4.6 Article

Microextraction by packed sorbent and high performance liquid chromatography determination of seven non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in human plasma and urine

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1367, 期 -, 页码 1-8

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.09.034

关键词

MEPS-HPLC-PDA; Method development; NSAIDs; Human plasma; Human urine; Sample preparation

资金

  1. University G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports a new MEPS-HPLC-PDA method for the simultaneous analysis of seven non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (Furprofen, Indoprofen, Ketoprofen, Fenbufen, Flurbiprofen, Indomethacin, and Ibuprofen) in human plasma and urine. NSAIDs were resolved on a Gemini C-18 column (4.6 mm x 250 mm; 5 mu m particle size) using a gradient elution mode with a run time of 25 min, comprising re-equilibration, without further purification. The method was validated over the concentration range from 0.1 to 10 mu g/mL for all the analytes both in human plasma and urine, using Benzyl 4-hydroxybenzoate as the internal standards. This method was successfully tested to NSAIDs analyses in real matrices, in order to check the method potentiality and the correct response. The results from assay validations show that the method is selective, sensitive and robust. The limit of quantification of the method was 0.1 mu g/mL for all analytes, and weighted-matrix-matched standard curves showed a good linearity up to 10 mu g/mL. In order to check the correct response for over-range samples, parallelism tests were also assessed. In the entire analytical range the intra and inter-day precision (RSD%) values were <= 7.31% and <= 13.5%, respectively. For all the analytes the intra and inter-day trueness (Bias%) values ranged from -11.3% to 10.2%. To our knowledge, this is the first MEPS-HPLC-PDA based method that uses MEPS procedure for simultaneous determination of these seven NSAIDs in plasma and urine samples. (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