Eurachem 2019 workshop successfully finished!

Our group was the main organiser of the Eurachem 2019 Scientific workshop Validation of targeted and non-targeted methods of analysis, which took place in Dorpat Conference Centre in Tartu during May 20-21, 2019. This workshop also marks the 30th anniversary of Eurachem.

Approximately 160 people attended the workshop, which is the largest number of participants in the history of Eurachem workshops! The participants were from 42 countries of the member countries in Eurachem as well as Asia, North America, South America and Middle East. The farthest participants were from Fiji, the Philippines, Uruguay and Brazil.

The workshop was held with 13 oral presentations from established researchers, young scientists as well as industries. Together with 22 posters all presentations reflected the current and potential future developments related to methods validation. The workshop addressed the current status of analytical method validation in general and specifically validation of the non-targeted methods (i.e. ones where the analyte is not defined beforehand). With the speaker permissions, all presentations will shortly be available at the Eurachem website. In addition to presentations, each day a Working Group session was organised with 3 topics in parallel (Image on the left: Welcome by Dr Marina Patriarca, the Eurachem chair).

Non-targeted methods are an especially noteworthy part of the programme, because their validation involves specific issues and their validation is significantly less developed than validation of targeted methods (i.e. the “normal” analytical methods, where the analyte is known beforehand). At the same time non-targeted methods are becoming increasingly important in environmental protection, food safety, different omics areas, etc. (Image on the right: Prof. Jon Benskin from Stockholm University presenting an introduction to non-targeted analysis)

All sessions raised new issues and challenges, especially related to non-target method validation. The workshop clearly was also very inspirational for Eurachem from the point of view of preparing new guideline materials – especially the topics related to non-targeted analysis are still essentially not covered by official guidance documents.

Some example topics of the workshop: Validation of targeted methods: where are we? Validation of non-targeted methods – differences from targeted methods. Detection of a multitude of (unknown) components in complex samples: criteria for identification. Managing the huge amounts of complex data from non-targeted methods. Recent instrumental developments. Software tools for validation. (Image on the left: Dr. Koit Herodes presenting the ValChrom validation software)

The workshop certaily had a significant educational value and we are pleased by the large number of student participants: altogether close to 50! The international master’s programmes Excellence in Analytical Chemistry and Applied Measurement Science were both heavily represented: the majority of students of those programmes participated in the workshop (Image on the left: EACH and AMS students at the workshop).

The workshop was jointly organized by Eurachem and ECAC (University of Tartu, Tallinn University of Technology and the Estonian Environmental Research Centre).

 

Russian roulette with Ecstasy

PhD Fellow Max Hecht and Dr Karin Kipper with collaborators looked into the variability in content and dissolution profiles of MDMA tablets collected in the UK and published the results recently in Drug Testing and Analysis.

Ecstasy comes in all shapes, sizes and colours. 3,4-methylenedioxy-met(h)amf(/ph)etamine (MDMA) is the chemical name for a recreational drug taken for its empathogenic “high”, that alters the sensation of energy, empathy and pleasure. MDMA is mainly consumed in the form of tablets.

The trends in dose

To identify the risks associated with MDMA consumption, researchers from the UK and the University of Tartu analysed the drug dose of 412 tablets and, for the first time, studied the dissolution aspects of another 242 tablets collected in the UK in the time period between 2001-2018. Like in other European countries, the MDMA content in tablets is steadily increasing in the last decade, with some recent tablets containing unprecedented high doses.

The variability in dissolution

Dissolution testing is commonplace in the quality control and batch production of tablets in pharmaceutical laboratories and for bioequivalence testing. For MDMA, different dissolution rates were observed, ranging from fully dissolved in 30 min – the fast group, to up to 2 h until the whole content of the drug is completely released (slow group). No significant differences in a dose per tablet could be found between slow and fast releasing groups. As well as there was no association of colour, logo or shape with the dose or dissolution group. 

In conclusion, this means that, while it always is a gamble to take Ecstasy, the ever-present danger of overdosing is also on the rise. You are welcome to read our freshly published article for more details.

ESI outcompetes other ion sources in LC-MS trace analysis

Choosing the best possible ion source is a very important step in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS) method development. In a recent paper,  ESI outcompetes other ion sources in LC-MS trace analysis Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2019 Asko Laaniste from the UT Analytical chemistry group carried out a large scale survey of different LC/MS ion sources (and their different working modes) as applied to pesticide analysis. He compared electrospray ionisation (ESI) source, thermally focused/heated electrospray (HESI), atmospheric pressure photoionisation (APPI) source with and without dopant, and multimode source in ESI mode, atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation (APCI) mode, and combined mode using both ESI and APCI, i.e. altogether seven different ionisation modes for the analysis of 40 pesticides (see list below).

