Determination of Hydroxy Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Human Urine Using Automated Microextraction by Packed Sorbent and Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry

• Published in: International journal of environmental research and public health Vol. 19; no. 20; p. 13089
• Main Authors: García-García, Samuel, Matilla-González, Héctor, Peña, Javier, Nogal Sánchez, Miguel del, Casas-Ferreira, Ana María, Pérez Pavón, José Luis
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 12.10.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Automation; Chromatography; Enzymes; Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - methods; Humans; Ions; Limit of Detection; Mass spectrometry; Metabolites; Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - analysis; Reagents; Scientific imaging; Solid Phase Microextraction - methods; Solvents; Urine; Water - chemistry; Water Pollutants, Chemical - analysis; United States > US; Germany; underivatized analytes; microextraction by packed sorbent; urine samples; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites; gas chromatography–mass spectrometry
• ISSN: 1660-4601; 1661-7827; 1660-4601
• DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192013089

A fast methodology for the determination of monohydroxy polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in human urine using a fully automated microextraction by packed sorbent coupled to a gas chromatograph–mass spectrometer is reported. Sample preparation requires simple hydrolysis, centrifugation, filtration, and dilution. The method does not require a derivatization step prior to analysis with gas chromatography and allows the measurement of up to three samples per hour after hydrolysis. Quantitation is carried out by a one-point standard addition allowing the determination of 6 analytes with good limits of detection (10.1–39.6 ng L−1 in water and 0.5–19.4 µg L−1 in urine), accuracy (88–110%) and precision (2.1–23.4% in water and 5.1–19.0% in urine) values. This method has been successfully applied to the analysis of six urine samples (three from smoker and three from non-smoker subjects), finding significant differences between both types of samples. Results were similar to those found in the literature for similar samples, which proves the applicability of the methodology.