z-logo
Premium
Direct injection liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization mass spectrometric horse urine analysis for the quantification and confirmation of threshold substances for doping control. II. Determination of theobromine
Author(s) -
Vonaparti A.,
Lyris E.,
Panderi I.,
Koupparis M.,
Georgakopoulos C.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
rapid communications in mass spectrometry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.528
H-Index - 136
eISSN - 1097-0231
pISSN - 0951-4198
DOI - 10.1002/rcm.3967
Subject(s) - chemistry , chromatography , theobromine , mass spectrometry , calibration curve , electrospray ionization , analytical chemistry (journal) , matrix (chemical analysis) , standard addition , detection limit , liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry , quantitative analysis (chemistry) , caffeine , medicine , endocrinology
In equine sport, theobromine is prohibited with a threshold level of 2 µg mL −1 in urine, hence doping control laboratories have to establish quantitative and qualitative methods for its determination. Two simple liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) methods for the identification and quantification of theobromine were developed and validated using the same sample preparation procedure but different mass spectrometric systems: ion trap mass spectrometry (ITMS) and time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS). Particle‐free diluted urine samples were directly injected into the LC/MS systems, avoiding the time‐consuming extraction step. 3‐Propylxanthine was used as the internal standard. The tested linear range was 0.75–15 µg mL −1 . Matrix effects were evaluated analyzing calibration curves in water and different fortified horse urine samples. A great variation in the signal of theobromine and the internal standard was observed in different matrices. To overcome matrix effects, a standard additions calibration method was applied. The relative standard deviations of intra‐ and inter‐day analysis were lower than 8.6 and 7.2%, respectively, for the LC/ITMS method and lower than 5.7 and 5.8%, respectively, for the LC/TOFMS method. The bias was less than 8.7% for both methods. The methods were applied to two case samples, demonstrating simplicity, accuracy and selectivity. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom