Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0275931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275931

Analysis, identification and confirmation of synthetic opioids using chloroformate chemistry: Retrospective detection of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl in urine and plasma samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS

Carlos A Valdez 1,2,3,*, Roald N Leif 1,2,3, Todd H Corzett 1,3,4, Mark L Dreyer 1,2,3
Editor: Joseph Banoub5
PMCID: PMC9629642  PMID: 36322521

Abstract

Electron Impact Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (EI-GC-MS) and High Resolution Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (HR-LC-MS) have been used in the analysis of products arising from the trichloroethoxycarbonylation of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl in urine and plasma matrices. The method involves the initial extraction of both synthetic opioids separately from the matrices followed by detection of the unique products that arise from their reaction with 2,2,2-trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride (Troc-Cl), namely Troc-norfentanyl and Troc-noracetylfentanyl. The optimized protocol was successfully evaluated for its efficacy at detecting these species formed from fentanyl and acetylfentanyl when present at low and high levels in urine (fentanyl: 5 and 10 ng/mL and acetylfentanyl: 20 and 100 ng/mL) and plasma (fentanyl: 10 and 20 ng/mL and acetylfentanyl: 50 and 200 ng/mL), values that reflect levels reported in overdose victims. The HR-LC-MS method’s LOQ (limit of quantitation) for the Troc-norfentanyl and Troc-noracetylfentanyl products was determined to be ~10 ng/mL for both species. Even though the superiority in the detection of these species by HR-LC-MS over EI-GC-MS, the latter method proved to be important in the detection of the second product from the reaction, namely 2-phenylethyl chloride that is crucial in the determination of the original opioid. This observation highlights the importance of using complimentary analytical techniques in the analysis of a sample, whether biological or environmental in nature. The method herein serves as a complementary, qualitative confirmation for the presence of a fentanyl in collected urine, plasma and by extension other biological samples amenable to the common extraction procedures described for opioid analysis. More importantly, the method’s main strength comes from its ability to react with unknown fentanyls to yield products that can be not only detected by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS but can then be used to retrospectively identify an unknown fentanyl.

Introduction

Since its landmark synthesis by Paul Janssen [1, 2] and subsequent discovery of its effective, powerful, and safe anesthetic effects during perioperative surgical procedures [3] as well as for the management of pain in certain disease states [4, 5], fentanyl has become one of the most employed opioids in the field of medicine (Fig 1A). A few of the central attributes that make this synthetic opioid an unquestionable choice for physicians over morphine is its rapid onset time, powerful anesthetic profile (100 times more powerful than morphine) and the lower risk profile, relative to morphine, for acute heart and respiratory failure [6]. Unfortunately, the benefits of fentanyl use in the medical field has been overshadowed by its involvement in hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths due to its illicit use, along with other similar analogs such as acetylfentanyl (Fig 1A), outside the medical setting worldwide [79]. Furthermore, fentanyl analogs with more powerful anesthetic profile than the parent opioid, such as carfentanil and remifentanil, have been used as incapacitating agents [10]. Their status as an imminent threat to public health has been cemented by the countless cases worldwide and the mass production by clandestine laboratories using published protocols [11, 12]. As a direct counteroffensive move to this opioid crisis, numerous efforts by various government agencies and academic groups are being aimed at counteracting their toxic effects with drugs like naloxone and naltrexone (Fig 1B) [1315], as well as developing more rapid ways for their early and efficient detection by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) [16, 17] and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) [18, 19].

Fig 1. Synthetic opioids belonging to the fentanyl family.

Fig 1

(a) Chemical structures of fentanyl, acetylfentanyl and their main metabolites, the potencies of each opioid relative to morphine are given in brackets; (b) commonly employed antidotes against fentanyl poisoning along with their circulation half-lives.

Collection of biological samples by medical personnel from deceased individuals who were exposed to fentanyl have included urine, plasma, blood (femoral and heart) and vitreous humor [16, 20]. Analysis for these opioids first involves their initial extraction using an organic solvent, followed by extract concentration and subsequent analysis by various analytical methods [16]. In most cases, fentanyl can be found in its intact form, but analysts may also encounter its most common metabolite, norfentanyl (Fig 1A) which is the result of the opioid’s oxidative dealkylation by cytochrome P450 liver enzymes [21, 22]. Detection of fentanyl and analogs thereof has been accomplished using LC-MS and hyphenated methods like LC-MS/MS featuring detection limits for these substances down to the sub-nanogram level [2326]. In contrast, GC-MS has not enjoyed that level of success for a couple of reasons. The first one is the fact that the technique is inherently less sensitive than LC-MS and the second one is that fentanyls when encountered in biological samples are in their salt form thus requiring the use of additional neutralization/extraction steps that often results in analyte loss. Having the option of analyzing a sample, be it from a biological or environmental collection, by either LC-MS, GC-MS or both, to identify these synthetic opioids remains an invaluable tool in the fields of analytical chemistry and the emerging one of chemical forensics [27, 28]. Even though GC-MS methods possess some degree of limitations when compared to LC-MS methods, the technique can still be used as a complementary analytical method, as most of GC-MS instrumentation are equipped with mass spectral libraries for thousands of compounds in collections like the NIST and OCAD libraries, that greatly aid in the initial identification of an unknown material during the early stages of sample analysis [2931].

Recently, our laboratory introduced a method for the indirect analysis of fentanyl and analogs based on their chemical modification with 2,2,2-trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride (Troc-Cl) [32]. The reaction between fentanyl and more complex members of this family of synthetic opioids resulted in the formation of two products, that aside from being easily identified by EI-GC-MS, can be pieced together to retrospectively identify the original fentanyl (Fig 2A). We demonstrated that the method worked efficiently in a panel of ten representative fentanyls showing its broad-spectrum quality with LLOD and LLOQ values of 10 and 20 ng/mL respectively for fentanyl [32]. Interestingly, reaction of norfentanyl with Troc-Cl affords the same product that forms from the reaction of fentanyl itself with the chloroformate. Thus, the method herein not only results in the complete modification of any circulating, unmetabolized fentanyl to yield Troc-norfentanyl, but reaction of norfentanyl itself with Troc-Cl causes a further accumulation of this signature product in the victim’s tissues that can be traced back to the original opioid (Fig 2B). In this report, we describe the proficiency of the method in the analysis of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl separately in human plasma and urine samples containing opioid levels comparable to those found in overdose victims for each (0.2–43 ng/mL for fentanyl in plasma and 2.2–450 ng/mL in urine and 153–260 ng/mL for acetylfentanyl in plasma and 230–240 ng/mL in urine) [3335]. The method’s overall description is presented in Fig 2B and entails an initial extraction step of the opioids from the biological matrix. After all the extracts are collected and evaporated, they are reacted with Troc-Cl to give the two unique, abiotic products Troc-norfentanyl (in the case of fentanyl) and 2-phenylethyl chloride. Therefore, the analysis of the initial extract would provide a first look at the fentanyl in question, while the reaction with Troc-Cl would provide a confirmatory identification of the fentanyl by analysis of the two predictable products arising from the reaction.

Fig 2. Chemical modification of fentanyls.

Fig 2

(a) Reaction of fentanyl with 2,2,2-trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride (Troc-Cl) to yield two unique, abiotic products that bear structural features of the original opioid (grayed boxes); (b) overall protocol to aid in the confirmation of fentanyl and norfentanyl in a biological sample by EI-GC-MS and targeted HR-LC-MS.

Materials and methods

Chemicals and reagents

All chemicals were purchased from commercial suppliers and used as received. 2,2,2-Trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride (Troc-Cl), ammonium hydroxide and dichloromethane were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO.). Potassium bicarbonate was purchased from Acros Organics (Westchester, PA.). Autosampler vials were purchased from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA.). Fentanyl and acetylfentanyl were synthesized using published protocols [11]. Thin layer chromatography (TLC) was used to monitor the production of amine-containing intermediates leading to the synthesis of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl using Merck 60-F254 sheets and detection accomplished with UV light (λ = 254 nm) in conjunction with CAM [36, 37] and iodine vapor [38, 39]. All fentanyls as well as the Troc-norfentanyl and Troc-noracetylfentanyl standards were purified by flash column chromatography using a Biotage Isolera purification system.

EI-GC-MS analysis method

A 6890 Agilent GC with 5975 MS detector equipped with a split/splitless injector was used for the analysis as previously described [4043]. The GC column used for the analysis was an Agilent HP- 5ms UI capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm id × 0.25 μm film thickness). Ultra-high purity helium, at 0.8 mL/min, served as the carrier gas. The inlet was operated in pulsed splitless mode (25 psi for 1 minute, followed by a 50 mL/min purge flow), with the injector temperature set at 250°C and the injection volume was 1 μL. The oven temperature program was as follows: 40°C, held for 3 min, increased at 8°C/min to 300°C, held for 3 min. The MS ion source and quadrupole temperatures were 230°C and 150°C, respectively. Electron impact (EI) was used with an ionization energy of 70 eV. The MS was operated to scan from m/z = 29 to 600 in 0.4 sec with a solvent delay of 3.5 min.

HR-LC-MS analysis method

A Thermo Scientific Vanquish Flex HPLC with a Thermo Scientific Q Exactive HF-X was used for the analyses. The LC column used for the analysis was a Waters Acquity HSS T3, 1.8 μm. Ultra-high purity nitrogen served as the collision gas. Mobile phases used were A = Water/0.1% formic acid and B = Acetonitrile/0.1% formic acid. The solvent gradient was 25 min long: Initial 1%, hold for 2 minutes then ramp to 10% B over 6 minutes. Ramp to 95% B over 7 minutes, hold at 95% B for 2 minutes and re-equilibrate at 1% B for 8 minutes. Samples (10 μL) were injected into the LC-HRMS for analysis. The oven temperature was 40°C and the MS was operated to scan from m/z = 75 to 750 with a solvent delay of 3.5 min. MS acquisition was performed on a Thermo Scientific Q Exactive HF-X mass spectrometer operated using heated electrospray ionization (HESI) in positive ion mode was used with high resolution accurate mass to ≤ 3 ppm. The MS experiment is composed of a full MS spectrum (m/z = 75–750) at a resolving power setting of 30,000 (Full width at half maximum (FWHM) at m/z = 200) followed by Data Dependent MS/MS with normalized higher-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) energies of 30% at resolving power of 30,000 (FWHM at m/z = 200).

