4.6 Article

Flow injection analysis system with electrochemical detection for the simultaneous determination of nanomolar levels of acetaminophen and codeine

期刊

ARABIAN JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 335-345

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.arabjc.2017.04.012

关键词

Paracetamol; Codeine; Flow injection analysis; Boron-doped diamond; Multiple pulse amperometry

资金

  1. CNPq - Brazil [444150/2014-5, 160658/2013-6]
  2. CAPES - Brazil
  3. FAPESP - Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, rapid and low-cost electroanalytical method is proposed for the determination of acetaminophen (ACP) and codeine (COD) at nanomolar levels in pharmaceutical and biological samples. The analytical procedure is based on a flow injection analysis system coupled to electrochemical detection, which was multiple pulse amperometry (FIA-MPA). Boron-doped diamond was used as the working electrode for electrochemical detection. The electrode was subjected to a cathodic pretreatment and was selected in this work due its good electrochemical performance. By applying the FIA-MPA method, after a number of optimization assays, the analgesics were simultaneously determined at excellent linear concentration ranges. The analytical curves ranged from 80 nmol L-1 to 100 mmol L-1 for ACP and from 50 nmol L-1 to 10 mmol L-1 for COD, and the obtained limits of detection were 30 nmol L-1 and 35 nmol L-1 for ACP and COD, respectively. The practical applicability of the electroanalytical method was evaluated from the ACP and COD determination in two sample matrices: commercial pharmaceutical samples and biological fluids. In the case of pharmaceutical formulation samples, the obtained results were statistically similar to those obtained using a reference chromatographic method. In addition, these drugs were simultaneously quantified in biological fluid samples of urine and human serum with excellent recovery percentages. (C) 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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