Comparison and validation of calibration methods for in vivo SPME determinations using an artificial vein system

The success of in vivo solid phase microextraction (SPME) depends significantly on the selection of calibration method. Three kinetic in vivo SPME calibration methods are evaluated in this paper: (1) on-fibre standardization (OFS), (2) dominant pre-equilibrium desorption (DPED), and (3) the diffusion-based interface (DBI) model. These are compared in terms of precision, accuracy, and ease of experimental use by employing a flow device simulating an animal circulatory system. In addition, the kinetic calibration methods were validated against established SPME equilibrium extraction (EE) external calibration and a conventional sample preparation method involving protein precipitation. The comparison was performed using a hydrophilic drug fenoterol as the analyte of interest. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used for the determinations. All three kinetic methods compared well with both EE extraction and the conventional method in terms of accuracy (93-119%). In terms of precision, the DBI model had the best precision in whole blood and buffered phosphate saline solution with %RSD similar to the standard techniques (9-15%). DPED had the poorest precision of %RSD (20-30%) possibly due to errors associated with uncertainty in the amount of standard loaded on-fibre and remaining on the fibre after desorption. In addition, incurred errors could result due to the greater number of fibres used in comparison to the other two calibration methods. The precision of the OFS procedure was better than for DPED primarily because the use of multiple fibres is eliminated. In terms of the ease of use for calibration, the DBI model was the simplest and most convenient as it did not require standards once it had been calibrated or the uptake constant was calculated. This research suggests the potential use of DBI model as the best kinetic calibration method for future in-vein blood SPME investigations. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.