Sample preparation and extraction

Pooled human plasma and urine were purchased from Innovative Research (Novi, MI.) and were spiked with fentanyl and acetylfentanyl based on concentrations reported in these tissues from overdose victims [17]. Thus, fentanyl was spiked in urine (high = 10 ng/mL; low = 5 ng/mL) and plasma (high = 20 ng/mL; low = 10 ng/mL) while acetylfentanyl was spiked in urine (high = 100 ng/mL; low = 20 ng/mL) and plasma (high = 200 ng/mL; low = 50 ng/mL). Liquid-liquid extraction of the spiked matrices was performed using 1-chlorobutane and following established protocols for their extraction in biological matrices [44]. Specifically, urine or plasma (1 mL) was combined with 1.32 M ammonium hydroxide (pH 12, 2 mL) and vortexed. The urine and plasma samples were extracted using 4 mL and 12 mL of 1-chlorobutane respectively. After vortexing at 3,000 rpm for 30 seconds, the samples were centrifuged at 5,000g for 5 minutes to separate organic and aqueous layers, with the organic (top) layer being transferred into a clean vial. The organic layer was then dried using a nitrogen stream to give a residue that was then taken up in DCM (1 mL), treated with Troc-Cl (100 μL), potassium bicarbonate (5 mg) and heated to 60°C for 3 hours. After 3 hours, the vial was cooled to ambient temperature. An aliquot of the reaction mixture (100 μL) was transferred to another autosampler vial equipped with a glass insert for GC analysis (injection volume: 1 μL).

Results and discussion

Methods for the analysis of fentanyls by GC-MS abound, and many of these involve protocols that have been optimized for highest extraction efficiency such as Liquid-Liquid [45] and Dispersed Liquid-Liquid Micro-Extraction [46] followed by analysis. Other methods involve extensive work in their analytical part, with some reducing the analysis run time down to six minutes [47] and while others feature longer times, they provide the analyst with an effective way of studying multiple opioids in one single run as highlighted by the Direct Analysis in Real Time Mass Spectrometry (DART-MS) and Direct Sample Analysis Mass Spectrometry (DSA-MS) approaches [48, 49]. Irrespective of this, GC-MS has not been the analytical technique of choice when the analysis of ultra-low levels of fentanyl and related opioids are involved with only few examples achieving the low detection limits (pg/mL) [50, 51] that LC-MS has featured over the years. This lack of sensitivity by the technique can be attributed to several factors. One is that fentanyls whether encountered in a biological matrix or in an environmental setting (e.g., drug confiscation) are in their salt form (e.g., hydrochloride) that requires a basic sample preparation step for GC detection [52, 53]. Another factor is the inability to derivatize fentanyls using traditional derivatizing agents for converting them into species that can be detected by GC-MS. Intrigued by the challenges posed by fentanyl’s chemical inertness, we explored the use of chloroformate chemistry to investigate its potential for modifying this opioid. To this end, we found that reaction between fentanyls and Troc-Cl yields two unique and predictable products bearing structural features from the original fentanyl [32]. In our original report, we demonstrated the extent of this reaction using only DCM as the organic medium. Now, using the optimized parameters for the reaction, we moved on to applying the feasibility of using this approach in the analysis of biological matrices under more relevant conditions. The two chosen matrices for our studies were plasma and urine which are two of the most often collected biological fluids from an overdose victim during autopsy for subsequent drug screening aside from femoral blood and vitreous humor [20].

The extraction of the spiked matrices was performed following a well-established method for their extraction from plasma [44]. After the extraction, the organic layer was evaporated to dryness, taken up in DCM, treated with Troc-Cl and KHCO3 and then analyzed by EI-GC-MS. Our first set of experiments involved the analysis of the fentanyl-spiked plasma samples (Fig 3). For these experiments, plasma samples were spiked at two concentrations, a low (10 ng/mL) and a high (20 ng/mL), in order to explore the limits for the protocol’s efficiency within the concentration window in overdose victims (~3.1–4.3 ng/mL) [54]. As a first step, the spiked samples were extracted and after their concentration, analyzed for fentanyl. As expected these extractions exhibited a complex GC chromatogram (Fig 3A). Analysis of the GC trace by single ion extraction (m/z = 245, base peak) for fentanyl was needed to detect the opioid and demonstrated that the initial extraction step worked well for both, the low and the high concentration spiked samples (Fig 3B and 3c). When the extracted residues were treated with an excess of Troc-Cl in the presence of potassium bicarbonate in DCM (Fig 3D), it was found that the reaction marginally performed for the high fentanyl concentration sample, while not providing a clear detection of the Troc-norfentanyl adduct for the low concentration sample (Fig 3E and 3F). In an effort to cleanly locate the Troc-norfentanyl product the single ion extraction (m/z = 149, base peak) mode was attempted (Fig 3E and 3F). As it can be appreciated from Fig 3E and 3F, the single ion extraction approach yielded a peak for only the high concentration sample while providing no discernible peak for the low concentration one. Furthermore, closer inspection of the peak in the chromatogram obtained in Fig 3F that appears using the single ion mode extraction (rt = 33.03 min.) possesses a more complex mass spectrum than anticipated for the Troc-norfentanyl. Upon careful analysis it becomes evident that this complex spectrum belongs to more than one species, one of which is the desired Troc-norfentanyl (Fig 4A). Key ions found in this spectrum that arise from Troc-norfentanyl include its base peak m/z = 149 and the almost equally intense and diagnostic m/z = 150 peak [32]. However, it is only these large ion peaks that can be gleaned a priori by studying the spectrum in Fig 4A while an interesting observation can be made in the area where the molecular ion peak for Troc-norfentanyl should appear (m/z = 406). An enlargement of this area is shown in Fig 4B, and one can observe the peaks in grey arising from another Troc-modified species that does not only exhibit an unfortunately close ion peak to Troc-norfentanyl’s molecular ion peak but also features the same retention time. In Fig 4B, the molecular ion peak components for Troc-norfentanyl are outlined in red and due to the low abundance of this material in the mixture, it is difficult for it to overtake the larger signal arising from the other Troc-containing interference. Nevertheless, by marking all the peaks arising from Troc-norfentanyl (indicated with red arrows in Fig 4A) and adding the analysis of the molecular ion peak it can be confidently stated that the Troc-norfentanyl is present in the mixture. Comparison of the mass spectra for all components in this initial set of experiments shows that clearer and cleaner mass spectra are obtained for the high concentration samples over the low concentration ones, and this is a direct result from the opioid concentration difference between the two spiking levels (Fig 4C and 4D). One specific example in this case is the presence of several species in the GC chromatograms for the analysis of 2-phenylethyl chloride (insets in Fig 4E and 4F) where the product in the high concentration sample yields a fairly clear peak relative to the low concentration sample where it appears among other, equally abundant components. Lastly, an interesting point that arises from the collected set of four mass spectra is that it highlights the use of this protocol in retrospectively identifying the original fentanyl opioid (Fig 4A, 4B and 4F) if the concentration is high enough (20 ng/mL), recall that this analysis was not possible for the low fentanyl spiked plasma sample (10 ng/mL) where only the 2-phenylethyl chloride was identified unambiguously by GC-MS (Fig 4E). In the event where fentanyl was not the originally spiked opioid, one can anticipate that if 2-phenylethyl chloride is not observed in conjunction with Troc-norfentanyl, then those two pieces of information potentially point towards the existence of another fentanyl analog (e.g., benzylfentanyl).

Fig 3. Extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma at two concentrations (10 and 20 ng/mL).

Fig 3

(a) GC chromatogram of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl (rt = 32.8 min.) for low concentration spike; (c) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration spike; (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted plasma sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration sample showing no discernible peak while (f) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration sample shows a clear peak (rt = 33.03 min.) composed of Troc-norfentanyl.

Fig 4. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between fentanyl-spiked plasma matrices with Troc-Cl.

Fig 4

Mass spectra for (a) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (20 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, note that the spectrum is complex and it is the result of an additional Troc-containing interference (Troc-norfentanyl peaks indicated in red); (b) Expansion of the molecular ion peak region for Troc-norfentanyl where the peaks arising from our product are highlighted in red and those from the Troc-containing interference are in gray; mass spectra for (c) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 10 ng/mL and (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 20 ng/mL; (e) mass spectrum for 2-phenylethyl chloride for the lowest fentanyl concentration spike and (f) for the highest fentanyl concentration.

Analysis of the fentanyl-spiked urine samples provided similar results (Fig 5). The urine samples were spiked with fentanyl, similarly to the plasma samples, to yield two final concentrations, a low (5 ng/mL) and a high one (10 ng/mL). These samples were extracted as described above to provide a residue after concentration that exhibits an expected, complex GC chromatogram (Fig 5A). Analysis of the GC chromatogram using single ion extraction mode (m/z = 245, base peak) for fentanyl demonstrated that the extraction procedure was successful for both spiked samples (Fig 5B and 5C). When both residues (low and high) were reacted with an excess of Troc-Cl in the presence of potassium bicarbonate in DCM (Fig 5D) it was found that the reaction failed to provide the main product Troc-norfentanyl (Fig 5E) for the low concentration sample, while it performed poorly for the high concentration sample (asterisk in Fig 5F). Analysis for the Troc-norfentanyl product in both samples was accomplished using single ion extraction mode (m/z = 149, base peak). Again the discussion will be centered on the high concentration sample as no Troc-norfentanyl was detected for the low concentration sample. As shown previously for the fentanyl-spiked plasma samples (Fig 4A and 4B), extraction of the Troc-norfentanyl mass spectrum using the m/z = 149 base peak yields a similar spectrum to the one previously observed along with the other impurity that has undergone the chemical modification with Troc-Cl. A diagnostic peak in the Troc-norfentanyl spectrum aside from the m/z = 149 is the highly abundant m/z = 150 (Fig 6C). Once more, enlargement of the area in the mass spectrum where the molecular ion should occur shows that peaks belonging to Troc-norfentanyl’s molecular ion peak, with its distinct chlorine isotopic signature can be clearly detected confirming the existence of this product from the reaction (Fig 6D). The peaks highlighted in red in Fig 6D belong to Troc-norfentanyl while the gray ones (shifted by one unit) belong to an unknown compound that has also reacted with Troc-Cl and possesses the trichloroethoxycarbonyl tag as witnessed by the similar chlorine isotopic signature to that one of Troc-norfentanyl. In Fig 6D, the molecular ion peak components for Troc-norfentanyl are outlined in red and unfortunately due to the low abundance of this material in the mixture, it is difficult for it to overtake the larger signal arising from the other Troc-containing interference. It appears that this concentration seems to establish a limit for the protocol in efficiently demonstrating the presence of fentanyl in a given sample. Detection of the other product, 2-phenylethyl chloride, also provided some difficulties at this concentration (10 ng/mL). The mass spectrum of 2-phenylethyl chloride after its ion extraction using m/z = 91 yielded a peak that clearly is the contains an underlying impurity (Fig 6E and 6F). For example a large peak (m/z = 120) is present in the spectrum for 2-phenylethyl chloride in addition to the ones belonging to this material (Fig 6F). Even though the analysis and detection of fentanyl using this methodology when dealing with very low concentrations (5 ng/mL) is difficult and not unambiguous, one must bear in mind that these concentrations are the lowest encountered in overdose situations, while in most cases the opioids are in much higher concentrations typically over 50 ng/mL. In addition, this approach is powerful when is used in conjunction with another method of analysis such as HR-LC-MS that can detect these species at these low concentrations without any issues. Furthermore, as it will be explained in the second part of this work where the HR-LC-MS results are disclosed, detection of 2-phenylethyl chloride is no achievable by LC-MS thus highlighting the use of GC-MS and LC-MS in complementary fashion.

Fig 5. Extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine.

Fig 5

(a) GC chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl (rt = 32.8 min.) for low concentration urine spike (5 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration urine spike (10 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted urine sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration urine sample (rt = 33.03 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample.

Fig 6. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between fentanyl-spiked urine matrices with Troc-Cl.

Fig 6

Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 5 ng/mL; (b) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 10 ng/mL; (c) mass spectrum of Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked urine extract (10 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl; (d) expansion of molecular ion peak for Troc-norfentanyl; (e) 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the Troc-Cl reaction; (f) mass spectrum of 2-phenylethyl chloride containing interfering signals from other matrix components.

After evaluating the protocol’s efficiency with fentanyl, we turned our attention to acetylfentanyl. which is a lower molecular weight analog of fentanyl. Acetylfentanyl is 15x more powerful than morphine and due to its ease of production, it has become involved in many fatal overdose cases in the United States [5557] and other parts of the world [58]. In similar fashion to the fentanyl experiments described above, plasma samples were spiked with acetylfentanyl at two concentrations, a low one (50 ng/mL) and a high (200 ng/mL). The spiked plasma samples were extracted as described above to provide a residue after concentration that again exhibits a complex GC chromatogram (Fig 7A). Analysis of the GC trace using the single ion extraction mode (m/z = 231, base peak) for acetylfentanyl demonstrated that the extraction procedure worked extremely well for both, the low and the high concentration spiked samples (Fig 7B and 7C). When both residues (low and high) underwent the Troc-Cl reaction (Fig 7D) it was found that the reaction successfully worked for both set of samples (Fig 7E and 7F), again using the single ion extraction (m/z = 135) mode for one of the products, Troc-noracetylfentanyl. Comparison of the mass spectra for all components for these experiments demonstrates the ability of the protocol to correctly find and identify both products arising from the reaction of Troc-Cl and acetylfentanyl (Fig 8A–8F). In contrast to the fentanyl-containing plasma samples, which were spiked at a tenfold lower concentration than these, the clear mass spectra belonging to Troc-noracetylfentanyl (Fig 8B and 8E) can be appreciated. Thus, aside from the base peak for this material (m/z = 135), other peaks that are in much lower abundance showing the typical chlorine-containing isotopic signatures can be observed (m/z = 392, 394).

Fig 7. Extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma.

Fig 7

(a) GC chromatogram of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for acetylfentanyl (rt = 32.3 min.) for low concentration plasma spike (50 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration plasma spike (200 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted plasma sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration plasma sample (rt = 32.6 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample.

Fig 8. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between acetylfentanyl-spiked plasma matrices with Troc-Cl.

Fig 8

Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 50 ng/mL; (b) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (50 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl; (c) and 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the reaction; mass spectra for (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 100 ng/mL; (e) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (100 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl; (f) and 2-phenylethyl chloride for the highest concentration spike.

The urine samples were spiked with acetylfentanyl free base at two concentrations, a low (20 ng/mL) and a high (100 ng/mL). The spiked samples were extracted as described above to provide a residue with a complex GC chromatogram (Fig 9A). Again, analysis of the GC trace using the single ion extraction mode (m/z = 231, base peak) for acetylfentanyl demonstrated that the extraction procedure worked well for both sets (Fig 9B and 9C). When both residues were reacted with Troc-Cl (Fig 9D) it was found that the reaction yielded the desired products (Fig 9E and 9F). Comparison of the mass spectra for all components in these set of experiments shows again that clearer and cleaner mass spectra are obtained for the high concentration samples over the low ones (Fig 10A and 10D). Again, an interesting point that arises from the collected set of four mass spectra comprising the low and high samples for the Troc-noracetylfentanyl and 2-phenylethyl chloride, is that it highlights the use of this protocol in retrospectively identifying the original fentanyl (Fig 10B–10F).

Fig 9. Extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine.

Fig 9

(a) GC chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for acetylfentanyl (rt = 32.3 min.) for low concentration urine spike (20 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration urine spike (100 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted urine sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration urine sample (rt = 32.6 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample.

Fig 10. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between acetylfentanyl-spiked urine matrices with Troc-Cl.

Fig 10

Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 20 ng/mL; (b) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked urine extract (20 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl; (c) and 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the reaction; mass spectra for (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 100 ng/mL; (e) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (100 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl; (f) and 2-phenylethyl chloride for the highest concentration spike.

In general, fentanyl analysis by LC-MS is greatly aided by two key features in the molecule, one is the presence of UV chromophores (an isolated phenyl ring and a phenylamido moiety) that significantly help in the overall detection of the fentanyl using a UV detector. Furthermore, and additional physical characteristic is the tertiary piperidine nitrogen that protonates in the acidic media commonly used for LC-MS analysis increasing the drugs’ solubility in the aqueous gradients used. Analysis of the extracted plasma samples yielded complex total ion chromatograms (TICs) on which additional analytical interrogation can be undertaken (Fig 11A). Gratifyingly, identification of fentanyl on these extracts from both sets of samples (low and high) proved that the extraction part of the protocol was successful. Detection of the fentanyl involved extraction of its high-resolution mass for the opioid in its protonated form using the molecular formula (C22H29N2O+ [M+H+ = 337.2274]) using a ± 5 ppm window. Extraction of this mass from the TIC using this approach yielded the ion chromatograms shown in Fig 11B and 11C. Reaction of the residue with Troc-Cl provides a complex mixture of substances that can be appreciated in Fig 11D. As it has been observed in with this matrix during their GC-MS analysis, that some natural plasma components may undergo the same chemical modification of the opioid. In similar fashion to the analysis of fentanyl extracts, high resolution mass extraction of these mixtures (for C17H22 Cl3N2O3+ [M+H+ = 407.0691] ± 5 ppm window) led to the direct detection of Troc-norfentanyl for both low and high concentration samples (Fig 11E and 11F). At this point it is noteworthy to mention the importance of analyzing samples by additional and complementary techniques like EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS. In contrast, EI-GC-MS analysis of the Troc-Cl treated mixtures specifically with the low concentration spiked samples yielded no detectable signals for Troc-norfentanyl and marginally for the second by-product of the reaction, 2-phenylethyl chloride. Therefore, in this case HR-LC-MS would seem to be the only technique to employ as its level of detection is orders of magnitude superior to the one featured by EI-GC-MS. This limitation of the technique for the detection of both component that can then be pieced together to figure out the structure of the original fentanyl, highlights the importance of having an additional technique like GC-MS to act as a complementary analytical tool. Regarding the fentanyl-spiked urine samples, these were extracted prior to their modification with Troc-Cl, and then analyzed for intact fentanyl as described above for the plasma samples. As expected, the extracts exhibited a complex LC chromatogram as appreciated by the TIC shown in Fig 12A. Analysis of the LC traces derived from the low and high concentration samples by using the same high resolution mass extraction approach for the protonated fentanyl form (C22H29N2O+ [M+H+ = 337.2274] ± 5 ppm window) yields clear ion chromatograms for the presence of the opioid (Fig 12B and 12C). Again, these results proved that the extraction part of the protocol was successful and set the stage for the subsequent reaction with Troc-Cl. Reaction of both residues (low and high concentrations) with Troc-Cl provides a complex mixture of substances as appreciated in the TIC in Fig 12D. As it has been observed in with this matrix during their GC-MS analysis, some urine components may undergo the same chemical modification of the opioid adding substantial complexity to the TIC. In similar fashion to the analysis of fentanyl extracts, high resolution mass extraction of these mixtures for the Troc-norfentanyl product (C17H22 Cl3N2O3+ [M+H+ = 407.0691] ± 5 ppm window) led to the direct detection of Troc-norfentanyl for both, the low and high concentration samples (Fig 12E and 12F).

Fig 11. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma.

Fig 11

(a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.2274 ± 5 ppm) for fentanyl (rt = 13.85 min.) for low concentration plasma sample (10 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.2274 ± 5 ppm) for high concentration in plasma sample (20 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of reaction between extracted plasma sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.0691 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked plasma sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.0691 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.91 min.

Fig 12. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine.

Fig 12

(a) Ion chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.2274 ± 5 ppm) for fentanyl (rt = 13.85 min.) for low concentration urine sample (5 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.2274 ± 5 ppm) for high concentration in urine sample (10 ng/mL); (d) Ion chromatogram of reaction between extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.0691 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked urine sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.0691 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.91 min.

