4.7 Article

A new configuration for bar adsorptive microextraction (BAμE) for the quantification of biomarkers (hexanal and heptanal) in human urine by HPLC providing an alternative for early lung cancer diagnosis

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 965, 期 -, 页码 54-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2017.02.034

关键词

Lung cancer; Bar adsorptive microextraction; Cork; Hexanal; Heptanal; Urine

资金

  1. Brazilian governmental agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq ) [303892/2014-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a remodeling of the bar adsorptive microextraction (BA mu E) technique is proposed with impregnation of the derivatization reagent on the surface of the adsorptive bar containing a biosorbent material. The derivatization reagent was 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH), which was adsorbed on the surface of the bar containing cork powder as the extractor phase for the determination of two aldehydes (hexanal and heptanal) which are known as lung cancer biomarkers in human urine samples. The derivatization reaction and the extraction occurred simultaneously on the surface of the bar (length 7.5 mm) under acidic conditions. The method optimization was carried out by univariate and multivariate analysis. The optimal conditions for the method were a DNPH to aldehydes ratio of 40: 1, buffer solution of pH 4.0, extraction time of 60 min and liquid desorption of 10 min in 100 mu L of acetonitrile. The aldehydes were analyzed by HPLC-DAD with a simple and fast (6 min) chromatographic run. The limits of detection (LODs) for hexanal and heptanal were 1.00 and 0.73 mmol L-1, respectively. The relative recoveries in urine samples ranged from 88 to 111% with relative standard deviations (RSDs) being less than 7%. The method developed is of low cost and can be successfully used for the quantification of these two lung cancer biomarkers in human urine samples, potentially providing an early diagnosis of lung cancer. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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