DOI:
10.1039/B006663J
(Paper)
Analyst, 2001,
126, 37-40
Tris(2,2′-bipyridine)ruthenium(II) electrogenerated
chemiluminescence of alkaloid type drugs with solid phase extraction sample
preparation
Received 15th August 2000, Accepted 20th November 2000
First published on 5th December 2000
Abstract
An electrogenerated chemiluminescence (ECL) method for the determination
of pethidine, atropine, homatropine and cocaine is described. The optimum
conditions were found to be similar for all of these compounds although the
ECL emission intensity for cocaine was an order of magnitude lower than for
pethidine due to their different chemical structures. Linear calibrations
were obtained for all the compounds at pH 10 in borate buffer (0.05 mol l−1)
at 1.3 V. Limits of detection of 6.8 × 10−8, 2.2 ×
10−7, 3.2 × 10−7 and 6.5 × 10−7
mol l−1, respectively, were achieved for pethidine, atropine,
homatropine and cocaine in standard solutions. Solid-phase extraction was
used to separate the drugs from their matrix and the method was applied to
the determination of spiked urine samples. The limits of quantitation for
pethidine, atropine, homatropine and cocaine in urine were 1.0 × 10−6,
2.0 × 10−6, 2.0 × 10−6 and 4.0 ×
10−6 mol l−1, respectively, with recoveries
of between 90 and 110%.
Introduction
Pethidine, atropine, homatropine and cocaine (Fig.
1) belong to the alkaloid family and have various pharmaceutical
applications. They are used as anticholinergic, antispasmodic and preanaesthesic
agents. Cocaine has a long history of human use and abuse and its effects
on the central nervous system are well known. The determination of these compounds
in biological fluids has always been of great importance for the evaluation
of their effects. There are several analytical techniques available to determine
these compounds. Chromatographic methods are the most extensively used,1–4 because they have high sensitivity
and good selectivity, but the procedures are lengthy and often involve derivatisation
methods to convert the analytes to detectable forms or to improve the column
efficiency and peak shapes. During recent years, some alternative, more rapid,
methods have been developed for screening purposes. Cherkaoui et al.5 reported a capillary zone electrophoresis method
for the determination of atropine, homatropine and scopolamine in ophthalmic
solutions and a limit of quantitation value of 1.0 × 10−5
mol l−1 for each drug was achieved. An atropine selective
electrode with a PVC membrane has also been reported6
which has good selectivity but the lower limit of linear response is relatively
high at 1.2 × 10−5 mol l−1. An ion-selective
piezoelectric sensor has also been reported, which was demonstrated to be
sensitive as well as selective for the determination of the atropine sulfate
although a relatively long wash time was needed to recover the sensor after
a series of measurements.7 A spectrophotometric
method8 has been reported for the determination
of atropine with good selectivity but poor sensitivity (the lower limit of
linear range being 3.3 × 10−5 mol l−1). |
| Fig. 1 Chemical
structures of pethidine, atropine, homatropine and cocaine. | |
Electrogenerated chemiluminescence (ECL) methodology provides a very sensitive
means of detection for the analysis of drugs. Its applications have been extensively
reviewed.9,10 In work previously reported
by the authors, a number of analytical methods were established for the analysis
of various drugs,11−13 but
they were not applied to real biological fluids. The effect of complex matrices
remains one of the major obstacles for chemiluminescence methods. He et
al.14 described a chemiluminescence method
for the determination of oxalic acid and tartaric acid in urine, but in fact
synthetic urine was used and a 500-fold dilution had to be made before satisfactory
results were obtained. It is obvious that direct determination of drugs in
a urine sample would not be possible without prior separation of the analytes.
Solid phase extraction (SPE) is an increasingly useful sample preparation
technique. With SPE, many of the problems associated with liquid–liquid
extraction can be prevented, such as incomplete phase separation, less-than-quantitative
recoveries and disposal of large quantities of organic solvents. SPE has been
extensively used to isolate the drugs from their matrices prior to analysis,
as described for the chromatographic analysis of pethidine, cocaine and their
metabolites.1,2 In this paper a simple,
rapid screening method with ECL has been developed for the determination of
drugs in urine matrices using SPE cartridges for sample clean up.
Experimental
Reagents
Pethidine hydrochloride, atropine sulfate salt, DL-homatropine
hydrobromide and cocaine hydrochloride were purchased from Sigma (Poole, Dorset,
UK). A stock standard solution of each compound was prepared by directly dissolving
the reagents in purified water (produced by reverse osmosis followed by ion
exchange, Elgastat UHQ PSII, Elga Ltd., High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, UK).
Tris-(2,2′-bipyridine)ruthenium(II) hexahydrate (Pract.,
90–95%) was obtained from Fluka (Gillingham, Dorset, UK). All the stock
solutions were stored in the dark at 2 °C and were stable for at least
1 month. The buffers used in this experiment contained either sodium dihydrogenorthophosphate
(AnalaR, 99–102%), sodium borate, sodium carbonate anhydrous (AnalaR,
99.9%) or sodium acetate anhydrous (AnalaR, 99%), all from Merck (Poole, Dorset,
UK). The pH was adjusted with analytical reagent grade sodium hydroxide, glacial
acetic acid or hydrochloric acid.Instrumentation
The ECL instrumentation was the same as has been described previously15 with the exception of the flow cell. The thin layer
flow cell was constructed from two layers of Perspex separated by a 0.3 mm
thick PTFE spacer. A channel, 4 mm in width and 30 mm long, was milled into
the spacer to provide the flow path. One of the Perspex layers contained the
inlet and outlet, the working electrode, counter electrode and reference electrode,
while the other sheet was polished to optical quality. The electrodes consisted
of an aluminium disc working electrode (30 mm2), platinum-wire
counter electrode and silver pseudo-reference electrode and potentials were
applied to the electrodes using a three-electrode potentiostat built in-house.15 The photomultiplier (PMT) was located in front
of the polished face of the flow cell. All connections in the flow system
were constructed from 0.8 mm internal diameter PTFE tubing obtained from Anachem
(Luton, Bedfordshire, UK). Solutions were moved through the system with a
peristaltic pump (Gilson Minipuls 3, Anachem) with 1.42 mm id flexible PVC
tubing. The light was detected using a photomultiplier tube (Thorn EMI, 9789QB,
Ruislip, Middlesex, UK) and the signals were amplified and recorded using
a chart recorder (Chessel, Worthing, Sussex, UK). The high voltage power supply
for the PMT was a Model 3000R from Thorn EMI.Analytical procedure
A continuous flow system was used in this experiment. Standard solutions
of drugs or sample solutions were pre-mixed with tris-(2,2′-bipyridine)ruthenium(II)
and buffer solutions. These solutions were then separately pumped through
the flow cell where a 20 s pulsed voltage cycle was applied to the solutions.
The voltage cycle consisted of 10 s at the selected voltage and 10 s to take
the electrode to ground and to re-set the voltage. The cycle was used to prevent
deterioration of the electrode surface with repeated analysis. The light produced
at the electrode was detected by the photomultiplier and the signals were
amplified and recorded by a chart recorder.Sample preparation
In this experiment, solid phase cartridges with a reverse phase packing
(3 ml ISOLUTE C18 columns (Jones Chromatography, Hengoed, Mid-Glamorgan,
UK) were chosen to separate the drugs from their matrix. The procedure employed
was a modified version of the manufacturer’s procedure. The cartridge
was conditioned by rinsing it with a 3 ml aliquot of methanol followed by
a 3 ml aliquot of water. The retention and quantitative elution of the analytes
from the cartridge was evaluated by recovery studies. The initial evaluation
was for standard solutions of analyte. A 1 ml aliquot of 1 × 10−4
mol l−1 of the analyte of interest was added to the cartridge
and then rinsed with a 3 ml aliquot of water, a 2 ml aliquot of 10% methanol
and 1 ml aliquot of methanol. The analyte was then eluted from the cartridge
by a 5 ml aliquot of acetone. The eluent was collected, and evaporated to
dryness under nitrogen. Buffer and Ru(bpy)32+ were directly
added to the residue and the amount of analyte in the residue was then determined
by the optimised ECL method.Urine samples were collected from volunteers and filtered through a 0.45 µm
filter. Different known quantities of the analytes were then added to the
urine and the samples were analysed using the proven solid phase extraction
clean up method followed by ECL detection.
