4.6 Article

Butyl Methacrylate-Co-Ethylene Glycol Dimethacrylate Monolith for Online in-Tube SPME-UHPLC-MS/MS to Determine Chlopromazine, Clozapine, Quetiapine, Olanzapine, and Their Metabolites in Plasma Samples

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24020310

关键词

in-tube SPME; UHPLC-MS; MS; organic-based monoliths; antipsychotics; plasma samples; schizophrenic' patients

资金

  1. FAPESP (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo) [2017/02147-0]
  2. INCT-TM (Instituto Nacional de Ciencia e Tecnologia Translacional em Medicina) [465458/2014-9]
  3. CAPES (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This manuscript describes a sensitive, selective, and online in-tube solid-phase microextraction coupled with an ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (in-tube SPME-UHPLC-MS/MS) method to determine chlopromazine, clozapine, quetiapine, olanzapine, and their metabolites in plasma samples from schizophrenic patients. Organic poly(butyl methacrylate-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate) monolith was synthesized on the internal surface of a fused silica capillary (covalent bonds) for in-tube SPME. Analyte extraction and analysis was conducted by connecting the monolithic capillary to an UHPLC-MS/MS system. The monolith was characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Fourier transform infrared spectrometry (FTIR). The developed method presented adequate linearity for all the target antipsychotics: R-2 was higher than 0.9975, lack-of-fit ranged from 0.115 to 0.955, precision had variation coefficients lower than 14.2%, and accuracy had relative standard error values ranging from -13.5% to 14.6%, with the exception of the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). The LLOQ values in plasma samples were 10 ng mL(-1) for all analytes. The developed method was successfully applied to determine antipsychotics and their metabolites in plasma samples from schizophrenic patients.

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

4.6
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