After evaluating the protocol’s efficiency with fentanyl, we turned our attention to acetylfentanyl. One striking difference that becomes quickly apparent is that concentrations levels for acetylfentanyl used relative to fentanyl above are much higher and this translates into the quality of data that follows (Figs 13 and 14). The first set of experiments involved the analysis of the fentanyl-spiked plasma samples (Fig 13). These extracts exhibited complex TICs as appreciated in Fig 13A. Analysis of the TIC traces derived from the low and high concentration samples by high resolution mass extraction for the protonated acetylfentanyl form (C21H27N2O+ [M+H+ = 323.2118] ± 5 ppm window) yielded clear ion chromatograms for the presence of the opioid (Fig 13B and 13C). These results proved that the extraction part of the protocol was successful as expected and set the stage for the second part of the protocol (reaction with Troc-Cl). Reaction of the residue with Troc-Cl provides a complex mixture of substances as witnessed in the TIC in Fig 13D. High resolution mass extraction of these mixtures for the Troc-noracetylfentanyl product (C16H20 Cl3N2O3+ [M+H+ = 393.0534] ± 5 ppm window) led to the direct detection of Troc-norfentanyl for both low and high concentration samples (Fig 13E and 13F). Even though detection of the acetylfentanyl and its Troc-norfentanyl product was found to be straightforward due to their high concentration in the plasma matrix, no clear detection was accomplished for the second product of the reaction, namely 2-phenylethyl chloride. This highlights the importance of using a complementary technique like EI-GC-MS in parallel to get a complete picture of the reaction. In this case HR-LC-MS would seem to be the only technique to employ as its level of detection is orders of magnitude superior to the one featured by EI-GC-MS. However, detection of 2-phenylethyl chloride is an important part of the identification process of the opioid that can be accomplished by EI-GC-MS and not necessarily by HR-LC-MS as noted in this part of the work. A similar set of results were obtained for the acetylfentanyl-spiked urine samples. The urine samples were extracted prior to their modification with Troc-Cl, and then analyzed for intact acetylfentanyl as previously done for the plasma samples. The complex TIC can be appreciated in Fig 14A. Analysis of the TIC traces derived from the low and high concentration samples by high resolution mass extraction for the protonated acetylfentanyl form (C21H27N2O+ [M+H+ = 323.2118] ± 5 ppm window) yields clear ion chromatograms for the presence of the opioid (Fig 14B and 14C). Reaction of both residues (low and high concentrations) with Troc-Cl provides a complex mixture of substances (Fig 14D) but when analyzed using the high resolution mass extraction for Troc-noracetylfentanyl (C16H20 Cl3N2O3+ [M+H+ = 393.0534] ± 5 ppm window) led to the direct detection of this product for both, the low and high concentration-spiked samples (Fig 14E and 14F).

Fig 13. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma.

Fig 13

(a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.2118 ± 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl (rt = 12.46 min.) for low concentration plasma sample (50 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.2118 ± 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl for high concentration plasma sample (200 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the reaction of extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.0534 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked plasma sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.0534 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.42 min.

Fig 14. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine.

Fig 14

(a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.2118 ± 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl (rt = 12.46 min.) for low concentration urine sample (20 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.2118 ± 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl for high concentration urine sample (100 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the reaction of extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.0534 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked urine sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.0534 ± 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.42 min.

Conclusion

The reaction between fentanyls and the chloroformate Troc-Cl results in the generation of two predictable products that are unique to the original fentanyl and also abiotic in nature which allows for the identification of the opioid in biological samples. In this work we have demonstrated the successful incorporation of this chemistry in the established identification process of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl in biological matrices present in relevant concentrations in overdose victims using EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS. The reaction produces a Troc-modified version of the metabolic products from both opioids, namely norfentanyl and noracetylfentanyl that now provide an additional species to fully confirm the presence of these lethal opioids in these matrices. The procedure consists of the initial extraction of the fentanyls from the matrices followed by treatment of the extracts with Troc-Cl to provide the unique signature products. Both opioids were spiked separately in urine (at 5 and 10 ng/mL) and plasma (at 10 and 20 ng/mL) at two concentrations (one low and one high). Interestingly, even though the extraction step was successful for the low concentration urine sample for fentanyl (~5 ng/mL), the Troc method did not produce any of the desired Troc-norfentanyl highlighting the limitation of the EI-GC-MS part of the protocol when dealing with such low concentrations of the opioid. In contrast, analysis of the high concentration urine sample for fentanyl (~10 ng/mL), detected the formation of Troc-norfentanyl for its qualitative detection by GC-MS. For the acetylfentanyl spikes, the product arising from the protocol, Troc-noracetylfentanyl was detected in both urine samples (spiked at 20 and 100 ng/mL) as well as the plasma samples (spiked at 50 and 200 ng/mL). Analysis of the same set of samples by HR-LC-MS yielded better results due to the technique’s inherently superior sensitivity. The HR-LC-MS method’s LOQ (limit of quantitation) for the Troc-norfentanyl and Troc-noracetylfentanyl products was determined to be ~10 ng/mL for both species. Even though the superiority in the detection of these species by HR-LC-MS over EI-GC-MS, the latter method proved to be important in the detection of the second product from the reaction, namely 2-phenylethyl chloride that is crucial in the determination of the original opioid. The work described herein greatly aids in the confirmation of a known fentanyl present in collected urine, plasma and by extension other biological samples amenable to the common extraction procedures described for opioid analysis. However, the method’s main strength comes from its ability to react with unknown fentanyls in a predictable manner to yield products that can be not only detected by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS but can then be analyzed to retrospectively identify the original fentanyl which might not be a traditionally used one.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary material to the manuscript.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Carolyn J. Koester and Mr. Armando Alcaraz for engaging discussions regarding GC-MS/LC-MS analysis and their critical reading of the manuscript.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Forensic Science Center and are included in the Supporting Information accompanying this publication.

Funding Statement

This work was performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The was funded fully by a Mid-Career Research Grant awarded by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (PLS-21-FS-036) to C. A. V. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Janssen PAJ, Eddy NB. Compounds Related to Pethidine-IV. New General Chemical Methods of Increasing the Analgesic Activity of Pethidine. J. Med. Chem. 1960;2(1):31–45. doi: 10.1021/jm50008a003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stanley TH. The History and Development of the Fentanyl Series. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1992;7(3 Suppl):S3–S7. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(92)90047-l [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Grass JA. Fentanyl: Clinical Use as Postoperative Analgesic: Epidural/Intrathecal Route. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1992;7(7):419–430. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(92)90022-a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Schug SA, Ting S. Fentanyl Formulations in the Management of Pain: An Update. Drugs. 2017;77(7):747–763. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0727-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chen C, Gupta A. Clinical and pharmacokinetic considerations of novel formulations of fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain. Pain Manag. 2014;4(5):339–350. doi: 10.2217/pmt.14.32 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bhezadi M, Joukar S, Beik A. Opioids and Cardiac Arrhythmia: A Literature Review. Med. Princ. Pract. 2018;27(5):401–414. doi: 10.1159/000492616 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Socías ME, Wood E. Epidemic of deaths from fentanyl overdose. Brit. Med. J. 2017;358:j4355. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gostin LO, Hodge JG, Noe SA. Reframing the Opioid Epidemic as a National Emergency. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2017;318(16):1539–1540. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Drummer OH. Fatalities Caused by Novel Opioids: A Review. Forensic Sci. Res. 2019;4(2):95–110. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2018.1460063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Coupland RM. Incapacitating Chemical Weapons: A Year after the Moscow Theatre Siege. Lancet. 2003;362(9393):1346. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14684-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Mayer BP. An Efficient, Optimized Synthesis of Fentanyl and Related Analogs. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(9):e108250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Walz AJ, Hsu F-L. An Operationally Simple Synthesis of Fentanyl Citrate. Org. Prep. Proc. Int. 2017;49(5):467–470. doi: 10.1080/00304948.2017.1374129 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yeung DT, Bough KJ, Harper JR, Platoff GE. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Executive Meeting Summary: Developing Medical Countermeasures to Rescue Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression (a Trans-Agency Scientific Meeting)—August 6/7, 2019. J. Med. Toxicol. 2020;16(1):87–105. doi: 10.1007/s13181-019-00750-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pardo B, Taylor J, Caulkins J, Reuter P, Kilmer B. The Dawn of a New Synthetic Opioid Era: The Need for Innovative Interventions. Addiction. 2021;116(6):1304–1312. doi: 10.1111/add.15222 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.France CP, Ahern G, Averick S, Enright HA, Esmaeli-Azad B, Federico A, et al. Countermeasures for Preventing and Treating Opioid Overdose. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020;109(3):578–590. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Hart BR. Analysis of Chemical Warfare Agents by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: Methods for Their Direct Detection and Derivatization Approaches for the Analysis of Their Degradation Products. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2018;37(1):1–26. doi: 10.1515/revac-2017-0007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Valdez CA. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Synthetic Opioids Belonging to the Fentanyl Class: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2021. doi: 10.1080/10408347.2021.1927668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kumar K, Morgan DJ, Crankshaw DP. Determination of Fentanyl and Alfentanil in Plasma by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection. J. Chromatogr. 1987;419:464–468. doi: 10.1016/0378-4347(87)80317-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cooreman S, Deprez C, Martens F, Van Bocxlaer J, Croes K. A Comprehensive LC-MS-Based Quantitative Analysis of Fentanyl-Like Drugs in Plasma and Urine. J. Sep. Sci. 2010;33(17–18):2654–2662. doi: 10.1002/jssc.201000330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bévalot F, Cartiser N, Bottinelli C, Fanton L, Guitton J. Vitreous humor analysis for the detection of xenobiotics in forensic toxicology: a review. Forensic Toxicol. 2016;34, 12–40. doi: 10.1007/s11419-015-0294-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Feierman DE, Lasker JM. Metabolism of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid analgesic, by human liver microsomes. Role of CYP3A4. Drug Metab. Dispos. 1996;24(9):932–939. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Steuer AE, Williner E, Staeheli SN, Kraemer T. Studies on the metabolism of the fentanyl-derived designer drug butyrfentanyl in human in vitro liver preparations and authentic human samples using liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Drug Test. Anal. 2017;9(7),1085–1092. doi: 10.1002/dta.2111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Day J, Slawson M, Lugo RA, Wilkins D. Analysis of Fentanyl and Norfentanyl in Human Plasma by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Using Electrospray Ionization. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2003;27(7):513–516. doi: 10.1093/jat/27.7.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Verplaetse R, Henion J. Quantitative determination of opioids in whole blood using fully automated dried blood spot desorption coupled to on-line SPE-LC-MS/MS. Drug Test. Anal. 2016;8(1),30–38. doi: 10.1002/dta.1927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Strayer KE, Antonides HM, Juhascik MP, Daniulaityte R, Sizemore IE. LC-MS/MS-Based Method for the Multiplex Detection of 24 Fentanyl Analogues and Metabolites in Whole Blood at Sub ng·mL–1 Concentrations. ACS Omega. 2018;3(1):514–523. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.7b01536 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Qin N, Shen M, Xiang P, Wen D, Shen B, Den H, et al. Determination of 37 fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair by UHPLC-MS/MS and its application to authentic cases. Sci. Rep. 2020;10(1):11569. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-68348-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mayer BP, Valdez CA, DeHope AJ, Spackman PE, Williams AM. Statistical Analysis of the Chemical Attribution Signatures of 3-Methylfentanyl and Its Methods of Production. Talanta. 2018;186:645–654. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.02.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ovenden SPB, McDowall LJ, McKeown HE, McGill NW, Jones OAH, Pearson JR, et al. Investigating the Chemical Impurity Profiles of Fentanyl Preparations and Precursors to Identify Chemical Attribution Signatures for Synthetic Method Attribution. Forensic Sci. Int. 2021;321:110742. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stein S. Mass spectral reference libraries: An ever-expanding resource for chemical identification. Anal. Chem. 2012;84(17): 7274–7282. doi: 10.1021/ac301205z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nyanyira C. The OPCW Central Analytical Database, Chemical Weapons Convention Chemicals Analysis: Sample Collection, Preparation and Analytical Methods (Ed: Mesilaakso M.). John Wiley, Chichester, 2005, p. 133–149. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Alcaraz A. Assessing the reliability of the NIST library during routine GC-MS analyses: Structure and spectral data corroboration for 5,5-diphenyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-one during a recent OPCW proficiency test. J. Mass Spectrom. 2018;53(5):419–422. doi: 10.1002/jms.4073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Sanner RD, Corzett TH, Dreyer ML, Mason KE. Structural modification of fentanyls for their retrospective identification by gas chromatographic analysis using chloroformate chemistry. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1):22489. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01896-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.McIntyre IM, Gary RD, Estrada J, Nelson CL. Antemortem and Postmortem Fentanyl Concentrations: A Case Report. Int. J. Legal Med. 2014;128(1):65–67. doi: 10.1007/s00414-013-0897-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cunningham SM, Haikal NA, Kraner JC. Fatal Intoxication with Acetyl Fentanyl. J. Forensic Sci. 2016;61(Suppl 1):S276–S280. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12953 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yonemitsu K, Sasao A, Mishima S, Ohtsu Y, Nishitani Y. A Fatal Poisoning Case by Intravenous Injection of "Bath Salts" Containing Acetyl Fentanyl and 4-Methoxy PV8. Forensic Sci. Int. 2016;267:e6–e9. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wnuk SF, Valdez CA, Khan J, Moutinho P, Robins MJ, Yang X, et al. Doubly homologated dihalovinyl and acetylene analogues of adenosine: Synthesis, interaction with S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine hydrolase, and antiviral and cytostatic effects. J. Med. Chem. 2000;43(6):1180–1186. doi: 10.1021/jm990486y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wnuk SF, Ro B-O, Valdez CA, Lewandowska E, Valdez NX, Sacasa PR, et al. Sugar-modified conjugated diene analogues of adenosine and uridine: Synthesis, interaction with S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine hydrolase, and antiviral and cytostatic effects. J. Med. Chem. 2002;45(12):2651–2658. doi: 10.1021/jm020064f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Showalter BM, Reynolds MM, Valdez CA, Saavedra JE, Davies KM, Klose JR, et al. Diazeniumdiolate ions as leaving groups in anomeric displacement reactions: a protection-deprotection strategy for ionic diazeniumdiolates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005;127(41):14188–14189. doi: 10.1021/ja054510a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Valdez CA, Saavedra JE, Showalter BM, Davies KM, Wilde TC, Citro ML, et al. Hydrolytic reactivity trends among potential prodrugs of the O2-glycosylated diazeniumdiolate family. Targeting nitric oxide to macrophages for antileishmanial activity. J. Med. Chem. 2008;51(13):3961–3970. doi: 10.1021/jm8000482 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Vu AK, Salazar EP, Alcaraz A. Methylation protocol for the retrospective detection of isopropyl-, pinacolyl- and cyclohexylmethylphosphonic acids, indicative markers for the nerve agents sarin, soman and cyclosarin, at low levels in soils using EI-GC-MS. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;683:175–184. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Alcaraz A. Effective methylation and identification of phosphonic acids relevant to chemical warfare agents mediated by trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate for their qualitative detection by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta, 2016;933:134–143. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2016.05.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Valdez CA, Marchioretto MK, Leif RN, Hok S. Efficient derivatization of methylphosphonic and aminoethylsulfonic acids related to nerve agents simultaneously in soils using trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate for their enhanced, qualitative detection and identification by EI-GC-MS and GC-FPD. Forensic Sci. Int. 2018;288:159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S. Carbene-based difluoromethylation of bisphenols: Application to the instantaneous tagging of bisphenol A in spiked soil for its detection and identification by electron ionization gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:17360. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53735-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Foerster EH, Mason MF. Preliminary studies on the use of n-butylchloride as an extractant in a drug screening procedure. J. Forensic Sci. 1974;19(1):155–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Strano-Rossi S, Alvarez I, Tabernero MJ, Cabarcos P, Fernández P, Bermejo AM. Determination of Fentanyl, Metabolite and Analogs in Urine by GC/MS. J. Applied Toxicol. 2011;31(7):649–654. doi: 10.1002/jat.1613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gardner MA, Sampsel S, Jenkins WW, Owens JE. Analysis of Fentanyl in Urine by DLLME-GC-MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015;39(2):118–125. doi: 10.1093/jat/bku136 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Strano-Rossi S, Bermejo AM, de la Torre X, Botrè F. Fast GC-MS Method for the Simultaneous Screening of THCCOOH, Cocaine, Opiates and Analogues Including Buprenorphine and Fentanyl, and Their Metabolites in Urine. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2011;399(4):1623–1630. doi: 10.1007/s00216-010-4471-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sisco E, Burns A, Moorthy AS. Development and evaluation of a synthetic opioid targeted gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method. J. Forensic Sci. 2021;66:2369–2380. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Moore A, Foss J, Juhascik M, Botch-Jones S, Kero F. Rapid Screening of opioids in seized street drugs using ambient ionization high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Forensic Chem. 2019;13:100149. doi: 10.1016/j.forc.2019.100149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Weldon ST, Perry DF, Cork RC, Gandolfi AJ. Detection of Picogram Levels of Sufentanil by Capillary Gas Chromatography. Anesthesiology. 1985;63:684–687. doi: 10.1097/00000542-198512000-00021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Van Nimmen NFJ, Poels KLC, Veulemans HAF. Highly Sensitive Gas Chromatographic-Mass Spectrometric Screening Method for the Determination of Picogram Levels of Fentanyl, Sufentanil and Alfentanil and Their Major Metabolites in Urine of Opioid Exposed Workers. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2004;804(2):375–387. doi: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.01.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gerace E, Salomone A, Vincenti M. Analytical approaches in fatal intoxication cases involving new synthetic opioids. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnology, 2018;19,113–123. doi: 10.2174/1389201019666180405162734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.UNODC. Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Fentanyl and Its Analogues in Biological Specimens. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, 2017. doi: 10.18356/aca7aca5-en [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Anderson DT, Muto JJ. Duragesic Transdermal Patch: postmortem Tissue Distribution of Fentanyl in 25 Cases. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2000;24:627–634. doi: 10.1093/jat/24.7.627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ogilvie L, Stanley C, Lewis L, Boyd M, Lozier M. Notes from the Field: Acetyl Fentanyl Overdose fatalities-Rhode Island, March-May 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2013;62:703–704. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.McIntyre IM, Trochta A, Gary RD, Malamatos M, Lucas JR. An Acute Acetyl Fentanyl Fatality: A Case Report with Postmortem Concentrations. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015;39(6):490–494. doi: 10.1093/jat/bkv043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fort C, Curtis B, Nichols C, Niblo C. Acetyl Fentanyl Toxicity: Two Case Reports. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2016;40(9):754–757. doi: 10.1093/jat/bkw068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Katselou M, Papoutsis I, Nikolaou P, Spiliopoulou C, Athanaselis S. Old Opioids, New Concerns: The Case of Acetylfentanyl. Forensic Toxicol. 2016;34:201–212. doi: 10.1007/s11419-016-0310-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Joseph Banoub

1 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-22025Analysis, Identification and  Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valdez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 16 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph Banoub, Ph,D., D. Sc.,FCIC, FRCS

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This document (LLNL-JRNL-XXXX) was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work was performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.  The was funded fully by a Mid-Career Research Grant awarded by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (PLS-21-FS-036) to C. A. V.  The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. "

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study developed in the article submitted for expert appraisal consists of the analysis of the products resulting from the trichloroethoxycarbonylation of fentanyl and acetylfentanyl in urine and plasma matrices. The method described involves the initial extraction of the two synthetic opioids separately from the matrices and then detection of the single product resulting from their reaction with 2,2,2-trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride, namely Troc-norfentanyl and Troc -noracetylfentanyl. The optimized protocol was evaluated by the authors for its effectiveness in detecting these species formed from fentanyl and acetylfentanyl when the latter is present at low and high levels in urine. The limit of quantification of the method is thus determined at approximately 10 ng/mL for the two species. Although the superiority in the detection of these species by HR-LC-MS, EI-GC-MS proves important in the detection of the second product of the reaction (2-phenylethyl chloride), important in the determination of the opioid. This observation by the authors shows the importance of using analyzes that complement the techniques for analyzing a sample, whether biological or environmental in nature. The present method can thus serve as an additional qualitative confirmation of the presence of a fentanyl in collected urine, plasma and by extension other biological samples which can lend themselves to routine extraction procedures for opioid analysis. The described method can also be used to retrospectively identify unknown fentanyls. It would be interesting to develop this aspect in the conclusion in concrete perspectives.

General comments; The study is perfectly described and the conclusions are supported by results which for some lack a little discussion. In particular a comparative discussion with recently published studies in the field. The conclusion should open on perspectives that need to be developed.

A thorough proofreading should correct minor typographical errors.

Line476 Discussion or conclusion?

line606 line feed

Simplify the titles of the figures and favor putting annotations.

....

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting piece of research of significant topical value. While the use of fentanyl and analogues in a medicinal context is of great benefit, their illicit use is of at least equal (potential) societal damage. The paper is well written and the methodology sound and described in suitable detail. One could perhaps quibble that limits of detection could be more rigorously determined but the primary benefit of the data is not dependent upon their total precision. The figures are well crafted and explained and the deductions sound. The great value of the work is not in just providing another protocol for identifyig and measuring fentanyl but in providing a valuable paradigm for identification not just of the parent compound and currently known derivatives but also for identifying previously unknown novel analogues.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0275931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275931.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Sep 2022

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled: “Analysis, Identification and Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS”.

We have addressed the first reviewer’s comments and these are highlighted in the “revised manuscript” and present in the “manuscript” new versions of the document. The first reviewers had three comments. The first two were straightforward (i.e., replace discussion by conclusion and a line feed in Line 606). The last one was a suggestion to simplify titles for the figures. We have attempted to reduce the text and insert informative titles for each figure as suggested and per the journal’s request. We hope these changes are sufficient enough so as to not impact the overall description of the figure by the captions below it. Please let us know if we would need to modify further. Again, these changes are highlighted in the “revised manuscript” and present in the “manuscript” new versions of the document.

