This protocol is a simple and convenient PFSPE method to pretreat urine samples and enrich five catecholamines for detection via an HPLC-ECD system; a diagram of the process is shown in Figure 1. The protocol mainly includes four steps-activating, loading, rinsing, and eluting- coupled with a small quantity of PCE-PS nanofibers and a simple solid-phase extraction device. The morphology of PCE-PS nanofibers was assessed using a surface and porosity analyzer (see Table of Materials). The textural properties-the BET (Brunauer, Emmett, and Teller) surface area, pore volume and pore size-were 2.8297 m2 g-1, 0.009 cm3 g-1, and 12.76 nm, respectively. These data indicate that the material used in the protocol has nanoscale pores on the surface, which may contribute to the high adsorption efficiency and the lowered binding pH in the protocol.
This protocol uses optimized volumes, sample ingredients, leachate, eluant, etc., as well as working pH and time consumed during the procedures. In Chen et al., the eluant was a 12.0 M acetic acid solution because acidic conditions cause the adsorbent to become protonated and positively charged, which is favorable for the elution of CAs34,35. In this study, the eluant recipe was reconditioned to be 30% phosphoric acid, 15% acetonitrile, and 55% distilled water. The final pH value of eluant was adjusted to 3.0. The eluant solvent should be kept in an acidic environment when eluting, but much more moderate than 12.0 M acetic acid, which may lead to poor peak appearance and damage to the HPLC system.
For identification of the catecholamines, chromatogram retention times of the peaks in the samples with standard solution peaks are compared. Figure 2 shows examples of HPLC-ECD chromatograms from the various solutions. If the protocol is followed successfully, the chromatographic profiles of three catecholamines and their metabolites should be obtained by HPLC-ECD with clear symmetrical, well defined peaks and with minimal background noise, as illustrated in Figure 2. For comparison with the conventional method, a commercial PBA cartridge was selected as a control. In Figure 2(a-c), five target peaks in (b) are significantly higher than thaosein (c), indicating that the PFSPE method is more sensitive than the PBA cartridge method. Also, the DOPAC peak did not show in the PBA cartridge extraction result, indicating that the PBA column was not capable of extracting DOPAC. Figure 2(d) depicts the chromatogram of the blank urine sample without any pretreatment, and Figure 2(e) shows the chromatograms of the urine sample extracted using PCE-PS composite nanofibers. Figure 2(f) shows the chromatograms of the urine sample after the extraction with the PBA column, which also shows no DOPAC extraction consistent with the result in Figure 2(c). The diagram indicates that the PFSPE method could not only extract the targets with good effect, but also could get rid of most of the interference in the urine, giving good peak identification for the target compounds.
Statistical analysis revealed that measurements for the three catecholamines and the two metabolites were reliably reproduced (Table 1). All the target compounds showed good linearity between 1.5 and 100 ng/mL (R2>0.99), and the standard curve of each analyte can be found in Supplementary Figure 1. The curves and R2 values demonstrate that the analytes have good linearity and relativity within a certain linear range, suitable for the calculation of concentrations of analytes in urine samples. The limits of detection (LOD) ranged from 0.25 to 0.54 ng/mL, and the limits of quantification (LOQ) were 0.83 to 1.81 ng/mL, respectively. The signal-to-noise (S/N) value equalled 3. The range of the methodological recoveries of the five target compounds was from 97.4% (MHPG) to 124.2% (DOPAC), which was satisfactory for the application to the actual samples. The intra-day precision was from 2.7 to 4.8% (expressed as relative standard deviation) and the inter-day precision was 2-8.1%, displaying good precision and repeatability.
For detection of targets in real urine samples, 28 high-risk infants and 22 healthy infants in the division of child care, Suzhou municipal hospital, were recruited. All 50 infants taken into the study were boys. When they were six months old, they were taken to a routine health check in September 2016. All the urine samples were collected and pretreated following the protocol steps 3.1 and 3.2, and the samples were analyzed using the remainder of step 3. The concentrations were calculated against the calibration curves. Statistical differences were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The results can be seen in Table 2. The difference of the catecholamines and metabolites between the two groups were compared and analyzed. The p-values show that the catecholamines were not significantly different between the high risk and healthy groups, while the metabolite MHPG content was different across these groups (p = 0.001). The high-risk infants group had higher amounts of MHPG than the control group (14.8 ± 3.6 ng/mL vs. 1.4 ± 0.2 ng/mL), which means that the level of urinary MHPG may be a potential marker for early identification of high-risk infants.
Figure 3 and Table 3 describe the classic quantification method for determining monoamine materials, and compare with other methods for which the operation process and figures of interest are given. Compared with classic methods, PFSPE method has advantages like a short timespan (5-10 min), simplified operation process, less organic solvent, and more environmental friendliness with satisfactory methodological parameters. The eluant amount needed is low in volume (50 µL) and the target enrichment step requires no evaporation, which greatly promotes the detection sensitivity for the target compounds in the urine. Compared to conventional particle-based SPE, this method enhanced the efficiency, simplified the preparation process, and reduced the time of the analysis with acceptable reliability, selectivity, and sensitivity.

Figure 1: Schematic flow chart of PFSPE procedure in the paper and a representation of its device. (1) Gastight syringe, (2) Pipette tip, and (3) Packed nanofibers. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: Chromatograms of different samples. (a) Spiked water sample with targets and IS in (100 ng/mL) without extraction. (b) Spiked water sample extracted by the PFSPE method, and (c) by commercial phenylboronic acid (PBA) cartridge. (d) Real blank urine sample without extraction. (e) Real urine sample extracted by the PFSPE method. (f) Real urine sample extracted by commercial PBA cartridge. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: Analytical flow chart of determination methods. (a,b) Previously reported classic extraction methods. (a) Extraction by alumina, (b) by DPBA complex, and (c) by the method proposed in this paper. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Supplementary Figure 1: Standard curves and equations. The standard curves for the five analytes are constructed in order to use the equation of the line to calculate the unknown analytes concentration in the sample. (a) NE, (b) E, (c) DA, (d) MHPG, and (e) DOPAC. Please click here to download this figure.
Supplementary Figure 2: Boronate affinity interaction between boronic acid and cis-diol group or adjacent two hydroxyl groups. (A) Schematic of the interaction between boronic acids and multiple -OH groups to form five- or six-membered cyclic esters. (B) Cis-diol group or adjacent two hydroxyl groups in red circles depict the major reaction sites for the five analytes to boronic acid compound. Please click here to download this figure.
| NE | MHPG | E | IS | DOPAC | DA |
| Linear range (ng/mL) | 1.5-400 | 1.5-200 | 1.5-100 | | 1.5-100 | 1.5-400 |
| R-squared values | 0.9945 | 0.995 | 0.9976 | | 0.9902 | 0.9954 |
| LOD (ng/mL) | 0.323 | 0.322 | 0.313 | 0.657 | 0.249 | 0.543 |
| LOQ (ng/mL) | 1.076 | 1.072 | 1.043 | 2.191 | 0.83 | 1.809 |
| Recovery ± RSD (%)(n=9) | 110.7±2.9 | 97.4±9.1 | 103.9±5.2 | 86.5±7.3 | 124.2±3.1 | 117.3±5.4 |
| Precision(RSD %) (n=9) | | | | | | |
| Intra-day | 4.5 | 4 | 2.7 | 4.8 | 3.3 | 4.7 |
| Inter-day | 4.1 | 8.1 | 2 | 6.3 | 3.2 | 5.9 |
| NE, norepinephrine; MHPG, 3-Methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol; E, epinephrine; IS, internal standard; DOPAC, 3, 4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid; DA, dopamine; |
Table 1: Analytical results of the proposed protocol for the determination of three catecholamines and two metabolites with standard solutions.
| Concentration (ng mL-1) | Control group (22) | High Risk Infant group (28) | P value |
| NE | 7.52±1.34 | 5.56±1.7 | 0.37 |
| MHPG | 1.4±0.2 | 14.8±3.6 | 0.001 |
| E | 24±15.8 | 20.9±5.87 | 0.841 |
| DOPAC | 106.36±30.1 | 72.12±18.07 | 0.312 |
| DA | 55.53±11.9 | 48.12±20.9 | 0.76 |
| P<0.05***shows a significant difference between two groups |
Table 2: The comparison of concentrations for three catecholamines and two metabolites in urines between healthy infants and high-risk infants. The results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a significance level of p = 0.05 for differences between MHPG content. Means ± standard deviations are shown.
| Sample | Exhausted solvent (mL) | Sample volume (mL) | Pretreatment time (min) | Linear range | LOD | Relative Recovery (%) | Evaporate and
redissolve | Analytical method |
| solvent | volume | time (min) | | recovery (%) | solvent and |
| (mL) | (mL) | | | | reconstituting |
| | | | | residue |
| Urine | 0.5 | 0.05 | 10 | 2.0–200 ng/mL (NE, E, DA) | 0.2-0.5 ng/mL (NE, E, DA) | 88.5-94.5 (NE, E, DA) | No | HPLC-ECD (Chen et al., 2016) |
| Urine | 19 | 0.7 | — | 47–167 µg/L (DA) | 166-500 nM (DA) | 98.3-101.1 (DA) | No | HPLC-UV (Piotr et al., 2016) |
| Urine | 1.3 | 0.01 | — | 0.5–1250 ng/mL (NE, E, DA, NMN, MN) | 0.5-2.5 ng/mL (NE, E, DA, NMN, MN) | 74.1–97.3 (NE, E, DA, NMN, MN) | No | LC-MS/MS (Li et al., 2016) |
| Urine and plasma | 20 | 0.05 | 10 | 0.04-2.5 ng/mL (NE, E, DA) | 0.01-0.02 ng/mL (NE, E, DA) | 87.0-97.5 (NE, E, DA) | No | HPLC-UV (Mohammad et al., 2016) |
| Urine | < 0.5 | 0.1 | 5 | 1.5-400 ng/mL (NE, MHPG, E, DOPAC, DA) | 0.249-0.543 ng/mL (NE, MHPG, E, DOPAC, DA) | 97.4-124.2 (NE, MHPG, E, DOPAC, DA) | No | this work |
—, Undefined.
PBA, Phenylboronic acid |
Table 3: Comparison of this work with studies on pretreatment of monoamines or other related topics in recent years.
Supplementary Table 1: Instrument parameters for detection and quantification of analytes in the paper by HPLC-ECD. Please click here to download this table.
Supplementary Table 2: Preparation of standard curve for five analytes. Please click here to download this table.