Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Determination of 37 fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair by UHPLC-MS/MS and its application to authentic cases

Abstract

The recent emergence of new fentanyl analogues and synthetic opioids on the drug market poses a global public health threat. However, these compounds cannot typically be identified using existing analytical methods. In this study, we aimed to develop and validate a rapid and sensitive method based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) for the simultaneous determination of 37 fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair samples. Hair samples (20 mg) were extracted by cryogenic grinding in an extraction medium of methanol, acetonitrile, and 2 mmol/L ammonium acetate (pH 5.3). Following centrifugation of the samples, the analytes were separated using a WATERS Acquity UPLC HSS T3 column. The limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantification (LOQs) ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 pg/mg and from 2 to 5 pg/mg, respectively. The intraday and interday precisions were within 13.32% at LOQ, low, medium, and high levels. The accuracies were within the range of 85.63–116.1%. The extraction recoveries were in the range of 89.42–119.68%, and the matrix effects were within the range of 44.81–119.77%. Furthermore, the method was successfully applied to the detection and quantification of fentanyl and sufentanil in hair samples from two authentic cases. Thus, this method has great potential for detecting fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in forensic work.

Introduction

Recently, new psychoactive substances (NPSs) have emerged in illicit markets1,2. Although many countries are trying to curb this trend, e.g., more than 170 NPSs are currently controlled in China, NPSs still pose a threat to public health. Most NPSs are synthetic cannabinoids and designer cathinones, but there has been a sharp increase in the consumption of novel synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyl and its analogues3. Fentanyl, a μ-opioid receptor agonist, is used as an analgesic and anesthesia adjuvant with a 50–100 times higher potency than morphine4,5,6. However, numerous illicit fentanyl substances have been used to adulterate other abuse drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Fentanyl and its analogues, which have high potency and numerous side effects, e.g., respiratory depression, have caused many fatalities7. This problem is further aggravated by the easy availability of these substances via complex international networks and their use with other drugs6,8,9. Daniulaityte et al.10 reported that in Montgomery County (located in southeast Ohio), the number of unintentional overdose death cases in which positive tests for fentanyl analogues were obtained increased by 337% between the second half of 2015 and the first half of 2017.

As a consequence of increasing fatalities and the emergence of new fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids, forensic laboratories must update their analytical methods for the identification and quantification of these drugs in various biological matrices. Some methods have been developed for the detection of these substances in whole blood11,12,13, urine14, saliva15,16,17, and dried blood spots18,19. However, it has been reported that the stability of some fentanyl analogues in whole blood is one month or less20,21. In other words, fentanyl analogues have a short period of storage time in such samples. Moreover, fentanyl is metabolized quickly in vivo, as the half-life of fentanyl in adults is 3.7 h and in infants is 5.3–21.1 h22. Therefore, to supplement these methods, it is necessary to develop methods for analyzing hair samples.

Hair, as an alternative or complementary matrix to conventional matrices, is a research hotspot in forensic science. Hair analysis can provide a longer detection window because substances may remain in hair for a long time without significant degradation. Furthermore, hair is easy to access, transport, and store23,24. To the best of our knowledge, only a few comprehensive methods using LC–MS/MS have been reported for analyzing fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair3,25. However, only a limited number of compounds were included in these methods.

Despite the advantages of hair analysis, the drug concentration in hair after a single use is usually on the pg/mg level26. Moreover, as fentanyl analogues typically have low active concentration27, higher sensitivity is required for the analysis of fentanyl analogues in hair. Compared with other methods, such as gas chromatography with nitrogen–phosphorous detection28 and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry29, liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry30,31 is promising for analyzing fentanyl and its analogues in hair owing to its short analysis time, selectivity, and sensitivity.

In this study, an ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated for the identification and quantification of 31 fentanyl analogues and 6 novel synthetic opioids in hair. Furthermore, the developed method was successfully applied to authentic cases.

