4.7 Article

Determination of five antiarrhythmic drugs in human plasma by dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction and high-performance liquid chromatography

期刊

TALANTA
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 681-689

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.12.008

关键词

Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction; High-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet; Method validation; Antiarrhythmic drugs; Plasma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fast and sensitive high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method with ultraviolet (UV) detection was developed and validated for the simultaneous quantitation of five antiarrhythmic drugs (metoprolol, propranolol, carvedilol, diltiazem, and verapamil) in human plasma samples. It involves dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME) of the desired drugs from 660 mu L plasma and separation using isocratic elution with UV detection at 200 nm. The complete separation of all analytes was achieved within 7 min. Acetonitrile (as disperser solvent) resulting from the protein precipitation procedure was mixed with 100 mu L dichloromethane (as an extraction solvent) and rapidly injected into 5 mL aqueous solution (pH 11.5) containing 1% (w/v), NaCl. After centrifugation, the sedimented phase containing enriched analytes was collected and evaporated to dryness. The residue was re-dissolved in 50 mu L deionized water (acidified to pH 3) and injected into the HPLC system for analysis. Under the optimal conditions, the enrichment factors and extraction recoveries ranged between 4.4-10.8 and 33-82%, respectively. The suggested method was linear (r(2) >= 0.997) over a dynamic range of 0.02-0.80 mu g mL(-1) in plasma. The intra- and inter-days relative standard deviation (RSD%) and relative error (RE%) values of the method were below 20%, which shows good precision and accuracy. Finally, this method was applied to the analysis of real plasma samples obtained from the patients treated with these drugs. (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

4.7
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