments, as the CV values are slightly different compared to the LC‐DMS results
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Global minimum structures of protonated A, S‐TPC‐R‐AMP, B, S‐TPC‐S‐AMP, C, S‐TPC‐R‐MeAMP, and D, S‐TPC‐S‐MeAMP as calculated at the B3LYP/6‐311++G(d,p) level of theory
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Global minimum structures of protonated A, S‐TPC‐R‐MeAMP, B, S‐TPC‐S‐MeAMP, C, S‐TPC‐R‐AMP, and D, S‐TPC‐S‐AMP each clustered to a single ACN molecule (circled in red to highlight)
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Extracted LC ion chromatograms for S‐TPC‐S‐AMP (blue), S‐TPC‐R‐AMP (pink), S‐TPC‐S‐MeAMP (green), and S‐TPC‐R‐MeAMP (red). Samples were injected from 100 ng/mL solutions prepared in 50/50 water/acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 7
Demonstration of the impact that implementing DMS has on the LC‐based analysis of S‐TPC‐S‐AMP. When DMS is implemented A, while the overall signal is lower than without DMS present B, the signal to noise ratio (S/N) (from DMS‐depleted chemical noise signals) and the simplicity of the extracted ion chromatogram (only one peak present) are evident
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 9
Evaluation of crosstalk in the MRM channels for each of the four diastereomers analyzed using the FIA‐DMS‐MS/MS workflow. In each pane, the target analyte MRM signal (blue) is compared to the signal for its matching diastereomeric analogue (pink), and coincidental MRM signals are an indication of crosstalk in the analytical signal channel. Samples were injected from 100 ng/mL solutions prepared in 50/50 water/acetonitrile + 0.1% formic acid. In all four cases, cross‐talk is 5‐6%
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 8
Evaluation of crosstalk in the MRM channels for each of the four diastereomers analyzed using the LC‐DMS‐MS/MS workflow. In each pane, the target analyte MRM signal (blue) is compared to the signal for its matching diastereomeric analogue (pink). Coincidental MRM signals are an indication of crosstalk in the analytical signal channel. In all four cases, cross‐talk is 5‐6%. Some retention time shifting occurred when the rat‐urine matrix samples were analyzed, resulting in all analytes eluting at slightly later retention times (see text for details). Sample concentrations were 100 ng/mL in rat‐urine extracted solutions
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Awad H, El‐Aneed A. Enantioselectivity of mass spectrometry: challenges and promises. Mass Spectrom Rev. 2013;32:466‐483. - PubMed
    1. Wu L, Vogt FG. A review of recent advances in mass spectrometric methods for gas‐phase chiral analysis of pharmaceutical and biological compounds. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2012;69:133‐147. - PubMed
    1. Logan BK. Amphetamines: an update on forensic issues. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:400‐404. - PubMed
    1. Cahn RS, Ingold CK, Prelog V. The specification of asymmetric configuration in organic chemistry. Experientia. 1956;12:81‐94.
    1. Food and Drugs . Schedules of controlled substances, Section 812, Title 21, Ch.13, 2018;https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2017-title21/USCODE-2017-titl.... Accessed November 25, 2018

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp