4.7 Article

GC-C-IRMS in routine doping control practice: 3 years of drug testing data, quality control and evolution of the method

Journal

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 407, Issue 15, Pages 4397-4409

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-014-8374-7

Keywords

GC-C-IRMS; Doping control; Steroids; Quality control

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to detect the misuse of endogenous anabolic steroids, doping control laboratories require methods that allow differentiation between endogenous steroids and their synthetic copies. Gas chromatography combustion isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC-C-IRMS) is capable of measuring the carbon isotope ratio of urinary steroids and this allows differentiation between both. GC-C-IRMS and its application to doping control has evolved a lot during the last decade and so have the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) technical documents that describe how GC-C-IRMS should be applied. Especially the WADA technical document of 2014 introduced a number of obligatory quality controls and a fixed methodology that should be used by all the doping control laboratories. This document imposed more uniform methods between the laboratories in order to decrease the interlaboratory standard deviation and acquire similar results for the analysis of the same urine samples. In this paper, 3 years of drug testing data of our GC-C-IRMS method in routine doping control practice is described, with an emphasis on the new WADA technical document and its implementation. Useful data for other doping control laboratories is presented focussing on general method setup, quality control and data collected from routine samples. The paper concentrates on how IRMS results shift or remain similar by switching to the 2014 WADA technical document and gives insight in a straightforward approach to calculate the measurement uncertainty.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available