4.2 Article

Analysis of anabolic steroids in human hair using LC-MS/MS

期刊

STEROIDS
卷 75, 期 10, 页码 710-714

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2010.04.007

关键词

Human hair; Anabolic steroids; Stanozolol; Nandrolone; LC-MS/MS; Doping

资金

  1. World Anti-Doping Agency Social Science Research [2008-09/Petroczi]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

New highly sensitive, specific, reliable, reproducible and robust LC-MS/MS methods were developed to detect the anabolic steroids, nandrolone and stanozolol, in human hair for the first time. Hair samples from 180 participants (108 males, 72 females, 62% athletes) were screened using ELISA which revealed 16 athletes as positive for stanozolol and 3 for nandrolone. Positive samples were confirmed on LC-MS/MS in selective reaction monitoring (SRM) mode. The assays for stanozolol and nandrolone showed good linearity in the range 1-400 pg/mg and 5-400 pg/mg, respectively. The methods were validated for LLOD, interday precision, intraday precision, specificity, extraction recovery and accuracy. The assays were capable of detecting 0.5 pg stanozolol and 3.0 pg nandrolone per mg of hair, when approximately 20 mg of hair were processed. Analysis using LC-MS/MS confirmed 11 athletes' positive for stanozolol (5.0 pg/mg to 86.3 pg/mg) and 1 for nandrolone (14.0 pg/mg) thus avoiding false results from ELISA screening. The results obtained demonstrate the application of these hair analysis methods to detect both steroids at low concentrations, hence reducing the amount of hair required significantly. The new methods complement urinalysis or blood testing and facilitate improved doping testing regimes. Hair analysis benefits from non-invasiveness, negligible risk of infection and facile sample storage and collection, whilst reducing risks of tampering and cross-contamination. Owing to the wide detection window, this approach may also offer an alternative approach for out-of-competition testing. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据