4.7 Article

Spectrofluorimetric determination of serotonin and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid in urine with different cyclodextrin media

期刊

TALANTA
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 1006-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2010.11.013

关键词

Hydroxyindoles; Supramolecular systems; Cyclodextrin nanocavities; Acid-base equilibrium; Fluorescence; Sensitive determination

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), Argentina
  2. Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnologia de la Universidad Nacional de Cordoba (SECyT-UNC)
  3. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (FONCYT)
  4. CONICET
  5. CAPES-SPU [025/05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternative and sensitive spectrofluorimetric methods for the determination of hydroxyindoles, such as serotonin (5HT) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIA), were developed on the basis of supramolecular interaction with cyclodextrin (CD) nanocavities (beta CD and hydroxypropyl-beta CD, HPCD) at different pH values. Both substrates and receptors have acidic protons, therefore the interactions produced in different systems were considered. The effects of neutral CD at pH 2.00 and 6.994, and of anionic CD at pH 13.00 on the specific acid-base species of the compounds at each pH were determined. In all the conditions studied, the fluorescence of the substrates in the presence of CD increased. The association constants (K-A, mol(-1) L) between the substrates and CD were determined (30-300) and interpreted. A zero-crossing first-derivative spectrofluorimetric method with and without HPCD was developed for the simultaneous determination of 5HT and 5HIA. The limits of detection (L-D, ng mL(-1)) for the best conditions were 0.37 for 5HT and 0.50 for 5HIA at pH 2.00 with HPCD. These LD proved to be better than others reported. The applicability of the direct and derivative spectrofluorimetric methods to urine samples was demonstrated with good recoveries 92-110% and R.S.D. 1-10%. (C) 2010 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