Advertisement

Chromatographia

, Volume 59, Supplement 1, pp S39–S44 | Cite as

Criteria in Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry – a Comparison Between Regulations in the Field of Residue and Doping Analysis

  • P. Van Eenoo
  • F. T. Delbeke
Article

Abstract

Residue analysis and doping control aim at the detection of prohibited substances (often registered drugs) in biological matrices and are hence related fields of analysis. In both fields, the detection of such a prohibited substance has legal and economical implications for the persons involved (farmer, horse-owner, trainer or athlete). Hence, the necessary precautions need to be taken to ensure that the unequivocal presence of a substance has indeed been established. In each of these fields of analysis, chromatography and mass spectrometry are the primary techniques used in the identification process and, not surprisingly, the criteria to which these techniques must comply depend on the regulatory authority. It seems illogical that different sets of criteria exist for fields of analysis that are so closely related. However, because of the complexity encountered in these analyses, the creation of an “ideal” set of criteria encompassing and foreseeing all possible difficulties met by the analyst during his work seems impossible. This paper tries to give an overview of the similarities and differences in each set of regulations, while critically pointing out and illustrating pitfalls and positive aspects of each set of regulations in an attempt to aid the analyst in the decision process when regulations leave room for interpretation. The need for the analyst to critically evaluate the regulations is illustrated in two examples.

Keywords

Column liquid chromatography Gas chromatography Mass spectrometry Residue analysis Doping control 

References

  1. Marquet P, Lachâtre G (1999) J Chromatogr B 733:93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, Accreditation requirements and operating criteria for horse racing laboratories, ILAC-G7, 1996. http://www.ilac.org/downloads/Ilac-g7.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. Logan BK, Stafford DT, Tebett IR, Moore CM (1990) J Anal Toxicol 14:154–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Association of Official Racing Chemists (2002). AORC guidelines for the minimum criteria for identification by chromatography and mass spectrometry. MS Criteria Working group – 19 June 2002 Version. Internal communication to AORC membersGoogle Scholar
  5. Council Directive 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results. Off J Eu Communities, L 221: 8–36Google Scholar
  6. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Veterinary Medicine. Guidance for Industry. Mass spectrometry confirmation of the identity of animal drug residues. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guide118.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. IOC, the International Olympic Committee (1998). Analytical criteria for reporting low concentrations of anabolic steroids. Internal communication to IOC accredited laboratories, Lausanne, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. WADA, The World Anti-Doping Agency (2003). International standard for laboratories, version 3.0. http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/standards_harmonization/code/criteria_1_2.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogusz M (1999) J Chromatogr B 733:65–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Van Eenoo P, Delbeke FT, de Jong FH, De Backer P (2001) J Steroid Biochem Molec Biol 78:351–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogusz M, Wu M (1991) J Anal Toxicol 15:188–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ventura R, Damasceno L, Farré M, Cardoso J, Segura J (2000) Analytica Chimica Acta 418:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Polettini A (1999) J Chromatogr B 733:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bethem R, Boison J, Gale J, Heller D, Lehotay S, Loo J, Musser S, Price P, Stein S (2003) J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 14:528–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. André F, De Wasch K, De Brabander H, Impens S, Stolker L, van Ginkel L, Stephany R, Schilt R, Courtheyn D, Bonnaire Y, Fürst P, Gowik P, Kennedy G, Kuhn T, Moretain JP, Sauer M (2001) Trends in Analytical Chemistry 20:435–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daeseleire E, Vandeputte R, Van Peteghem C (1998) Analyst 123:2595–2598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Eenoo P, Delbeke FT (2002) Biomed Chromatograph 16:475–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rivier L (2003) Anal Chim Acta 492:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deventer K, Delbeke FT (2003) Rapid Commun Mass Spec 17:2017–2114Google Scholar
  20. Schänzer W, Donike M (1993) Anal Chim Acta 275:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Machnik P, Delahaut P, Horning S, Schänzer W (1997) In: Schänzer W, Geyer H, Gotzmann A, Mareck-Engelke U (Eds) Recent Advances in Doping Analysis (4). Sport & Buch Strauβ, Cologne, Germany, pp. 223–237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg&Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Van Eenoo
    • 1
  • F. T. Delbeke
    • 1
  1. 1.Doping Control LaboratoryGhent UniversityMerelbekeBelgium

Personalised recommendations