Comparison of filter membranes in the analysis of 183 veterinary and other drugs by liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry

• Published in: Journal of separation science 2024-02, Vol.47 (3), p.e2300696-n/a
• Main Authors: Michlig, Nicolás, Lehotay, Steven J., Lightfield, Alan R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents - analysis; Cattle; Chemical analysis; Chromatography; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid - methods; Chromatography, Liquid; Contaminants; Difluorides; Drug Residues - analysis; Drugs; Extraction processes; Filtration; flow‐injection analysis; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry; Liquid chromatography; liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry; Mass spectrometry; membrane filters; Membranes; Polyethersulfones; Polytetrafluoroethylene; Polyvinylidene fluorides; sample preparation; Scientific imaging; Sulfonamides; Tandem Mass Spectrometry - methods; Tetracyclines; veterinary drug residues; Veterinary Drugs - analysis
• ISSN: 1615-9306; 1615-9314
• DOI: 10.1002/jssc.202300696

Although filtration is one of the most common steps in sample preparation for chemical analysis, filter membrane materials can leach contaminants and/or retain some analytes in the filtered solutions. In multiclass, multiresidue analysis of veterinary drugs, it is challenging to find one type of filter membrane that does not retain at least some of the analytes before injection in ultrahigh‐performance liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC‐MS/MS). In this study, different filter membranes were tested for use in UHPLC‐MS/MS analysis of 183 diverse drugs in bovine muscle, kidney, and liver tissues. Membranes evaluated consisted of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polyethersulfone, nylon, and regenerated cellulose. Drug classes represented among the analytes included β‐agonists, β‐lactams, anthelmintics, macrolides, tetracyclines, sulfonamides, tranquilizers, (fluoro)quinolones, anti‐inflammatories, nitroimidazoles, coccidiostats, phenicols, and others. Although the presence of a matrix helped reduce the binding of analytes on surface active sites, all of the filter types partially retained at least some of the drugs in the final extracts. In testing by flow‐injection analysis, all of the membrane filters were also observed to leach interfering components. Ultimately, filtration was avoided altogether in the final sample preparation approach known as the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, safe, efficient, and robust (QuEChERSER) mega‐method, and ultracentrifugation was chosen as an alternative.