4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Screening for new psychoactive substances in hair by ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1372, 期 -, 页码 145-156

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.10.106

关键词

Hair analysis; NPS; Synthetic cannabinoids; Amphetamine-type substances; UHPLC-MS/MS; Forensic toxicology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the latest years, many new psychoactive substances (NPS) from several drug classes have appeared in the illicit drug market. Their rapid, sensitive and specific identification in biological fluids is hence of great concern for clinical and forensic toxicologists. Here is described a multi-analyte method for the determination of NPS, pertaining to different chemical classes (synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic cathinones, ketamine, piperazines and amphetamine-type substances-ATS) in human hair using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) in electrospray ionization mode. We focused on a sample preparation able to extract the different classes of NPS. About 30 mg of hair was decontaminated and incubated overnight under sonication in different conditions depending on the type of analytes to be extracted: (a) with 300 mu L of HCOOH 0.1% for cathinones, piperazines and ATS; (b) with 300 mu L of MeOH for synthetic cannabinoids. Ten microliter of the extracts were then injected in UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS in MRM mode. The LODs varied from 2 pg/mg to 20 pg/mg. The method was linear in the range from the LOQ to 500 pg/mg and showed acceptable precision (%RSD < 15) and accuracy (%E < 15) for all the analytes. The method was finally applied on 50 samples from real forensic cases (driving license re-granting, postmortem toxicological analyses, workplace drug testing). In three samples we detected synthetic cannabinoids, in four samples cathinones or ephedrines, in two samples ketamine. (C) 2014 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