4.5 Article

A generic screening methodology for horse doping control by LC-TOF-MS, GC-HRMS and GC-MS

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2013.10.008

关键词

Screening; Equine; Urine; Doping control; Mass spectrometry; Spectra deconvolution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the present study a general screening protocol was developed to detect prohibited substances and metabolites for doping control purposes in equine sports. It was based on the establishment of a unified sample preparation and on the combined implementation of liquid and gas chromatographic MS analysis. The sample pretreatment began with two parallel procedures: enzymatic hydrolysis of sulfate and glucuronide conjugates, and methanolysis of the 17 beta-sulfate steroid conjugates. The extracts were treated for LC-TOF-MS, GC-HRMS and GC-MS assays. The majority of the prohibited substances were identified through a high mass accuracy technique, such as LC-TOF-MS, without prior derivatization. The sample preparation procedure included the formation of methylated and trimethylsilylated derivatives common in toxicological GC-MS libraries. The screening method was enhanced by post-run library searching using automated mass spectral deconvolution and identification system (AMDIS) combined with deconvolution reporting software (DRS). The current methodology is able to detect the presence of more than 350 target analytes in horse urine and may easily incorporate a lot of new substances without changes in chromatography. The full scan acquisition allows retrospective identification of prohibited substances in stored urine samples after reprocessing of the acquired data. Validation was performed for sixty representative compounds and included limit of detection, matrix interference - specificity, extraction recovery, precision, mass accuracy, matrix effect and carry over contamination. The suitability of the method was demonstrated with previously declared positive horse urine samples. (C) 2013 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

4.5
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