4.7 Article

Highly sensitive retrospective determination of organophosphorous nerve agent biomarkers in human urine implemented in vivo in rabbit

期刊

ARCHIVES OF TOXICOLOGY
卷 94, 期 9, 页码 3033-3044

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02827-x

关键词

Nerve agents; Alkyl methylphosphonic acids (AMPAs); Urine; Ba; Ag; H; ZrO2; LC-MS; MS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly toxic organophosphorous nerve agents (OPAs) have been used in several armed conflicts and terror attacks in the last few decades. A new method for retrospective determination of alkyl methylphosphonic acid (AMPA) metabolites in urine after exposure to VX, GB and GF nerve agents was developed. This method enables a rapid, sensitive and selective determination of trace levels of the nerve agent biomarkers ethyl methylphosphonic acid (EMPA), isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA) and cyclohexyl methylphosphonic acid (CMPA) in urine. The new technique involves a unique combination of two solid phase extraction (SPE) cartridges: a Ba/Ag/H cartridge for urine interference removal, and a ZrO(2)cartridge for selective reconstitution and enrichment of the AMPAs. Extraction of AMPAs from the ZrO(2)cartridge was accomplished with a 1% ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) solution and was followed by analysis via liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The limits of quantitation (LOQs) were in the range of 10-100 pg/mL with recoveries of 64-71% (+/- 5-19%) after fast sample preparation and a total LC-MS analysis cycle time of 15 min and 13 min, respectively. This method was successfully applied in vivo in a rabbit that was exposed to 0.5 LD50(7.5 mu g/kg, i.v.) sarin for retrospective monitoring of the IMPA metabolite in urine. For the first time, IMPA was determined in rabbit urine samples for 15 days post-exposure, which is longer than any reported post-exposure method for AMPAs. To the best of our knowledge, this new method is the most sensitive and rapid for AMPA determination in urine by LC-MS/MS analysis.

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