The analysis and detection of new psychoactive substances in biological matrices

New psychoactive substances (NPSs) have appeared on the recreational drug market at an unprecedented rate in recent years. Many are not new drugs but failed products of the pharmaceutical industry. The speed and variety of drugs entering the market poses a new complex challenge for the forensic toxicology community. The detection of these substances in biological matrices can be difficult as the exact compounds of interest may not be known. Many NPS are sold under the same brand name and therefore users themselves may not know what substances they have ingested. The majority of analytical methods for the detection of NPSs tend to focus on a specific class of compounds rather than a wide variety. In response to this, a robust and sensitive method was developed for the analysis of various NPS by solid phase extraction (SPE) with gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). Sample preparation and derivatisation were optimised testing a range of SPE cartridges and derivatising agents, as well as derivatisation incubation time and temperature. The final gas chromatography mass spectrometry method was validated in accordance with SWGTOX 2013 guidelines over a wide concentration range for both blood and urine for 23 and 25 analytes respectively. This included the validation of 8 NBOMe compounds in blood and 10 NBOMe compounds in urine. This GC-MS method was then applied to 8 authentic samples with concentrations compared to those originally identified by NMS laboratories. The rapid influx of NPSs has resulted in the re-analysis of samples and thus, the stability of these substances is crucial information. The stability of mephedrone was investigated, examining the effect that storage temperatures and preservatives had on analyte stability daily for 1 week and then weekly for 10 weeks. Several laboratories identified NPSs use through the cross-reactivity of these substances with existing screening protocols such as ELISA. The application of Immunalysis ketamine, methamphetamine and amphetamine ELISA kits for the detection of NPS was evaluated. The aim of this work was to determine if any cross-reactivity from NPS substances was observed, and to determine whether these existing kits would identify NPS use within biological samples. The cross- reactivity of methoxetamine, 3-MeO-PCE and 3-MeO-PCP for different commercially point of care test (POCT) was also assessed for urine. One of the newest groups of compounds to appear on the NPS market is the NBOMe series. These drugs pose a serious threat to public health due to their high potency, with fatalities already reported in the literature. These compounds are falsely marketed as LSD which increases the chance of adverse effects due to the potency differences between these 2 substances. A liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was validated in accordance with SWGTOX 2013 guidelines for the detection for 25B, 25C and 25I-NBOMe in urine and hair. Long-Evans rats were administered 25B-, 25C- and 25I-NBOMe at doses ranging from 30-300 µg/kg over a period of 10 days. Tail flick tests were then carried out on the rats in order to determine whether any analgesic effects were observed as a result of dosing. Rats were also shaved prior to their first dose and reshaved after the 10-day period. Hair was separated by colour (black and white) and analysed using the validated LC-MS/MS method, assessing the impact hair colour has on the incorporation of these drugs. Urine was collected from the rats, analysed using the validated LC-MS/MS method and screened for potential metabolites using both LC-MS/MS and quadrupole time of flight (QToF) instrumentation.

Microfluidic platforms for the characterization of in meso membrane protein crystallization

Membrane proteins, which reside in the membranes of cells, play a critical role in many important biological processes including cellular signaling, immune response, and material and energy transduction. Because of their key role in maintaining the environment within cells and facilitating intercellular interactions, understanding the function of these proteins is of tremendous medical and biochemical significance. Indeed, the malfunction of membrane proteins has been linked to numerous diseases including diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, epilepsy, cataracts, tubulopathy, leukodystrophy, Leigh syndrome, anemia, sensorineural deafness, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.1-3 However, the structure of many of these proteins and the changes in their structure that lead to disease-related malfunctions are not well understood. Additionally, at least 60% of the pharmaceuticals currently available are thought to target membrane proteins, despite the fact that their exact mode of operation is not known.4-6 Developing a detailed understanding of the function of a protein is achieved by coupling biochemical experiments with knowledge of the structure of the protein. Currently the most common method for obtaining three-dimensional structure information is X-ray crystallography. However, no a priori methods are currently available to predict crystallization conditions for a given protein.7-14 This limitation is currently overcome by screening a large number of possible combinations of precipitants, buffer, salt, and pH conditions to identify conditions that are conducive to crystal nucleation and growth.7,9,11,15-24 Unfortunately, these screening efforts are often limited by difficulties associated with quantity and purity of available protein samples. While the two most significant bottlenecks for protein structure determination in general are the (i) obtaining sufficient quantities of high quality protein samples and (ii) growing high quality protein crystals that are suitable for X-ray structure determination,7,20,21,23,25-47 membrane proteins present additional challenges. For crystallization it is necessary to extract the membrane proteins from the cellular membrane. However, this process often leads to denaturation. In fact, membrane proteins have proven to be so difficult to crystallize that of the more than 66,000 structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank,48 less than 1% are for membrane proteins, with even fewer present at high resolution (< 2Å)4,6,49 and only a handful are human membrane proteins.49 A variety of strategies including detergent solubilization50-53 and the use of artificial membrane-like environments have been developed to circumvent this challenge.43,53-55 In recent years, the use of a lipidic mesophase as a medium for crystallizing membrane proteins has been demonstrated to increase success for a wide range of membrane proteins, including human receptor proteins.54,56-62 This in meso method for membrane protein crystallization, however, is still by no means routine due to challenges related to sample preparation at sub-microliter volumes and to crystal harvesting and X-ray data collection. This dissertation presents various aspects of the development of a microfluidic platform to enable high throughput in meso membrane protein crystallization at a level beyond the capabilities of current technologies. Microfluidic platforms for protein crystallization and other lab-on-a-chip applications have been well demonstrated.9,63-66 These integrated chips provide fine control over transport phenomena and the ability to perform high throughput analyses via highly integrated fluid networks. However, the development of microfluidic platforms for in meso protein crystallization required the development of strategies to cope with extremely viscous and non-Newtonian fluids. A theoretical treatment of highly viscous fluids in microfluidic devices is presented in Chapter 3, followed by the application of these strategies for the development of a microfluidic mixer capable of preparing a mesophase sample for in meso crystallization at a scale of less than 20 nL in Chapter 4. This approach was validated with the successful on chip in meso crystallization of the membrane protein bacteriorhodopsin. In summary, this is the first report of a microfluidic platform capable of performing in meso crystallization on-chip, representing a 1000x reduction in the scale at which mesophase trials can be prepared. Once protein crystals have formed, they are typically harvested from the droplet they were grown in and mounted for crystallographic analysis. Despite the high throughput automation present in nearly all other aspects of protein structure determination, the harvesting and mounting of crystals is still largely a manual process. Furthermore, during mounting the fragile protein crystals can potentially be damaged, both from physical and environmental shock. To circumvent these challenges an X-ray transparent microfluidic device architecture was developed to couple the benefits of scale, integration, and precise fluid control with the ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis (Chapter 5). This approach was validated successfully by crystallization and subsequent on-chip analysis of the soluble proteins lysozyme, thaumatin, and ribonuclease A and will be extended to microfluidic platforms for in meso membrane protein crystallization. The ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis was shown to provide extremely high quality diffraction data, in part as a result of not being affected by damage due to physical handling of the crystals. As part of the work described in this thesis, a variety of data collection strategies for in situ data analysis were also tested, including merging of small slices of data from a large number of crystals grown on a single chip, to allow for diffraction analysis at biologically relevant temperatures. While such strategies have been applied previously,57,59,61,67 they are potentially challenging when applied via traditional methods due to the need to grow and then mount a large number of crystals with minimal crystal-to-crystal variability. The integrated nature of microfluidic platforms easily enables the generation of a large number of reproducible crystallization trials. This, coupled with in situ analysis capabilities has the potential of being able to acquire high resolution structural data of proteins at biologically relevant conditions for which only small crystals, or crystals which are adversely affected by standard cryocooling techniques, could be obtained (Chapters 5 and 6). While the main focus of protein crystallography is to obtain three-dimensional protein structures, the results of typical experiments provide only a static picture of the protein. The use of polychromatic or Laue X-ray diffraction methods enables the collection of time resolved structural information. These experiments are very sensitive to crystal quality, however, and often suffer from severe radiation damage due to the intense polychromatic X-ray beams. Here, as before, the ability to perform in situ X-ray analysis on many small protein crystals within a microfluidic crystallization platform has the potential to overcome these challenges. An automated method for collecting a "single-shot" of data from a large number of crystals was developed in collaboration with the BioCARS team at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory (Chapter 6). The work described in this thesis shows that, even more so than for traditional structure determination efforts, the ability to grow and analyze a large number of high quality crystals is critical to enable time resolved structural studies of novel proteins. In addition to enabling X-ray crystallography experiments, the development of X-ray transparent microfluidic platforms also has tremendous potential to answer other scientific questions, such as unraveling the mechanism of in meso crystallization. For instance, the lipidic mesophases utilized during in meso membrane protein crystallization can be characterized by small angle X-ray diffraction analysis. Coupling in situ analysis with microfluidic platforms capable of preparing these difficult mesophase samples at very small volumes has tremendous potential to enable the high throughput analysis of these systems on a scale that is not reasonably achievable using conventional sample preparation strategies (Chapter 7). In collaboration with the LS-CAT team at the Advanced Photon Source, an experimental station for small angle X-ray analysis coupled with the high quality visualization capabilities needed to target specific microfluidic samples on a highly integrated chip is under development. Characterizing the phase behavior of these mesophase systems and the effects of various additives present in crystallization trials is key for developing an understanding of how in meso crystallization occurs. A long term goal of these studies is to enable the rational design of in meso crystallization experiments so as to avoid or limit the need for high throughput screening efforts. In summary, this thesis describes the development of microfluidic platforms for protein crystallization with in situ analysis capabilities. Coupling the ability to perform in situ analysis with the small scale, fine control, and the high throughput nature of microfluidic platforms has tremendous potential to enable a new generation of crystallographic studies and facilitate the structure determination of important biological targets. The development of platforms for in meso membrane protein crystallization is particularly significant because they enable the preparation of highly viscous mixtures at a previously unachievable scale. Work in these areas is ongoing and has tremendous potential to improve not only current the methods of protein crystallization and crystallography, but also to enhance our knowledge of the structure and function of proteins which could have a significant scientific and medical impact on society as a whole. The microfluidic technology described in this thesis has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of the structure and function of membrane proteins, thereby aiding the elucidation of human biology, the development of pharmaceuticals with fewer side effects for a wide range of diseases. References (1) Quick, M.; Javitch, J. A. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104, 3603. (2) Trubetskoy, V. S.; Burke, T. J. Am Lab 2005, 37, 19. (3) Pecina, P.; Houstkova, H.; Hansikova, H.; Zeman, J.; Houstek, J. Physiol Res 2004, 53, S213. (4) Arinaminpathy, Y.; Khurana, E.; Engelman, D. M.; Gerstein, M. B. Drug Discovery Today 2009, 14, 1130. (5) Overington, J. P.; Al-Lazikani, B.; Hopkins, A. L. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006, 5, 993. (6) Dauter, Z.; Lamzin, V. S.; Wilson, K. S. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 1997, 7, 681. (7) Hansen, C.; Quake, S. R. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2003, 13, 538. (8) Govada, L.; Carpenter, L.; da Fonseca, P. C. A.; Helliwell, J. R.; Rizkallah, P.; Flashman, E.; Chayen, N. E.; Redwood, C.; Squire, J. M. J Mol Biol 2008, 378, 387. (9) Hansen, C. L.; Skordalakes, E.; Berger, J. M.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2002, 99, 16531. (10) Leng, J.; Salmon, J.-B. Lab Chip 2009, 9, 24. (11) Zheng, B.; Gerdts, C. J.; Ismagilov, R. F. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2005, 15, 548. (12) Lorber, B.; Delucas, L. J.; Bishop, J. B. J Cryst Growth 1991, 110, 103. (13) Talreja, S.; Perry, S. L.; Guha, S.; Bhamidi, V.; Zukoski, C. F.; Kenis, P. J. A. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2010, 114, 4432. (14) Chayen, N. E. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2004, 14, 577. (15) He, G. W.; Bhamidi, V.; Tan, R. B. H.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Zukoski, C. F. Cryst Growth Des 2006, 6, 1175. (16) Zheng, B.; Tice, J. D.; Roach, L. S.; Ismagilov, R. F. Angew Chem Int Edit 2004, 43, 2508. (17) Li, L.; Mustafi, D.; Fu, Q.; Tereshko, V.; Chen, D. L. L.; Tice, J. D.; Ismagilov, R. F. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103, 19243. (18) Song, H.; Chen, D. L.; Ismagilov, R. F. Angew Chem Int Edit 2006, 45, 7336. (19) van der Woerd, M.; Ferree, D.; Pusey, M. Journal of Structural Biology 2003, 142, 180. (20) Ng, J. D.; Gavira, J. A.; Garcia-Ruiz, J. M. Journal of Structural Biology 2003, 142, 218. (21) Talreja, S.; Kenis, P. J. A.; Zukoski, C. F. Langmuir 2007, 23, 4516. (22) Hansen, C. L.; Quake, S. R.; Berger, J. M. US, 2007. (23) Newman, J.; Fazio, V. J.; Lawson, B.; Peat, T. S. Cryst Growth Des 2010, 10, 2785. (24) Newman, J.; Xu, J.; Willis, M. C. Acta Crystallographica Section D 2007, 63, 826. (25) Collingsworth, P. D.; Bray, T. L.; Christopher, G. K. J Cryst Growth 2000, 219, 283. (26) Durbin, S. D.; Feher, G. Annu Rev Phys Chem 1996, 47, 171. (27) Talreja, S.; Kim, D. Y.; Mirarefi, A. Y.; Zukoski, C. F.; Kenis, P. J. A. J Appl Crystallogr 2005, 38, 988. (28) Yoshizaki, I.; Nakamura, H.; Sato, T.; Igarashi, N.; Komatsu, H.; Yoda, S. J Cryst Growth 2002, 237, 295. (29) Anderson, M. J.; Hansen, C. L.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103, 16746. (30) Hansen, C. L.; Sommer, M. O. A.; Quake, S. R. P Natl Acad Sci USA 2004, 101, 14431. (31) Lounaci, M.; Rigolet, P.; Abraham, C.; Le Berre, M.; Chen, Y. Microelectron Eng 2007, 84, 1758. (32) Zheng, B.; Roach, L. S.; Ismagilov, R. F. J Am Chem Soc 2003, 125, 11170. (33) Zhou, X.; Lau, L.; Lam, W. W. L.; Au, S. W. N.; Zheng, B. Anal. Chem. 2007. (34) Cherezov, V.; Caffrey, M. J Appl Crystallogr 2003, 36, 1372. (35) Qutub, Y.; Reviakine, I.; Maxwell, C.; Navarro, J.; Landau, E. M.; Vekilov, P. G. J Mol Biol 2004, 343, 1243. (36) Rummel, G.; Hardmeyer, A.; Widmer, C.; Chiu, M. L.; Nollert, P.; Locher, K. P.; Pedruzzi, I.; Landau, E. M.; Rosenbusch, J. P. Journal of Structural Biology 1998, 121, 82. (37) Gavira, J. A.; Toh, D.; Lopez-Jaramillo, J.; Garcia-Ruiz, J. M.; Ng, J. D. Acta Crystallogr D 2002, 58, 1147. (38) Stevens, R. C. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2000, 10, 558. (39) Baker, M. Nat Methods 2010, 7, 429. (40) McPherson, A. In Current Topics in Membranes, Volume 63; Volume 63 ed.; DeLucas, L., Ed.; Academic Press: 2009, p 5. (41) Gabrielsen, M.; Gardiner, A. T.; Fromme, P.; Cogdell, R. J. In Current Topics in Membranes, Volume 63; Volume 63 ed.; DeLucas, L., Ed.; Academic Press: 2009, p 127. (42) Page, R. In Methods in Molecular Biology: Structural Proteomics - High Throughput Methods; Kobe, B., Guss, M., Huber, T., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, 2008; Vol. 426, p 345. (43) Caffrey, M. Ann Rev Biophys 2009, 38, 29. (44) Doerr, A. Nat Methods 2006, 3, 244. (45) Brostromer, E.; Nan, J.; Li, L.-F.; Su, X.-D. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 2009, 386, 634. (46) Li, G.; Chen, Q.; Li, J.; Hu, X.; Zhao, J. Anal Chem 2010, 82, 4362. (47) Jia, Y.; Liu, X.-Y. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2006, 110, 6949. (48) RCSB Protein Data Bank. http://www.rcsb.org/ (July 11, 2010). (49) Membrane Proteins of Known 3D Structure. http://blanco.biomol.uci.edu/Membrane_Proteins_xtal.html (July 11, 2010). (50) Michel, H. Trends Biochem Sci 1983, 8, 56. (51) Rosenbusch, J. P. Journal of Structural Biology 1990, 104, 134. (52) Garavito, R. M.; Picot, D. Methods 1990, 1, 57. (53) Kulkarni, C. V. 2010; Vol. 12, p 237. (54) Landau, E. M.; Rosenbusch, J. P. P Natl Acad Sci USA 1996, 93, 14532. (55) Pebay-Peyroula, E.; Rummel, G.; Rosenbusch, J. P.; Landau, E. M. Science 1997, 277, 1676. (56) Cherezov, V.; Liu, W.; Derrick, J. P.; Luan, B.; Aksimentiev, A.; Katritch, V.; Caffrey, M. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 2008, 71, 24. (57) Cherezov, V.; Rosenbaum, D. M.; Hanson, M. A.; Rasmussen, S. G. F.; Thian, F. S.; Kobilka, T. S.; Choi, H. J.; Kuhn, P.; Weis, W. I.; Kobilka, B. K.; Stevens, R. C. Science 2007, 318, 1258. (58) Cherezov, V.; Yamashita, E.; Liu, W.; Zhalnina, M.; Cramer, W. A.; Caffrey, M. J Mol Biol 2006, 364, 716. (59) Jaakola, V. P.; Griffith, M. T.; Hanson, M. A.; Cherezov, V.; Chien, E. Y. T.; Lane, J. R.; IJzerman, A. P.; Stevens, R. C. Science 2008, 322, 1211. (60) Rosenbaum, D. M.; Cherezov, V.; Hanson, M. A.; Rasmussen, S. G. F.; Thian, F. S.; Kobilka, T. S.; Choi, H. J.; Yao, X. J.; Weis, W. I.; Stevens, R. C.; Kobilka, B. K. Science 2007, 318, 1266. (61) Wacker, D.; Fenalti, G.; Brown, M. A.; Katritch, V.; Abagyan, R.; Cherezov, V.; Stevens, R. C. J Am Chem Soc 2010, 132, 11443. (62) Höfer, N.; Aragão, D.; Caffrey, M. Biophys J 2010, 99, L23. (63) Li, L.; Ismagilov, R. F. Ann Rev Biophys 2010. (64) Pal, R.; Yang, M.; Lin, R.; Johnson, B. N.; Srivastava, N.; Razzacki, S. Z.; Chomistek, K. J.; Heldsinger, D. C.; Haque, R. M.; Ugaz, V. M.; Thwar, P. K.; Chen, Z.; Alfano, K.; Yim, M. B.; Krishnan, M.; Fuller, A. O.; Larson, R. G.; Burke, D. T.; Burns, M. A. Lab Chip 2005, 5, 1024. (65) Jayashree, R. S.; Gancs, L.; Choban, E. R.; Primak, A.; Natarajan, D.; Markoski, L. J.; Kenis, P. J. A. J Am Chem Soc 2005, 127, 16758. (66) Wootton, R. C. R.; deMello, A. J. Chem Commun 2004, 266. (67) McPherson, A. J Appl Crystallogr 2000, 33, 397.

Metabolomics as a tool to explore the staphylococcal biofilm

Orthopaedic infections can be polymicrobial existing as a microbiome. Infections often incorporate staphylococcal species, including Staphylococcus aureus. Such infections can lead to life threatening illness and implant failure. Furthermore, biofilm formation on the implant surface can occur, increasing pathogenicity, exacerbating antibiotic resistance and altering antimicrobial mechanism of action. Bacteria change dramatically during the transition to a biofilm growth state: phenotypically; transcriptionally; and metabolically, highlighting the need for research into molecular mechanisms involved in biofilm formation. Metabolomics can provide a tool to analyse metabolic changes which are directly related to the expressed phenotype. Here, we aimed to provide greater understanding of orthopaedic infection caused by S. aureus and biofilm formation on the implant surface. Through metagenome analysis by employing: implant material extraction; DNA extraction; microbial enrichment; and whole genome sequencing, we present a microbiome study of the infected prosthesis to resolve the causative species of orthopaedic hip infection. Results highlight the presence of S. aureus as a primary cause of orthopaedic infection along with Enterococcus faecium and the presence of secondary pathogen Clostridium difficile. Although results were hindered by the presence of host contaminating DNA even after microbial enrichment, conclusions could be made over the potential increased pathogenicity caused by the presence of a secondary pathogen and highlight method and sample preparation considerations when undertaking such a study. Following this finding, studies were focused on an orthopaedic clinical isolate of S. aureus and a metabolome extraction method for staphylococcal biofilms was developed using cell lysis through bead beating and solvent metabolome extraction. The method was found to be reproducible when coupled with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) and bioinformatics, allowing for the detection of significant changes in metabolism between planktonic and biofilm cultures to be identified and drug mechanism of actions (MOA) to be studied. Metabolomics results highlight significant changes in a number of metabolic pathways including arginine biosynthesis and purine