Materials and methods

Chemicals and regents

Standards of fentanyl, norfentanyl, alfentanil, acetyl norfentanyl, U-47700, N-desmethyl U-47700, U-48800, U-50488, and W-18 (containing 1 mg/mL free base); 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (4-ANPP), norcarfentanil, acryl fentanyl, butyryl fentanyl, isobutyryl fentanyl, para/ortho-fluorofentanyl, para-fluorobutyryl fentanyl (PFBF), 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl, cis-3-methylfentanyl, β-hydroxythiofentanyl, valeryl fentanyl, ocfentanil, furanyl fentanyl, sufentanil, remifentanil, carfentanil, cyclopropylfentanyl, and methoxyacetylfentanyl (containing 100 μg/mL free base); and acetyl fentanyl (containing 50 μg/mL free base) were obtained as methanol or acetonitrile solutions from CERILLIANT (Round Rock, TX, USA). 3-Methylthiofentanyl, trans-3-methylfentanyl, α-methylfentanyl, β-hydroxyfentanyl, β-hydroxy-3-methylfentanyl, thiofentanyl, and tetrahydrofuranyl fentanyl (THF-F) (1 mg/mL) were synthesized by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau (Shanghai, China). The deuterated internal standards (ISs) of fentanyl-d5 (used for most fentanyl analogues), norfentanyl-d5 (used for norfentanyl, acetyl norfentanyl, and norcarfentanil), and U-47700-d3 (used for the novel synthetic opioids) were purchased from Cerilliant.

High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-grade methanol and acetonitrile were obtained from SIGMA-SLDRICH (St. Louis, MO, USA). Formic acid (98%), ammonium acetate (98%), and ammonium formate (98%) were obtained from FLUKA (Seelze, Germany). Ultrapure water was produced using a Milli-Q system (MERCK, Darmstadt, Germany).

Solution preparation

Working solutions were obtained by diluting their single solutions in one methanol mixture, and further dilutions of this mixture in methanol. Working solutions were prepared at 10 different concentration levels (4, 10, 20, 100, 200, 400, 1,000, 2,000, 2,500, and 4,000 ng/mL).

An IS mixture (10 ng/mL) was obtained by spiking the extraction medium (EM), which consisted of methanol, acetonitrile, and 2 mmol/L ammonium formate (25:25:25, v/v/v, pH 5.3) with 250 μL of a mixture (100 ng/mL) of fentanyl-d5, norfentanyl-d5, and U-47700-d3 32.

Hair specimens

Blank hair samples, provided voluntarily by the laboratory staff, were used for spiked calibration standards and quality control (QC) samples. The real hair samples used were from suspected users who were arrested and investigated by police. All the samples were stored at room temperature until analysis. All participants provided written informed consent and all study protocols were approved by the Ethics Committee of Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai, China.

Sample extraction

To remove contaminants, the samples were washed with water two times and acetone three times, and then air-dried at room temperature. The washed samples were cut into 2–3 mm pieces and weighed (20 mg) in 2 mL tubes. Then, ceramic beads and 1 mL of the EM (containing 10 ng/mL IS) were added to tube. Subsequently, the hair samples were extracted by cryogenic grinding using a Bead Ruptor system (OMNI, Kennesaw, GA, USA) at a speed of 6 m/s for 20 s and then allowed to cool for 40 s. This process was repeated 10 times. The pulverized samples were centrifuged for 3 min at 14,000 × g and filtered (pore size 0.22 μm). Finally, 200 μL of filtrate was transferred into an autosampler vial.

UHPLC-MS/MS conditions

The UHPLC-MS/MS analysis was performed on an Acquity UPLC system (Milford, MA, WATERS, USA) coupled to a QTRAP 6500 PLUS triple quadruple linear ion trap mass spectrometer (AB SCIEX, Framingham, MA, USA). Sample separation was performed using on a WATERS Acquity UPLC HSS T3 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm) fitted with a 1.8 μm HSS T3 guard column. The mobile phase was composed of 20 mmol/L ammonium acetate solution containing 0.1% formic acid (mobile phase A) and acetonitrile (mobile phase B). The temperature of the autosampler was set at 4 °C and the injected volume was 5 μL. The gradient elution procedure is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Steps of gradient elution.

