4.7 Article

Determination of amphetamine-type stimulants in oral fluid by solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Journal

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 696, Issue 1-2, Pages 67-76

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.04.014

Keywords

Amphetamine; Methamphetamine; Diethylpropion; Fenproporex; Methylphenidate; Oral fluid

Funding

  1. Secretaria Nacional de Politicas sobre Drogas (SENAD/Brazil) [2929-7]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A method for the simultaneous identification and quantification of amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MET), fenproporex (FEN), diethylpropion (DIE) and methylphenidate (MPH) in oral fluid collected with Quantisal (TM) device has been developed and validated. Thereunto, in-matrix propylchloroformate derivatization followed by direct immersion solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry were employed. Deuterium labeled AMP was used as internal standard for all the stimulants and analysis was performed using the selected ion monitoring mode. The detector response was linear for the studied drugs in the concentration range of 2-256 ng mL(-1) (neat oral fluid), except for FEN, whereas the linear range was 4-256 ng mL(-1). The detection limits were 0.5 ng mL(-1) (MET), 1 ng mL(-1) (MPH) and 2 ng mL(-1) (DIE, AMP, FEN), respectively. Accuracy of quality control samples remained within 98.2-111.9% of the target concentrations, while precision has not exceeded 15% of the relative standard deviation. Recoveries with Quantisal (TM) device ranged from 77.2% to 112.1%. Also, the goodness-of-fit concerning the ordinary least squares model in the statistical inference of data has been tested through residual plotting and ANOVA. The validated method can be easily automated and then used for screening and confirmation of amphetamine-type stimulants in drivers' oral fluid. (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