To the Editor, we have formatted the manuscript per guidelines set by the journal. All these changes can be easily followed by the highlighted “revised manuscript” new version of the document. In addition, we removed the Disclaimer and Auspices statements from the Acknowledgements section. The new, revised funding statement can be found in the "Response to Reviewers" letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Joseph Banoub

12 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-22025R1Analysis, Identification and  Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Valdez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joseph Banoub, Ph,D., D. Sc., FCIC, FRSC

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors are advised to do the minor corrections suggested by referee 1.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 2;17(11):e0275931. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275931.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Sep 2022

Dear Reviewers and Editor,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript titled: “Analysis, Identification and Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS”.

We have addressed the first reviewer’s comments and these are highlighted in the “revised manuscript” and present in the “manuscript” new versions of the document. The second reviewer did not have any specific comments on the manuscript. The first reviewer had three comments. The first two were straightforward (i.e., replace discussion by conclusion and a line feed in Line 606). The last one was a suggestion to simplify titles for the figures. We have attempted to reduce the text and insert informative titles for each figure as suggested and per the journal’s request. Below is an itemized list these changes in the revised version:

1. The word discussion was changed to conclusion in the main text.

2. Line 606 was denoted as a line feed. We have deleted this.

3. Titles of the Figures have been formatted and simplified as much as possible while retaining their clear, descriptive nature. The changes made are itemized below and the edits are highlighted in yellow. A tracked changes version of the Figure file has been also uploaded in the overall review of the manuscript for your convenience.

4. Fig 1. Synthetic opioids belonging to the fentanyl family. (a) Chemical structures of fentanyl, acetylfentanyl and their main metabolites, the potencies of each opioid relative to morphine are given in brackets; (b) commonly employed antidotes against fentanyl poisoning along with their circulation half-lives.

5. Fig 2. Chemical modification of fentanyls. (a) Reaction of fentanyl with 2,2,2-trichloroethoxycarbonyl chloride (Troc-Cl) to yield two unique, abiotic products that bear structural features of the original opioid (grayed boxes); (b) overall protocol to aid in the confirmation of fentanyl and norfentanyl in a biological sample by EI-GC-MS and targeted HR-LC-MS.

6. Fig 3. Extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma at two concentrations (10 and 20 ng/mL). (a) GC chromatogram of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl (rt = 32.8 min.) for low concentration spike; (c) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration spike; (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted plasma sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration sample showing no discernible peak while (f) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration sample shows a clear peak at rt = 33.03 min.

7. Fig 4. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between fentanyl-spiked plasma matrices with Troc-Cl. Mass spectra for (a) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (20 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, note that the spectrum is complex and it is the result of an additional Troc-containing interference (Troc-norfentanyl peaks indicated in red); (b) Expansion of the molecular ion peak region for Troc-norfentanyl where the peaks arising from our product are highlighted in red and those from the Troc-containing interference are in gray; mass spectra for (c) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 10 ng/mL and (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 20 ng/mL; (e) mass spectrum for 2-phenylethyl chloride for the lowest fentanyl concentration spike and (f) for the highest fentanyl concentration.

8. Fig 5. Extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine. (a) GC chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl (rt = 32.8 min.) for low concentration urine spike (5 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 245) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration urine spike (10 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted urine sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration urine sample (rt = 33.03 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 149) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample.

9. Fig 6. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between fentanyl-spiked urine matrices with Troc-Cl. Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 5 ng/mL, (b) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 10 ng/mL, (c) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked urine extract (10 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, (d) and 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the reaction; mass spectra. Mass spectra for Troc-norfentanyl and 2-phenylethyl chloride contain interfering signals from other matrix components, but in both cases the base peaks can be observed (m/z = 149 and m/z = 91 respectively).

10. Fig 7. Extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma. (a) GC chromatogram of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for acetylfentanyl (rt = 32.3 min.) for low concentration plasma spike (50 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration plasma spike (200 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted plasma sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration plasma sample (rt = 32.6 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample.

11. Fig 8. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between acetylfentanyl-spiked plasma matrices with Troc-Cl. Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 50 ng/mL, (b) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (50 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, (c) and 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the reaction; mass spectra for (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 100 ng/mL, (e) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (100 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, (f) and 2-phenylethyl chloride for the highest concentration spike.

12. Fig 9. Extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine. (a) GC chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for acetylfentanyl (rt = 32.3 min.) for low concentration urine spike (20 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion (m/z = 231) chromatogram for fentanyl for high concentration urine spike (100 ng/mL); (d) GC chromatogram of the reaction between extracted urine sample and Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the low concentration urine sample (rt = 32.6 min.); (f) extracted ion (m/z = 135) chromatogram for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample.

13. Fig 10. Mass spectral data associated with the reaction between acetylfentanyl-spiked urine matrices with Troc-Cl. Mass spectra for (a) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 20 ng/mL, (b) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked urine extract (20 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, (c) and 2-phenylethyl chloride, the second confirmatory by-product from the reaction; mass spectra for (d) extracted fentanyl when spiked at 100 ng/mL, (e) Troc-norfentanyl product arising from the treatment of fentanyl-spiked plasma extract (100 ng/mL) with Troc-Cl, (f) and 2-phenylethyl chloride for the highest concentration spike.

14. Fig 11. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma. (a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.4865 � 5 ppm) for fentanyl (rt = 13.85 min.) for low concentration plasma sample (10 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.4865 � 5 ppm) for high concentration in plasma sample (20 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of reaction between extracted plasma sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.7160 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked plasma sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.7160 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.91 min.

15. Fig 12. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of fentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine. (a) Ion chromatogram of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.4865 � 5 ppm) for fentanyl (rt = 13.85 min.) for low concentration urine sample (5 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 337.4865 � 5 ppm) for high concentration in urine sample (10 ng/mL); (d) Ion chromatogram of reaction between extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.7160 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked urine sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 407.7160 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.91 min.

16. Fig 13. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in plasma. (a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted plasma sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.4595 � 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl (rt = 12.46 min.) for low concentration plasma sample (50 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.4595 � 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl for high concentration plasma sample (200 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the reaction of extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.6890 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked plasma sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.6890 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked plasma sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.42 min.

17. Fig 14. Analysis by HR-LC-MS of extraction and reaction of acetylfentanyl with Troc-Cl when spiked in urine. (a) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of extracted urine sample; (b) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.4595 � 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl (rt = 12.46 min.) for low concentration urine sample (20 ng/mL); (c) extracted ion ([M+H]+ = 323.4595 � 5 ppm) for acetylfentanyl for high concentration urine sample (100 ng/mL); (d) Total ion chromatogram (TIC) of the reaction of extracted urine sample with Troc-Cl; (e) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.6890 � 5 ppm) for Troc-norfentanyl for low concentration spiked urine sample; (f) extracted ion ([M+H+] = 393.6890 � 5 ppm)for Troc-norfentanyl for the high concentration spiked urine sample showing its appearance at rt = 15.42 min.

We hope these changes are sufficient enough so as to not impact the overall description of the figure by the captions below it. Please let us know if we would need to modify further. Again, these changes are highlighted in the “revised manuscript” and present in the “manuscript” new versions of the document.

To the Editor, we have formatted the manuscript per guidelines set by the journal. All these changes can be easily followed by the highlighted “revised manuscript” new version of the document. Below is an itemized list of all the changes in the revised version.

1. Line 29: Abstract title changed to font size = 18.

2. Line 57: Introduction title changed to font size = 18.

3. Line 157: Materials and methods title changed to font size = 18.

4. Line 159: Chemicals and reagents title changed to font size = 16.

5. Line 173: EI-GC-MS Analysis Method title changed to font size = 16.

6. Line 191: HR-LC-MS Analysis Method title changed to font size = 16.

7. Line 209: Sample preparation and extraction title changed to font size = 16.

8. Line 231: Results and Discussion title changed to font size = 18.

9. Line 577: Conclusion title (changed from originally Discussion) changed to font size = 18.

10. Line 607: Acknowledgements title changed to font size = 18 and now reads: “The authors would like to thank Dr. Carolyn J. Koester and Mr. Armando Alcaraz for engaging discussions regarding GC-MS/LC-MS analysis and their critical reading of the manuscript.”

11. Lines 613-614: The disclaimer and auspices statements where funding source is mentioned have been removed and added to the bottom of this rebuttal letter.

12. All references annotations within the main text of the manuscript have been changed from parentheses ( ) to brackets [ ].

Line 59: (1, 2) changed to [1, 2]

Line 61: (3) changed to [3]

Line 61: (4, 5) changed to [4, 5]

Line 66: (6) changed to [6]

Line 69: (7-9) changed to [7-9]

Line 71: (10) changed to [10]

Line 73: (11, 12) changed to [11, 12]

Line 76: (13-15) changed to [13-15]

Lines 77-78: (16, 17) changed to [16, 17]

Line 78: (18, 19) changed to [18, 19]

Line 96: (16, 20) changed to [16, 20]

Line 98: (16) changed to [16]

Lines 100-101: (21, 22) changed to [21, 22]

Line 103: (23-26) changed to [23-26]

Line 110: (27, 28) changed to [27, 28]

Line 121: (29-31) changed to [29-31]

Line 125: (32) changed to [32]

Line 130: (32) changed to [32]

Line 140: (33-35) changed to [33-35]

Line 169: (36, 37) changed to [36, 37]

Line 169: (38, 39) changed to [38, 39]

Line 176: (40-43) changed to [40-43]

Line 213: (17) changed to [17]

Line 218: (44) changed to [44]

Line 235: (45) changed to [45]

Line 235: (46) changed to [46]

Line 237: (47) changed to [47]

Line 240: (48, 49) changed to [48, 49]

Line 243: (50, 51) changed to [50, 51]

Line 245: (e.g. drug confiscation) changed to (e.g., drug confiscation)

Line 246: (e.g. hydrochloride) changed to (e.g., hydrochloride)

Line 247: (52, 53) changed to [52, 53]

Line 259: (32) changed to [32]

Line 268: (44) changed to [44]

Line 274: (54) changed to [54]

Line 298: (32) changed to [32]

Line 334: (e.g. benzylfentanyl) changed to (e.g., benzylfentanyl)

Line 403: (55-57) changed to [55-57]

Line 404: (58) changed to [58]

13. All Figure annotations within the main text of the manuscript have been changed from the original (Figure 1) to (Fig 1) and so on. Each and every change is highlighted in yellow in the “revised manuscript” version.