The mass spectrometer was equipped with an electrospray interface operating in positive ionization mode. The source temperature and ion spray voltage were set to 500 °C and 5,500 V, respectively. The gas parameters were set as follows: collision-activated dissociation (CAD) gas, medium; curtain gas (CUR), 30 psi; nebulizing gas, 40 psi; and heater gas, 40 psi. Detection was performed using multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) with two transitions for each analyte and IS. The first transition was used for quantification and the second for qualification. The MRM transitions and optimized mass spectrometric parameters for each compound are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 MRM transitions and mass spectrometric parameters for analytes and internal standards.

Method validation

The method was developed according to the Society of Hair Testing (SoHT)33 guidelines and several recent criteria34,35,36 for method validation. Furthermore, the recovery and matrix effect (ME) were evaluated as described by Matuszewski et al.37.

Selectivity

The method selectivity was assessed using eight different sources of blank hair and spiking with the IS (10 ng/mL) to evaluate potential interference. Moreover, interference from possible coadministered medications was investigated according to our previous procedure38.

Limits of detections (LODs) and limits of quantification (LOQs)

To determine the LODs and LOQs, blank hair samples were spiked with analyte concentrations of 5.0, 2.5, 1.0, and 0.5 pg/mg, and three replicates of each concentration were analyzed. The concentration that gave a signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio greater than 3 for both the MRM transitions was chosen as the LOD. The LOQ was defined as the lowest calibration point with a coefficient of variation (CV) of less than 20% for the precision and accuracy in the range of 80–120%.

Calibration standards (2.0–2,500 pg/mg) were prepared by adding the working solutions to 20 mg of blank hair. In addition, QC samples were prepared at four concentration levels: LOQ (2 and 5 pg/mg), low (10 pg/mg), medium (500 pg/mg), and high (2,000 pg/mg). To determine linearity, seven sets of calibrators (two replicates for each set) were analyzed. The calibration curves were constructed by plotting the peak area ratios between each analyte and IS versus the concentration using 1/x weighting.

Accuracy and precision

The method precision and accuracy were assessed by analyzing spiked blank hair samples at four QC levels (LOQ, low, medium, and high). The precision was expressed as the CV. The intraday and interday precision were determined by analyzing six replicates on one day (n = 6) and over four days (n = 24), respectively. The CV for the precision should not exceed 15% for the low, medium, and high samples, whereas that for the LOQ sample should not exceed 20%. The accuracy was determined as the percentage ratio of the measured and theoretical values.

Recovery and ME

According to the method recommended by Matuszewski et al.37, the extraction recovery and ME were assessed at low (10 pg/mg), medium (500 pg/mg), and high (2000 pg/mg) levels. Hair samples from six drug-free individuals were used. For each level, the samples were divided into three groups (sets 1, 2, and 3). Set 1 consisted of neat standard solutions containing all the analytes in the EM. Set 2 was obtained by extracting the blank hair samples of six individuals and then spiking with the analytes. Set 3 was obtained by extracting the spiked hair samples using the method described in Sect. Sample extraction. The extraction recovery was calculated as the percentage ratio of the peak area of set 3 to the peak area of the set 2. The ME was defined as the percentage ratio of the peak area of set 2 to the peak area of set 1.

Stability

The stability of each analyte in hair was determined by injecting the extracted samples at three levels (n = 6) after storage in the autosampler at 4 °C for 24 h.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The hair collection was carried out in accordance with SoHT guidelines. All participants provided written informed consent and all study protocols were approved by the Ethics Committee of Academy of Forensic Science, Shanghai, China.

