4.7 Article

Development of a broad toxicological screening technique for urine using ultra-performance liquid chromatography and time-of-flight mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 649, 期 1, 页码 80-90

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2009.06.068

关键词

Systematic toxicological analysis; REMEDi HS; Ultra-performance liquid chromatography; Time-of-flight mass spectrometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Withdrawal of the support for the REMEDi HS drug profiling system has necessitated its replacement within our laboratories with an alternative broad toxicological screening technique. To this end, a novel method, based on ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) and time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometry, was developed for the routine analysis of urine samples. Identification was achieved by comparison of acquired data to libraries containing more than 300 common drugs and metabolites, and was based on a combination of retention time, exact mass and fragmentation patterns. Validation data for the method is presented and comprised an evaluation of the following parameters: precision; transferability of the methodology between the six collaborating laboratories; specificity; extraction recovery and stability of processed samples; matrix effects and sensitivity. This paper presents the benefits of supplementary fragmentation data with particular regard to increasing specificity and confidence of identification and its usefulness with overdosed samples. The utility of the method was assessed by the parallel analysis of 30 authentic urine samples using the REMEDi HS and UPLC-TOF. The latter provided enhanced detection, leading to the identification of twice as many drugs. Furthermore it did not miss any compounds that were identified by REMEDi HS. The UPLC-TOF findings were further verified by a combination of data from three other conventional screening techniques, i.e., GC-MS, HPLC-DAD and UPLC-MS/MS. (C) 2009 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