4.6 Article

Post-column infusion of internal standard quantification for liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry analysis - Pharmaceuticals in urine as example approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
Volume 1535, Issue -, Pages 80-87

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2018.01.001

Keywords

Post-column-infusion quantification; Electrospray ionization mass spectrometry; Internal standard; Urine; Matrix effect

Funding

  1. European Social Funds (ESF) of the project InnoMedTec [100098212]
  2. Free State of Saxony of the project InnoMedTec [100098212]
  3. Volkswagen Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI MS/MS) technique is gaining more and more attraction as the method of choice for multi-sample analysis. However, it is strongly susceptible to the influence of matrix components. Matrix effects are the main source of substantial losses in detection sensitivity and have to be compensated via complex quantification methods In this work, we introduce a sophisticated quantification method for the LC-ESI MS/MS analysis of 16 substances in urine samples using a single continuously post-column infused internal standard (PCI-IS) for matrix effect correction. The performance of the introduced technique was proven by the simultaneous quantification using internal standards. Our results demonstrate that a single post-column infused internal standard suffices to analyze multiple target analytes. The introduced method is a new approach to analyze complex matrices and represents a powerful alternative to the classic internal standard methodology. The proposed technique significantly reduces the required steps for sample preparation, costs of additional stable isotopically-labeled internal standards, and self-induced matrix effects. (C) 2018 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