Results and discussion
Optimisation of system
The important variables in ECL are the applied voltage and buffer conditions.
The change in ECL emission intensity with applied voltage was investigated
between 0–2 V. Each solution was continuously pumped through the flow
cell whilst the voltage applied to the working electrode was increased and
the highest ECL emission intensity was found to be 1.3 V for all four analytes.
This remained the optimum voltage even when different buffers and pH values
were investigated. The effect of changing the pH value of the buffer was then
investigated in relation to the ECL emission intensity. These studies were
carried out with a set of standard solutions for each compound, covering the
pH range 6–11, whilst the voltage at the working electrode was set at
1.3 V. It was found that the ECL intensities of the blank solution and sample
solutions increased as the pH value of the buffer increased and hence the
S/N (signal to blank ratio) was used to find the optimum pH. This increase
in emission intensity with increasing pH value has also been seen by Barnett et
al.16 in CL systems. When the buffer
pH exceeded 10, the chemiluminescence response still increased as the pH increased,
but the blank response also increased dramatically and the ratio of signal
to noise began to decrease. The four drugs were found to give high ECL responses
under similar conditions, i.e., at 1.3 V in a weakly alkaline medium.
An example of these results can be seen in Fig. 2
for pethidine, in which the effect of different buffers and pH on the ECL
response can be seen. Sodium carbonate buffer, which has an enhancement effect
on the ECL signal for morphine,13 was observed
to quench the ECL of tris-(2,2′-bipyridine)ruthenium(II)
in this experiment. When compared with sodium carbonate buffer, sodium borate
buffer gave a higher ECL intensity. Sodium borate buffer was also more useful
than phosphate buffer because it could buffer more alkaline solutions. The
concentration of buffer was shown to have an insignificant effect on the ECL
intensity, so a relatively lower concentration, 0.05 mol l−l,
was chosen to ensure low blank values. The same trends as were observed for
pethidine were also seen for atropine, homatropine and cocaine but at different
electrogenerated CL intensities. In Fig.1 it
can be seen that atropine, homatropine and cocaine have similar chemical structures.
Atropine gives the strongest ECL intensity and cocaine the lowest. This can
be explained by the fact that cocaine has one more electron-withdrawing substituent
on the ring structure and this will destabilise the radical intermediate.11 |
| Fig. 2 The
effect of pH on the electrogenerated CL emission intensity for pethidine: ◆
sodium dihydrogenorthophosphate buffer; ▲ sodium carbonate buffer; ■
sodium borate. | |
The effects of flow rate on ECL intensity were also investigated. The results
showed that an increase in flow rate led to an increase in ECL intensity,
as has been shown in previous work.17 A 5
ml min−1 flow rate was chosen in order to get good sensitivity
without consuming excess reagents. To get a fast flow over the electrode surface,
a thin (0.3 mm) PTFE spacer was used to construct the flow cell, and this
was shown to be very effective in improving the ECL emission intensity.
Calibration
Standards were prepared for each compound by pre-mixing the stock solution
with Ru(bpy)32+ and buffer. Using the optimised experimental
conditions, calibrations for pethidine, atropine, homatropine and cocaine
were obtained and the results are shown in Table 1.
