Chinese Journal of Chromatography ›› 2026, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (3): 257-266.DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1123.2025.07001
• Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
WU Weixiang, WU Lihong, DIAO Fuqiang, LUO Youwen, GU Chunming, LUO Mingyong(
)
Received:2025-07-15
Online:2026-03-08
Published:2026-03-12
Supported by:CLC Number:
WU Weixiang, WU Lihong, DIAO Fuqiang, LUO Youwen, GU Chunming, LUO Mingyong. Development of a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for steroid hormone detection during pregnancy and consistency analysis with chemiluminescence immunoassay[J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 257-266.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chrom-china.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1123.2025.07001
| Hormone | RT/min | Quantitative analysis | Qualitative analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ion pair (m/z) | DP/V | CE/eV | Dwell time/ms | Ion pair (m/z) | DP/V | CE/eV | Dwell time/ms | |||
| Cortisol | 4.59 | 363.3/121.2 | 100 | 25 | 25 | 363.3/155.1 | 80 | 25 | 25 | |
| Cortisol-d4 | 4.58 | 367.1/121.2 | 100 | 34 | 25 | / | ||||
| DHEAS | 0.80 | 367.1/97.0 | -120 | -30 | 25 | 367.1/80.0 | -120 | -80 | 25 | |
| DHEAS-d6 | 0.80 | 373.3/98.0 | -150 | -38 | 25 | / | ||||
| Testosterone | 6.61 | 289.2/97.2 | 90 | 28 | 25 | 289.2/109.0 | 90 | 33 | 25 | |
| Testosterone-d5 | 6.59 | 294.1/100.3 | 40 | 30 | 25 | / | ||||
| 17-OHP | 6.70 | 331.2/97.2 | 80 | 30 | 25 | 331.2/109.2 | 80 | 33 | 25 | |
| 17-OHP-d8 | 6.40 | 339.1/100.1 | 80 | 35 | 25 | / | ||||
Table 1 Optimized MS parameters for the quantitative analysis of steroid hormones
| Hormone | RT/min | Quantitative analysis | Qualitative analysis | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ion pair (m/z) | DP/V | CE/eV | Dwell time/ms | Ion pair (m/z) | DP/V | CE/eV | Dwell time/ms | |||
| Cortisol | 4.59 | 363.3/121.2 | 100 | 25 | 25 | 363.3/155.1 | 80 | 25 | 25 | |
| Cortisol-d4 | 4.58 | 367.1/121.2 | 100 | 34 | 25 | / | ||||
| DHEAS | 0.80 | 367.1/97.0 | -120 | -30 | 25 | 367.1/80.0 | -120 | -80 | 25 | |
| DHEAS-d6 | 0.80 | 373.3/98.0 | -150 | -38 | 25 | / | ||||
| Testosterone | 6.61 | 289.2/97.2 | 90 | 28 | 25 | 289.2/109.0 | 90 | 33 | 25 | |
| Testosterone-d5 | 6.59 | 294.1/100.3 | 40 | 30 | 25 | / | ||||
| 17-OHP | 6.70 | 331.2/97.2 | 80 | 30 | 25 | 331.2/109.2 | 80 | 33 | 25 | |
| 17-OHP-d8 | 6.40 | 339.1/100.1 | 80 | 35 | 25 | / | ||||
| Hormone | Regression equation | R² | Linear range/ (ng/mL) | LOD | LOQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cortisol | Y=0.042X-0.041 | 0.999 | 5-1000 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| DHEAS | Y=0.956X+5.463 | 0.999 | 20-4000 | 0.042 | 0.137 |
| Testosterone | Y=0.94X+0.046 | 0.999 | 0.05-10 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 17-OHP | Y=1.026X-0.030 | 0.999 | 0.2-40 | 0.025 | 0.083 |
Table 2 Regression equations,linear ranges, LODs, and LOQs of the steroid hormones
| Hormone | Regression equation | R² | Linear range/ (ng/mL) | LOD | LOQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cortisol | Y=0.042X-0.041 | 0.999 | 5-1000 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| DHEAS | Y=0.956X+5.463 | 0.999 | 20-4000 | 0.042 | 0.137 |
| Testosterone | Y=0.94X+0.046 | 0.999 | 0.05-10 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 17-OHP | Y=1.026X-0.030 | 0.999 | 0.2-40 | 0.025 | 0.083 |
| Hormone | Low level | Medium level | High level | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | |||
| Cortisol | 15 | 108.3 | 5.6 | 75 | 110.9 | 9.0 | 375 | 92.1 | 5.9 | ||
| DHEAS | 150 | 110.2 | 3.2 | 750 | 104.6 | 5.1 | 3750 | 96.5 | 5.9 | ||
| Testosterone | 0.15 | 97.9 | 5.7 | 0.75 | 101.0 | 6.0 | 3.75 | 100.7 | 6.3 | ||
| 17-OHP | 0.6 | 99.8 | 4.8 | 3 | 100.8 | 5.0 | 15 | 100.1 | 3.6 | ||
Table 3 Spiked recoveries and precisions of the steroid hormones at three levels (n=6)
| Hormone | Low level | Medium level | High level | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | Added/(ng/mL) | Rec./% | RSD/% | |||
| Cortisol | 15 | 108.3 | 5.6 | 75 | 110.9 | 9.0 | 375 | 92.1 | 5.9 | ||
| DHEAS | 150 | 110.2 | 3.2 | 750 | 104.6 | 5.1 | 3750 | 96.5 | 5.9 | ||
| Testosterone | 0.15 | 97.9 | 5.7 | 0.75 | 101.0 | 6.0 | 3.75 | 100.7 | 6.3 | ||
| 17-OHP | 0.6 | 99.8 | 4.8 | 3 | 100.8 | 5.0 | 15 | 100.1 | 3.6 | ||
| Characteristic | Mean±SD or n (%) |
|---|---|
| Maternal age/year | 31.15±4.14 |
| Gestational age at sampling/week | 14.25±1.35 |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI/(kg/m2) | 21.70±2.98 |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI categories | |
| Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) | 8 (8.5) |
| Normal-weight (18.5-23.9 kg/m2) | 74 (78.7) |
| Overweight (>23.9 kg/m2) | 12 (12.8) |
| Nulliparous | 50 (53.2) |
| Vaginal delivery | 56 (59.6) |
| Gestational diabetes | 18 (19.1) |
| Male infant | 44 (46.8) |
Table 4 Basic characteristics of study population
| Characteristic | Mean±SD or n (%) |
|---|---|
| Maternal age/year | 31.15±4.14 |
| Gestational age at sampling/week | 14.25±1.35 |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI/(kg/m2) | 21.70±2.98 |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI categories | |
| Underweight (<18.5 kg/m2) | 8 (8.5) |
| Normal-weight (18.5-23.9 kg/m2) | 74 (78.7) |
| Overweight (>23.9 kg/m2) | 12 (12.8) |
| Nulliparous | 50 (53.2) |
| Vaginal delivery | 56 (59.6) |
| Gestational diabetes | 18 (19.1) |
| Male infant | 44 (46.8) |
| Parameter | Cortisol | DHEAS | Testosterone | 17-OHP | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | ||||
| Mean/(ng/mL) | 64.31 | 120.60 | 532.44 | 1612.10 | 1.10 | 0.88 | 2.00 | 1.07 | |||
| SD/(ng/mL) | 23.32 | 39.62 | 253.02 | 656.34 | 0.85 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 0.50 | |||
| Minimum/(ng/mL) | 16.40 | 35.00 | 85.20 | 278.00 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.87 | 0.37 | |||
| 25th/(ng/mL) | 47.98 | 94.00 | 329.25 | 1138.00 | 0.65 | 0.54 | 1.48 | 0.69 | |||
| 50th/(ng/mL) | 59.55 | 115.00 | 535.50 | 1636.50 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 1.78 | 0.93 | |||
| 75th/(ng/mL) | 77.88 | 142.00 | 702.25 | 2005.00 | 1.21 | 0.94 | 2.28 | 1.36 | |||
| Maximum/(ng/mL) | 127.00 | 225.00 | 1380.00 | 3536.00 | 5.40 | 4.21 | 6.27 | 2.99 | |||
| Difference/(ng/mL) | -56.29 | -1079.68 | 0.22 | 0.89 | |||||||
| %Difference | -46.52% | -67.49% | 24.47% | 93.82% | |||||||
| t-value | 26.36 | 24.13 | -7.98 | -13.44 | |||||||
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||
Table 5 Comparison of quantitative detection results of the four steroid hormones in serum by LC-MS/MS and CLIA
| Parameter | Cortisol | DHEAS | Testosterone | 17-OHP | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | LC-MS/MS | CLIA | ||||
| Mean/(ng/mL) | 64.31 | 120.60 | 532.44 | 1612.10 | 1.10 | 0.88 | 2.00 | 1.07 | |||
| SD/(ng/mL) | 23.32 | 39.62 | 253.02 | 656.34 | 0.85 | 0.64 | 0.89 | 0.50 | |||
| Minimum/(ng/mL) | 16.40 | 35.00 | 85.20 | 278.00 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.87 | 0.37 | |||
| 25th/(ng/mL) | 47.98 | 94.00 | 329.25 | 1138.00 | 0.65 | 0.54 | 1.48 | 0.69 | |||
| 50th/(ng/mL) | 59.55 | 115.00 | 535.50 | 1636.50 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 1.78 | 0.93 | |||
| 75th/(ng/mL) | 77.88 | 142.00 | 702.25 | 2005.00 | 1.21 | 0.94 | 2.28 | 1.36 | |||
| Maximum/(ng/mL) | 127.00 | 225.00 | 1380.00 | 3536.00 | 5.40 | 4.21 | 6.27 | 2.99 | |||
| Difference/(ng/mL) | -56.29 | -1079.68 | 0.22 | 0.89 | |||||||
| %Difference | -46.52% | -67.49% | 24.47% | 93.82% | |||||||
| t-value | 26.36 | 24.13 | -7.98 | -13.44 | |||||||
| P-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||||||
Fig. 1 Paired boxplots comparing concentrations of the four steroid hormones measured by LC-MS/MS and CLIABox represents the interquartile range (IQR), center line denotes the median, and pink diamond indicates the mean value. *** P < 0.001, paired t-test.
Fig. 2 Bland-Altman plot of the four hormones detected by LC-MS/MS and CLIAThe horizontal axis represents the mean of the two methods, and the vertical axis represents the difference between the two methods (CLC-MS/MS-CCLIA). The black solid line denotes the mean CLC-MS/MS-C CLIA, while the red dashed lines indicate the 95% limits of agreement.
| Hormone | Regression equation | Intercept (95% CI) | Slope (95% CI) | Bias direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cortisol | CLC-MS/MS=-3.58+0.57CCLIA | -3.58 (-8.17, 0.84) | 0.57 (0.53, 0.61)b | LC-MS/MS<CLIA |
| DHEAS | CLC-MS/MS=-59.77+0.38CCLIA | -59.77 (-109.97, -19.58)a | 0.38 (0.35, 0.41)b | LC-MS/MS<CLIA |
| Testosterone | CLC-MS/MS=-0.05+1.30CCLIA | -0.05 (-0.11, -0.005) a | 1.30 (1.23, 1.39)b | LC-MS/MS>CLIA |
| 17-OHP | CLC-MS/MS=0.10+1.75CCLIA | 0.10 (-0.14, 0.40) | 1.75 (1.39, 2.04)b | LC-MS/MS>CLIA |
Table 6 Results of Passing-Bablok regression analysis for the detection of the four hormones by LC-MS/MS and CLIA
| Hormone | Regression equation | Intercept (95% CI) | Slope (95% CI) | Bias direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cortisol | CLC-MS/MS=-3.58+0.57CCLIA | -3.58 (-8.17, 0.84) | 0.57 (0.53, 0.61)b | LC-MS/MS<CLIA |
| DHEAS | CLC-MS/MS=-59.77+0.38CCLIA | -59.77 (-109.97, -19.58)a | 0.38 (0.35, 0.41)b | LC-MS/MS<CLIA |
| Testosterone | CLC-MS/MS=-0.05+1.30CCLIA | -0.05 (-0.11, -0.005) a | 1.30 (1.23, 1.39)b | LC-MS/MS>CLIA |
| 17-OHP | CLC-MS/MS=0.10+1.75CCLIA | 0.10 (-0.14, 0.40) | 1.75 (1.39, 2.04)b | LC-MS/MS>CLIA |
Fig. 3 Passing-Bablok regression analysis between LC-MS/MS and CLIA for the four steroid hormonesThe x-axis represents mass concentrations measured by CLIA, and the y-axis by LC-MS/MS. The red line shows the regression fit with 95% CIs, and the dashed line denotes the line of identity (y=x).
|
| [1] | WANG Mo, ZHANG Shunli, ZHANG Rui, SONG Yichuan, SHI Jie, XUE Qiaozhen, HU Yanwei. Establishment and international comparison of reference methods for glycated hemoglobin [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 248-256. |
| [2] | LUO Baobin, JIAO Jingran, BAI Jing, LIU Xiangyi. Determination of vitamin A and vitamin E in human tear by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and analysis of their relationship with dry eye [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 296-301. |
| [3] | LIU Sai, WANG Mo, WANG Wei. Analysis of urine biomarkers in urothelial carcinoma based on untargeted metabolomics [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 329-337. |
| [4] | LI Wenyu, LIU Zhaoyang, DONG Jun, YANG Ruiyue, LI Hongxia, CHEN Wenxiang, WANG Siming. Determination of 30 homologues of phosphatidylcholines and lysophosphatidylcholines in human serum by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and their correlation analysis with coronary artery disease [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 234-247. |
| [5] | LI Bingchu, LI Binghui, CHEN Zhiyang, LI Ziyang, YIN Meiling, LYU Xing, XIANG Zhongyuan, LONG Qichen, HU Min. Performance validation and consistency assessment of three liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods for detecting fat-soluble vitamins [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2026, 44(3): 267-275. |
| [6] | WANG Jiandi, WANG Yiwei, WU Jiaxin, SHI Zhixiong. Fast determination of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in human serum by cold-induced phase separation coupled with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2025, 43(7): 756-766. |
| [7] | CHENG Xianhui, YU Wenjing, WANG Dongxue, JIANG Liyan, HU Lianghai. Enriching plasma exosomes for proteomic analysis using a phosphatidylserine-imprinted polymer [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2025, 43(5): 539-546. |
| [8] | YANG Zhe, JIANG Liwei, WU Yidi, JIA Rui, LYU Jianxia. Simultaneous determination of 38 indazole amides synthetic cannabinoids and 15 metabolites in wastewater by solid phase extraction-liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2025, 43(10): 1109-1118. |
| [9] | WANG Haitang, LI Hanyin, LU Qiwei, HE Shilong. Determination of eight neonicotinoid pesticides in wastewater by solid phase extraction combined with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(9): 856-865. |
| [10] | XUE Yufan, SHANG Ting, CUI Juntao, ZHAO Lingjuan, LI Pei, ZENG Xiangying, YU Zhiqiang. Determination of ten bisphenols and five parabens in urine by solid supported liquid-liquid extraction and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(9): 827-836. |
| [11] | HE Yu, SHAN Yichu, ZHANG Lihua, ZHANG Zhenbin, LI Yang. An enrichment strategy based on hydrophobic tagging and reversed-phase chromatographic separation for the analysis of lysine-containing peptides [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(7): 721-729. |
| [12] | CHEN Jian, XU Kun, GAO Han, ZHAO Rui, HUANG Yanyan. Preparation of peptide-functionalized affinity materials for the highly specific capture and analysis of mitochondria [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(6): 555-563. |
| [13] | CHEN Xin, QIAN Wenping, CHEN Tianqi, SHAO Lingyun, ZHANG Wenfen, ZHANG Shusheng. Synthesis of fluorinated nitrogen-rich porous organic polymers and removal of perfluorooctanoic acid from water [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(6): 572-580. |
| [14] | LI Yanan, LIU Xiaoyan, WANG Yan, LIU Zhen, YE Mingliang, WANG Hailin. Deciphering cellular processes responding to lethality of 17β-estradiol by quantitative phosphoproteomics [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(4): 333-344. |
| [15] | HE Hongmei, XU Lingying, ZHANG Changpeng, FANG Nan, JIANG Jinhua, WANG Xiangyun, YU Jianzhong, ZHAO Xueping. Determination of three new herbicide residues in soil, sediment and water by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry [J]. Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2024, 42(3): 256-263. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||