4.4 Article

Ultra-fast analysis of anatoxin-A using laser diode thermal desorption-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-tandem mass spectrometry: Validation and resolution from phenylalanine

期刊

TOXICON
卷 61, 期 -, 页码 165-174

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxicon.2012.10.021

关键词

Anatoxin; Cyanobacteria; Mass spectrometry; LDTD; APCI; Blue-green algae

资金

  1. Fond de Recherche Nature et Technologies du Quebec
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Canadian Foundation for Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach for the analysis of the cyanobacterial toxin, anatoxin-a (ANA-a), in an environmentally relevant matrix, using laser diode thermal desorption-atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-tandem mass spectrometry (LDTD-APCI-MS/MS) is presented. The ultra-fast analysis time (15 s/sample) provided by the LDTD-APCI interface is strengthened by its ability to remove interference from phenylalanine (PHE), an isobaric interference in ANA-a analysis by MS/MS. Thus the LDTD-APCI interface avoids the time consuming steps of derivatization, chromatographic separation or solid-phase extraction prior to analysis. Method development and instrumental parameter optimizations were focused toward signal enhancement of ANA-a, and signal removal of a PHE interference as high as 500 mu g/L. External calibration in a complex matrix gave detection and quantification limit values of 1 and 3 mu g/L respectively, as well as good linearity (R-2 > 0.999) over nearly two orders of magnitude. Internal calibration with clomiphene (CLO) is possible and method performance was similar to that obtained by external calibration. This work demonstrated the utility of the LDTD-APCI source for ultra-fast detection and quantification of ANA-a in environmental aqueous matrices, and confirmed its ability to suppress the interference of PHE without sample preparation or chromatographic separation. (c) 2012 Elsevier 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

4.4
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