Good linearity was seen for all the compounds with pethidine having the highest
sensitivity, followed by atropine, homatropine and cocaine for the reasons
explained previously. The limits of detection are shown in Table
1. They were calculated as 3× standard deviation of the blank
signal + blank signal. They were good for all the compounds but the limits
of detection for pethidine were a factor of 10 times better than for cocaine.
These limits of detection were excellent compared with the other screening
methods discussed in the introduction,5–8
being well below the 1 × 10−5 mol l−1
levels reported for those methods. The RSD values were acceptable at all concentration
ranges measured, as was the sample throughput at 180 samples h−1
Table 1 Calibration characteristics and detection
limits
Compound | Linear range/mol l−1 | Calibration equationa | Correlation coefficient (n = 6) | LOD/mol l−1 | RSD range (%) (n = 5) |
---|
Where y
is relative chemiluminescence emission in mV and x is concentration
of analyte in mol l−1. |
---|
Pethidine | 4 × 10−7–1.3 × 10−4 | y = 2.31 × 106x + 0.293 | R2 = 0.9997 | 6.8 × 10−8 | 1.7–4.2 |
Atropine | 1 × 10−6–2.0 × 10−4 | y = 2.06 × 106x + 1.10 | R2 = 0.9991 | 2.2 × 10−7 | 2.9–5.1 |
Homatropine | 1 × 10−6–2.0 × 10−4 | y = 9.46 × 105x + 0.447 | R2 = 0.9993 | 3.2 × 10−7 | 2.3–4.4 |
Cocaine | 2 × 10−6–2.3 × 10−4 | y = 2.34 × 105x + 0.737 | R2 = 0.9997 | 6.5 × 10−7 | 2.3–4.7 |
Interference study
To develop a method for the determination of drugs in urine, a number of
chemical reagents that were most likely to be present in urine were selected
for the interference study. As is shown in Table 2,
most commonly existing chemical species do not interfere with ECL. Oxalic
acid, ascorbic acid, uric acid and Co2+ do, however, give significant
interference effects. These interferences therefore had to be separated from
the drugs by solid phase extraction.
Table 2 Interference study
For 1 × 10−6 mol l−1
pethidine, 2 × 10−6 mol l−1 atropine,
2 × 10−6 mol l−1 homatropine and 4 ×
10−6 mol l−1 cocaine, the allowed concentrations
of interferences were listed as below: (90–110% recovery) |
---|
1 × 10−3 mol l−1 | Na+, K+, NH4+,
Cl−, NO3−, SO42−,
CO32− and PO43− (1000-fold
for pethidine) |
5 × 10−4 mol l−1 | Ca2+, Mg2+, Al3+, Zn2+,
glucose and urea (500-fold for pethidine) |
1 × 10−4 mol l−1 | Fe3+, lactic acid and tartaric acid (100-fold
for pethidine) |
5 × 10−5 mol l−1 | Cu2+ and Ni2+ (50-fold for pethidine) |
2 × 10−5 mol l−1 | Co2+ (20-fold for pethidine) |
1 × 10−5 mol l−1 | Ascorbic acid and uric acid (10-fold for pethidine) |
5 × 10−6 mol l−1 | Oxalic acid (5-fold for pethidine) |
Analysis of drugs in a spiked urine matrix
The solid phase extraction step was first evaluated using standard solutions
of the analyte. Following the procedure described in the Experimental section
the recoveries of the drugs in standard solutions were evaluated. The recoveries
(n = 3) for pethidine, cocaine, atropine and homatropine were 98.6,
100.3, 102.1 and 99.5% at the 2 × 10−6 mol l−1
level, respectively. These results showed that the drugs could be quantitatively
recovered using the sample preparation procedure.The procedure was then evaluated for urine samples using the procedure
described in the Experimental section. It was apparent that there was still
a small chemiluminescence emission for the urine blank even after passing
the sample through the SPE cartridge. The interfering species was not considered
to be the polar species that had been investigated as known interferents.