The lowest limits of detection (LoDs) were obtained by ESI and HESI. The widest linear ranges were observed with the conventional ESI source without heated nebulizer gas. ESI source was significantly less affected by matrix effect than the HESI source. APPI ranked second (after ESI) by not being influenced by matrix effect; therefore, it would be a good alternative to ESI if low LoDs are not required.

It was somewhat unexpected that ESI outperformed HESI. This may be caused by the instability of the additional heated gas (sheath gas) in HESI that is used in addition to the nebulising gas.

In conclusion, as a broad generalisation, Asko’s results show that although several new ion sources have been introduced during the last decade, the conventional ESI performs at least equally to these new ion sources in the case of polar to medium polarity pesticides. ESI with thermal focusing (HESI) performed more or less equally with ESI in terms of LoD. At the same time, HESI had significantly poorer intermediate precision of matrix effect values for most compounds. Thus, for trace analysis, ESI is still the ion source of choice.

(Full list of pesticides: pymetrozine, thiamethoxam, methiocarb-sulfoxide, chloridazon, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, methiocarb-sulfone, thiacloprid, imazalil, thiophanate-methyl, metribuzin, pyrimethanil, fenpropimorph, spiroxamine, propoxur, triasulfuron, bupirimate, paclobutrazol, methiocarb, azoxystrobin, epoxiconazole, myclobutanil, fenhexamid, fluquinconazole, flusilazole, mepanipyrim, bitertanol, propiconazole, triazophos, methoxychlor, ditalimfos, tebufenozide, benalaxyl, pyrazophos, buprofezin, indoxocarb, trifloxustrobin, quinoxyfen, pirimiphos-ethyl, hexythiazox)

 

(Image top left: Asko Laaniste preparing solutions; Image right: Comparison of accuracy of LC-MS analysis using different ion sources)

 

Standard-substance-free quantification in LC/ESI/MS is finally here

Built on the foundation of several years of research on ionization efficiency by Kruve et al. there is now an easy-to-use tool to quantify analytes in LC/ESI/MS analysis without the use of standard substances.

The availability of standard substances is one of the main limitations in LC/ESI/MS analysis, especially in the fields of metabolomics, environmental analysis as well as illegal substance monitoring. If no commercial standards are available, the only choices so far have been to either (1) synthesise these in-house which is very expensive and time-consuming or (2) use other compounds for quantification and ignore the possibility of vastly different response factors.  The latter choice could lead to errors up to 10 million times. Now, a third, overwhelmingly faster, cost-effective and accurate option has been developed.

A team consisting of scientist associated with Chair of Analytical Chemistry has launched their company Quantem Analytics aimed at providing standard-substance-free quantification solutions for LC/ESI/MS analysis. They combine the fundamental research[1][2][3] in the field of mass spectrometry with data science to provide the first solution to situations where there simply are no standard substances available for quantification. Quantem uses machine learning to predict response factors of analytes taking into account the eluent composition at the retention time. Their novel approach is applicable to:

  • Numerous types of analytes with logP from -10 to +10 and molar mass below 1500 Daltons;
  • Different matrices, e.g. urine, plasma, liver, and cereal;
  • All common eluent compositions, both in terms of organic modifiers and additives;
  • Both positive and negative mode ESI;
  • Gradient elution, including different flow rates;

This, in turn, opens various new possibilities:

  • Switching to an approach where your quantification is not limited by the availability of standard substances but rather your ability to identify the peaks;
  • Quantification of more than 1000 peaks within 24 h;
  • Retrospective analysis. Quantification of analysis data acquired even years ago;
  • Direct comparison between standard-substance-free analysis results obtained on different instruments and even in different labs opening the door for large scale collaboration in the field of quantitative non-target analysis;

The accuracy of the Quantem predictions is high, the average error is below 5 times, i.e. if the method predicts a concentration of 1 ppm the true values is probably in the range of 0.2 – 5 ppm. In the vast majority of cases, this is sufficient input for making data-driven decisions.

If you have any further questions you can contact Quantem through https://quantem.co

Let’s quant’em!

