4.5 Article

Enantiomeric fraction determination of chiral drugs in environmental samples using chiral liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.teac.2021.e00115

关键词

Chiral drugs; Enantiomeric fraction determination; Environment; Chiral liquid chromatography; Mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad
  2. Agencia Estatal de Investigacion
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [CTQ2017-88548-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the determination and analysis of enantiomeric fractions of chiral drugs in environmental matrices using chiral liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. It provides a comprehensive overview and comparison of various techniques, addresses advancements and limitations, and explores the impact of the mobile phase composition on enantioseparation and MS detection. Various applications of chiral LC and MS for enantiomeric fraction determination of chiral drugs in environmental samples are also discussed in depth.
When it was recognized that chiral drug residues have stereospecific toxicity towards environmental organisms the attention given to enantiomeric fraction determination of chiral drugs in the environment increased. Among various analytical techniques, chiral liquid chromatography (LC) coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) has been widely used due to its simplicity, wide applicability and high sensitivity. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview and comparison of the types of chiral stationary phases, elution modes and MS detection techniques employed and address the advances and limitations. The impact of the mobile phase composition on enantioseparation and MS detection are discussed based on the different methods developed. In addition, diverse applications for the enantiomeric fraction determination of chiral drugs in environmental matrices using chiral LC and MS are discussed in depth. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. 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