Results and discussion

Method development

Chromatographic conditions

In general, screening methods for fentanyl analogues requires must address the separation of isomers, e.g., PFBF and 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl. Fogarty et al.39 has reported a method for detecting 18 fentanyl analogues in whole blood and separating three pair of isomers (butyryl fentanyl and isobutyryl fentanyl, para-fluorofentanyl and ortho-fluorofentanyl, and β-methylfentanyl and α-methylfentanyl). In our study, 31 fentanyl analogues including 5 pairs of isomers were analyzed. To separate the isomers, we optimized the gradient elution based on previous studies13. First, we compared analyte separation using a WATERS T3 column and a RESTEK PPFP column (100 × 2.1 mm, 5 μm) and found that better separation was achieved using the former column (Fig. 1a).Furthermore, as the method for isomer separation in the previous study took a long time (30 min), the T3 column was still used13. Based on other previous reports39,40, we used methanol instead of acetonitrile and found that the solvent did not influence the separation of the chromatographic peaks significantly (Fig. 1b). With the previous method13, the gradient elution time was extended to achieve isomer separation. As shown in Fig. 1c, this method cannot separate the isomers. Following refinement of the gradient, the separation was still not ideal as shown in Fig. 1d. Therefore, we reduced the flow rate from 0.3 to 0.2 mL/min, which allowed separation of four pairs of isomers, but not para-fluorofentanyl and ortho-fluorofentanyl (Fig. 1e).

Figure 1
figure1

Chromatograms under different liquid conditions. (a) Different columns-WATERS T3 column; (b) different organic mobile phase-acetonitrile; (c) extending analysis time; (d) modifying the gradient elution; (e) reducing the flow rate.

Sample extraction conditions

The sample preparation conditions were also optimized. Methanol is typically selected as the extraction solvent for hair samples in previously methods for quantifying fentanyl analogues3,41,42. However, the EM has also been used to extract analytes from hair samples32. Hence, methanol and the EM were compared as extraction solvents in our study. The chromatographic behavior of the compounds was better when EM was used as the extraction solvent, especially for the isomers.

Subsequently, extraction using different volumes (500, 800, and 1,000 μL) of the EM was investigated. The recoveries of all compounds were in the range of 84.34–96.08%, 89.10–108.63%, and 83.27–104.15% with volumes of 500, 800, and 1,000 µL, respectively, with ME values in the range of 358.40–504.59%, 79.49–115.06%, and 77.92–104.30%, respectively. The EM volume had a great impact on the ME. In particular, when the analytes were extracted with 500 μL of the EM, the ME value increased significantly. However, for the recovery, the effect of the EM volume was not significant. Finally, the extraction solution was EM and the volume was 1,000 μL.

Method validation

Selectivity

No interfering signals were observed at the retention times of the analytes and ISs. Furthermore, there was no interference in blank hair spiked with common drugs of abuse and pharmaceuticals. The retention times are summarized in Table 2 and the chromatograms of all the analytes in hair samples spiked at the LOQ concentration are shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2
figure2

MRM chromatograms for the 37 analytes in hair samples spiked at the LOQ concentration.

Linearity, LOD, and LOQ

Table 3 summarizes the LOD, LOQ, regression equation, and R2 value obtained for each analyte. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first method for quantifying 31 fentanyl analytes and 6 novel synthetic opioids. The LODs for all the compounds ranged from 0.5 to 2.5 pg/mg, and the LOQs ranged from 2 to 5 pg/mg. Busardò et al.25 reported a method to quantify 22 fentanyl analogues in hair with LODs of 3–7 pg/g and LOQs of 11–21 pg/g. The calibration curves of all the analytes were established in different concentration range, but with acceptable correlation coefficients (R2 > 0.99). According to previous reports3,25,41,43,44, the concentrations of fentanyl analogues in hair samples are typically in the following ranges: 3–2,800 pg/mg for fentanyl, 15.1–149 pg/mg for norfentanyl, and 3–104 pg/mg for 4-ANPP. In addition, a concentration of 44 pg/mg has been reported for furanyl fentanyl41. Therefore, the linearity ranges obtained for these compounds in our study cover the ranges observed in authentic cases.

Table 3 LODs, LOQs, and linearity for analytes in hair.

Precision and accuracy

The precision and accuracy obtained for each analyte are listed in Table 4. The intraday and interday precisions of the all compounds at the LOQ, low, medium, and high levels were less than 13.32%. Furthermore, the accuracies at the four levels ranged from 85.63% to 116.1%, except for acetyl norfentanyl at the LOQ, which had an accuracy of 116.1%. Thus, the precision and accuracy of the method are acceptable according to the previous criteria34,35,36.