New publication: A sensitive method for the simultaneous UHPLC-MS/MS analysis of milrinone and dobutamine in blood plasma using NH4F as the eluent additive and ascorbic acid as a stabilizer

It is a pleasure to see the real-life application of one’s research. Even more so if discoveries are made during “routine” work. We aimed to develop and validate a UHPLC-MS/MS assay suitable for the quantifying simultaneously two important cardiovascular drugs – milrinone and dobutamine. Dobutamine has a half-life of 2 minutes and unfortunately also undergoes rapid degradation in plasma samples, which we managed to get under control by the addition of ascorbic acid (vitamin C). The study aims to determine the pharmacokinetics of these drugs in neonates and paediatric patients, which restricted the sample amount for the assay. Nonetheless, we achieved the full validation using only 20 µL of human plasma for the analysis, while still reaching the required lowest limit of quantification of 1 ng/mL. This was facilitated by the use of ammonium fluoride as an eluent additive, which provided a significant signal enhancement in positive electrospray ionisation (an effect not entirely understood yet). This collaborative study was recently published in Clinical Mass Spectrometry.

Eurachem 2019 workshop: Validation of targeted and non-targeted methods of analysis

Our group is proud to be the leading organiser of the 2019 Eurachem General Assembly and the accompanying scientific workshop “Validation of targeted and non-targeted methods of analysis”!

The Workshop will take place in Tartu (Dorpat conference centre) on May 20th and 21st. The programme of the workshop, as well as registration and abstract submission are available at the event website:
https://eurachem2019.akki.ut.ee/

The workshop addresses the current status of analytical method validation in general and specifically validation of the non-targeted methods (i.e. ones where the analyte is not defined beforehand). Non-targeted methods are an especially noteworthy part of the workshop programme, because their validation involves specific issues (since analyte is not known it is not possible to make validation experiments with it) and is significantly less developed than validation of targeted methods (i.e. the “normal” analytical methods, where the analyte is known beforehand). At the same time non-targeted methods are becoming increasingly important in environmental protection, food safety, different omics areas, etc.

Some example topics of the workshop are: Validation of targeted methods: where are we? Validation of non-targeted methods – differences from targeted methods. Detection of a multitude of (unknown) components in complex samples: criteria for identification. Managing the huge amounts of complex data from non-targeted methods. Software solutions for validation.

Compact overview of the workshop can be found in the 2nd circular.

These events mark the 30th anniversary of Eurachem and are jointly organized by Eurachem and ECAC (University of Tartu, Tallinn University of Technology and the Estonian Environmental Research Centre).

We are hoping to see many of you in Tartu in May!

 

Optimization of flow splitting and make‐up flow conditions in liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry

The measured ionization efficiencies in different solvent systems. The colour of the box plot background shows the organic modifier (90%): Green – Methanol, blue – Acetonitrile, red – Acetone, orange – Isopropanol. The letter shows the water phase additive (10 mM): F – Formic acid, O – Oxalic acid, P – Propionic acid

Recently a study in Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry was published. In this study, we optimized the actual split ratio and make-up flow composition in LC/ESI/MS analysis to increase the signal in radio detector and enhance the sensitivity of electrospray ionization.

High methanol content increases electrospray ionization efficiency

We studied make-up flow composition with a set of 20 pharmaceuticals covering 21 different make-up flow compositions. We studied methanol, acetonitrile, isopropanol and acetone as organic modifiers. As we studied positive mode the acidic additives under investigation were formic acid, oxalic acid and propionic acid. DMSO and sulfolane as additives were studied as well. The Methanol/10 mM formic acid in water (90/10) proved to be the best make‐up flow composition in relation to the average sensitivity obtained. Stronger acidic conditions using oxalic acid or higher formic acid concentrations had a clear positive effect on the sensitivity of compounds with low ionization efficiency.

Split-ratios remain stable over main part of the gradient

The second part of this study was testing and monitoring different split ratios (1:10, 1:100 and 1:250) with different splitters (Alliance flow‐splitter kit and homemade T-piece splitter). To monitor the actual split ratio haloperidol solution was added with infusion pump post-column while a haloperidol-d4 solution was added as a make‐up flow by the ISM pump after the splitter. The tested split ratios were relatively stable over the main part of the gradient but showed some variation at very low and very high organic conditions. Differences were larger with methanol compared with acetonitrile containing solvent compositions and when applied without a column or with very long connecting tubing.

I thank Janssen Pharmaceutica and especially Dr Filip Cuyckens for the internship position for letting to gain experience in an industry setting and study these effects. Additionally, I thank Erasmus+ mobility and Smart specialization doctoral stipend for funding my stay.

Comparing Electrospray Ionization Efficiencies of Derivatized and Non-Derivatized compounds

Main concern while measuring ionization efficiency (IE) of derivatized compounds is that derivatized compounds are in complex mixtures. To overcome this problem, we developed a chromatographic method to separate these compounds and measure their ionization efficiencies.