For example, when a 1 ml aliquot of 1 × 10−5 mol l−1
of the strongly interfering oxalic acid was introduced to the SPE cartridge,
and the sample procedure was followed, the oxalic acid was washed straight
through with methanol and water and was not trapped with the analytes on the
cartridge. The presence of this blank emission meant that the limits of detection
achievable in standard solutions were not achievable in the real samples. Table 3 shows the lowest concentrations of spiked
drugs in urine that can be achieved with satisfactory recoveries (i.e.
recoveries between 90–110%). Work is proceeding to identify the interfering
species in the urine samples.
Table 3 The limit of quantification of the analytes
in spiked urine samples
Compound | Pethidine | Atropine | Homatropine | Cocaine |
---|
Concentration/mol l−1 | 1 × 10−6 | 2 × 10−6 | 2 × 10−6 | 4 × 10−6 |
Recovery (%), n = 3 | 91.3 | 103.2 | 98.7 | 108.4 |
Conclusions
In this work, a simple and rapid assay involving sample clean up by solid
phase extraction, followed by ECL detection, has been developed for the determination
of a range of alkaloid type drugs in urine. The detection limits achieved
in standard solutions were well below the 1 × 10 −6
mol l−1 level. Good recoveries were obtained from spiked
urine samples following the solid phase extraction procedure. The ECL properties
of the metabolites of these drugs are currently being investigated further.References
- S. Myung, S. Kim, J. Park, J. Lee and T. Kim, Analyst, 1999, 124, 1283 RSC.
- K. M. Clauwaert, J. F. Van Bocxlaer, W. E. Lambert and A.
P. De Leenheer, Anal. Chem., 1996, 68, 3021 CrossRef CAS.
- K. Panganiban, P. Jacob,
III, E. T. Everhart, E. C. Tisdale, S. L. Batki, J.
E. Mendelson and R. T. Jones, J. Anal. Toxicol., 1999, 23, 581 Search PubMed.
- K. Chan, O. W. Lau and Y.
C. Wong, J. Chromatogr., 1991, 565, 247 CrossRef CAS.
- S. Cherkaoui, L. Mateus, P. Christen and J. Veuthey, J. Chromatogr., 1997, 696, 283 CrossRef CAS.
- M. N. M. P. Alcada, J. L. F. C. Lima and M. C. B. S. M. Montenegro, Anal. Sci., 1995, 11, 781 Search PubMed.
- Y. Long, L. Lei, W. Li, D. He, L. Nie and S. Yao, Analyst, 1999, 124, 1629 RSC.
- T. Aman, A. Hassan, I. Khokhar and A. Rashid, Anal. Lett., 1994, 27, 1833 CAS.
- R. D. Gerardi, N. W. Barnett and S. W. Lewis, Anal. Chim. Acta, 1999, 378, 1 CrossRef CAS.
- A. W. Knight, Trends Anal. Chem., 1999, 18, 47 CrossRef CAS.
- A. W. Knight and G. M. Greenway, Analyst, 1996, 121, 101R RSC.
- A. W. Knight and G.
M. Greenway, Anal. Commun., 1996, 33, 171 RSC.
- G.
M. Greenway, A. W. Knight and P. J. Knight, Analyst, 1995, 120, 2549 RSC.
- Z. He, H. Gao, L. Yuan, Q. Luo and Y. Zeng, Analyst, 1997, 122, 1343 RSC.
- A.
W. Knight and G. M. Greenway, Analyst, 1995, 120, 2543 RSC.
- N. W. Barnett, R. D. Gerardi, D. L. Hampson and R. A. Russell, Anal. Commun., 1996, 33, 255 RSC.
- J.
M. Gonzalez, G. M. Greenway, T. McCreedy and Q. Song, Analyst, 2000, 125, 765 RSC.
|
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2001 |
Click here to see how this site uses Cookies. View our privacy policy here.