4.6 Article

Application of cation-exchange solid-phase extraction for the analysis of amino alcohols from water and human plasma for verification of Chemical Weapons Convention

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1185, 期 2, 页码 167-177

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.01.080

关键词

solid-phase extraction; cation-exchange cartridges; chemical warfare agents; amino alcohols; human plasma; chemicals weapons convention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The analysis of nitrogen containing amino alcohols, which are the precursors and degradation products of nitrogen mustards and nerve agent VX, constitutes an important aspect for verifying the compliance to the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention). This work devotes on the development of solid-phase extraction method using silica- and polymer-based SCX (strong cation-exchange) and MCX (mixed-mode strong cation-exchange) cartridges for N,N-dialkylaminoethane-2-ols and alkyl NN-diethanolamines, from water. The extracted analytes were analyzed by GC-MS (gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) in the full scan and selected ion monitoring modes. The extraction efficiencies of SCX and MCX cartridges were compared, and results revealed that SCX performed better. Extraction parameters, such as loading capacity, extraction solvent, its volume, and washing solvent were optimized. Best recoveries were obtained using 2 mL methanol containing 10% NH4OH and limits of detection could be achieved up to 5 x 10(-3) mu g mL(-1) in the selected ion monitoring mode and 0.01 mu g mL(-1) in full scan mode. The method was successfully employed for the detection and identification of amino alcohol present in water sample sent by Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the official proficiency tests. The method was also applied to extract the analytes from human plasma. The SCX cartridge showed good recoveries of amino alcohols from human plasma after protein precipitation. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据