If ionization efficiencies of derivatized compounds are measured without chromatographic separation in a complex mixture, which includes analytes, derivatization reagents and different by-products, then matrix effects could occur. This problem can be solved if we first separate these compounds from each other and then measure ionization efficiencies.

Chromatographic method

To separate different compounds, we used a simple chromatographic gradient elution method. One might think, that if compounds have different retention time, then they also elute at different organic phase percentages which obviously affects measured ionization efficiency values. The effect is not so significant, but we could manage to model it and take it into account to level all newly measured ionization efficiency values to a previously measured scale.

logIE measurements

We carried out ionization efficiency measurements with liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (LC/ESI/MS) and constructed IE scales with a calibration curve for compounds with and without derivatization reagent diethyl ethoxymethylenemalonate (DEEMM). Additionally, we investigated eluent composition effects on ionization. Measured compounds were mainly amino acids but also included some biogenic amines.

Results

We saw, that

  1. Derivatization increases IE for most of the compounds (by an average of 0.9 and up to 2 – 2.5 logIE units) and derivatized compounds have more similar logIE values than their underivatized variants.
  2. Measurement of derivatized compounds is possible from the mixture when using chromatographic separation technique.
  3. It was also noted, that using chromatographic separation instead of flow injection mode tends to slightly increase ionization efficiency.

We managed to link all our results with existing ionization efficiency scale and therefore widen the scale and get comparable logIE values for measured derivatized compounds.

More information could be found in an article published recently at Journal of Mass Spectrometry.

UT analytical chemistry education activities at EcoBalt 2018 Conference

On Oct 26, 2018, Ivo Leito gave a presentation titled “Analytical chemistry education activities at University of Tartu” at the EcoBalt 2018 conference in Vilnius, Lithuania.

The presentation contains information about the online courses LC-MS Method Validation and Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty in Chemical Analysis, as well as the recently published tutorial reviews (Validation I, Validation II, LoD I, LoD II) that form the basis of the LC-MS Method Validation course.

The presentation also addresses the international master’s programmes Applied Measurement Science and Excellence in Analytical Chemistry at the University of Tartu.

The last part of the talk is devoted to the Eurachem 2018 General Assembly and Workshop that will take place in Tartu on May 20-21, 2018. The topic of the workshop is “Validation of targeted and non-targeted methods of analysis”.

 

Anneli is in the Power List 2018 of the Analytical Scientist

The Analytical Scientist compiled the Top 40 Under 40 Power List to celebrate the gifted and successful young scientists in analytical science. One of our group members, Dr. Anneli Kruve, leading electrospray ionization studies subgroup, was nominated to this list.

Dr. Anneli Kruve defended her PhD thesis – “Matrix effects in liquid-chromatography electrospray mass-spectrometry” in University of Tartu in 2011 under the supervision of prof. Ivo Leito and dr. Koit Herodes. Right after she got her first personal funding and established the electrospray ionization efficiency studies group. In addition to understanding the ionization mechanism for small molecules in electrospray, she is interested in using charged nanodroplets generated by electrospray as an organic synthesis medium. In 2016 Dr. Anneli Kruve moved to Haifa, Israel to do her first post-doc at the Technion’s Schulich Faculty of Chemistry in Prof. Israel Schechter’s group. Right now, she is a Humboldt Fellow in the Institute of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Freie Universität Berlin in Germany in Prof. Christoph Schalley’s group.

In addition to excellent science, she is spreading the knowledge as she has designed and is actively lecturing different courses (instrumental analysis lab, statistics in analytical chemistry to name some) in analytical chemistry and statistics in analytical chemistry. She has also supervised several PhD and numerous MSc and BSc students.

Early inspiration
“I got started in organic synthesis but quickly joined a biomedical lab that needed students to operate a HPLC. From there, moving to LC/MS was a natural step. The ability to incorporate various skills from IT to synthesis with mass spectrometry-based research has kept me motivated to stay on this path.”

Research
“My field is structural and quantitative characterization of compounds with LC/ESI/IMS/MS. A key focus of mine is developing the possibility of giving a quantitative context to non-target LC/HRMS data without the need for standard substances.”

Greatest achievement
“I have already seen many students moving from our lab to the workforce and receiving positive feedback from their employers – that definitely makes a former supervisor happy!”

Prediction
“Mass spectrometry has already changed almost everything; its impact will increase further, as we make non-target screening more efficient with effective algorithms, and make it quantitative. I also have a dream technique: I sometimes wonder what the world would look like with MS-(gas phase)NMR . . .”
(The Analytical Scientist)

We are very happy and proud that Dr. Anneli Kruve received this well-deservedly recognition of being nominated to the Top 40 Under 40 Power List by the Analytical Scientist!