4.4 Review

Annual banned-substance review: Analytical approaches in human sports drug testing 2019/2020

期刊

DRUG TESTING AND ANALYSIS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 8-35

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dta.2969

关键词

alternative matrices; doping; mass spectrometry; sport

资金

  1. Manfred-Donike-Institute for Doping Analysis, Cologne, Germany
  2. Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community of the Federal Republic of Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analytical chemistry-based research in sports drug testing has made significant advancements over the past few decades, contributing positively to anti-doping programs and data interpretation. These outcomes have proven invaluable for routine doping controls during the global health crisis.
Analytical chemistry-based research in sports drug testing has been a dynamic endeavor for several decades, with technology-driven innovations continuously contributing to significant improvements in various regards including analytical sensitivity, comprehensiveness of target analytes, differentiation of natural/endogenous substances from structurally identical but synthetically derived compounds, assessment of alternative matrices for doping control purposes, and so forth. The resulting breadth of tools being investigated and developed by anti-doping researchers has allowed to substantially improve anti-doping programs and data interpretation in general. Additionally, these outcomes have been an extremely valuable pledge for routine doping controls during the unprecedented global health crisis that severely affected established sports drug testing strategies. In this edition of the annual banned-substance review, literature on recent developments in anti-doping published between October 2019 and September 2020 is summarized and discussed, particularly focusing on human doping controls and potential applications of new testing strategies to substances and methods of doping specified the World Anti-Doping Agency's 2020 Prohibited List.

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