Table 4 Precision and accuracy for analytes in hair.

Recovery and ME

The extraction recovery and ME data are summarized in Table 5. The recoveries of all the analytes from the QC samples at four levels ranged from 89.42 to 119.68%. The ME values were within the range of 85.76–119.77%, except for that of W-18, which was in the range of 44.81–54.11%. Chromatographic evaluation of this compound was less than optimal owing to large fluctuations during elution.

Table 5 Recovery and matrix effect for analytes in hair.

Stability

The stability results for each analyte are shown in Table 6. The stabilities at the three concentration levels were within the range of 77.44–113.71% for all the analytes after storage in the autosampler at 4 °C for 24 h. Therefore, the developed method is suitable for use in daily forensic work.

Table 6 Stability of analytes in hair.

Application to authentic cases

Following validation, the developed method was applied to the determination of fentanyl and its analogues in hair from authentic cases. The MRM chromatograms of cases 1 and 2 are shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3
figure3

Chromatograms of two MRM transition in the authentic cases.

Case 1

A 35-year-old female patient without a history of drug abuse underwent surgery for thyroid disease. Anesthesia induction was performed by endotracheal intubation during surgery. One month after the operation, the patient's hair was collected and then the 0–3 cm segment of the hair sample was analyzed. In this case, fentanyl was detected at a concentration of 8.02 pg/mg. Schneider et al.44.reported a case in which a patient with a chronic and heavy toothache was treated with a fentanyl patch for 22 consecutive days. For a 5 cm hair sample cut into segments 0–1 cm, 1–2 cm, 3–4 cm, and 4–5 cm, the fentanyl concentration in all the segments was in the range of 60 pg/mg (LOQ) to 480 pg/mg. Compared with multiple doses, the concentration of fentanyl in hair was lower after a single dose, which may be why norfentanyl was not detected in our real case.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man was reported to police by his colleague. According to the informant, the man may have been using drugs for a long time. After hair collection, the hair sample was cut into three segments (S1: 0–3 cm, S2: 3–6 cm, and S3: 6–9 cm). Then, these samples were analyzed using our proposed method. Sufentanil was detected in the hair sample at concentrations of 183.91, 131.68, and 31.48 pg/mg for S1, S2, and S3, respectively. However, no metabolites were detected in the hair sample owing to the parent drugs being largely incorporated inside the keratin matrix from sweat, the bloodstream, and the sebum before metabolization. In this case, the observed concentration of sufentanil in hair will provide a reference for future forensic work.

Conclusions

In this study, a sensitive, simple, rapid, and robust UHPLC-MS/MS was developed and validated for determination of 31 fentanyl analogues and 6 novel synthetic opioids in hair samples. This method covers fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids that are common or new to the drug market. Furthermore, the developed method was successfully applied to authentic cases.

References

  1. 1.

