4.4 Article

Rapid screening and confirmation of drugs and toxic compounds in biological specimens using liquid chromatography/ion trap tandem mass spectrometry and automated library search

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcm.4365

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 97-1301-04-0301, NSC 98-1301-05-06-03, NSC 96-2113-M-242-002-MY2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) technology have provided an opportunity for the development of more specific approaches to achieve the 'screen' and 'confirmation' goals in a single analytical step. For this purpose, this study adapts the electrospray ionization ion trap LC/MS/MS instrumentation (LC/ESI-MS/MS) for the screening and confirmation of over 800 drugs and toxic compounds in biological specimens. Liquid-liquid and solid-phase extraction protocols were coupled to LC/ESI-MS/MS using a 1.8-mu m particle size analytical column operated at 50 degrees C. Gradient elution of the analytes was conducted using a solvent system composed of methanol and water containing 0.1% formic acid. Positive-ion ESI-MS/MS spectra and retention times for each of the 800 drugs and toxic compounds were first established using 1-10 mu g/mL standard solutions. This spectra and retention time information was then transferred to the library and searched by the identification algorithm for the confirmation of compounds found in test specimens based on retention time matches and scores of fit, reverse fit, and purity resulting from the searching process. The established method was found highly effective when applied to the analyses of postmortem specimens (blood, urine, and hair) and external proficiency test samples provided by the College of American Pathology (CAP). The development of this approach has significantly improved the efficiency of our routine laboratory operation that was based on a two-step (immunoassay and GC/MS) approach in the past. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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