4.5 Article

Application of headspace solid phase dynamic extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (HS-SPDE-GC/MS) for biomonitoring of n-heptane and its metabolites in blood

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 210, 期 2, 页码 232-239

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.07.033

关键词

n-Heptane; Biological monitoring; Volunteer study; SPDE; Metabolites; 2-Heptanone

资金

  1. Institute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid phase dynamic extraction (SPDE) is an innovative sample preparation and enrichment technique in connection with gas chromatography (GC). Using SPDE, we developed a method for simultaneous determination of n-heptane and its mono-oxygenated metabolites heptane-4-one, 3-one, 2-one, 4-ol, 3-ol, 2-ol, and 1-ol in blood. After adjustment of various extraction and desorption parameters, method validation resulted in limits of detection (LOD) between 0.006 (heptane-4-one) and 0.021 mg/L(heptane-1-ol). Intra-assay coefficients of variation ranged between 4.8% and 20.8% while relative recovery ranged between 100% and 117% (spiked concentration 0.128 mg/L, n = 8). The method was applied to blood samples, which have been collected from 20 volunteers after controlled inhalative exposure to 167, 333, and 500 ppm n-heptane. After 3 h of exposure, n-heptane and heptane-2-one were detectable in all samples in concentrations ranging up to 2.903 and 0.495 mg/L, while the concentrations of the remaining analytes were closer to the respective LOD or even below. A significant linear relationship with ambient exposure (R-2=0.701, p < 0.001, n = 55) was found for n-heptane in blood, which could be helpful for evaluation of biological exposure limits in future. Due to its high abundance in blood, 2-heptanone could be an interesting candidate as a biomarker also in alternative matrices such as urine or saliva. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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