4.4 Article

Sensitive profiling of biogenic amines in human urine by capillary electrophoresis with field amplified sample injection

Journal

BIOMEDICAL CHROMATOGRAPHY
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 987-993

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bmc.2891

Keywords

biogenic amines; field-amplified sample injection; capillary electrophoresis; urine; work-related stress biomarkers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to monitor biogenic amines in human urine, a method based on field-amplified sample injection combined with capillary electrophoresis and direct UV absorption detection was developed. Dopamine, tyramine, tryptamine, serotonin and epinephrine were effectively separated and identified in human urine samples, and detection limits were 0.072, 0.010, 0.027, 0.010 and 0.120 mu mol/L, respectively. Detection limits comparable to laser-induced fluorescence detection or solid phase extraction combined with capillary electrophoresis were achieved. Parameters affecting electrophoretic system detection sensitivity were investigated. Optimal separation conditions were obtained using as background electrolyte a pH 6.5 mixture of 2-(morpholino)ethanesulfonic acid 20 mmol/L and 30 mmol/L phosphate buffer, containing 0.05% hydroxypropylcellulose and 10% v/v methanol. Injections of the sample solution were performed by applying a voltage of 12 kV for 50 s. Recovery and accuracy ranged between 89.4 and 94.9%, and 89 and 112%, respectively. The method was successfully applied on actual urine samples (from a healthy volunteer): target bioamine content was consistent with endogenous levels reported in the literature. The proposed method is simple, fast and inexpensive and can be conveniently employed in work-related stress studies. The affordability and noninvasive sampling of the method allow epidemiological studies on large number of exposed persons to be performed. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available