Line 62: (Figure 1a) changed to (Fig 1a)

Line 68: (Figure 1a) changed to (Fig 1a)

Line 76: (Figure 1b) changed to (Fig 1b)

Line 99: (Figure 1a) changed to (Fig 1a)

Line 128: (Figure 2a) changed to (Fig 2a)

Line 135: (Figure 2b) changed to (Fig 2b)

Line 140: (Figure 2b) changed to (Fig 2b)

Line 271: (Figure 3) changed to (Fig 3)

Line 276: (Figure 3a) changed to (Fig 3a)

Line 288: (Figures 3e and 3f) changed to (Figs 3e and 3f)

Line 289: (Figures 3e and 3f) changed to (Figs 3e and 3f)

Line 290: Figures 3e and 3f text changed to Figs 3e and 3f

Line 293: Figure 3f text changed to Fig 3f

Line 296: (Figure 4a) changed to (Fig 4a)

Line 299: Figure 4a text changed to Fig 4a

Line 301: Figure 4b text changed to Fig 4b

Line 304: Figure 4b text changed to Fig 4b

Line 317: Figure 4a text changed to Fig 4a

Line 322: (Figures 4c and 4d) changed to (Figs 4c and 4d)

Line 324: (Figures 4e and 4f) changed to (Figs 4e and 4f)

Line 328: (Figures 4a, 4b and 4f) changed to (Figs 4a, 4b and 4f)

Line 331: (Figure 4e) changed to (Fig 4e)

Line 341: (Figure 5) changed to (Fig 5)

Line 345: (Figure 5a) changed to (Fig 5a)

Line 347: (Figures 5b and 5c) changed to (Fig 5b and 5c)

Line 349: (Figure 5d) changed to (Fig 5d)

Line 350: (Figure 5e) changed to (Fig 5e)

Line 351: (Figure 5f) changed to (Fig 5f)

Line 355: (Figures 4a and 4b) changed to (Fig 4a and 4b)

Line 359: (Figure 6c) changed to (Fig 6c)

Line 371: (Figure 6d) changed to (Fig 6d)

Line 371: Figure 6d in text changed to Fig 6d

Line 375: Figure 6d in text changed to Fig 6d

Line 382: (Figures 6e and 6f) changed to (Fig 6e and 6f)

Line 384: (Figure 6f) changed to (Fig 6f)

Line 408: (Figure 7a) changed to (Fig 7a)

Line 410: (Figures 7b and 7c) changed to (Figs 7b and 7c)

Line 411: (Figure 7d) changed to (Fig 7d)

Line 412: (Figures 7e and 7f) changed to (Figs 7e and 7f)

Line 416: (Figures 8a-f) changed to (Figs 8a-f)

Line 418: (Figures 8b and 8e) changed to (Figs 8b and 8e)

Line 433: (Figure 9a) changed to (Fig 9a)

Lines 435-436: (Figures 9b and 9c) changed to (Figs 9b and 9c)

Line 436: (Figure 9d) changed to (Fig 9d)

Line 437: (Figures 9e and 9f) changed to (Figs 9e and 9f)

Lines 439-440: (Figures 10a and 10d) changed to (Figs 10a and 10d)

Line 443: (Figures 10b-f) changed to (Figs 10b-f)

Line 474: (Figure 11a) changed to (Fig 11a)

Line 479: Figures 11b and 11c in text changed to Figs 11b and 11c

Line 481: Figure 11d in text changed to Fig 11d

Line 486: (Figures 11e and 11f) changed to (Figs 11e and 11f)

Line 503: Figure 12a in text changed to Fig 12a

Lines 506-507: (Figures 12b and 12c) changed to (Figs 12b and 12c)

Line 510: Figure 12d in text changed to Fig 12d

Lines 518-519: (Figures 12e and 12f) changed to (Figs 12e and 12f)

Line 524: (Figures 13-14) changed to (Figs 13-14)

Line 525: (Figure 13) changed to (Fig 13)

Line 526: Figure 13a in text changed to Fig 13a

Line 529: (Figures 13b and 13c) changed to (Figs 13b and 13c)

Line 533: Figure 13d in text changed to Fig 13d

Lines 535-536: (Figures 13e and 13f) changed to (Figs 13e and 13f)

Line 555: Figure 14a in text changed to Fig 14a

Line 558: (Figures 14b and 14c) changed to (Figs 14b and 14c)

Line 560: (Figure 14d) changed to (Fig 14d)

Line 563: (Figures 14e and 14f) changed to (Figs 14e and 14f

14. All References within the main text of the manuscript have been formatted accordingly to fit the journal’s guidelines (including the addition of DOI info). Below is an itemized list of all the references changed and the changes are highlighted.

Lines 645-647: 1. Janssen PAJ, Eddy NB. Compounds Related to Pethidine-IV. New General Chemical Methods of Increasing the Analgesic Activity of Pethidine. J Med Chem. 1960;2(1):31-45. doi: 10.1021/jm50008a003

Lines 649-650: 2. Stanley TH. The History and Development of the Fentanyl Series. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1992;7(3 Suppl):S3–S7. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(92)90047-L

Lines 652-654: 3. Grass JA. Fentanyl: Clinical Use as Postoperative Analgesic: Epidural/Intrathecal Route. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1992;7(7):419-430. doi: 10.1016/0885-3924(92)90022-a

Lines 656-657: 4. Schug SA, Ting S. Fentanyl Formulations in the Management of Pain: An Update. Drugs. 2017;77(7):747-763. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0727-z

Lines 659-660: 5. Chen C, Gupta A. Clinical and pharmacokinetic considerations of novel formulations of fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain. Pain Manag. 2014;4(5):339-350. doi: 10.2217/pmt.14.32

Lines 663-664: 6. Bhezadi M, Joukar S, Beik A. Opioids and Cardiac Arrhythmia: A Literature Review. Med. Princ. Pract. 2018;27(5):401-414. doi: 10.1159/000492616

Lines 766-767: 7. Socías ME, Wood E. Epidemic of deaths from fentanyl overdose. Brit Med J 2017;358:j4355. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4355

Lines 769-771: 8. Gostin LO, Hodge JG, Noe SA. Reframing the Opioid Epidemic as a National Emergency. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2017;318(16):1539-1540. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.13358

Lines 773-774: 9. Drummer OH. Fatalities Caused by Novel Opioids: A Review. Forensic Sci. Res. 2019;4(2):95-110. DOI: 10.1080/20961790.2018.1460063

Lines 776-777: 10. Coupland RM. Incapacitating Chemical Weapons: A Year after the Moscow Theatre Siege. Lancet. 2003;362(9393):1346. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14684-3

Lines 779-780: 11. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Mayer BP. An Efficient, Optimized Synthesis of Fentanyl and Related Analogs. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e108250. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108250

Lines 782-783: 12. Walz AJ, Hsu F-L. An Operationally Simple Synthesis of Fentanyl Citrate. Org. Prep. Proc. Int. 2017;49(5):467-470. DOI: 10.1080/00304948.2017.1374129

Lines 785-993: 13. Yeung DT, Bough KJ, Harper JR, Platoff GE. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Executive Meeting Summary: Developing Medical Countermeasures to Rescue Opioid-Induced Respiratory Depression (a Trans-Agency Scientific Meeting) - August 6/7, 2019. J. Med. Toxicol. 2020;16(1):87-105. DOI: 10.1007/s13181-019-00750-x

Lines 995-997: 14. Pardo B, Taylor J, Caulkins J, Reuter P, Kilmer B. The Dawn of a New Synthetic Opioid Era: The Need for Innovative Interventions. Addiction. 2021;116(6):1304-1312. DOI: 10.1111/add.15222

Lines 999-1001: 15. France CP, Ahern G, Averick S, Enright HA, Esmaeli-Azad B, Federico A, et al. Countermeasures for Preventing and Treating Opioid Overdose. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020;109(3):578-590. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2098

Lines 1003-1006: 16. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Hart BR. Analysis of Chemical Warfare Agents by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry: Methods for Their Direct Detection and Derivatization Approaches for the Analysis of Their Degradation Products. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2018;37(1):1-26. DOI: 10.1515/revac-2017-0007.

Lines 1008-1010: 17. Valdez CA. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Synthetic Opioids Belonging to the Fentanyl Class: A Review. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2021. DOI:10.1080/10408347.2021.1927668.

Lines 1204-1206: 18. Kumar K, Morgan DJ, Crankshaw DP. Determination of Fentanyl and Alfentanil in Plasma by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography with Ultraviolet Detection. J. Chromatogr. 1987;419:464-468. DOI: 10.1016/0378-4347(87)80317-1

Lines 1208-1210: 19. Cooreman S, Deprez C, Martens F, Van Bocxlaer J, Croes K. A Comprehensive LC-MS-Based Quantitative Analysis of Fentanyl-Like Drugs in Plasma and Urine. J. Sep. Sci. 2010;33(17-18):2654-2662. DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201000330

Lines 1212 -1214: 20. Bévalot F, Cartiser N, Bottinelli C, Fanton L, Guitton, J. Vitreous humor analysis for the detection of xenobiotics in forensic toxicology: a review. Forensic Toxicol. 2016;34, 12-40. DOI: 10.1007/s11419-015-0294-5

Lines 1216-1218: 21. Feierman DE, Lasker JM. Metabolism of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid analgesic, by human liver microsomes. Role of CYP3A4. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 1996;24(9):932-939.