    Ventura, L., Carvalho, F. & Dinis-Oliveira, R. J. Opioids in the frame of new psychoactive substances network: a complex pharmacological and toxicological issue. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol. 11, 97–108 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Elliott, S. & Evans, J. A 3-year review of new psychoactive substances in casework. Forensic Sci. Int. 243, 55–60 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Salomone, A. et al. Detection of fentanyl analogs and synthetic opioids in real hair samples. J. Anal. Toxicol. 43, 259–265 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Cooreman, S. et al. A comprehensive LC-MS-based quantitative analysis of fentanyl-like drugs in plasma and urine. J. Sep. Sci. 33, 2654–2662 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Suzuki, J. & El-Haddad, S. A review: fentanyl and non-pharmaceutical fentanyls. Drug Alcohol Depend. 171, 107–116 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Roda, G. et al. Ten years of fentanyl-like drugs: a technical-analytical review. Anal. Sci. 35, 479–491 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Drummer, O. H. Fatalities caused by novel opioids a review. Forensic Sci. Res. 4, 95–110 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schifano, F., Chiappini, S., Corkery, J. M. & Guirguis, A. Assessing the 2004–2018 fentanyl misusing issues reported to an international range of adverse reporting systems. Front. Pharmacol. 10, 46 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kuczynska, K., Grzonkowski, P., Kacprzak, L. & Zawilska, J. B. Abuse of fentanyl: an emerging problem to face. Forensic Sci. Int. 289, 207–214 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Daniulaityte, R. et al. Trends in fentanyl and fentanyl analogue-related overdose deaths - Montgomery County, Ohio, 2015–2017. Drug Alcohol Depend. 198, 116–120 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mohr, A. L. et al. Analysis of novel synthetic opioids U-47700, U-50488 and furanyl fentanyl by LC-MS/MS in postmortem casework. J. Anal. Toxicol. 40, 709–717 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Noble, C., Weihe Dalsgaard, P., Stybe Johansen, S. & Linnet, K. Application of a screening method for fentanyl and its analogues using UHPLC-QTOF-MS with data-independent acquisition (DIA) in MS(E) mode and retrospective analysis of authentic forensic blood samples. Drug Test Anal. 10, 651–662 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Qin, N. et al. Application of a validated UHPLC-MS/MS method for 28 fentanyl-analogue and novel synthetic opioids in whole blood in authentic forensic cases. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 1124, 82–99 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fleming, S. W. et al. Analysis of U-47700, a novel synthetic opioid, in human urine by LC-MS-MS and LC-QToF. J. Anal. Toxicol. 41, 173–180 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bista, S. R. et al. Development, validation and application of an HPLC-MS/MS method for the determination of fentanyl and nor-fentanyl in human plasma and saliva. J. Chromatogr. B Anal. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 960, 27–33 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bista, S. R. et al. Saliva versus plasma for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of fentanyl in patients with cancer. Clin. Ther. 37, 2468–2475 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Silverstein, J. H., Rieders, M. F. & McMullin, M. An analysis of the duration of fentanyl and its metabolites in urine and saliva. Anesth. Analg. 76, 618–621 (1993).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Shoff, E. N. et al. Qualitative identification of fentanyl analogs and other opioids in postmortem cases by UHPLC-Ion Trap-MSn. J. Anal. Toxicol. 41, 484–492 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Clavijo, C. F. et al. A low blood volume LC-MS/MS assay for the quantification of fentanyl and its major metabolites norfentanyl and despropionyl fentanyl in children. J. Sep. Sci. 34, 3568–3577 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Karinen, R. et al. Comparison of ethanol and other drugs of abuse concentrations in whole blood stored in venoject glass and plastic and venosafe plastic evacuated tubes. J. Anal. Toxicol. 34, 420–428 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    The Laboratory and Scientific Section of the UNODC. Recommended methods for the Identification and Analysis of Fentanyl and its Analogues in Biological Specimens. https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/Recommended_methods_for_the_identification_and_analysis_of_Fentanyl.pdf (2017).

  22. 22.

