4.6 Article

A solvent-free headspace GC/MS method for sensitive screening of N-nitrosodimethylamine in drug products

期刊

ANALYTICAL METHODS
卷 13, 期 30, 页码 3402-3409

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1ay01036k

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of Korea [20173MFDS162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A solvent-free headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SF-HS-GC/MS) method was developed and validated for screening N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in various active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and drug products. Experimental parameters such as incubation temperature, incubation time, and sample volume in solvent-free headspace conditions were optimized. The method showed excellent linearity, precision, and accuracy, with no significant matrix effect observed in drug products.
A solvent-free headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SF-HS-GC/MS) method was developed and validated for screening N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) in various active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and drug products. Experimental parameters such as incubation temperature, incubation time, and sample volume in solvent-free headspace conditions were optimized. The developed SF-HS-GC/MS method was validated in terms of linearity, limit of quantification (LOQ), precision, and accuracy. The results indicated excellent linearity from 5 to 500 ng g(-1) with correlation coefficients higher than 0.9999. The LOQ of this method was 5 ng g(-1) and matrix effects ranged from 0.97 to 1.11. The accuracy ranged from 92.77 to 106.54% and the precision RSDs were below 5.94%. No significant matrix effect was observed for any of the drug products. Also, artefactual NDMA formation in ranitidine, nizatidine, and metformin was investigated under HS conditions. Adjusted (mild) SF-HS conditions were suggested for precise quantification of NDMA in positive drug products by GC/MS. The present SF-HS-GC/MS method is a promising tool for the screening and determination of toxic NDMA in APIs and drug products.

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