Lines 1220-1223: 22. Steuer AE, Williner E, Staeheli SN, Kraemer T. Studies on the metabolism of the fentanyl-derived designer drug butyrfentanyl in human in vitro liver preparations and authentic human samples using liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Drug Test. Anal. 2017;9(7),1085-1092. DOI: 10.1002/dta.2111

Lines 1409-1411: 23. Day J, Slawson M, Lugo RA, Wilkins D. Analysis of Fentanyl and Norfentanyl in Human Plasma by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Using Electrospray Ionization. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2003;27(7):513-516. DOI: 10.1093/jat/27.7.513

Lines 1413-1415: 24. Verplaetse R, Henion J. Quantitative determination of opioids in whole blood using fully automated dried blood spot desorption coupled to on-line SPE-LC-MS/MS. Drug Test. Anal. 2016;8(1), 30-38. DOI: 10.1002/dta.1927

Lines 1417-1420: 25. Strayer KE, Antonides HM, Juhascik MP, Daniulaityte R, Sizemore IE. LC-MS/MS-Based Method for the Multiplex Detection of 24 Fentanyl Analogues and Metabolites in Whole Blood at Sub ng�mL–1 Concentrations. ACS Omega. 2018;3(1):514-523. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.7b01536

Lines 1422-1424: 26. Qin N, Shen M, Xiang P, Wen D, Shen B, Den H, et al. Determination of 37 fentanyl analogues and novel synthetic opioids in hair by UHPLC-MS/MS and its application to authentic cases. Sci. Rep. 2020;10(1):11569. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-68348-w

Lines 1426-1428: 27. Mayer BP, Valdez CA, DeHope AJ, Spackman PE, Williams, AM. Statistical Analysis of the Chemical Attribution Signatures of 3-Methylfentanyl and Its Methods of Production. Talanta. 2018;186:645-654. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.02.026

Lines 1629-1632: 28. Ovenden SPB, McDowall LJ, McKeown HE, McGill NW, Jones OAH, Pearson JR, et al. Investigating the Chemical Impurity Profiles of Fentanyl Preparations and Precursors to Identify Chemical Attribution Signatures for Synthetic Method Attribution. Forensic Sci. Int. 2021;321:110742. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110742

Lines 1634-1635: 29. Stein S. Mass spectral reference libraries: An ever-expanding resource for chemical identification. Anal. Chem. 2012;84(17): 7274-7282. DOI: 10.1021/ac301205z

Lines 1637-1639: 30. Nyanyira C. The OPCW Central Analytical Database, Chemical Weapons Convention Chemicals Analysis: Sample Collection, Preparation and Analytical Methods (Ed: M. Mesilaakso). John Wiley, Chichester, 2005, p. 133-149.

Lines 1641-1644: 31. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Alcaraz A. Assessing the reliability of the NIST library during routine GC-MS analyses: Structure and spectral data corroboration for 5,5-diphenyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-one during a recent OPCW proficiency test. J. Mass Spectrom. 2018;53(5):419-422. DOI: 10.1002/jms.4073

Lines 1646-1649: 32. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Sanner RD, Corzett TH, Dreyer ML, Mason KE. Structural modification of fentanyls for their retrospective identification by gas chromatographic analysis using chloroformate chemistry. Sci. Rep. 2021;11(1):22489. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01896-x

Lines 1844-1846: 33. McIntyre IM, Gary RD, Estrada J, Nelson CL. Antemortem and Postmortem Fentanyl Concentrations: A Case Report. Int. J. Legal Med. 2014;128(1): 65-67. DOI: 10.1007/s00414-013-0897-5

Lines 1848-1849: 34. Cunningham SM, Haikal NA, Kraner JC. Fatal Intoxication with Acetyl Fentanyl. J. Forensic Sci. 2016;61(Suppl 1):S276-S280. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.12953

Lines 1851-1853: 35. Yonemitsu K, Sasao A, Mishima S, Ohtsu Y, Nishitani Y. A Fatal Poisoning Case by Intravenous Injection of "Bath Salts" Containing Acetyl Fentanyl and 4-Methoxy PV8. Forensic Sci. Int. 2016;267:e6-e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.08.025

Lines 1855-1858: 36. Wnuk SF, Valdez CA, Khan J, Moutinho P, Robins MJ, Yang X, et al. Doubly homologated dihalovinyl and acetylene analogues of adenosine: Synthesis, interaction with S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine hydrolase, and antiviral and cytostatic effects. J. Med. Chem. 2000;43(6):1180-1186. DOI: 10.1021/jm990486y

Lines 1860-1863: 37. Wnuk SF, Ro B-O, Valdez CA, Lewandowska E, Valdez NX, Sacasa PR, et al. Sugar-modified conjugated diene analogues of adenosine and uridine: Synthesis, interaction with S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine hydrolase, and antiviral and cytostatic effects. J. Med. Chem. 2002;45:2651-2658. DOI: 10.1021/jm020064f

Lines 2100-2103: 38. Showalter BM, Reynolds MM, Valdez CA, Saavedra JE, Davies KM, Klose JR, et al. Diazeniumdiolate ions as leaving groups in anomeric displacement reactions: a protection-deprotection strategy for ionic diazeniumdiolates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005;127(41):14188-14189. DOI: 10.1021/ja054510a

Lines 2105-2108: 39. Valdez CA, Saavedra JE, Showalter BM, Davies KM, Wilde TC, Citro ML, et al. Hydrolytic reactivity trends among potential prodrugs of the O2-glycosylated diazeniumdiolate family. Targeting nitric oxide to macrophages for antileishmanial activity. J. Med. Chem. 2008;51(13):3961-3970. DOI: 10.1021/jm8000482

Lines 2110-2114: 40. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok S, Vu AK, Salazar EP, Alcaraz A. Methylation protocol for the retrospective detection of isopropyl-, pinacolyl- and cyclohexylmethylphosphonic acids, indicative markers for the nerve agents sarin, soman and cyclosarin, at low levels in soils using EI-GC-MS. Sci. Total Environ. 2019;683:175-184. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.205

Lines 2116-2119: 41. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Alcaraz A. Effective methylation and identification of phosphonic acids relevant to chemical warfare agents mediated by trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate for their qualitative detection by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta, 2016;933:134-143. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2016.05.034

Lines 2350-2354: 42. Valdez CA, Marchioretto MK, Leif RN, Hok, S. Efficient derivatization of methylphosphonic and aminoethylsulfonic acids related to nerve agents simultaneously in soils using trimethyloxonium tetrafluoroborate for their enhanced, qualitative detection and identification by EI-GC–MS and GC–FPD. Forensic Sci. Int. 2018;288:159-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.04.041

Lines 2356-2359: 43. Valdez CA, Leif RN, Hok, S. Carbene-based difluoromethylation of bisphenols: Application to the instantaneous tagging of bisphenol A in spiked soil for its detection and identification by electron ionization gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:17360. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53735-9

Lines 2361-2363: 44. Foerster EH, Mason MF. Preliminary studies on the use of n-butylchloride as an extractant in a drug screening procedure. J. Forensic Sci. 1974;19(1):155-162. PMID: 4853734

Lines 2365-2367: 45. Strano-Rossi S, Alvarez I, Tabernero MJ, Cabarcos P, Fernández P, Bermejo, AM. Determination of Fentanyl, Metabolite and Analogs in Urine by GC/MS. J. Applied Toxicol. 2011;31(7):649–654. DOI: 10.1002/jat.1613

Lines 2542-2543: 46. Gardner MA, Sampsel S, Jenkins WW, Owens JE. Analysis of Fentanyl in Urine by DLLME-GC-MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015;39(2):118-125. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bku136

Lines 2545-2548: 47. Strano-Rossi S, Bermejo AM, de la Torre X, Botrè F. Fast GC-MS Method for the Simultaneous Screening of THCCOOH, Cocaine, Opiates and Analogues Including Buprenorphine and Fentanyl, and Their Metabolites in Urine. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2011;399(4):1623-1630. DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4471-4

Lines 2550-2552: 48. Sisco E, Burns A, Moorthy AS. Development and evaluation of a synthetic opioid targeted gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) method. J. Forensic Sci. 2021;66:2369-2380. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.14877

Lines 2554-2556: 49. Moore A, Foss J, Juhascik M, Botch-Jones S, Kero F. Rapid Screening of opioids in seized street drugs using ambient ionization high resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Forensic Chem. 2019;13:100149. DOI: 10.1016/j.forc.2019.100149

Lines 2558-2560: 50. Weldon ST, Perry DF, Cork RC, Gandolfi AJ. Detection of Picogram Levels of Sufentanil by Capillary Gas Chromatography. Anesthesiology. 1985;63:684-687. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-198512000-00021

Lines 2769-2773: 51. Van Nimmen NFJ, Poels KLC, Veulemans HAF. Highly Sensitive Gas Chromatographic-Mass Spectrometric Screening Method for the Determination of Picogram Levels of Fentanyl, Sufentanil and Alfentanil and Their Major Metabolites in Urine of Opioid Exposed Workers. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2004;804(2):375-387. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2004.01.044

Lines 2775-2777: 52. Gerace E, Salomone A, Vincenti M. Analytical approaches in fatal intoxication cases involving new synthetic opioids. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnology, 2018;19, 113-123. DOI: 10.2174/1389201019666180405162734

Lines 2779-2781: 53. UNODC. Recommended Methods for the Identification and Analysis of Fentanyl and Its Analogues in Biological Specimens. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, 2017. DOI: 10.18356/aca7aca5-en.

Lines 2783-2785: 54. Anderson DT, Muto JJ. Duragesic Transdermal Patch: postmortem Tissue Distribution of Fentanyl in 25 Cases. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2000;24:627-634. DOI: 10.1093/jat/24.7.627

Lines 2787-2789: 55. Ogilvie L, Stanley C, Lewis L, Boyd M, Lozier M. Notes from the Field: Acetyl Fentanyl Overdose fatalities-Rhode Island, March-May 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2013;62:703-704.

Lines 2960-2962: 56. McIntyre IM, Trochta A, Gary RD, Malamatos M, Lucas JR. An Acute Acetyl Fentanyl Fatality: A Case Report with Postmortem Concentrations. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2015;39(6):490-494. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkv043

Lines 2964-2965: 57. Fort C, Curtis B, Nichols C, Niblo, C. Acetyl Fentanyl Toxicity: Two Case Reports. J. Anal. Toxicol. 2016;40(9):754-757. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkw068

Lines 2967-2969: 58. Katselou M, Papoutsis I, Nikolaou P, Spiliopoulou C, Athanaselis S. Old Opioids, New Concerns: The Case of Acetylfentanyl. Forensic Toxicol. 2016;34:201-212. DOI: 10.1007/s11419-016-0310-4

In addition, we removed the Disclaimer and Auspices statements from the Acknowledgements section. The new, revised funding statements are below.

“Disclaimer: This document (LLNL-JRNL-839586) was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Auspices statement: This work was performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The was funded fully by a Mid-Career Research Grant awarded by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (PLS-21-FS-036) to C. A. V.”

Please let us know if there are other edits/corrections that need to be amended. We might have missed some and we apologize in advance for this.

Best regards,

Carlos Valdez and co-authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.doc

Decision Letter 2

Joseph Banoub

27 Sep 2022

Analysis, Identification and  Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS

PONE-D-22-22025R2

Dear Dr. Valdez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Joseph Banoub, Ph,D., D. Sc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Joseph Banoub

7 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-22025R2

Analysis, Identification and  Confirmation of Synthetic Opioids using Chloroformate Chemistry: Retrospective Detection of Fentanyl and Acetylfentanyl in Urine and Plasma Samples by EI-GC-MS and HR-LC-MS

Dear Dr. Valdez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Joseph Banoub

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supplementary material to the manuscript.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Forensic Science Center and are included in the Supporting Information accompanying this publication.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES