4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry with ion trap and triple quadrupole analyzers for determination of thyreostatic drugs in urine and muscle tissue

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 700, Issue 1-2, Pages 155-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.02.021

Keywords

Thyreostatic drugs; Residue analysis; Liquid chromatography; Mass spectrometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods were developed and validated to screen for and confirm residues of the thyreostatic drugs: tapazole, thiouracil, methylthiouracil, propylthiouracil, and phenylthiouracil in bovine and porcine urine and muscle tissues using dimethylthiouracil as internal standard. Thyreostats were extracted from urine samples with diethyl ether after derivatisation with 3-iodobenzylbromide in basic medium (pH 8.0) and analyzed by gradient elution on a Nucleosil C18 column with ion trap mass spectrometry detection using an electrospray source and triple quadrupole MS detection with turbo spray source. Thyreostats were extracted from muscle tissue with methanol, the denaturation of matrix protein was performed and then the same steps as for the urine samples were carried out. The methods were validated in accordance with the Commission Decision 2002/657/EC. Good thyreostats recoveries were obtained (from 82% to 117%) as well as acceptable within-lab reproducibility. The values of the decision limit CC alpha and the detection capability CC beta of five thyreostatic drugs are found to be below the recommended concentration set at 10 mu g L-1 (kg(-1)). The results of the validation demonstrate that liquid chromatography mass spectrometry with ion trap detection does not meet the criteria for confirmation for some thyreostats and therefore was applied for screening purpose only. (C) 2011 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available