    Pacifici, G. M. Clinical pharmacology of fentanyl in preterm infants. A review. Pediatr. Neonatol. 56, 143–148 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Boumba, V. A., Ziavrou, K. S. & Vougiouklakis, T. Hair as a biological indicator of drug use, drug abuse or chronic exposure to environmental toxicants. Int. J. Toxicol. 25, 143–163 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cooper, G. A. Hair testing is taking root. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 48, 516–530 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Busardo, F. P. et al. Ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay for quantifying fentanyl and 22 analogs and metabolites in whole blood, urine, and hair. Front. Chem. 7, 184 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kintz, P. Bioanalytical procedures for detection of chemical agents in hair in the case of drug-facilitated crimes. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 388, 1467–1474 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Concheiro, M., Chesser, R., Pardi, J. & Cooper, G. Postmortem toxicology of new synthetic opioids. Front. Pharmacol. 9, 1210 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gillespie, T. J., Gandolfi, A. J., Davis, T. P. & Morano, R. A. Identification and quantification of alpha-methylfentanyl in post mortem specimens. J. Anal. Toxicol. 6, 139–142 (1982).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Strano-Rossi, S., Bermejo, A. M., de la Torre, X. & Botre, F. Fast GC-MS method for the simultaneous screening of THC-COOH, cocaine, opiates and analogues including buprenorphine and fentanyl, and their metabolites in urine. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 399, 1623–1630 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lurie, I. S. & Iio, R. Use of multiple-reaction monitoring ratios for identifying incompletely resolved fentanyl homologs and analogs via ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A. 1216, 1515–1519 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gergov, M., Nokua, P., Vuori, E. & Ojanpera, I. Simultaneous screening and quantification of 25 opioid drugs in post-mortem blood and urine by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Forensic Sci. Int. 186, 36–43 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nielsen, M. K., Johansen, S. S., Dalsgaard, P. W. & Linnet, K. Simultaneous screening and quantification of 52 common pharmaceuticals and drugs of abuse in hair using UPLC-TOF-MS. Forensic Sci. Int. 196, 85–92 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cooper, G. A., Kronstrand, R., Kintz, P. & Society of Hair, T. Society of Hair Testing guidelines for drug testing in hair. Forensic Sci. Int. 218, 20–24 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Toxicology, S. W. G. f. F. Scientific Working Group for Forensic Toxicology (SWGTOX) Standard Practices for Method Validation in Forensic Toxicology. J. Anal. Toxicol.. 37, 452–474 (2013).

  35. 35.

    Peters, F. T. et al. Method development in forensic toxicology. Curr. Pharm. Des. 23, 5455–5467 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wille, S. M. R., Coucke, W., De Baere, T. & Peters, F. T. Update of standard practices for new method validation in forensic toxicology. Curr. Pharm. Des. 23, 5442–5454 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Matuszewski, B. K., Constanzer, M. L. & Chavez-Eng, C. M. Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/MS. Anal. Chem. 75, 3019–3030 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhuo, Y. et al. Simultaneous quantitative determination of amphetamines, opiates, ketamine, cocaine and metabolites in human hair: application to forensic cases of drug abuse. J. Forensic Sci. (2019).

  39. 39.

    Fogarty, M. F., Papsun, D. M. & Logan, B. K. Analysis of fentanyl and 18 novel fentanyl analogs and metabolites by LC-MS-MS, and report of Fatalities Associated with Methoxyacetylfentanyl and Cyclopropylfentanyl. J. Anal. Toxicol. 42, 592–604 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Moody, M. T. et al. Analysis of fentanyl analogs and novel synthetic opioids in blood, serum/plasma, and urine in forensic casework. Drug Test Anal. 10, 1358–1367 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Boumba, V. A. et al. The analysis of 132 novel psychoactive substances in human hair using a single step extraction by tandem LC/MS. Forensic Sci. Int. 279, 192–202 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Kim, J. et al. Simultaneous determination of 18 abused opioids and metabolites in human hair using LC-MS/MS and illegal opioids abuse proven by hair analysis. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 89, 99–105 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Klima, M. et al. Determination of medicinal and illicit drugs in post mortem dental hard tissues and comparison with analytical results for body fluids and hair samples. Forensic Sci. Int. 265, 166–171 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Schneider, S. et al. Determination of fentanyl in sweat and hair of a patient using transdermal patches. J. Anal. Toxicol. 32, 260–264 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81971789, 81772022), Shanghai Science and Technology Commission (19DZ1200600), Research Institute Projects (2019G-4), Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine (17DZ2273200) and Shanghai Forensic Service Platform (19DZ2292700).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

N.Q. finished the experiment and data analysis and prepared the manuscript. M.S., D.W. and F.S. perfected the experimental scheme. B.S., H.D. and H.Q. helped to solve some problems in the experiments. P.X. provided actual hair samples. Y.S. conceived the experiments and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Shi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, N., Shen, M., Xiang, P. et al. Determination of 37 fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair by UHPLC-MS/MS and its application to authentic cases. Sci Rep 10, 11569 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68348-w

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing