4.6 Article

Evaluation of 13C- and 2H-labeled internal standards for the determination of amphetamines in biological samples, by reversed-phase ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1344, Issue -, Pages 83-90

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.04.020

Keywords

C-13; Stable isotope-labeled internal standard; LC-MS/MS; Isotope effect; Deuterium; Amphetamine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stable isotope-labeled internal standards (SIL-ISs) are often used when applying liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to analyze for legal and illegal drugs. ISs labeled with C-13, N-15, and O-18 are expected to behave more closely to their corresponding unlabeled analytes, compared with that of the more classically used H-2-labeled ISs. This study has investigated the behavior of amphetamine, H-2(3)-, H-2(5,) H-2(6)-, H-2(8)-, H-2(11)- and C-13(6)-labeled amphetamine, during sample preparation by liquid-liquid extraction and LC-MS/MS analyses. None or only minor differences in liquid-liquid extraction recoveries of amphetamine and the SIL-ISs were observed. The chromatographic resolution between amphetamine and the H-2-labeled amphetamines increased with the number of H-2-substitutes. For chromatographic studies we also included seven additional C-13(6)-amphetamines and their analytes. All the C-13(6)-labeled ISs were co-eluting with their analytes, both when a basic and when an acidic mobile phase were used. MS/MS analyses of amphetamine and its SIL-ISs showed that the ISs with the highest number of H-2-substitutes required more energy for fragmentation in the collision cell compared with that of the ISs with a lower number. The findings, in this study, support those of previous studies, showing that C-13-labeled ISs are superior to H-2-labeled ISs, for analytical purposes. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available