metabolism between the two cell populations, evidence of S. aureus responding to their changing environment, including oxygen availability and a decrease in pH. Focused investigations on purine metabolism looking for biofilm modulation effects were carried out. Modulation of the S. aureus biofilm phenotype was observed through the addition of exogenous metabolites. Inosine increased biofilm biomass while formycin B, an inosine analogue, showed a dispersal effect and a potential synergistic effect in biofilm dispersal when coupled with gentamycin. Changes in metabolism between planktonic cells and biofilms highlight the requirement for antimicrobial testing to be carried out against planktonic cells and biofilms. Untargeted metabolomics was used to study the MOA of triclosan in S. aureus. The triclosan target and MOA in bacteria has already been characterised, however, questions remain over its effects in bacteria. Although the use of triclosan has come under increasing speculation, its full effects are still largely unknown. Results show that triclosan can induce a cascade of detrimental events in the cell metabolism including significant changes in amino acid metabolism, affecting planktonic cells and biofilms. Results and conclusions provide greater understanding of orthopaedic infections and specifically focus on the S. aureus biofilm, confirming S. aureus as a primary cause of orthopaedic infection and using metabolomic analysis to look at the changing state of metabolism between the different growth states. Metabolomics is a valuable tool for biofilm and drug MOA studies, helping understand orthopaedic infection and implant failure, providing crucial insight into the biochemistry of bacteria for the potential for inferences to be gained, such as the MOA of antimicrobials and the identification of novel metabolic drug targets.

Remoção de hidrocarbonetos aromáticos policíclicos em águas utilizando subprodutos da indústria da cortiça

Os Hidrocarbonetos Aromáticos Policíclicos (HAPs) são contaminantes persistentes em meio aquoso. Estes compostos são conhecidos pelas suas propriedades carcinogénicas, mutagénicas e genotóxicas. O principal objetivo deste trabalho consistiu na avaliação das potencialidades de subprodutos da indústria corticeira, como adsorventes alternativos para a remoção de cinco HAPs em meio aquoso: benzo(a)pireno, benzo(ghi)perileno, benzo(b)fluoranteno, benzo(k)fluoranteno e indeno(1,2,3-cd)pireno. A metodologia analítica para quantificar os HAPs envolveu a preparação das amostras, através da técnica de extração em fase sólida (SPE), e a quantificação dos compostos analisados por cromatografia líquida com detetor de fluorescência (LC-FLD). O método foi otimizado e validado, obtendo-se limites de quantificação de 0,004 μg/L para todos os HAPs. Os estudos incidiram na utilização de uma amostra de cortiça, pó de aglomerado de cortiça expandida (PACE), obtida por aglutinação de cortiça em condições hidrotérmicas, a qual nos estudos preliminares revelou desempenho semelhante aos carvões ativados. Com exceção do benzo(ghi)perileno, os resultados mostram que o processo de adsorção dos HAPs na amostra PACE segue uma cinética de pseudo-segunda ordem e as isotérmicas ajustam-se ao modelo de Langmuir.

Rapid detection and quantification of the marine toxic algae, Alexandrium minutum, using a super-paramagnetic immunochromatographic strip test

The dinoflagellates of Alexandrium genus are known to be producers of paralytic shellfish toxins that regularly impact the shellfish aquaculture industry and fisheries. Accurate detection of Alexandrium including A. minutum is crucial for environmental monitoring and sanitary issues. In this study, we firstly developed a quantitative lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) using super-paramagnetic nanobeads for A. minutum whole cells. This dipstick assay relies on two distinct monoclonal antibodies used in a sandwich format and directed against surface antigens of this organism. No sample preparation is required. Either frozen or live cells can be detected and quantified. The specificity and sensitivity are assessed by using phytoplankton culture and field samples spiked with a known amount of cultured A. minutum cells. This LFIA is shown to be highly specific for A. minutum and able to detect reproducibly 105 cells/L within 30 min. The test is applied to environmental samples already characterized by light microscopy counting. No significant difference is observed between the cell densities obtained by these two methods. This handy super-paramagnetic lateral flow immnunoassay biosensor can greatly assist water quality monitoring programs as well as ecological research.